Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Christopher Booker exposes the Dark Underbelly of the World Wildlife Fund (WFF)

Christopher Booker and his colleague Richard North, both renowned UK journalists, shot into the limelight two years by their series of brilliant exposé of the drawbacks of the Report of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, which destroyed almost irrevocably both their credibility in public eyes. A sideline of this campaign was exposing the widespread usage of WWF’s “grey literature” by the IPCC and passing this off as “peer reviewed literature” to give IPCC’s findings a stamp of scientific authority. 

Now Booker exposes the WWF again in his brilliant article in UK’s Telegraph, which is re-posted latter in this post. Booker had previously exposed WWF as a master carbon profiteer and corrupter of science. But here in this article, he also exposes them as also human rights violators around the globe. If this comes as a shock to most it is because Booker overlooks to provide the historical context needed to understand that these are no aberrations but only a reflection of their true ideological underpinnings. We provide the latter as an introduction to Booker's article.

UK’s Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Bernhard of Netherland are the co-founders of the WFF.  There are many commonalities between the two that drew them into each other’s arms in a common venture but the two most important are provided below:

  1. Members of the Nazi Party.
There had been many rumours while Britain fought two nasty wars with Adolf Hitler’s Germany; the British Royal family supported the Nazi Party, even financially. Prince Philip had recently broken a 60-year public silence about his family’s links with the Nazis. In a frank interview, he admitted that they found Hitler’s attempts to restore Germany’s power and prestige ‘attractive’ and admitted they had ‘inhibitions about the Jews’. The revelations came in a book about German royalty kowtowing to the Nazis, which features photographs never published in the UK. They include one of Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brown shirt uniforms.

Prince Bernhard on the other hand was a member of the Nazi Party and had to resign from it,  in order to hold onto his title. Prince Bernhard first became interested in the Nazis in 1934, during his last year of study at the University of Berlin. He was recruited by a member of the Nazi intelligence services, but first worked openly in the motorized SS. Bernhard went to Paris to work for the firm IG Farben, which pioneered Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht's slave labour camp system by building concentration camps to convert coal into synthetic gasoline and rubber. Bernhard's role was to conduct espionage on behalf of the SS. According to the April 5, 1976 issue of Newsweek, this role, as part of a special SS intelligence unit in IG Farbenindustrie, had been revealed in testimony at the Nuremberg trials.

  1. Malthus Ideology
"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits ... we should ...crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. ... But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might possibly every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved." -Thomas Malthus, The Essay on Population, 5th edition, 1817.

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” –Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” –Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

“In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” – Prince Philip, quoted in Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 1988
 The biggest problems are the damn national sectors of these developing countries. These countries think that they have the right to develop their resources as they see fit. They want to become powers.´´ --Thomas Lovejoy, vice president, World Wildlife Fund U.S.A., 1984.
“Malthus has been vindicated; reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village.” –Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, 1984
“If we look at things causally, the bigger problem in the world is population. We must set a ceiling to human numbers. All development aid should be made dependent on the existence of strong family planning programs.” –Sir Peter Scott, chairman, World Wildlife Fund U.K., 1984

The Malthusian philosophy accordingly pervades their every outlook of life, even agriculture which they consider their prime enemy. And what is the sin of farming?

 “You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species... Prince Philip, quoted in Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 1988

The WWF propaganda is nothing short of a declaration of war against agriculture. If you you think this is an exaggeration, take a look at WWF pronouncements:
"Agriculture allowed and even encouraged population growth. With reliable food supplies and even surpluses, birth spacing could be reduced to one to two years. The fastest population growth rates presently occur in agricultural areas...
When practised without care, agriculture presents the greatest threat to species and ecosystems. Indeed, many of WWF's priority places and species are negatively impacted by agriculture.... Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in many countries.....

Agriculture is "one of the thirstiest" of all human activities, consuming nearly 70% of the freshwater which human societies "appropriate" for their use globally. Sustaining agriculture requires "free-flowing water" to be "diverted and wasted by dams for irrigation."
The WWF is virtually the private plantation of the British royal family, which carries forward the tradition of rabid genocidalists Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, and Thomas Malthus. Their basic belief, repeated ad nauseam for the last 200-plus years, is that  man is just another animal, which must be managed and culled like any other herd of beasts, by (as Bertrand Russell put it) by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.

Climate Justice is accordingly just a euphemism for population control, particularly those of the weaker sections of the human species, the poor and developing countries. Climate hysteria and the solutions peddled including the so called Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) are a part of this genocidal agenda and have been so pervasive that the policies of almost all leading environment organizations and NGOs whether Greenpeace; Oxfam; ChristianAid; ActionAid, CARE etc are reflective of this philosophy and agenda. This is why despite the Booker’s exposé of WWF as human rights violators, none of these jokers will disassociate with WFF and happily flaunt their collaboration with the latter as they do presently.  Neither will Henri Tiphagne, Colin Gonsalves, Salil Shetty and their kind, leading lights of our so-called Human Rights brigade in our country despite common knowledge that WWF applies the same tactics with the Gujjar nomads in their Nature Conservation Project in UP and with last few aborigine peoples, belonging to the Negrito race, in the National Park projects in the Nilgiri Mountains which WWF oversees.

How Climate Change Has Got Worldwide Fund for Nature Bamboozled

What a strange body the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund, now the Worldwide Fund for Nature) has become these days. It is the largest, richest and most influential environmental lobbying organisation in the world. Originally set up in 1961 by Julian Huxley, Prince Philip, Prince Bernhard and others, for the admirable purpose of campaigning to save species endangered by human activity, it has morphed in the last 20 years into something very different, more akin to a multinational corporation.
The WWF empire now derives a very hefty chunk of its income from partnerships with governments, or the EU, or actual multinationals, such as Coca-Cola and Sky, which like to use its iconic panda logo (originally designed by the naturalist Peter Scott) to give an “eco-caring” gloss to their commercial activities. The chief reason why it has so greatly increased its wealth and influence is that it has joined other lobby groups, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, in pushing to the top of its agenda that most fashionable and lucrative of environmental causes, the “battle to halt climate change”.

But this has led WWF into some rather odd little tangles, such as those which have recently emerged over its activities in Tanzania. Much of its work there is carried out under a UN climate change policy known as REDD+ (“reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”), which is part of the UN’s £17?? billion Fast Start programme. Britain, giving £1.5? billion, is that programme’s second largest contributor after Japan.

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”.

At this point, however, two American professors intervened. They had just published a study of the delta in an environmental journal, entitled “The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in mangrove forests”. It was highly critical of the so-called “fortress conservation” policy advocated by WWF under REDD+, claiming that it was seriously damaging the traditional life of those local communities which had been sustainably farming and fishing in the area for centuries.

Although this provoked a vehement riposte from Mr Makiri, who claimed in turn that the paper had seriously damaged the reputation of his staff who had been working on the WWF REDD project, a new furore had already erupted over claims that some of those staff had been falsely claiming expenses on a massive scale, amounting to more than £1?million.

In December, WWF responded by commissioning the international auditors Ernst & Young to investigate. In February, it was announced that Makiri had resigned as head of WWF Tanzania. The local office of Britain’s Department for International Development (DfID) leapt in to say that, while it “eagerly awaited” Ernst & Young’s report, it wished to emphasise that, although it has a general funding programme with WWF in the area, it had not been responsible for funding any of its projects directly. In March, a statement from WWF US, which raises half a billion dollars a year, confirmed that “so far 13 employees have left the organisation, along with two managers who had oversight responsibility”.

When I recently asked DfID what had happened to the report it was “eagerly awaiting” in February, I was told to ask WWF. They told me they had commissioned “a series of reports” on “four projects in Tanzania and the behaviour of a number of staff members there”, not all of which “have yet been completed”. But a summary of their findings will be published “in due course”.

