*****************************EXCERPT**********************************************
ZT says:
I think that Daniel H, ex-WWF employee summed the situation up well a while back in comments on this site:
Might be interesting for Donna to interview Daniel H….
***************************************EXCERPT****************************************
Leon Brozyna says:
Apparently, being a charitable tax-exempt non-profit is quite profitable.
**************************************EXCERPT**************************************
Brent Hargreaves says:
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.
************************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Gail Combs says:
“…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???
******************************************EXCERPT**************************************
Crispin in Waterloo says:
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.
***************************************EXCERPT*********************************************
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
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.
More:
**********************************EXCERPT**************************************************
Betapug says:
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 “
**********************************EXCERPT*****************************************
3x2 says:
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.