Is WWF’s Campaign Against Deep Sea Mineral Extraction Corrupt?

Is WWF protecting corporations at the expense of indigenous peoples & the environment?

Summary

• WWF partners with and accepts money from some of the largest critical minerals purchasers in the world, including prominent technology and auto manufacturers like Apple, Amazon, VW, and BMW.

• Independent reports have documented WWF’s history prioritizing the economic interests of its wealthy donors—both individual and corporate—over environmental protection and indigenous rights, contradicting its stated mission.

• WWF’s corporate donors often source minerals from the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world, in countries such as the DRC and Indonesia, where abusive extraction practices are prevalent. 

• WWF looks the other way while its corporate partners are accused of sourcing “blood minerals” in these countries and destroying wide swathes of earth’s most biodiverse ecosystems, allowing its partners to maintain a clean public image.

• WWF’s corporate donors are threatened by seabed mineral extraction as this massive source of low-impact energy minerals could devalue existing supply chain investments, eliminate certain competitive advantages, and expose “dirtier” supply chains. 

• WWF has employed misinformation to promote a moratorium against seabed mineral extraction, ignoring research demonstrating that polymetallic nodules can be extracted without threatening the health of indigenous people and with significantly less environmental impact than terrestrial mining.

• WWF has led the global campaign against seabed extraction.  Its actions and conflicts cast serious doubt over the entire movement. 

• COMRC believes the evidence shows that WWF deceives its customers to attract their contributions. WWF markets a service to donors that is designed to conserve biodiversity, yet it pursues a strategy that encourages the opposite. Deception for financial gain is normally considered fraud.    

• The legacy media is aligned with WWF and wants nothing to do with this story.  The truth will need to be spread by the people.   

The Ugly Truth

Toward the end of the year, a number of news stories broke reminding us how car and technology companies, through their mineral purchases, may be fueling the death and illness of indigenous peoples, the theft of local mineral wealth, the displacement of indigenous communities, and the destruction of the sensitive ecosystems in which these people live.

In late November a report from Survival International highlighted the “severe and immediate threat of genocide” for certain indigenous peoples in Indonesia because of nickel mining for electric vehicles, led by French firm, Eramet (amongst others).  Not only is this mining life-threatening, according to the report, but apparently the nickel has been stolen from indigenous people for the last decade – mined without their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent – in direct contravention of international law. 

Stories such as this one are not new, nor are they particularly unusual for the region.  Many mining firms are involved in similar circumstances, and many brands purchase minerals from those mines.  Indonesia mines more than half the world’s nickel from its tropical rainforests (both BMW and VW are named in the report and most EV manufacturers source nickel there).  As a separate report from Climate Rights International, Nickel Unearthed, notes, the damage being done extends well beyond uncontacted indigenous peoples to workers and people living in towns and cities, and to the environment broadly. 

Rampant deforestation, air and water pollution, and habitat destruction from nickel mining and smelting activities are seriously harming the environment. Nickel mining and smelting operations are threatening local residents’ right to safe, clean drinking water, as industrial activities and deforestation are polluting the waterways on which local communities depend for their basic needs. Community members are also concerned that increasingly common flooding events are linked to deforestation by nickel mining companies. Residents in villages near IWIP also fear that newly developed health problems, including respiratory and skin problems, are related to pollution from the construction and operation of IWIP and its coal power plants. CRI Report

In December, the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) filed criminal complaints against Apple subsidiaries in France and Belgium claiming that the DRC has proof that Apple has knowingly profited from using “blood” minerals extracted in the DRC for its supply chain.  The complaint alleges that Apple has covered up war crimes, laundered tainted minerals, handled stolen goods, all while carrying out deceptive practices to assure consumers that its supply chains are clean.  Reuters reports that millions of people have been killed and displaced as the result of armed conflicts that result from the competition for minerals in the country. 

