The Guardian Bans Ads From the Fossil Fuel Industry
The Guardian became the first major international newspaper to put an outright ban on accepting money from the fossil fuel industry, citing the industry's "decades-long effort" to subvert, undermine and prevent action to stop the climate crisis, according to The Hill.
The move was announced on Wednesday and went into effect immediately. It is the latest step in the Guardian Media Group's effort to reduce its carbon footprint, according to The Guardian. The Guardian has pledged to get its emissions down to net zero by 2030.
The new policy extends to all its publications, including the newspaper's British edition digital versions in the U.S. and Australia, print editions of The Observer and The Guardian Weekly, and The Guardian's digital apps, as The Hill reported.
"Our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world," said Anna Bateson, the acting chief executive, and Hamish Nicklin, the chief revenue officer, in a statement on Wednesday.
The Guardian has some of the most robust and comprehensive policies regarding the climate crisis in the newspaper industry. It was one of the first to challenge the nebulous term "climate change" and replace it with language that expresses the urgency of the topic: "climate crisis" and "climate urgency."
To date, only a handful of small newspapers have stopped accepting money from the fossil fuel industry. The Guardian's move may force other large papers to rethink its revenue stream and activists have used the announcement to gather momentum to petition other news sources to stop from taking fossil fuel money.
"Call on @Reuters to drop all fossil fuel advertising, following the @guardian's groundbreaking announcement! Sign the petition now:"
Environmental groups have argued that fossil fuel companies "green wash" their activities through expensive advertising campaigns that highlight their fairly small investments in renewable energies, according to The Guardian.
"For too long fossil fuel giants like BP and Shell, who are causing our climate emergency, have been able to get away with green wash advertising while investing 97 percent of their business in oil and gas," said Mel Evans, a senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace UK, in a statement, as The New York Times reported. "Oil and gas firms now find themselves alongside tobacco companies as businesses that threaten the health and well-being of everyone on this planet."
Greenpeace had petitioned for an end to advertising in the media by oil companies. The activist group said other media, arts and sports organizations should follow suit.
Advertising makes up 40 percent of the Guardian Media Group's revenue. The fossil fuel industry's contribution to that is about $655,000. BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Total spent about $4.9 million on print advertising in Britain in 2019, according to Nielsen AdIntel, as The New York Times reported.
"It's true that rejecting some adverts might make our lives a tiny bit tougher in the very short term," the company said, as The Hill reported. "Nonetheless, we believe building a more purposeful organization and remaining financially sustainable have to go hand in hand."
The statement also added an optimistic note that some companies will be drawn to advertise with The Guardian because of their policy.
"We believe many brands will agree with our stance, and might be persuaded to choose to work with us more as a result. The future of advertising lies in building trust with consumers, and demonstrating a real commitment to values and purpose," as The Guardian reported.
The night sky has a special treat in store for stargazers this winter solstice.
- NASA Satellites Enable Scientists to Observe Climate Change ... ›
- Why Scientists Are Searching for Life in 'Alien Oceans' - EcoWatch ›
- To Save Endangered Species, Scientists Point Stargazing Software ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Dena Jones
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was sued three times this past summer for shirking its responsibility to protect birds from egregious welfare violations and safeguard workers at slaughterhouses from injuries and the spread of the coronavirus.
By Julia Conley
Conservation campaigners on Thursday accused President Donald Trump of taking a "wrecking ball" to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the White House announced plans to move ahead with the sale of drilling leases in the 19 million-acre coastal preserve, despite widespread, bipartisan opposition to oil and gas extraction there.
The Sheenjek River in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Alexis Bonogofsky / USFWS
- Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Ban Drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ›
- Bank of America Promises It Won't Fund Arctic Drilling - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's Drilling Leases on Public Lands Could Lead to 4.7B Metric ... ›
- Trump Administration's Alaska Oil and Gas Lease Sale a 'Major Flop ... ›
- Will Oil Companies Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ... ›
Hot, dry and windy conditions fueled a wildfire southeast of Los Angeles Thursday that injured two firefighters and forced 25,000 to flee their homes.
- 'Explosive' Southern California Lake Fire Spreads to 10,000 Acres ... ›
- A Gender-Reveal Party Started a Wildfire That Burned Nearly ... ›
- Wildfire in LA Burns 7,000 Acres During Record-Setting Heat Wave ... ›
The climate crisis already has a death toll, and it will get worse if we don't act to reduce emissions.
- 'Every Child Born Today Will Be Profoundly Affected by Climate ... ›
- Coronavirus Response Proves the World Can Act on Climate Change ›
- 5 Things About Climate Change and Coronavirus From WHO ... ›