ds in which the organizations gained public support. Greenpeace's early membership was made up of journalists, scientists, and activists, whereas WWF attracted the attention of scientists, businesspeople, and government officials. Greenpeace's beginnings were looselyknit and highly autonomous, since it started more as a movement than as a charity. It wasn't until nearly 10 years after the first campaign that consistent rules were developed on the use of the Greenpeace name and the opening of new offices. In contrast, WWF began as a centralized organization and closely controlled the growth of international sites.
In garnering public support, Greenpeace encouraged people to protest against governments while WWF looked for ways to work with governmental representatives. For example, WWF gained the public participation of members of royal families such as Britain's Prince Phillip and the Netherlands' Prince Bernhard. In 1970, Prince Bernhard led the creation of an endowment fund, The 1001: A Nature Trust, calling upon 1,001 donors to contribute $10,000 each. The endowment permitted WWF to cover its administrative expenses through interest income. Another interesting example of governmental involvement was in the 1980s when WWF created a debt-for-nature swap, whereby indebted governments could trade debt for funds earmarked for conservation purposes. Debt-for-nature swaps were conducted around the world in countries such as Ecuador, Madagascar, and the Philippines.
Interestingly enough, Greenpeace also mobilized renowned although markedly different individuals to help with fundraising. For example, one of Greenpeace's early fundraising campaigns culminated in a benefit rock concert featuring Joni Mitchell and James Taylor. Greenpeace's early campaigns were in direct opposition to governments and mounted "direct action" crusades to confront what the organization believed were environmental wrongdoings.
In addition to involving high-profile individuals, throughout the histories of the organizations, both harnessed the power of the media by drawing attention to their respective activities. WWF garnered considerable media attention for Project Tiger, an initiative to set up tiger reserves in India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. For Greenpeace, images of protesters confronting Russian whalers provided a powerful media "mindbomb" that spread throughout the world. In appealing to the public, both organizations utilized symbols: WWF's use of a cuddly panda and Greenpeace's native Cree legend, Warriors of the Rainbow, both of which are still prominent.
Today, the campaigns of both entities have broadened to encompass a wide range of environmental issues. In carrying out its activities, Greenpeace maintains no allies or enemies and only accepts donations from individuals and foundation grants. WWF takes on a collaborator-lobbyist approach with governments and businesses. Unlike Greenpeace, WWF accepts donations from corporations and governments. It also licenses its distinguished Panda trademark to companies that follow certain environmental standards. WWF maintains public relationships with a number of multinationals. In the 1990s, WWF was instrumental in setting up certification societies in coordination with major companies-the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), for responsible forestry and fishing, for instance. In 2000, WWF worked with another NGO to develop the Climate Savers program. To date, the program has 12 major corporations, amongst which are Nike, Sony, and IBM. All have agreed to the reduction of quantifiable greenhouse gases by set dates.
Q: In general, how effective have these organizations been in achieving their goals? When it comes to climate change, evidence would suggest they have not had much influence.
A: This is one of the quagmires of the case series. Before delving into the organizations' achievement of their goals in class, we look at what is happening to the earth. I start by asking, Why do we use natural resources in the first place? Most students believe that population g