Since the 1990s, Congo’s mining heartlands in the east have been devastated by waves of fighting between armed groups, some backed by neighbouring Rwanda, and the Congolese military. Millions of civilians have died and been displaced.  Competition for minerals is one of the main drivers of conflict as armed groups sustain themselves and buy weapons with the proceeds of exports, often smuggled via Rwanda, according to U.N. experts. Link

Organizations have been created in the DRC that are supposed to ensure clean minerals – but those efforts have been ongoing for decades and the problems continue. Some think that these “clean mineral” groups are simply meant to provide “cover” to the brands so that they can advertise clean supply chains to make their customers feel good about buying their products, all while continuing to source “blood minerals.” According to the new suit led by the government in the Democratic Republic of Congo, at least one of those “cover” groups is, in fact, just a sham. 

It is clear that this problem is not going away anytime soon.  Much of the critical mineral supply chain is controlled by companies from countries who don’t share our values regarding human rights and environmental protections.  Host governments and warlords may be willing to allow abuses in exchange for payments.  Western brands who depend on these minerals often create layers in their supply chains to obfuscate the point of origin and introduce plausible deniability.  None of this helps to address the underlying issues. 

The Even Uglier Truth

There is fairly rich irony in a story of large multinationals, with billions on their balance sheets, using “blood” minerals to build products that their wealthy consumers can feel “virtuous” purchasing.  Yet, believe it or not, this leaves out the most interesting and ironic part of the story – and the part that you aren’t supposed to know. 

Those same multinational brands could purchase most of these minerals without harming people at all or doing nearly as much damage to the environment.  Yet, they avoid this low-impact, alternate source of minerals as they are unwilling to cross their NGO partners who protect the brands’ current supply chains from criticism, and who derive significant revenue from opposing the new source of minerals.  Nor do they want a massive new source of minerals that may threaten existing competitive advantages and cause the rest of their supply chain to look “dirty.” 

Supported by public relations campaigns of their NGO partners, the brands couch their opposition to the new resource under the guise of “sustainability” and “precaution,” nonsensically implying that genocide and industrial scale destruction of the world’s most biodiverse and sensitive ecosystems are the more sustainable and cautionary route. 

Some of the world’s largest NGO’s, who were created to protect biodiversity and human rights, may represent the most serious of threats to both.     

This truth needs to be told. 

The Ringleader 

WWF is the biggest, baddest NGO in the world.  While the organization operates as an NGO, it is essentially a large multi-national corporation.   This is not a group of long-haired hippies singing peace songs, rolling doobies, and hugging trees.  WWF’s US operation alone took in $471.6 million in revenue for the fiscal year ending June of 2023.  WWF’s US company’s CEO made over $1.2 million in 2023, and its top 12 executives each took home more than $400k that year.  The organization’s US Board of Directors includes three ex-Goldman Sachs bankers and several other corporate titans. 

WWF operates a global network of over 100 national organizations around the globe, so the organization’s economic power is much larger than the US figures imply.    While it is a charitable organization, there is very little that distinguishes it from a high-margin, for-profit corporation other than the fact that it doesn’t distribute net earnings to shareholders.  A lot of Wall Streeters probably wish they were paid as well as top WWF executives. 

With a massive budget, lots of human resources, a worldwide network of offices, highly connected and strategic board members, and a feel-good mission, WWF uses its clout to amplify its messages through sophisticated media engagement even further than its substantial budget would allow.  The organization runs campaigns and engages in partnerships in traditional and online media.  They collaborate with influencers and celebrities and even produce their own documentaries.  They publish op-eds, run email campaigns, and create viral campaigns.  Perhaps most important, they cultivate relationships with writers around the world, most or all of whom align politically with the organization, such that whenever WWF takes on a cause or draws attention to something, hundreds if not thousands of journals, blogs, and news networks pick up the story and amplify WWF’s messaging.

The power base that WWF has accumulated has tremendous value.  No corporation wants to get on the wrong side of this world-wide marketing machine and kingmaker of virtue.  One way the organization can monetize that value is by offering protection to corporates who might otherwise attract unwanted attention from the organization or any of its surrogates.

A Panda Mafia?

From BuzzFeed Report

If this is beginning to sound like WWF operates like a modern-day crime family, well, let’s just say that we aren’t the first to notice.  In 2019, BuzzFeed News published an investigative report which alleged that WWF had funded, trained, and equipped eco-guards who committed human rights abuses on indigenous people to include, rape, murder, torture, beatings, corruption, and destruction and theft of personal property, all of which were known to WWF (link).  The practices were apparently systemic in WWF’s network and extended over six continents.  The group was accused of attempting to cover up its knowledge of these crimes after they were made public and then of manipulating the findings of the US House Natural Resources Committee which had investigated the allegations. 

