education?
GWPF has also been subject to scrutiny for its publications. Educational charities have a legal duty to maintain balance across their output so that people can make their own decisions.
We are now changing the way we publish reports by introducing a new system that will allow experts and other stakeholders to provide comments, corrections and changes before publication.
The commission said in a statement that it now expects to implement the changes proposed by GWPF. It added that “the commission may revisit the issues raised in the litigation if new regulatory issues arise.”
The Good Law Project welcomed the divestment, saying it would “cut off a critical pathway for philanthropic funding to climate misinformation.”
Earlier this year, GWPF’s revenue fell to its lowest level since 2016. Latest DeSmog Account Analysis. It reported revenue of £280,000 for the year ending 30 September 2023, down £110,000 from the previous year. Total annual losses increased from £17,000 to more than £150,000.
While membership fees fell only slightly from £10,300 to £9,900, GWPF saw a significant drop in donations, from £346,000 to £201,000. GWPF does not disclose the names of its donors.
fossil fuel
The Good Law Project criticized other findings by the commission, complaining that GWPF received funding from: Foundations that own stocks in fossil fuel companiesyes Conservative aristocrats who invested in BP, Shell and TotalEnergies.
The committee said it had “received and accepted strong assurances from the board that the charity had a policy prohibiting it from accepting donations from anyone with a significant interest in the energy industry or energy companies.”
The Good Law Project accused the committee of taking GWPF’s claims “at face value” and said its conclusions were “contrary to the investigation” that formed the basis of the complaint.
It was also critical of the commission’s failure to sanction GWPF. The commission’s executive director, Joe Moham, said the laissez-faire approach raised important questions.
“What is surprising is the Charity Commission’s incomprehensible desire to avoid any overt criticism of the Global Warming Policy Foundation or to impose regulatory sanctions on it. Reading between the lines, it is clear that GWPF has breached charity law on multiple occasions,” he said.
The charity pledged to “watch closely” the GWPF to see whether its procedural changes made any difference to its output, and whether the charity commission’s soft-touch engagement was sufficient to ensure compliance with the law.
The Good Law Project criticized the regulator for taking more than 18 months to release its findings after complaints were filed, and only after lawyers told the commission the delay was contributing to: Illegal distortion of public debate He said he was preparing to file a lawsuit related to the climate crisis.
Expected changes
Tracy Haworth, deputy director of casework at the Charity Commission, said: “We have been consulting in detail with the Global Warming Policy Foundation on a range of regulatory issues over a number of months.
“Over the years the charity has made changes and improvements both in its activities and in its relationships with third parties. We expect the trustees will now fully implement the proposed changes. On that basis, we are satisfied that the concerns raised have now been addressed.”
GWPF President Dr. Jerome Booth criticized those who use “moral reasoning with no respect for opposing views” to “suppress debate” by using “strong-handed methods.”
He added: “This educational charity was set up to encourage informed and rational debate on energy and climate policy for the greater public good. We welcome the committee’s findings and will continue to pursue our charitable objectives.”
This author
Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and senior writer. EcologistShe tweets @cat_early76.
