Tag Archives: WWF

The World Wildlife Fund in New Zealand

A new report has been issued by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and which criticises New Zealand’s environmental policy. By happy coincidence, Der Spiegel has just written a devastating article on the organisation, which contradicts their public image. I suggest you read it in full. It paints a picture of a money grubbing organisation that has been responsible for forced resettlement of those that impinge upon their desired nature reserves, as well as a neo-colonial approach to conservation. It is also, of course, front and centre in promoting global warming alarmism.The report on New Zealand captures a little of their nature fanaticism, as in the quote from Dr. Morgan Williams, who heads the New Zealand WWF:

I believe most New Zealanders appreciate the need to live within ecological limits but developing a sustainable lifestyle, within current economic systems is very difficult. Independent institutions like the PCE and WWF help craft solutions to such tensions.

Doesn’t sound too fanatical? Lewis Clarke at the Register dissected the latest WWF ‘Living Planet’ Report. I will give you some selected quotes from his analysis:

Analysis Extremist green campaigning group WWF – endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency – has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race’s energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now.

Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar powerplants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severely rationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass.

[and]

But then we get onto the big stuff. First up, there must be an “immediate focus” on “drastically shrinking the ecological footprint of high income populations”.

That means you, Reg reader: you are to accept a massively lower standard of living, in order to reduce your “footprint” to match your nation’s “biocapacity”. Then you’ll have to take another cut, because your nation – being rich – has more “biocapacity” than a poor country does (despite their claim that planetary resources are finite, WWF acknowledges that new “biocapacity” can be created in the form of cropland, forests etc), but this should be shared with the poorer lands under “equitable resource governance”.

Again, I suggest you read the whole analysis, and take a look at the actual WWF report, as you will find that the Register article has captured the essence of the report. It puts a perspective on the apparently mild introduction of Dr. Morgan. When seeing the WWF agenda, his mild introduction takes on a clearer meaning. In the following quote, we can see that he is implicitly endorsing the vision laid out in the Living Planet Report:

I see this report as a wake up call for New Zealand. We cannot afford another 20 years of inaction. For our most critical sustainability issues – freshwater, greenhouse gases, native biodiversity and fisheries – this Government, and its successors, must not only make good on the promises made in 1992, but significantly step up efforts. The centre piece must be sustainability education. Until there is a deep and enduring understanding of our dependency on ecological systems, governments and business will not be empowered to secure a future where people live in harmony with nature.

I have bolded the  sustainability education section, as this was one of the most striking aspects of the report. What he means is that we need to be ‘educated’ to accept their vision of New Zealand living a much poorer existence. Now, if you truly want to be disturbed, this is from the section calling for ‘sustainability education’:

In 1992 New Zealand became a signatory to the Earth Summit’s Agenda 21. While all 40 chapters of Agenda 21 call for education, Chapter 36 specifically focuses on the issue, stating:

“Education is critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision-making. Both formal and  non-formal education are indispensable to… sustainable development.”  Chapter 36 established broad proposals to “reorient education towards  sustainable development, increase public awareness and promote training” and provided clear directions for developed countries like New Zealand, including:

• Integrating environmental and development concepts into all educational programmes

• Making environmental and development education available to people of all ages

• Involving schoolchildren in studies on environmental health, including safe drinking water, sanitation, food and the various impacts of resource use

• Strengthening existing advisory bodies or establishing new ones for public environment and development information

• Making better use of advertising and entertainment methods to shape public behaviour and consumption patterns.

In other words, they are calling on the New Zealand government to actively promote a green agenda, including to school children. And when you see the source of the call for the teaching of green agendas by the government, it just becomes ever more worrying. I am guessing that in the fanatical world of the WWF, it has never occurred to them that they are calling on governments to engage in political propagandising of their ’cause’. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of all of this is that the New Zealand government has apparently signed up for this disgraceful proposal to develop political propaganda. More to the point, it seems that they are enacting the propaganda campaign. Again, this from the WWF report:

The Commissioner also found that progress had been made in primary and secondary schools through a $13 million package of government spending over four years on Enviroschools, and Education for Sustainability advisory services for teachers in schools and kura.

The report goes on to give other examples where propaganda programmes have been initiated. Describing these programmes as ‘positive’, the report goes on to complain that the commitment to propaganda is tailing off, before calling for more action. In contrast to their view of the reduction in the propaganda efforts, this at least provides some relief, albeit that the propaganda campaign has not been abandoned.

Curiously, a New Zealand Herald article on the report completely overlooks the discussion of the need to educate people towards the green agenda. A search of Stuff found similar reports, here and here. The report contains six chapters of four pages per chapter, and an entire chapter is devoted to education. Is it not curious that this does not feature in the reports?

I suspect that the answer to why the call for the re-education of New Zealanders is ignored is that it is just downright spooky. It does not take much thought to see the call for re-education for what it actually is; propaganda. Openly discussing a government agenda to re-educate the New Zealand population in green propaganda would undoubtedly alarm many readers. It is a truly Orwellian idea, and I mean this in the most literal sense.