The revelations highlighted WWF’s unique brand of “fortress conservation” and “imperial environmentalism” and they harmed the environmental organization quite a bit – though evidently, not enough.   

The BuzzFeed incident was just the latest in a string of questionable behavior by the NGO.  A book (and documentary) written in 2011, The Silence of the Pandas, detailed how WWF had been “selling its soul” for years, forging corporate alliances with powerful brands which destroy nature and then using the Panda brand to greenwash their operations (Guardian, 2014).  The book also highlighted how the organization runs an elite club of the 1,001 richest people in the world who influence WWF’s decisions and ostensibly provide significant donations. 

A 2011 report “Pandering to the Loggers” detailed how WWF’s sustainable timber program allowed corporates, who were trading in illegally sourced timber, to benefit from WWF’s stamp of approval and branding.  In 2013, WWF was accused of shielding Coca-Cola from controversy surrounding a plant the company was building in India after Coca-Cola donated millions of dollars to WWF’s polar bear protection effort.  

A corporate responsibility case study from University of California in 2012 noted:

“This is one of the inherent CSR (corporate social responsibility) problems WWF faces – a mission to protect nature, using funds that may come from the same organizations that threaten it…..WWF  faces a major CSR problem that may prove detrimental to its operations as individual donors that contribute to the biggest chunk of its funds become more aware of conflicts of interest through public controversies and improved information flow.”

WWF later apologized for funding eco-guards (eco-terrorists) and vowed to do better, pledging several million dollars in reparations to help victims. 

In light of these findings, we unreservedly apologise to the indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) of the areas under review, and to any other individual or community that has been subject to similar abuses in and around other WWF-supported protected areas.  Moreover, we want to take responsibility for the violent evictions of IPLCs carried out by WWF-supported ecoguards and for the impacts that their eviction from their lands has had on these IPLCs, including loss of culture and livelihoods, and increased malnutrition. We also want to apologise to our supporters, donors, volunteers and readers for not having immediately disclosed allegations of human rights abuses in WWF affiliated parks. We have a responsibility of full transparency to all those who support and believe in our work.  WWF Official Apology, 2021

The organization has worked to change public perceptions since these events, and it has probably gotten smarter about how it imposes its imperial aspirations, but our sense is that the Panda has not changed its spots. 

To this day, WWF’s efforts continue to put people and planet at risk for the benefit of corporate interests, despite the organization’s promises and its stated mission to protect biodiversity.  Survival International points to WWF’s continued abuses against the Baka people of the Congo basin (link).  The moratorium against seabed nodule harvesting represents yet another example of WWF’s continued blatant disregard for the lives of indigenous peoples and the environment and the preeminent importance of its wealthy sponsors. 

“…Many view the WWF as an accomplice of corporations. In their opinion, it grants those corporations a license to destroy nature, in return for large donations and small concessions…Undermining its own standards seems to be a specialty of the WWF. In fact, it is this flexibility that brings the organization millions in donations from industry. Der Speigel, 2012

Most casual observers believe that WWF’s skills in protecting the environment created all of the money and the power that has accrued to the organization.  But the evidence says that these observers have it backward.  The organization was founded by wealthy interests who used money to impose a brand of environmentalism on the world that often fit their economic interests.  It’s an important distinction because it explains why the organization sometimes acts in a manner that contradicts its mission.  The centrality of economic interests explains why the group has been so successful at raising funds, why it protects corporations at the expense of indigenous people and biodiversity, why the group seems indifferent to the damage it wreaks on humanity, and why it displays an air of misplaced moral superiority and invincibility through it all.  

Tacit Approval

Then-WWF President Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was able to recruit oil multinational Shell as his first major sponsor. In 1967, thousands of birds died after a tanker accident off the coast of France, and yet the WWF forbade all criticism. That could “jeopardize” future efforts to secure donations from certain industrial sectors, WWF officials said during a board meeting. Der Speigel, 2012

It is what WWF is not doing which presents the most compelling evidence of the NGO’s continued disregard for human suffering and environmental abuse. 

