IPCC: Resistance is futile

The World Wildlife Fund logo, inspired by Chi Chi.

Image via Wikipedia

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.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eyal Porat

And the crash will be grand.

Eyal Porat

Michael Crichton was a prophet!

mkelly

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….

Leon Brozyna

Apparently, being a charitable tax-exempt non-profit is quite profitable.

Chris D.

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.

Gail Combs

“…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???

Crispin in Waterloo

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.

pat

Wild life does not seem to be very important to this organization, does it?

Louis Hooffstetter

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.

Mikael Pihlström

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.

Mikael Pihlström

correction: a certain NUMBER of employees

P Walker

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 .

Pascvaks

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.)

MattN

“Good grief! $224 billion”
Please guys, if we’re going to give them hell, get the details right. It’s 224 million, not billion…

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

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.

Betapug

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 “

3x2

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.

Dave Wendt

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

Foxgoose

“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.

Wade

“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.

The IPCC grew with “EU” money
Greenpeace, I believe grew with “EU” money.
Over the last couple of years, they have been discredited for several well know reasons. Now it is WWF’s turn. Same speeches, same slogans, same senior staff connections to innocent German research, PR, and related institutions.
You have probably seen
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism
and
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
What I can say, from my failing country, is that the world as we know it is falling appart. For the last 50 years we have had electricity from lignite and hydropwer. 2 years ago, wholesale electricity was at roughly $45-50/Mhr, demand is dropping, and our German Saviors plan to cover Greece with wind and solar gadgets pushing electriciy prices to over twice the previous levels. A mini Desertec. WWF has replaced Greenpeace as the key proponent of Green but they have identical promotional verbiage, straight out of Siemens’s marketing brochures.

Mikael Pihlström

Smokey says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:14 am
Mikael Pihlström says:
“Nature is capital.”
Wrong, but not surprising considering the source. Money is capital. Assets owned by people are capital.
——-
Smokey, I suggest you gather all your force and take a giant leap. Cause, you are
about hundred years behind. Even the World Bank uses the concepts: economic, social,
human and natural capital.

Mikael Pihlström,
Read Foxgoose’s post above. Even Wikipedia disagrees with you. You stated “Nature is capital.” And contrary to my dictionary definition, you offer up a vague, nebulous phrase from the World Bank [which is part and parcel of the same gang pushing carbon credit trading] proving my point: One of the hallmarks of the eco fringe is the deliberate misuse of words.
Going by your opinion, “capital” can mean almost anything. That is, of course, nonsense. [My minor was in econ, so maybe the correct use of the word is especially important to me.]

PaulH

At Number 1 of the Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition:
“Once you have their money, never give it back”
(A Star Trek: Deep Space 9 reference.)

DirkH

Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Smokey, I suggest you gather all your force and take a giant leap. Cause, you are
about hundred years behind. Even the World Bank uses the concepts: economic, social,
human and natural capital.”
If that makes me human capital, then, to get rid of capitalism, you first have to get rid of me.
I doubt that this helps your cause much.

Darrell

I believe Michael was saying that nature has value. Quibble with his choice of words if you must, but at least argue with the actual point he was trying to make.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Mr. Pihlström. Please.

Darrell,
Words matter. The mendacious eco crowd misuses words deliberately [just like you misuse “quibble”]. “Post-normal science” is not science at all. The name of the propaganda blog “Skeptical Science” is an outright lie. Words matter, and that is not a quibble.

Mikael Pihlström

DirkH says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:55 am
Foxgoose says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:08 am
Smokey says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:37 am
I don’t know – maybe you should all get out more? Because, now you are
afraid of words and dependent on outdated/low quality dictionnaries.
Smokey, is William D. Nordhaus economist enough for you?
“To avoid the zero problem for assets, we first need to use the marginal valuation
principle, whereby the value of the stock is the quantity times the marginal value.
Additionally, we may want to measure the stock relative to a recent base period,
the last period, or use chain indexes. These assumptions will ensure that natural and non-market capital are measured consistently in the income, production, and asset
accounts; that they are treated consistently with market accounts; and that their size
does not overwhelm the value of capital for other sectors.”
… just an example…
My point however was that the operating costs of WWF are peanuts in relation
to the task they perform. Whatever your politics or worldviews are, you have to admit
that the capacity of modern man to impact nature necessitates balancing investments in
safeguarding nature, which is our common capital: forest and fields, food and fibres,
ecosystem services, water …
For the budget cited in the post you would not be able many drone carrying aircraft,
to bomb the hell of some human capital

Mikael Pihlström

be able to buy, sorry
…. better go to sleep now

DirkH

Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:12 am
“I don’t know – maybe you should all get out more? Because, now you are
afraid of words and dependent on outdated/low quality dictionnaries.”
I must have missed the official redefinition of the word capital; maybe the World Bank should have things like that announced by the heads of state.

R. Shearer

I have no problem with individuals and corporations donating to WWF. I’m sure that some good results from it.
However, look at the list of Public Sector Partnerships. We U.S. taxpayers support WWF not through just one agency but through USAID, USFWS and NOAA and probably via UN as well.

klem

And to think, back when I still referred to myself as an environmentalist, I used to make financial conributions to the WWF. The activities of the WWF were the reason why I stopped. That was a long time ago.

