WTF have WWF done? Commentary by Andy McCourt

The news that the WorldWide Fund For Nature (formerly the World Wildlife Foundation) has jumped on the greenwash bandwagon and introduced a no-can-print version of PDF, comes as something of a surprise for such a supposedly well informed group, says Andy McCourt.

To cite items 2 and 3 of its own Code of Ethics:

“2) We will use the best available scientific information to address issues and critically evaluate all our endeavours.
3) We will, wherever possible, seek dialogue and avoid confrontation.”

Portable Document Format in all its versions has succeeded in both print and online communications because it is Portable – it can address multiple output choices. For some time it has been possible to lock PDFs from printing – mainly for security or copyright reasons – but the unlocking of PDFs is easily accomplished or you can simply do a screen capture and then print from Photoshop.

So why the spleen venting about the .wwf  non-print version of PDF? It’s the outrageously misleading claim “Save as .WWF, save a tree.” That, dear conservationists is a blatant lie. Yes, lie. A big word to such a powerful organization as the WWF whose patrons have includes Prince Phillip and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands plus countless industrialists who formed the ‘1001 Club’ which funded the original WWF. It’s a lie right up there with the claims of the eTree people who not long ago were blustering on about lawsuits until they realised  the inconvenient facts support paper as one of the few truly sustainable industries on the planet.

Let’s get back to those two WWF Code of Ethics clauses. In this instance they clearly have not used the ‘best available scientific information…’ because if they had they would have discovered that forcing people not to print PDFs does not save a tree. It’s total garbage to suggest that. The internet runs on coal and the more you encourage people to spend time online, the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere. Trees used for pulp and paper sequester CO2, oxygenate the atmosphere and are responsibly managed in forests that are audited by bodies such as FSC and PEFC. To suggest that paper must come from virgin rainforests in 2010 is ignorant of the facts.

Managed plantations for paper production are actually increasing in acreage, year-on-year in all developed countries. Even China is on a massive tree-planting programme to feed its printing industry, all responsibly managed and positive for the environment as the harvesting programme takes fewer trees than the newly-planted stock provides.

Look at ethical point 2:”we will seek dialogue and avoid confrontation.” Did the WWF think to speak to the many scientifically-based paper research organizations or even producers? No, in the headlong rush to take a cheap shot at the sustainable paper industry, you listened to your PR advisors who are as ill-informed as you apparently are.

But perhaps the most significant blooper committed by the WWF in its misguided meddling in workable document file formats is the sheer arrogance to attempt to deny individuals the right to print something out if they want to – and to use illogical slogans in order to achieve it. Sometimes, a print-out is the only reliable record for a document because the electronic version can be sneakily changed.

We don’t want .wwf files and we don’t want to be told they can’t be printed (even though they can which adds idiosyncrasy to the whole argument). If you receive a file with the extension .wff I suggest you return it to its originator and request a proper .pdf, saying you alone will decide what you print and what you do not.

Please, stick to the good work on saving species and ecosystems, WWF!

One of the WWF’s trustees is our very own Professor Tim Flannery who can be contacted at Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW 2109. He’s a rational bloke so why not write to him and see if he can communicate some sense on this issue, back to the WWF?