This advice comes from the GiveWell Blog (via Ezra Klein):
The situation in Japan is tragic and worrying, and our hearts continue to go out to those affected and responding. …
We believe that:
- Those affected have requested very little, limited aid. Aid being offered far exceeds aid being requested.
- Charities are aggressively soliciting donations, often in ways we feel are misleading.
- Any donation you make will probably be used (a) by the charity you give it to, for activities in a different country; (b) for non-disaster-relief-and-recovery efforts in Japan.
- If you’re looking to pursue (a) and help people in need all over the world, we recommend giving to the best charity you can, rather than basing your giving on who is appealing to you most aggressively with images and language regarding Japan.
- If you prefer (b), a gift to the Japanese Red Cross seems reasonable.
Overall, though, a gift to Doctors Without Borders seems to us like the best way to effectively “respond to this disaster.” … Rewarding Doctors Without Borders is a move toward improving incentives and improving disaster relief in general.
I would add that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is a remarkable organization and that donations to the IFRC or to your national or local chapter will be well-used to aid those most in need.
You can also text REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation.
Following up on their recommendation to give to “the best charity you can,” I’d be interested to hear others’ nominees here in comments. If you’re giving in response to this compounding disaster, who are you giving to, and why them?
* * * * * * * * *
Josh Rosenau, follows up on a tweet from Dave Ewing, who wrote: “The headline you won’t be reading: ‘Millions saved in Japan by good engineering and government building codes.’ But it’s the truth” with a post headlined: “Millions saved in Japan by good engineering and government building codes.”
He notes that the quake that hit Japan was 100 times more powerful than the one that killed 230,000 people in Haiti:
The difference is that Japan has made a commitment to earthquake-safe buildings, and had the money to carry out that commitment. Haiti lacked the money to implement strict construction standards and a government capable of compelling compliance. Builders and government regulators in the United States have the power and the resources to ensure Japanese standards of construction apply here, but my sense from living in California for 3 years is that we may lack the commitment needed to do this.
And it’s a shame, because we desperately need to upgrade our bridges anyway. Fully a quarter of bridges on public roads are either “structurally deficient” (“significant load-carrying elements are found to be in poor or worse condition due to deterioration and/or damage”) or “functionally obsolete” (not up to code or operating with more traffic than design specifications planned for). Some of those bridges were designed and built as part of the Keynesian stimulus of the 1930s, and it’s well past time for them to be replaced. One in five are older than 50 years old, and another one in five is at least 40 years old. Repairing, retrofitting, and replacing inadequate and unsafe bridges would cost $140 billion, a pittance relative to the damage which we will face as those bridges collapse spontaneously, or fall during earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. The San Francisco Bay Bridge is undergoing a seismic retrofit, but other bridges need attention too.
Not only would this make America safer, it would also inject money into the national economy, creating jobs on a massive scale. Given the persistent unemployment we face, that’s nothing to sneeze at. And our roads are not all that needs work. Retrofitting buildings for earthquake safety and energy efficiency is vital for public safety and in order to mitigate climate change and control energy costs. A system of direct grants for states to use in bridge construction and low interest loans and grants for private contractors could provide a massive stimulus, jumpstart the green jobs market which should be booming but is awaiting supportive government policies, and put American workers back on the job.
The persistent unemployment he mentions is, itself, a crisis and calamity for those it affects. It alters lives, uproots and breaks apart families. And yet it languishes as Congress debates how much funding to cut from NPR and how many teachers to lay off for the good of the children.
And the green energy economy Rosenau mentions remains “controversial,” and our devotion to the existing energy structure of oil, coal and nuclear is undiminished despite the massive health, safety and environmental disasters we have witnessed in recent months involving oil, coal and now nuclear energy. This obstinate refusal to prepare for future disasters or even to deal with present disasters costs lives, money and jobs. It’s not just short-sighted and stupid, it’s deadly stupid.
I have a hard time maintaining my patience with those whose willful ignorance has a mounting death toll. Is it unseemly point-scoring to mention that this latest disaster further confirms what we already knew? No. What would be unseemly would be to say and do nothing to forestall, avert or prepare for the future calamities we know are coming.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In