Bishop Hill A new forum
May 9, 2014 GWPF This just in from GWPF:
London, 9 May: The Global Warming Policy Foundation has decided to form a new non-charitable company which will be able to conduct campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the educational remit of the charity.
This arrangement reflects those used by other organisations with dual structures, such as Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation will continue to advance its charitable objects by commissioning and publishing reports and papers and by organising lectures and debates on key matters relating to climate science and policy.
Some elements of its website, in particular its news articles and opinion pieces, will henceforth be covered by the new organisation.
The Trustees intend to establish this new organisation under the name “Global Warming Policy Forum”.
Subject to ongoing discussions with the Charity Commission, we expect the new structure to be up and running by the end of July.
Reader Comments (17)
'This arrangement reflects those used by other organisations with dual structures, such as Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK.'
Pointing that out won't stop the howling from the eco-nutjobs.
"a new non-charitable company"
Good for them. I'm fed up with fake charities.
Steve Jones,
No, but it helps us to be able to say that when they do start howling. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Excellent news.
"Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK"
two of the most uncharitable charitable organisations there is
Bring it on!
Interesting. How many other high-profile charities have this dual structure, and what are the salient demands that the charities commission makes of them?
Natural progression I would guess. Now, not to point to fine a point on it......how much?
Martyn: Perhaps the primary question is how many? Is the forum going to have an open membership?
I'm looking forward to seeing the GWPF given the same amount of air-time as Greenpeace, and the resultant rage amongst the environmentalist. Hell hath no fury like an environmentalist being challenged.
Excellent news. But I think it might need to be a bit broader and more ambitious to replace, or challenge the domination of the WWF. A few ideas:
NGO: PROSPERITY
MISSION STATEMENT
To lift humanity out of a state of nature and to
build a future in which humans tame and harvest natural
resources to eradicate hunger, poverty, disease and increase prosperity by:
building a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund from UK fossil fuels
lowering humanity’s reliance on living in nature
reversing afforestation where it is harmful to human life
prioritising the building of homes and increasing property ownership
promoting the advantages of modern civilization
promoting science and ideas that lead to better technologies
greater accumulation of human capital
faster exchange of ideas and knowledge
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
To guide PROSPERITY in its task of achieving its mission, the following
principles Will be adopted. PROSPERITY will:
1. be an international, human-centric, campaigning company
2. protect human life, aspirations and prosperity increasing policies
3. use the latest scientific research to achieve our aims
4. engage in critical debate with environmentalists
5. build networks and partnerships with other organisations
6. run its operations in a highly professional and cost effective way
An idea whose time has come ...
Pointman
Richard: I suppose if they knew how many, they could think about a subscription. So perhaps best to be a free for all in the first year or so to and take it from there.
No doubt Bob Ward is churning out his blustering objections even as we type. Nonetheless, I do believe that the GWPF is heading in the right direction.
In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that the US based (notably Gleick targeted) Heartland Institute could learn some credibility lessons from the GWPF.
Come to think of it, so could the Met Office's Man for All Let's Forget the Reasons, tweeter par excellence, Richard Betts with 10.1K tweets and counting. As opposed to the far more modest - and far less shoot from the lip - GWPF's 5,473 tweets and counting.
YMMV ... but, well, that's the view from here ;-)
Not so sure about this. It reminds me of one of Michael Crichton's last novels on the fiasco of climate-change organisations. The crux of his argument is that after a period of time every well meaning organisation becomes a monster, and should be automatically wound up and reconstituted. Greenpeace has certainly reached this point with professional agitators apparently more concerned with maintaining their own jobs than having an honest outlook. I think a better strategy forcthe GWPF, which in my opinion already bends the ear of the political establishment, should campaign on the very fact that Greenpeace does have a provisional and official wing - the public certainly don't know that.
Bob Ward has his oar in on this;
The Independent
I feel our Bob is stirring a hornets nest complaining along the charitable status line. There are community centres up and down the country with charitable status I would suggest a lot would be crossing the charitable status line making the job of the charity commission a nightmare. So GWPF and the Commission will sort any issues quite swiftly and that will be the end of it.