Let’s say that you’re Apple Computers, and your products require rare earth elements, nickel, and cobalt, amongst other minerals.  Realistically speaking, because of the size of your mineral purchases, these minerals often originate from areas where significant human rights and/or environmental abuses occur (the largest extraction regions are often the most abusive in some critical minerals).  One way to effectively deal with the problem is to make payments and otherwise support WWF in order to secure its protection.  With protection payments to WWF, Apple can escape a lot of popular backlash because WWF’s large network of environmental writers and NGOs, who take cues from WWF, will not write stories about the potential “blood” minerals going into your iPhone or Mac.  It may not be complete protection, but it sure is helpful.   

Apple has, in fact, collaborated with WWF on several initiatives that have brought funds to the NGO.  They partnered with Apple app developers on an “Apps for the Earth” campaign which raised over $8 million for WWF in 2017.  In 2022, Apple ran a program called “Earth Day Apple Pay Donations” in which Apple pledged to donate $1 to WWF for every purchase made using the company’s Apple Pay in Apple stores or on the website.  In 2024, Apple pledged its support to WWF’s moratorium against deep sea mining. 

Apple has been accused by the Democratic Republic of the Congo of knowingly supporting the extraction of blood minerals in that country.  Whether or not the charge is supportable we may never find out.  But the legal case is likely of small consequence to Apple.  The company will probably settle the case, pay the government, and find a workaround (they have already indicated they may stop sourcing from the DRC).  What matters to the company is public perception (which really drives market share), and that perception is highly influenced by NGOs, particularly the largest NGO in the world, which generally calls the shots for the rest. 

It is clearly a story of great significance to the environmental movement when a sovereign government accuses one of the largest technology firms in the world of supporting heinous crimes against humanity, yet if you search the story, you will find a complete absence of coverage from WWF or any of its NGO partners.  In fact, you don’t see WWF campaigning against any of the terrible and well-documented atrocities happening in the DRC. 

Apple isn’t the only company seeking protection from WWF.  Other partners include Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, HP and many more.  Needless to say, these are some of the largest companies in the world and their products require huge quantities of minerals.  Inevitably those minerals will, at least in part, come from the world’s dominant sources (often where the worst abuses are occurring).

It’s safe to say that WWF represents the establishment when it comes to mineral purchasers, and if abusive behavior is prevalent in the most productive extraction regions, then some of the NGO’s protected companies are likely implicated (they are generally opaque when it comes to their supply chains, so we have to assume). 

WWF has stood by silently as rainforests, the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world, in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Africa, are destroyed to produce nickel, copper, and cobalt for computers, iPhones and electric vehicles (a mine’s footprint is extended by 12-28x when we count deforestation caused by the mine’s supply chain per studies).  They haven’t raised their voice as lands have been taken from indigenous peoples in these locations and while minerals are being taken in violation of international laws – without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of inhabitants.  They’ve not made a peep while millions have died in fighting that is traced to disputes over mines.  WWF isn’t protesting the “modern day slavery” in the DRC where armed guards sometimes force women and children to dig.  Nor do they object to the contamination of fresh water supplies, the incredibly unsafe working conditions, the coal-powered metal refineries in Indonesia and China that make the air unsafe to breathe and that often spew effluence into rivers that downstream communities rely upon for drinking, bathing, and fishing. 

There are no protests from WWF over what are arguably the most harmful extraction regimes in the world.  There are no moratoriums.  There are no campaigns.  WWF has not activated its network to fight these fights.  The corporate interests who rely on minerals from these regions have made their protection payments.  The group’s silence and its partnerships with corporates who sponsor these supply chains signal its tacit approval. 

Run a search and see for yourself.  When you Google “Indonesia nickel and WWF” none of the first page references even mention WWF. When you Google “WWF and DRC cobalt” you find more of the same.  Google the news from the lawsuit brought against Apple late in December and you’ll find no stories of outrage from any western NGO.  Contrast those results with what you see when you search “WWF and deep-sea mining” – there you will find plenty of outrage. 

