WWF's income 2003-2008 - $3.1 BILLION, Greenpeace however...

...didn't do nearly as well. But Greenpeace at least tends not to take money from governments it criticises, whereas the WWF has no such scruples. And YES, we are talking BILLIONS of dollars, not millions. These figures are obviously for the global operations of these groups. Climate Resistance reports: As we reported in May 2008, it’s even less of a hill of beans when it is seen in contrast to the budgets of the big Green, NGOs. WWF, for example, took this much money in recent years: Year Income ($US) 2003 370,245,000 2004 468,889,000 2005 499,629,000 2006 549,827,000 2007 663,193,000 TOTAL 2,551,783,000 According to WWF’s latest financial report, 2008 was not quite such a good year for them. They’ve switched their accounting to Euros, rather than dollars, and say that in 2007, they took €508,137,000, and in 2008, they took €447,251,000. Poor WWF. Still, we make that to be roughly $584,000,000 – over half a billion dollars, bringing their total income since 2003 to just over $3.1 billion, not including 2009. Of interest to some of our readers is the fact that WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies’. ‘Why are you banging on about how much money WWF have, again?’ you may well be asking. The point is first to demonstrate again that, in purely cash terms, the alarmist cause is considerably better funded. This must also be seen in the context of the rhetoric produced by the likes of Greenpeace, who, as we’ve pointed out before, don’t do so badly themselves. They say that ‘deniers’ have intended ‘to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action’, yet as the events that are unfolding reveal, it is much more organisations such as the WWF who have influenced the debate with misinformation. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-funded-denial-machine.html We thought it might be time to tot up Greenpeace’s accounts to date… Year Income (US$) Income (Euros) 1994 137,358,000 —————- 1995 152,805,000 —————- 1996 139,895,000 —————- 1997 125,648,000 —————- 1998 —————- 110,833,000 1999 —————- 126,023,000 2000 —————- 143,646,000 2001 —————- 157,730,000 2005 —————- 173,464,000 2006 —————- 171,367,000 2007 —————- 204,982,000 2008 —————- 196,620,000 TOTAL 555,706,000 1,284,665,000 To put these crudely into the same terms, we make that $2,373,506,970 ($2.37 billion) at today’s euro to US dollar exchange rate. Most of this money comes from people who think that they are giving to save the rhino, panda, or the whale, because that’s how Greenpeace and the WWF sell themselves. They hire companies to accost people in the street on their behalf and to phone people, harassing them into signing agreements to pay monthly amounts, deducted automatically from their bank accounts. Yet these organisations don’t simply save whales and rhinos, they use their not inconsiderable financial clout to influence the political agenda throughout the world, in a way that the ‘deniers’ simply have not been able to. This obviously includes preparing ‘research’ that finds its way into IPCC Assessment Reports. There may be nothing wrong with this, as such. We can’t really complain that such-and-such an organisation gets money from old ladies, and uses it to look into things. But the rise of the NGO has coincided with the decline in other forms of political engagement. Thus, politicians turn increasingly to organisations like the IPCC and the WWF for their moral authority. This process isn’t healthy.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous