Greenie Hypocrite Has Jet Set Life Style
[ 11 November 2016 ]
QUOTE
Mark Lutes , pictured above taking a selfie of himself flying in business
class luxury, is the Global Climate Policy Advisor for the World Wildlife
Fund's Global Climate and Energy Initiative. As such he is set to be their
lead representative at the upcoming COP22 conference in Marrakesh.
The WWF has been campaigning to stop people flying, arguing that video
conferencing should replace the need to travel. WWF criticises governments
for the amount of flying they do. Lutes has also been a vocal critic of
Heathrow expansion. Yet analysis of his social media shows Lutes living it
up with his own jet set lifestyle. He has recently made overseas trips to
Canada, South Korea, Morocco, Zambia, South Africa, Italy, South Korea and
France (twice). We calculate that he has
flown some 121,000 miles – almost five times around the world – no Skype
video links for him… His
Facebook is full of
pictures of him attending worthy gatherings of environmental activists
around the globe as well as enjoying luxury holidays. Totally
green hypocrisy…
UNQUOTE
The WWF is a crooked bunch of chancers on the make.
Every movement begins as a cause, becomes a business then a racket.
WWF, World Wildlife Fund Finances Death And Torture [
15 August 2020 ]
QUOTE
Down the road from the crocodile ponds inside Nepal’s renowned
Chitwan National Park, in a small clearing shaded by sala trees, sits a
jail. Hira Chaudhary went there one summer night with boiled green maize
and chicken for her husband, Shikharam, a farmer who had been locked up
for two days.
Shikharam was in too much pain to swallow. He crawled toward Hira,
his thin body covered in bruises, and told her through sobs that forest
rangers were torturing him. “They beat him mercilessly and put saltwater
in his nose and mouth,” Hira later told police.
The rangers believed that Shikharam helped his son bury a rhinoceros
horn in his backyard. They couldn’t find the horn, but they threw
Shikharam in their jail anyway,
court documents filed by the prosecution show.
Nine days later, he was dead.
An autopsy showed seven broken ribs and “blue marks and bruises” all
over his body. Seven eyewitnesses corroborated his wife’s account of
nonstop beatings. Three park officials, including the chief warden, were
arrested and charged with murder.
This was a sensitive moment for one of the globe’s most prominent
charities. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) had long helped fund and
equip Chitwan’s forest rangers, who
patrol the area in jeeps, boats, and on elephant backs alongside
soldiers from the park’s in-house army battalion. Now WWF’s partners in
the war against poaching stood accused of torturing a man to death.
WWF’s staff on the ground in Nepal leaped into action — not to demand
justice, but to lobby for the charges to disappear. When the Nepalese
government dropped the case months later, the charity
declared it a victory in the fight against poaching. Then WWF Nepal
continued to work closely with the rangers and fund the park as if
nothing had happened.
UNQUOTE
The WWF is another charity gone bad, just like the
RSPCA and the far more evil
Criminal Charities such as
Save The Children, which run major
people smuggling operations across the Mediterranean.
Buzzfeed News feeds us the dirt.
In fact there is a lot more of it. See
WWF's Secret War
PS On 9 June Ian Hislop announced the Paul Foot Award winner for 2020.
It was not this particular, splendid example of investigative reporting of deep
seated evil but on 14 August
2020 the
Daily Mail ran an article, entitled
Ex-soldier founds Zimbabwe's female-only anti-poaching tribe. Cause and effect?
Were they
bribed
paid?
It is all part of an ugly reality, Western tourists fetch in big money. Having animals to show is worth millions,
lots of them; it might be billions. Read the
reports about airlines going broke because customers are staying home due to
the
Covid-19 pandemic and make the
connection. WWF
declared it a victory after a prisoner was tortured to death.
Every movement starts as a cause then becomes a business and then a
racket.
What's Wrong With The WWF? [ 30 September 2021 ]
QUOTE
THE offices of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Woking, Surrey, were
recently occupied by a loose coalition of groups called ‘WTF WWF’
protesting about
WWF denying indigenous peoples’ rights in protected areas in many parts of
the world. One of the leading bodies was ‘XR Youth Solidarity’, part of
Extinction Rebellion.
The action wasn’t much covered in the mainstream press (criticism of WWF
rarely is) but it was noticed by Alexander Stafford, the first Tory MP for
Yorkshire’s Rother Valley and a former WWF employee. He unleashed a bizarre
Twitter fury, calling the youth group nihilistic, extremist, wannabe thugs,
bullies, selfish, and an extremist group that care more for their own egos
than for the planet.
If the occupation enraged him, it mystified others. WWF, with its cuddly
panda logo, is supported by David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg and
prominent royals. Surely it is a major player in protecting the environment
from industrial ravage and climate change, and so be above reproach?