 Deep Sea Nodule Collection and WWF’s Moratorium

For the benefit of any new readers, we owe a little background on the “alternative source of minerals” referenced above.  Polymetallic nodules are potato-sized rocks that sit loose in the very deep ocean (around 3 miles deep) and are made up of critical energy minerals like nickel, copper, cobalt, rare earth elements, manganese, and titanium.  These nodules can be picked up in a non-invasive fashion using remotely controlled vehicles.  For more background on nodules please visit the Nodule 101 section of our website. 

Greenpeace and WWF organized a moratorium to stop nodule harvesting until we’ve studied the practice more completely, citing the precautionary principle. The moratorium has all but stopped institutional funding to the industry, ensuring that no more scientific research can be undertaken, and has thus effectively amounted to a permanent ban. 

The truth, however, is that we’ve been studying nodule collection impacts for over 50 years, and according to multiple life cycle analyses, extracting mineral-rich polymetallic nodules non-invasively from the deep-sea floor, a place with remarkably little life, no humans, and relatively little biodiversity, is far and away a superior alternative to terrestrial strip mining (see our report A Deadly Moratorium for full references).  

I just think that this is an extremely rare moment in the history of extractive industries where the environmental data is on the side of industry [meaning seabed nodule extraction industry]. (Marine Biologist, email conversation)

Furthermore, we know with certainty that done correctly, nodule collection can be accomplished without killing people, stealing their health, their wealth, or their lands, or contaminating their drinking water or the air they breathe (please see our website for links to the studies that back these statements).  Protecting human health and well-being is central to the precautionary principle, making the decision to place a moratorium on nodule harvesting, while perpetuating a system that endangers the health and welfare of millions, fundamentally contradictory to that principle. 

You don’t even have to be very well-schooled on the subject of polymetallic nodules to understand that extracting minerals non-invasively from one of the most remote parts of the planet, an ecosystem that hosts zero humans and relatively little life or biodiversity according to studies, is going to lead to far better outcomes than mining in a highly invasive fashion in some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet, right on top of human populations.  But it is reassuring to know that when you dig into the research and data, you find confirmation that your instincts were correct. (COMRC)

WWF has engaged a “baffle them with BS” strategy to support its moratorium.  The NGO has coordinated a campaign of misinformation about deep sea “mining” to make sure that the current systems of terrestrial extraction are perpetuated, and that the money keeps flowing to the anti-deep sea extraction groups.  The mainstream legacy media and the environmental media do their part to repeat the misinformation and further the status quo.  The strategy relies on creating a vast quantity of outlets spamming the Internet with WWF’s storyline rather than worrying about the quality of information provided.  WWF and other anti-nodule activists lean into the idea that if you “repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.”  Joseph Goebbels would be so proud. 

The reasons given for avoiding nodule collection simply do not add up (we could cite many more factors to support our claim – pls see our research for a deeper explanation of the point).  The campaign is built on a foundation of false pretense. 

So, why is WWF pushing for a moratorium that works against the NGO’s mission to preserve biodiversity?   Below we dig deeper. 

The Real Motivation Behind the Anti-Nodule Collection Movement?

With WWF taking a “pass” on some of the world’s largest joint humanitarian/environmental crises, which result largely or entirely from mineral extraction, one could be forgiven for thinking that maybe minerals are simply not a focus area for the group.  Perhaps it has more urgent crises to address than the ones that its partners help to fuel.  Yet, this is not the case.  It does focus on mineral extraction, but rather than attack the largest and most troubling operations on the planet, it has instead trained its considerable firepower on a segment of the industry (deep-sea extraction) that doesn’t even operate yet, and that will do far less harm than the rest of the mining industry when/if it ever starts.  

While the strategy might not make sense on the surface, we think there is a clear explanation.  Our belief is that the new industry represents a serious threat to powerful economic interests – including those of certain wealthy environmental activists, established brands, sovereign governments, and multinational mining companies – many of whom have aligned themselves with WWF.  These interests seek to stop nodule collection because extracting the new resource will have an adverse impact on their bottom line.      