The WWF report is written in the context of a fanatical agenda, and an agenda that I believe most New Zealanders would find repulsive. I do not think that New Zealanders would endorse becoming poorer to meet the fanatical goals of the WWF. More to the point, I suspect that they would be deeply disturbed at the idea that they should be persuaded to accept these goals through being ‘re-educated’ with green propaganda. Nevertheless, this is the agenda of the nature fanatics, and it seems that, to some extent, the government has accepted this agenda. I do not know about readers here, but I find all of this very disturbing.

 

The WWF and the cost of Climate Alarmism

What a strange body the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund, now the Worldwide Fund for Nature) has become these days.

The quote above is from a recent column in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, from Christopher Booker. He points out the role of the WWF in promoting the global warming scare, the way in which WWF activists have infiltrated the IPCC, and other institutions of government and international agencies.  It is now, in many respects, more like a multinational corporation than the original conservation charity that it was when founded. What I found most interesting in his article was the following:

Last November, Prince Charles, as president of WWF UK, flew to Tanzania to hand out “Living Planet” awards to five “community leaders” involved in WWF projects around the delta of the Rufiji River, which holds the world’s largest mangrove forest. Part of their intention has been to halt further damage to the forest by local farmers, who have been clearing it to grow rice and coconuts. This is because the mangroves store unusual amounts of “carbon” (CO2), viewed as the major contributor to global warming. (Another WWF project in the delta is to find a way of measuring just how great a threat release of that CO2 might be.)

Shortly before the Prince’s arrival, it was revealed that thousands of villagers had been evicted from the forest, their huts in the paddy fields torched and their coconut palms felled. This was carried out by the Tanzanian government’s Forestry and Beekeeping Division, with which WWF has been working. But Stephen Makiri, the head of WWF Tanzania, was quick to insist that WWF had never advocated expelling communities from the delta, and that “the evictions were carried out by government agencies”.

One of my greatest concerns in the global warming scare is the harm that it does to so many people. Much of that harm is indirect, such as the impact of ‘biofuels’ on food prices. For those living in poverty, even a small increase in food prices might be a disaster. However, when the impacts are indirect, it is sometimes hard for them to be seen as concrete. I liked this article as the cause and effect are direct and cannot be subject to challenge. I am guessing that the people being evicted are probably so poor that their options for the future are limited and bleak.

I have, in previous posts, highlighted other economic impacts of the global warming scare. For example, I discussed the closure and removal of a steel plant in the UK, which was relocating to India as a result of anti-carbon dioxide policies. In this case, through no fault of their own, jobs were lost and relocated to India, thereby helping India in its development. However, what did those workers in the UK do to deserve to lose their jobs? Here in New Zealand, I have highlighted the idiocy and cost of wind energy, and placed emphasis on the fact that it is the poorest in society who will pay the greatest price. They spend a disproportionate amount of income on power.

In the case of the UK workers, and the less well off in New Zealand, the impacts of anti-global warming policy are unfortunate, and more than a little unfair. However, in the case of many of the really poor in the world, the price is greater than unfair. The price is life and death. I have already mentioned biofuels as one example of negative impacts. However, there is a greater and even more abstracted cost; the loss of economic growth due to policies to limit emissions of carbon dioxide.

Poverty kills, and policy which limits economic growth can only result in keeping more people mired in poverty. It is not possible to put any figures on the cost that might not be contested, but one thing must be certain. Making energy more expensive must, absolutely must, be a choke on economic growth. That choke on economic growth will have real impacts upon the prospects of life and death for many people, and will see their children’s prospects likewise left as marginal. Loss of economic growth hurts us all, but it hurts some more than others.

When thinking of these impacts, we need to look at the impacts in the context of the growing body of evidence that suggests that there has been outright dishonesty by climate scientists. Many will have read the Climategate emails, and been alarmed at what they read. The latest consideration of the deceptions of the UK’s Climate Research Unit makes sobering reading. The discussion is technical, but reveals that there was intentional deception in the development of temperature records to support the alarmist position. The result of this deception was a key supporting foundations for climate alarmism.

In a recent upset, the Heartland Institute used very poor taste to garner attention to the global warming skeptical position. They have been widely criticised for stepping back from the high ground, and the criticism is deserved. Nevertheless, some in the alarmist camp have used what are often ugly methods to promote their ’cause’; these include claims that they are saving us all from disaster, death and destruction, and therefore that those who ‘deny’ their claims should be treated as criminals.

However, here we now all are, in a position where key evidence in the debate on global warming increasingly appears to be deliberate deception. And the longer the scare goes forwards, and the longer the time that policy is directed towards the alarm, the more the harm is being done to economic growth. The lack of economic growth has real consequences in the here and now, and going into the future.

Whilst I must accept the possibility that the alarm about global warming might be justifiable, I need far more than the deceptions of corrupt science to shift my skepticism. There are undoubtedly good and honest scientists sitting on the alarmist side, but when seeing that key foundations are built upon sand, and on seeing the Climategate emails, I find it hard to find anything that might justify the ongoing cost of the global warming alarmism. Reading Booker’s column on the WWF, we can see a direct cost of alarmism, but the real cost is too abstract to see. I look around and see that the corruption of science is very clear, and the cost is too high.