education?
The GWPF was also scrutinised for its publications: educational charities have a legal duty to ensure that their publications are balanced across the board so people can make their own judgement.
Going forward, the procedures for publishing reports will be changed, with a new system being introduced to allow experts and other interested parties to comment, make corrections and amendments before publication.
The commission said in a statement that it expected to now implement the changes proposed by the GWPF, adding that “the commission may revisit the issues raised in this case if new regulatory concerns emerge.”
The Good Law Project welcomed the divestment, saying it “cuts off a key conduit through which philanthropic money flows into climate disinformation”.
Earlier this year, GWPF revenues fell to their lowest level since 2016, it said. Latest Account Analysis by DeSmogIt said revenue for the year to 30 September 2023 was £280,000, down £110,000 on the previous year. Total losses for the year rose from £17,000 to more than £150,000.
Membership fees fell slightly from £10,300 to £9,900, but donations to the GWPF – which does not publish the names of its donors – fell substantially from £346,000 to £201,000.
Fossil fuels
The Good Law Project criticized the commission’s other findings. It alleged that the GWPF received funding from the following organizations: Foundations that hold shares in fossil fuel companies,and Conservative aristocrats invest in BP, Shell and Total Energies.
The committee said it had “received and accepted strong assurances from the trustees” that it was the charity’s policy not to accept donations from individuals with significant interests in the energy industry or energy companies.
The Good Law Project slammed the commission for accepting GWPF’s allegations “at face value” and said its conclusions were “at odds with the investigation” that formed the basis of the complaint.
The committee also criticised the commission’s failure to impose sanctions on the GWPF. Its executive director, Joe Maugham, said this hands-off approach raised important questions.
“What is astonishing is the Charity Commission’s inexplicable desire to escape explicit criticism and regulatory sanctions against the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Reading between the lines, it is clear that GWPF has breached charity law multiple times,” he said.
Maugham vowed to “closely monitor” the GWPF to see whether its procedural changes have made any difference to outcomes and whether the Charity Commission’s soft-touch approach is enough to comply with the law.
The Good Law Project criticized the length of time it took the regulator to release its findings, which came more than 18 months after complaints were filed, after lawyers told the commission the delay was too long. Unlawful distortion of public debate The company said it was preparing to file a lawsuit over the climate crisis.
Expected changes
Tracey Howarth, deputy director of casework at the Charity Commission, said: “We have been in detailed discussions with the Global Warming Policy Foundation for a number of months about a range of regulatory issues.
“In that time the charity has made changes and improvements both in its charitable activities and in its relationships with third parties. We expect the trustees to fully implement the proposed changes. Having said that, we are satisfied that the concerns raised have been addressed.”
GWPF president Jerome Booth said “people who use moral reasoning with little respect for opposing views” were using “heavy-handed tactics” to “silence debate”.
He added: “The educational charity was established to encourage informed and rational debate on energy and climate policy in the public interest. We welcome the commission’s findings and will continue to pursue our charitable aims.”
This author
Katherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist. EcologistShe is on Twitter translation:.