The most important bottom line in this conversation is that which belongs to WWF.  WWF raises a lot of money on the back of its campaign against seabed extraction (as do other NGOs), and their executives may be paid handsomely for attracting funds.  Anti-nodule campaigns are especially attractive to WWF because they are easy to execute (and thus less costly).  Putting the words “ocean” and “mining” together is enough to get many people to open their pocketbooks.  Not only does the campaign put a lot of dollars into WWF’s coffers, but it has the added benefit of helping many of their corporate donors.   

Supply chains are tremendously important to any manufacturer, but this is especially true for companies who depend on hard-to-source, geographically concentrated minerals.  Supply chains can confer competitive advantages, meaning the difference between life and death for a company, and so are prized.  If a computer or car company has locked up a solid supply of critical minerals for the next 5-10 years, while some of its competitors struggle to secure the same minerals at the same cost, that company may be able to produce more product at lower cost and will be more successful. 

If a massive new resource of multiple critical minerals were to begin production (nodules), it could eliminate the competitive advantage held by certain companies, destroying the value of their large supply chain investments (witness how nickel mines in Australia were put out of business by new Indonesian mines).  Moreover, the light touch on people and planet from the new source could bring current more damaging supply chains into stark relief – possibly hurting the public images of businesses that rely on “dirtier” sources of minerals.  

It would thus not be surprising to see the partner NGO, which has essentially bought into these companies’ “blood mineral” supply chains, aggressively push a narrative that the new mineral source is, in fact, dirty, untested, risky, not needed, dangerous to people, uneconomic, and otherwise bad for the planet, even if the data and research do not support such claims. 

Corporate partners return the favor and align themselves against deep sea extraction in an effort to support their NGO sponsor, WWF.  It is a cozy arrangement for both parties. WWF protects their “dirty” supply chains from scrutiny, and the corporates support WWF’s campaign against deep sea extraction, helping the NGO raise funding. 

Some will correctly point out that those mineral purchasers with less advantaged supply chains could see nodules as an opportunity rather than a threat.  While true, these companies would be afraid to stand up to the Panda and its partners, and bear the brunt of ridicule, derision, negative publicity campaigns, and false claims that would result.  We know this to be true because we have spoken with a number of them.   

Mining companies are extremely concerned by the prospect of nodule collection.  Nodules represent such a large source of a portfolio of minerals that mining companies must take notice.  Nodules are especially threatening because they can be scaled so quickly (no need for lots of exploration as they sit on the surface of the earth) and they can be extracted with favorable economics.  Terrestrial mining could be turned upside down when nodule collection begins. 

While mining companies will undoubtedly get involved with the industry once it begins, it is in their interest to oppose it for now.  We note that Fortescue and Rio Tinto have been vocal in their opposition to seabed extraction.  Both companies have relationships with WWF (Fortescue through the Minderoo Foundation) though we do not know how much money has changed hands between them (if any).   

Many sovereign governments derive substantial tax, royalty, and other revenue from terrestrial mining companies, and are therefore threatened by seabed extraction which could put domestic terrestrial mines out of business. 

Let’s take a look at France because it provides us with a particularly hypocritical example.  The country jumped at the opportunity to demonstrate its virtue and join the anti-deep sea mining cause when French President Macron offered that the country supports a full ban (rather than a moratorium) of the practice.  It just so happens that Eramet, the company Survival International profiled as the main culprit in stealing nickel from indigenous people in Indonesia, threatening genocide of those same people, deforesting massive plots of tropical rainforests, and polluting fresh water upon which the people rely, is a French company.  Part of Eramet’s illegal “blood” profits then accrue to Mr. Macron and France in the form of taxes as well as benefits from employment and subcontracting relationships. 

France is at risk of losing revenue if Eramet’s operations are closed when new, cleaner, nodule operations begin.  President Macron has virtue signaled France into a spot where they appear to be uncaring, hypocritical, imperialist tyrants.  Not a great look. 

 Finally, the campaign against seabed extraction provides WWF one more item to entice corporate sponsors for donations.  They can list their brand on WWF’s anti-deep-sea mining page and earn a press release and other avenues to parade their virtue in front of customers – signing up for WWF’s moratorium is easy and essentially costless – so why not? 

Why are we Hopeful for 2025?

