More evasiveness and secrecy over climate foundation’s funding

Lord Lawson is still refusing to reveal the source of £50,000 'seed funding' for the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Two weeks ago, Left Foot Forward reported on the potential conflict of interest at climate sceptics’ favourite think tank, The Global Warming Policy Foundation. One of the ‘conflict of interest’ policies drafted at the GWPF and, presumably, signed by trustees and staff, guarantees several things to the Charity Commission.

The GWPF states that it will:

“Only accept donations from individuals and companies of good standing.”


“Any donation over £50,000 will need to be referred to the trustees for approval.”

Given that the GWPF has yet to have had a full tax year, their accounts are unavailable via the Charity Commission website.

Left Foot Forward can reveal that when the foundation was established towards the end of last year, it was done so with £50,000 in ‘seed funding’. When asked about this donation Lord Lawson told us it came from:

“A private individual, who wished to remain anonymous.”

Reiterating the pledge on their website, Lawson added that the GWPF does not accept donations from individuals with any significant interest in oil or energy. An air of secrecy remains, though, about the donation and the conflicts of interest statements. Do all the other trustees at the GWPF know about the donation? According to their own rules the donation would need to have been approved by them.

And why are the GWPF unwilling to show us the signed statements? Lord Lawson, when asked for copies of the statements, told Left Foot Forward:

“No GWPF trustee has any conflict of interests, and the charity commission has been given the appropriate signed assurances.

When we requested the signed copies of the conflict of interest policy from the Charity Commission, however, we were told:

“We do not expect, as a matter of course, conflicts of interest statements from trustees to be forwarded to us. Therefore we do not hold these statements.

“We would suggest that you might like to contact the charity in question to ask for this information.”

So who has the conflict of interests’ statements, why the secrecy and have all the GWPF trustees approved the mysterious £50,000 ‘seed funding’?

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

9 Responses to “More evasiveness and secrecy over climate foundation’s funding”

  1. Guido Fawkes

    Have we had an update on your funding?

  2. Will Straw

    Will Straw

    Happily: We’re funded on a shoestring by a mix of advertising, event sponsorship, grassroots donations, grant funding, and philanthropic gifts (the largest single donation we’ve received is £7,500). We’ve tried to put all contributions aside from the grassroots on our Thanks page. We’ll publish our annual accounts in due course which will provide more information.

  3. voice in deep south

    RT @leftfootfwd: More evasiveness and secrecy over climate foundation's funding

  4. Convenient Lies

    RT @leftfootfwd: More evasiveness and secrecy over sceptic foundation's funding:

  5. rich hawkins

    RT @leftfootfwd: More evasiveness and secrecy over sceptic foundation's funding:

  6. tracy j

    grant funding? who from?

  7. maxy

    If a blatant breach of charity rule commision rules has occured, then why is the matter not a subject for investigation by the Charity Commission. As I understand it, the Charity Commission operates a very strict code of conduct. How can it be right and proper that one organisation can flout the rules? Let us have complete transparency. Guido Fawkes as usual is seeking to divert attention away from the real issue, defending the indefensible in his inimitable puerile manner.

  8. Sean Lynch

    @GuidoFawkes do as I say, not as I do eh?

  9. After more “wilful blindness”, it’s time to change corporate law | Left Foot Forward

    […] More evasiveness and secrecy over climate foundation’s funding 23 Jun […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.