I should declare my own interest: I’m the former CEO of Survival
International, the tribal peoples’ rights charity, and I have criticised
WWF for over 30 years. I was instrumental in bringing a formal complaint
against it under the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations, the
first mounted against any NGO: it was ‘admitted’ for consideration and
resulted in two days of high-level mediation in Switzerland. I’ve pressed
the US government and the EC not to fund environmental NGOs which violate
human rights (something which had not previously been thought necessary!)
and cheered at the subsequent withholding of funds destined for WWF
projects.
To understand why, one has to look behind the relentless WWF publicity
machine and be prepared to challenge deeply-embedded beliefs.
WWF, then called the World Wildlife Fund, was conceived in April 1961 to
save wildlife by raising money – largely from governments, corporations and
wealthy individuals – to secure land ‘where wildlife treasures are
threatened, to send out experts, disseminate propaganda and train helpers
in Africa and elsewhere’.
Africa was always key, and the jewel in the crown was East Africa. The
articles by Julian Huxley which led to WWF’s founding were focused there.
WWF was started just two months after Kenya’s first election in which all,
including Africans, were allowed to vote: unsurprisingly, independence
followed two years later. The idea that African wildlife needed saving from
Africans as colonial rule faded wouldn’t have been far from the minds of
WWF founders.
That remains the nub of the problem facing conservation in the Global
South today, and it explains the protests against WWF. However, the idea
that ‘Protected Areas’ needed clearing of the people living there long
predates WWF: it was seeded in the 1860s USA with the removal of Native
Americans to make the Yosemite and Yellowstone parks. A century later,
colonial Britain embraced the ideology in Kenya when it banned the
Waliangulu people from their traditional hunting lands in Tsavo, at one
stage imprisoning about a third of all their men and largely destroying
them as a tribe.
So it has continued. ‘Pygmy’ peoples in the Congo Basin were, and still
are, pushed out to make way for national parks, and beaten, imprisoned,
even killed if they try to return, if only to collect medicinal plants. Not
a single sizeable African protected area has been established without
evicting the locals, and it’s still happening, not only in Africa but
throughout Asia as well. Adivasi (tribal) peoples in India and Nepal are
kicked out of parks and tiger reserves, and even their children risk being
shot if they so much as wander back in to pick up firewood.
It’s not just WWF which is behind all this: their own ‘people-friendly’
rhetoric aside, all the major conservation NGOs follow the same creed,
known by critics as ‘fortress
conservation’: that is, build a wall around ‘nature’ and don’t let
local people in, even – often especially – if they’ve been there since time
immemorial. Paying tourists, on the other hand, are OK.
The belief is founded on two key articles of faith: one is that these
areas are ‘pristine’ and ‘untouched’; the second, that indigenous land use,
including undergrowth burning, subsistence hunting and grazing, harm
biodiversity – in other words, local people damage nature.
The fact that neither of these is true is now becoming accepted in
scientific circles, but has yet to gain media or public attention. The
reality is that indigenous land use usually enhances, not destroys,
biodiversity in ways the colonial West failed to understand for generations
and largely still does. Tigers thrive where the Adivasi communities in
India have stayed put. Undergrowth burning helps the propagation of more
diverse plants. Subsistence hunting keeps game healthier and stronger than
if it’s banned, when herds grow to outstrip the food supply. Elephants for
example can double their numbers every twelve years or so; the massive
culls routinely needed in southern Africa had to be kept away from public
gaze. The classic ‘out of Africa’ grass plains beloved of wildlife
documentary makers are the creation of centuries of grazing, partly by
pastoralist tribes such as Maasai and Samburu.
The fact is that humankind has changed the landscape almost everywhere
for tens of thousands of years, and the only truly ‘wild’ places on land
are high mountain tops and glaciers. About 80 per cent of the planet’s land
biodiversity is now found in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, and
that’s no coincidence: it’s because the people are enhancing the
environment and, in their own way, caring for it.
This makes the act of evicting them in the name of conservation doubly
criminal, both a violation of their rights – often their right to life
itself – and an assault on Earth’s biodiversity. It turns out that
biodiversity depends on human diversity, people with different ways of life
managing an environment they have long understood. The conservation NGOs
wanting everyone removed from their fantasy ‘pristine’ nature have
consistently opposed people who feed themselves directly from the land. Yet
what could be more sustainable?
‘Fortress conservation’ is really anti-nature and has actually begun to
threaten protected areas; just as local people had enough of land grabs for
colonisation, so they are beginning to have had enough of land grabs for
conservation. Herders in Kenya for example are pushing back against their
land being cordoned off for ‘conservancies’: they are cutting fences and
leading their livestock back in.
Many conservationists know they can no longer enforce protected areas
against the hostility of a local population, even with more money thrown at
militarising ‘rangers’.
The solution is simple but will require a huge change in ideology.
Traditional inhabitants must be supported in their diverse ways of life,
and offered help and resources only when and if they want it: that’s the
only real future for 21st century conservation. That’s why there
are protests against WWF, and that’s why this story has only just begun.
UNQUOTE
The WWF has gone bad; a money spinner with some very well paid jobs,
remuneration packages, pensions schemes, luxury travel and an excuse for
claiming Moral Superiority.
