Enemies of Energy: World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.

***

According to the U.S. government’s spending database (USASpending.gov) the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has received a cumulative total of $395.3 million in federal grants and contracts since 2008—an average of $20.8 million per year. Most of this ($305.7 million) was for overseas projects funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Common with many USAID programs, the listed purpose for the awards is often piteously vague. As an example, “USAID biodiversity conservation activity” is the only description provided for a $31.3 million grant awarded to WWF in July 2020. [i] ^[ii]

These healthy subsidies from the taxpayers have helped make WWF the wealthiest anti-energy NGO in America. It is also (alongside the World Resources Institute) the most geographically diversified, with headquarters on six continents. In many of the nations where it operates it does business as the “World Wide Fund for Nature.” ^[iii]

The American branch of WWF, a tax exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit, reported $374.8 million total revenue for the year ending June 2024, and $644.4 million net assets. [iv]

Best known by the iconic panda logo, WWF is unquestionably involved in good work to preserve treasured creatures. Support for this legitimate conservation mission is certainly the reason for a lot of the federal funding sent to WWF from American taxpayers, and the private donations the NGO receives.

But just as clearly, WWF is opposed to nearly all of the energy that provided the wealth necessary to pay for its conservation mission.

In 2021 the European Union made a modest proposal to allow natural gas and nuclear power to be defined as “sustainable” investments under the EU’s energy taxonomy rules. Science supports this rhetorical objective. As noted in the prior section, natural gas burns far cleaner than the other hydrocarbons, notably coal, when used to produce electricity. So, if changing the marketing label caused EU nations to switch from coal to natural gas (the change made in the United States over the last two decades) then this would lead to reduced CO₂ emissions. ^[v] [vi]

But even this was unacceptable to the WWF. Along with Greenpeace and Client Earth, the European branch of the WWF opposed the EU’s “sustainable” label for gas and nuclear. ^[vii]

And as the world’s governments have continued to warm up to the benefits of emissions-free nuclear power to meet their environmental goals, the WWF has ramped up its complaints.

In December 2023, at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, the United States and 19 other nations announced a goal of tripling nuclear power output by 2050. (Important for context: this agreement was reached while the U.S. Department of Energy answered to a president from the Democratic Party.)^[viii]

But for the World Wildlife Fund, opposition to reliable energy trumped their opposition to carbon dioxide. When the pro-nuclear governments followed up with a “Nuclear Energy Summit” in March 2024, the WWF issued a news release with this headline: “Nuclear path to net-zero is a ‘false narrative.’” Dean Cooper, the WWF’s global lead for energy policy elaborated: [ix]

Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition. Rather, governments must prioritize investments towards energy efficiency and deploying renewables, such as wind and solar, to decarbonize the grid. ^[x]

Cooper also said the quiet part out load by claiming that developing nuclear power “diverts efforts away from real solutions,” by which he meant wind and solar. ^[xi]

It’s true that money and time are always limited. Using the WWF’s logic against them, every minute and dollar spent developing unreliable, weather dependent electricity from wind and solar detracts from producing reliable, abundant power from emissions-free nuclear reactors.

On a web page explaining WWF’s “Advocating for renewable energy deployment,” the anti-energy NGO further defines the only power systems they will support. Some sample quotes from the page: [xii]

Still, to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the US must install 85 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar energy per year through 2035, along with the necessary transmission and energy storage infrastructure to integrate these resources into the grid.

[…]

WWF is working with conservation leaders, renewable energy, and transmission developers to break down the barriers to deployment. ^[xiii]

The real question is whether WWF’s climate mission is to reduce carbon emissions while preserving reliability and energy abundance or to merely help shovel out corporate welfare for unpredictable power output. Recall that this is an NGO that annually receives tens of millions of dollars from American taxpayers and as such should not be working against their economic security in a matter so critical as reliable energy infrastructure.

***

PDF hyperlink to full report

Endnotes

[i] World Wildlife Fund. Recipient ID#CVD4R2ES1XZ1. Grants 2008-2026. USASpending.gov. Accessed February 11, 2026. https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=701621b64c7189ef91a80c22cbef1c59

[ii] Agency for International Development (USAID) grant for World Wildlife Fund (FAIN# 72044020CA00001). “USAID BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACTIVITY.” USASpending.gov. Accessed February 11, 2026. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_72044020CA00001_072

[iii] “About us.” World Wildlife Fund. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.worldwildlife.org/about/

[iv] World Wildlife Fund Inc. (EIN: 52-1693387) ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521693387

[v] Braun, Ken. “Clean-Burning Natural Gas.” Capital Research Center. May 27, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://capitalresearch.org/article/clean-burning-natural-gas/

[vi] “EU climate taxonomy imperils nature and climate – WWF opposes final Act.” WWF-Europe. April 21, 2021. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://www.wwfmmi.org/?3106966/EU-climate-taxonomy-imperils-nature—WWF-opposes-final-Act

[vii] Igini, Martina. “EU Taxonomy Labelling Gas and Nuclear as ‘Green’ Faces Legal Challenges.” Earth.org. October 13, 2022. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://earth.org/eu-taxonomy-legal-challenges/

[viii] “At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero.” U.S. Department of Energy. December 1, 2023. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key

[ix] “WWF: Nuclear path to net-zero is a ‘false narrative.’” World Wildlife Fund. March 20, 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF

[x] “WWF: Nuclear path to net-zero is a ‘false narrative.’” World Wildlife Fund. March 20, 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF

[xi] “WWF: Nuclear path to net-zero is a ‘false narrative.’” World Wildlife Fund. March 20, 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF

[xii] “Community-positive energy transition.” World Wildlife Fund. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://www.worldwildlife.org/our-work/climate/community-positive-energy-transition/

[xiii] “Community-positive energy transition.” World Wildlife Fund. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://www.worldwildlife.org/our-work/climate/community-positive-energy-transition/

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-world-wildlife-fund-wwf/