In the US, a new administration could lead to a more rational, less hypocritical approach to sourcing energy minerals all over the world.  Republicans have been behind most of the efforts to advance nodule extraction over the last several years, and with control of the legislature and executive branches, they will be in a position to help improve American national security and commercial prospects by removing obstacles that prevent the extraction of these low-impact, low-cost minerals. 

In his last administration, President Trump issued an executive order requesting that the government address vulnerabilities in the supply chains of critical minerals.   Marco Rubio, the new Secretary of State, has argued that the Development Finance Corporation should be empowered to help fund the initiation of nodule extraction in the Cook Islands.   The Department of Defense has been charged by Congress to explore the feasibility of processing nodules in the US.  A number of people have noted that the Department of Defense could rapidly progress the replenishment of the National Defense Stockpile by purchasing polymetallic nodules.  This action would provide impetus to encourage a large new industry refining nodules, and the investment and jobs that industry would bring. 

Even in the EU, where hypocrisy runs especially deep, green shoots of change are appearing.  Recently the large German trade Association, BDI, issued a report suggesting that seabed mining should move forward with speed.  In addition, Mario Draghi’s report on EU competitiveness acknowledged the need to look into “sustainable deep-sea mining.”  Furthermore, in 2024 the EU passed its directive on sustainability due diligence which makes companies responsible for their suppliers’ actions leading to adverse impacts on human rights and the environment.  It would be great news for indigenous peoples and for the environment if Europe were to take this directive seriously.   

Though we see progress in Europe, we’re not holding our breath.  Bureaucrats from the EU didn’t respond favorably to Draghi’s open-minded suggestion to honestly evaluate deep sea extraction, suggesting instead that the EU would not consider the practice until it could be accomplished without any negative impacts (which is to say it will never be considered – as that bar is obviously unachievable).  And while the directive on sustainability would ostensibly make Eramet and companies along its supply chain stop purchasing nickel from Indonesia and copper/cobalt from Africa, the EU has shown in the past that it is more interested in appearing virtuous than actually being virtuous (which is why the anti-deep sea mining campaign is such a good fit for the EU).

Regardless, it will only take one approval and one operation to reset the entire debate, and we hope, for the world’s sake, we advance toward that end in 2025. 

Conclusion

We believe that WWF intentionally deceives its customers to win their contributions.  WWF offers a service for purchase – the conservation of biodiversity – meanwhile it pursues a strategy that willfully ignores the destruction of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet while it fights to stop new technologies that promise to reduce the destruction of biodiversity. 

It does so to protect the economic interests of a subset of its donors – those who represent concentrated wealth.  It attempts to hide its conflicted position by making statements that are obviously false.   Deception that is intended to result in financial gain is normally considered fraud.  WWF’s lack of transparency and inherent conflicts should raise alarm bells with media, government, and society in general. 

WWF’s refusal to course correct in the face of compelling scientific evidence over the limited impacts of nodule collection is unsurprising.  The NGO organized and armed deadly terrorist networks for many years.  It didn’t stop due to an internal red flag indicating the group had stepped way over a line, it only stopped when it was forced to by outsiders.  The group’s DNA tells it that it is always correct in its worldview because it has a lot of money, lots of corporate partnerships, relationships with all of the media outlets, and influence in government – not because it does the right thing vis a vis the environment or humanity.  There appears to be no moral handbrake available to the organization.  WWF’s economic interests are not served by reversing course, so it will not do so. 

There’s a remote possibility that outside interests might cause the Panda to reconsider its campaign against deep sea extraction.  Public trust can turn quickly, and WWF has already given the public plenty of reason to harbor serious misgivings.  If the public were to wake up to the scandal that is brewing today, it might just set WWF and its partners back permanently.   While the Panda seems to suffer from an invincibility complex, management should understand that once the brand loses the public’s trust, it will never be the same.     

So, it’s up to the public.  It’s time to let these NGOs, corporations, and sovereigns know that we see them.  We are on to their games.  Let’s call Greenpeace, WWF, Apple, France, BMW, and Volkswagen and the rest of the Panda Mafia out for their hypocrisy, and for putting profits ahead of people (& environment).  Let’s ditch the legacy media and their biases, misaligned incentives, and shady partnerships and make things right by using networks like X and Facebook to distribute this research and inform the people.