roblem societies face. Greenpeace and other similar NGOs have been formed to make sure that the public good is supplied by changing the payoffs of those who can supply it. Although it may seem obvious, it is important to point out that no one firm, organization, or government can "produce and distribute" the public good, since the natural environment cannot be owned outright.
When we look specifically at the models of both organizations, each faces particular challenges. Greenpeace's success lies on continually creating new media mindbombs to reinforce its message and lobby for change. Naturally, the question is whether Greenpeace can continue to develop media-worthy mindbombs. Furthermore, by refusing to accept donations from governments and businesses, Greenpeace has only two sources of income: individual donors and foundation trusts. Its membership has been relatively flat at 2.8 million people over the past five years. Unlike WWF, which has 5 million supporters, Greenpeace does not have any trusts, and therefore, the organization's existence relies on the willingness of its individual members to continue donating every year.
For WWF, a particular challenge might be publicly challenging the practices of governments and businesses if it is receiving donations from those parties. In the past, WWF has returned donations from businesses when it has disagreed with the donor's environmental practices. Fortunately, WWF has several avenues for income given its 1001 Trust Fund, licensing revenues from the Panda trademark, and its broader fundraising policy.
Q: Do you see the strategies of these organizations changing? Are they taking advantage of the current global focus on climate change?
A: It is hard to tell how the organizations will adapt to the future. Let's suppose that in the next few years, the G8 governments commit to major quantifiable reductions in greenhouse gases. If this were to occur, we may see the organizations focus on watchdog activities to ensure that the governments' commitments are indeed being upheld.
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 require