Stonyground

At Pharygula there is a piece about how the IPCC has underestimated how bad things are and our ice caps are receding even more than their worst estimates predicted. Since the IPCC grabs hold of any information, no matter how spurious its source, that supports their agenda and rejects anything that is the slightest bit critical of their position, I find this a little hard to believe. If the situation is worse than even the IPCC predicted then we really are screwed.

KnR

mkelly ironically the WWF did use the Wrestling federation which is way it changed its name .
A shame in way becasue who not wont to see a match up between Panda bear and human wrestlers .

Mooloo

Mikael Pihlström says:
My point however was that the operating costs of WWF are peanuts in relation
to the task they perform.

I don’t think you see the problem most of us have. It’s not that they are big.
It is that it is a political organisation, which pretends not to be. It is that it holds great political power, but is more or less totally unaccountable to the people it claims to represent.
The greatest scandal is that these “charities” get government money in order to lobby government. That is truly mental.
The Republican Party in the US is a huge organisation. It is, however, plainly political. It actually stands for elections externally — and has internal structures that allow members a say. What the fans of WWF cannot accept is that there is little difference between it and the GOP, except the WWF is far less transparent and accountable.
And WWF never actually runs on its platform, in a way that would expose all the contradictions and impracticality of it all.

Mike Edwards

Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:12 am:
“My point however was that the operating costs of WWF are peanuts in relation to the task they perform.”

And never were those funds worse directed.
While we pass through an era in which there is an orgy of habitat destruction, eliminating some species and pushing others to the brink, on what is the WWF spending a major part of its efforts? Climate change, whose effects are marginal at most and which may not be stopped by any of WWF’s proposed “remedies”. The same amount of effort directed at the immediate, obvious problems would surely have a major payback,
WWF’s activities are little short of insane even from an environmentalist perspective.

Vince Causey

The word ‘capital’ is a much abused term that has come to mean whatever you want it to mean. Groups talk of ‘human capital’ when they mean ‘labour’, while economists talk about the assets used in generation of wealth. To an accountant, capital is the net assets of a business – the value of assets after all liabilities have been settled, except when they talk about capitalising expenditure, in which case they are referring to acquisition of those assets that are used in the production or supply of goods and services.
And then the word ‘capitalism’ was originally coined by Marx as a derogatory observation on the free market system.
What is capital then? Your guess is as good as anyones.

Mikael Pihlström,
Capital nature.

Kev-in-Uk

I find it objectionable that many who give to charity have no idea where their money goes – and far more importantly, how much of the actual donation ‘reaches’ the intended ‘recipient’.
Here in the UK, the charity hawkers on the street are ‘paid’ to get signatures. Many charities have been exposed as essentially ‘false’ – often paying ‘directors’ wages at high rates from donations and only a fractional percentage getting to the intended. Of course, these directors are the ones who often set up the charities in the first place! Funny that!
5,000 employees in the WWF? – that’s an awful lot of ‘administration’ costs!
BTW – ditto for Greenpeace and other such blood sucking green giants!

Foxgoose

NATURE = CAPITAL
WAR = PEACE
FREEDOM = SLAVERY
IGNORANCE = STRENGTH
(with apologies to George Orwell)

John Whitman

A Premise: the WWF leadership has a philosophy (philosophies) which forms the fundamental basis of popular modern ideological environmentalism; WWF being a typical example of a modern ideological environmentalist organization.
Whether pro-WWF or con-WWF, do you agree with this premise?
Identification of the philosophy/philosophies behind ideological environmentalism and thus also behind the WWF leadership would provide knowledge of possible false premises, irrational/illogical concepts, internal inconsistencies and contradictions of observed reality. After philosophic identification we could tap the knowledge base of the history of philosophy. Knowledge of their philosophic views allows explicit statement of their view of reality, of human nature, of ethics, politics, economics and esthetics. Without that info critics of the WWF are likely to be ineffective; without it we could just be swatting at their PR.
I think a key philosophic view/system behind the WWF leadership and modern ideological environmentalism is nihilism. In addition, because nihilism is not good press, they sometimes eclectically cloak themselves in terms of the philosophy of pragmatism for the purpose of making their positions palatable for press releases and public discussions.
Overall, I view their philosophy as inimical to human life and destructive of scientific knowledge.
John

Billy Liar

Stonyground says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm
You’ll be screwed because you’re gullible. Why listen to a bunch of alarmists trying to cause alarm; do you believe everything they say?

kramer

I noticed on their ‘board of directors’ page, about 5 or so of them are bankers or were in the banking profession. WRI also has a number of bankers or former banking employees on their board.
Must have something to do with carbon derivatives and the $20 trillion dollar a year cap-and-trade program some want to implement.

Chris D. says:
September 26, 2011 at 9:15 am

Very much looking forward to Part 2 of this piece. She ended with quite a teas

And wait until her new book about the IPCC comes out. very soon.