pheld.
As the future unfolds, it is very possible that the organizations may adapt their programs' focus. For example, the issue of electronic waste has grown tremendously in the last 10 years and will inevitably continue to register as a high importance subject as more of the world becomes connected. We might see specific programs launched to addresse-waste.
In the late 1990s, it looked as though Greenpeace was going to divert more resources to developing environmentally safe technologies. While Greenpeace still has a research and development arm, we have not seen recent examples of new green products such as the Greenfreeze refrigerator or the SmILE car, which were developed in the late 1990s. Greenpeace may revive its focus on green products to build up another revenue stream.
I imagine that WWF will continue its collaborator-lobbyist approach by working with a broad range of companies, businesses, and other NGOs.The specifics of the campaigns might change-for example, the Climate Savers program will undergo alterations as more companies join and as existing companies' targets are met.
As far as taking advantage of the global focus on climate change, yes, both organizations are attempting to conduct meaningful campaigns that bring about changes to policy and behavior. They have good momentum through their own activities and can benefit from the efforts of thousands of other NGOs and activists. For example, Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth has undoubtedly increased the profile of climate change as a serious environmental challenge.
With all of these efforts on climate change, we can use the economic terminology that I discussed earlier: Through several efforts by a widerange of entities and individuals, the WTP for climate change is increasing.
Again, we get back to whether any economic value can be captured. The value creation and the capture angle is but one perspective; most environmentalists would be quick to point out that the debate extends far beyond economics-breathable air is a basic requirement for human life.
Q: How do your students respond to these cases?
A: The reaction has been quite varied. Nearly all the students were aware of both Greenpeace and WWF but did not know the specifics of the organizations' histories and activities. Most agreed that the organizations play an important role in society, although opinion about certain methods was widespread. Many were thankful that we discussed Greenpeace and the environment in a course devoted to business models. There were only a small minority that believed human activity did not affect the natural environment.