It is hardly surprising that WWF is so anxious to defend its good name, since so much of its income (£55?million a year in Britain alone) depends not just on the five million members it claims worldwide but on the support it gets from governments. Nowhere is this web of top-level influence more striking than in the role WWF now plays in the workings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the body whose reports, supposedly based only on “gold standard” science, have been the chief driver behind worldwide concern over global warming for 20 years.

When a series of scandals blew up two years ago over the more alarmist claims made by the IPCC in its 2007 assessment report, the two which attracted most headlines were shown to have been based, not on peer-reviewed science, but on campaigning material put out by WWF. One of these, a prediction that the Himalayan glaciers might all have melted within 30 years, was sourced from a WWF paper based only on a magazine interview with an obscure Indian scientist (who was subsequently employed by the research institute run by the IPCC’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri). The other, a claim that drought caused by global warming could lead to the destruction of 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, was revealed – by my colleague Dr Richard North and this column – to have originated in a WWF propaganda leaflet based on research that had not been concerned with climate change at all, but with the damage being done to the forest by logging and fires.

Exhaustive analysis, led by the Canadian author Donna Laframboise, then revealed that nearly a third of the 18,531 sources cited by the report had no more scientific provenance than press clippings, student theses and claims by activist groups – among which none was more prominent than WWF. But worse was to come. In her recent book on the IPCC, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, Laframboise shows how, from 2004 on, WWF deliberately set out to recruit contributors to the IPCC’s next report to its Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel.

The result was that WWF “climate witnesses” contributed to two thirds of the 2007 report’s 44 chapters, including every one of the 20 chapters in the section on the impacts of climate change. A third of all the chapters in the report had WWF witnesses as co-ordinating lead authors, ultimately responsible for their contents. As Laframboise summed up, her analysis confirmed that, far from the report being the work of dispassionate scientists, “the IPCC has been infiltrated… wholly and entirely compromised”.

Many of these WWF panel members are now at work on the IPCC’s new report, due out next year. WWF has been so successful in getting its allies into key official positions that, in 2007, the chief executive of WWF UK, Robert Napier, was able to slip seamlessly into a new job as chairman of Britain’s Met Office. This is another body which, through its Hadley Centre on climate change, has been a central player in promoting alarm over global warming ever since 1990, when the centre was set up by Sir John Houghton, one of the IPCC’s founding fathers.

WWF has had only one real setback in its ascent to such influence. In March 2010, I reported here on its part in a hugely ambitious scheme, backed by $250?million from the World Bank under an earlier version of REDD, to turn the CO2 locked in the Amazon rainforest into “carbon credits” worth an estimated $60?billion. The idea was that these would be saleable on the world carbon market, to enable firms in the developed world to stay in business by buying the right to continue emitting CO2. WWF and others were granted selling rights by the Brazilian government over an area of forest twice the size of Switzerland. But, following the twin failures of the UN’s 2009 Copenhagen World Climate Conference, and the bid to give the US a compulsory “cap and trade” scheme, the project came to nothing.
Just how far WWF has travelled from the noble purposes for which it was set up was perfectly symbolised by the way it chose as its chief marketing tool the slogan “Adopt a polar bear”. If this organisation still had concern for endangered species closest to its heart, it would know that the idea that polar bears are dying out due to global warming is no more than sentimental propaganda. But then that is the main business that WWF now seems to be in – very much at the expense of the rest of us and, of course, those communities in the Rufiji delta.            
Note: This is the official statement of WWF acknowledging the fraud by their staff of their Tanzanian Office could be read here.

Read our related posts. Click Title to Read: 

WWF raised hundreds of millions from their sleek campaign but “Adopted’ Orang-utans saw none of it?? 

WWF Statement acknowledging their Tanzanian Staff Fraud  

No comments:

Post a Comment