Donna Laframboise has an excellent piece on how the IPCC has been assimilated by influence from the WWF.
Apparently hawking the threat of dead panda bears is quite lucrative, Donna writes:
It is important to understand that while the WWF might once have been a humble, shoestring operation this is no longer the case. It has grown into a business entity with offices in 30 countries that employs a staff of 5,000 (see the last page of this PDF). The US branch of the WWF alone employs:
- a Managing Director of International Finance
- a Vice President of Business and Industry
- a Senior Vice President of Market Transformation and
- a Government Relations Program manager
That same branch also includes a:
- a Director of International Climate Policy
- a Managing Director of Climate Change
- a Managing Director of Climate Adaptation
- a Director of Climate Change Communications
- a Senior Scientist, Climate Adaptation and
- a lead specialist on Climate Change
In 2010, the WWF’s US arm had operating revenues of $224 million – just under a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, that’s a B.
By way of comparison, operating revenues for Amnesty International’s US affiliate amounted to $36 million – one-sixth that amount (see page 29 here).
According to its 2010 annual report, the WWF’s international network had operating revenues of €524,963,000. Converted to US dollars that’s just shy of three-quarters of a billion. In one year.
Read it here. Well worth a read.
=============================================
That thing is a fiscal monster.
And the crash will be grand.
Michael Crichton was a prophet!
I always think WWF is World Wrestling Federation. I never think of these guys.
I think that Daniel H, ex-WWF employee summed the situation up well a while back in comments on this site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#comment-298859
Might be interesting for Donna to interview Daniel H….
Apparently, being a charitable tax-exempt non-profit is quite profitable.
Very much looking forward to Part 2 of this piece. She ended with quite a teaser.
Good grief! $224 billion! How on earth does a charity created by well-meaning amateurs grow to become such a behemoth?! Where does that mountain – wrong metaphor – that tsunami of loot come from? And with such financial clout comes real power. This is Orwellian.
“…The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money… $24,589,994 in 2001. “
http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm
Isn’t it nice to know you are donating money to WWF whether you want to or not???
Daniel mentions Jennifer Morgan, an ex-WWF acolyte [Noun 1. acolyte – someone who assists a priest or minister in a liturgical service] dedicated to ‘a carbon-free future’. As biomass (food) is 50% carbon this will be an interesting achievement.
“She is a Review Editor for Chapter 13 on “International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments” for the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ”
http://www.wri.org/profile/jennifer-morgan
Daniel’s description of the database WWF has of companies who, if they contribute enough, will not be targeted by a media campaign vilifying them, is chilling. It is reminscent of the actions of governments described by John Perkins in, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and its sequel.
Wild life does not seem to be very important to this organization, does it?
Brent:
“Where does that mountain – wrong metaphor – that tsunami of loot come from?”
I wondered the same thing. – Apparently most of it comes from blackmail. The link supplied by ZT at 9:01 explains their scheme.
Nature is capital. Natural capital needs management and protection just like social
and economic capital. There are a certain of employees for that. The scandal is in
your minds?
“Where does that mountain – wrong metaphor – that tsunami of loot come from?”
I think the big stars of radio, TV, movies etc are required to tithe to the WWF.
correction: a certain NUMBER of employees
ZT ,
I remember that comment – it all came back to me as soon as I read the first sentence . Darn sorry I clicked the link , though .
Not to worry, when things get really bad, something will happen. It always does. (One step forward is almost always followed by two steps back; more or less.)
“Good grief! $224 billion”
Please guys, if we’re going to give them hell, get the details right. It’s 224 million, not billion…
Donna is marvellously adept at finding the inconsistencies in the IPCC juggernaut. The WWF is a frightening expose. Of the ‘environmentalists’ I’ve met in my travels, all seem to possess this penchant for uber-moralistic fanatacism, even if they are merely armchair-variety world-savers. What causes this nasty characteristic? Mixed in with this type of thing is a ‘healthy’ dose of conspiracy-theorizing and socialist doctrine disseminated by means of ‘shoulds’ and ‘oughts’, with apparently no consideration of the economic or social impact. Bloody hell. Democracy is nice, but using its facade to energize these charades means the end of freedom.
Anthony, I hope you have complied with the full current terms for use of the WWF logo. 15 pages of practice are here: http://www.climatetrackers.net/press/files/1198.pdf I do not think Naomi “NO LOGO” Klein will be on your side.
For the full flavour of WWF power and sophistication, it is worth Googling “WWF branding” and browsing some of the results such as: http://www.panda.org/standards/5_2_communications_strategy/
A favourite quote:
“Examples of why your target audience might be willing to act
Governments could be willing to change policy or regulations based on your project results because:
……
• It makes them look good on international level
Donors might support conservation strategies your project has found useful because:
• They hold potential for other areas
• The results gained are high, relative to the investment needed
• There is a need to test them in other settings “
As Carbon has been conflated with just about everything then the title “Director of International Climate Policy” pretty much covers anything one can link to CO2. As we have seen, one can link CO2 to just about anything. That many of these organisations still operate as charities while pushing an agenda that bites into every area of life is a disgrace. “Saving Polar Bears” is one thing, pushing the Kyoto protocol (from which your organisation may make billions) is quite another.
The panda is the perfect emblem for this organization as it represents so precisely the eternal triumph of style over substance. Over the years more millions have been spent to preserve this species than almost any other, based solely on the fact that they are cuter than a pair of lace panties on Scarlett Johansson. From the beginning it has been intuitively obvious that pandas are an evolutionary deadend. Even in unmolested natural environments they are reproductively incompetent. They have developed a specialized diet that depends on bamboos that regularly cycle through periods when they are fatally toxic for the pandas. But they are such adorable mobile teddy bears that we will probably continue to rathole millions on their preservation until their saga reaches its inevitable conclusion and they are reduced to a population of zoo specimens kept around because they always going to be good for the gate receipts. At that they will still have much more value than most of the other “endangered” species whose endangerment derives from being the same kind of evolutionary mistakes.
Of course for the modern environmental movement any expense or other human costs required for the mostly futile attempts to foil Mother Nature’s inevitable scythe are completely justified and even suggesting otherwise is considered sufficient cause for you to be targeted for near homicidal rage. At bottom the implicit reality of the enviros is that humanity is not an integral part of nature but a parasitic virus on the planet, more in need of reduction and control than Ebola, Bird flu, or malaria
Brent Hargreaves, read it again. It was a quarter of a billion. — John M Reynolds
“Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 9:36 am
Nature is capital….”
No it isn’t.
Which green brainwashing cult told you that one?
From that well-known, right wing, redneck propaganda organ – Wikipedia
…..capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person’s power to perform economically useful work – a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function. Homes and personal autos are not capital but are instead durable goods because they are not used in a production effort.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Big Oil is the one that only cares about money.”
Environmental groups are hypocrites. They rail against the profits of corporations that make life easier and better, while taking large sums of money themselves. The difference between Big Oil and Big Environment is that Big Environment’s goals are to make life harder. The biggest trick they have is to make people think they are poor saints struggling to make ends meet while they are trying to open our eyes while being actively suppressed the evil corporations and evil conservatives. Big Environment is not struggling financially. Big Environment is the one suppressing information. There is no conspiracy against them.
Mikael Pihlström says:
“Nature is capital.”
Wrong, but not surprising considering the source. Money is capital. Assets owned by people are capital. From my handy internet dictionary:
capital 1 |ˈkapitl| noun: 2. wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing : the senior partner would provide the initial capital | rates of return on invested capital were high.
Capital is never defined as “nature”.
One of the hallmarks of the eco fringe is the deliberate misuse of words.