Click here to preview the new Fast Company

Want to try out the new

If you’d like to return to the previous design, click the yellow button on the lower left corner.

Climate Change-Denying News Corp. Crows About Its Carbon Neutrality

Bottled water stats

Why cut down on CO2 emissions if you don't believe that climate change is real? It's a question that might be asked of News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch this week after the parent company of Fox, the Daily, and the Wall Street Journal announced that it is now carbon neutral.

The carbon-neutral goal, first announced in 2007, was achieved through a combination of carbon offsets (controversial in and of themselves) and creative internal initiatives, according to Greenbiz. The company's Dow Jones campus in New Jersey, for example, set up a solar system that will provide up to half of its energy when completed—and it will be the largest solar system at a commercial site in the country. A joint program between Fox Home Entertainment and Walmart also slashed material and transportation emissions by making DVD packaging lighter.

News Corp. now has a series of goals for 2015 to work toward, including cutting absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 15% compared to 2006 levels, improving the environmental impacts of its 100 largest suppliers, and measuring and reducing its waste footprint.

All of this from the company that owns Fox News, whose Washington editor commanded during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 that the network shouldn't mention climate change "without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

So what's the deal? News Corp. claims that the business side of things is completely separate from the creative and editorial side of the organization. Apparently, News Corp.'s real beliefs about climate change can be deduced more from its actions than from the words of its writers and news anchors.

Follow Fast Company on Twitter. Ariel Schwartz can be reached by email.

Add New Comment


  • Andrew Krause

    Because there's money to be made off suckers in the form of tradable carbon credits.

  • Nick Monaco

    I have been a faithful follower of FastCompany for years. I try to visit the site daily and I share articles with my family, friends, and professors. I enjoy almost every article I read, whether it's about design, technology, or Facebook. I even enjoy the political topics from time to time. However, clearly biased articles such as this one make me question my loyalty to your company. The last paragraph was unnecessary and adds nothing to this article; no fact, all opinion. Stay away from the left-leaning pieces please and stick with what you do best.

  • Sheena Medina

    Thank you for the feedback. The premise of this article is a genuine question posed to one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, "Why cut down on CO2 emissions if you don't believe that climate change is real?" It is a simple question with a complex answer. There is strong evidence to support the claim that News Corp. is one of the primary manufacturers of global warming doubt If they actually believe their own statements, then why would they find it important (and make it a priority) to go carbon-neutral and cut greenhouse gas emissions at all? Therefore, it seems as though their statements regarding climate science are made solely to protect investments and have nothing to do with being a responsible corporation.

    As you know, Fast Company reports on the latest topics and trends in business and beyond. Our coverage, which often includes analysis, is arguably what sets us apart from our competitors and keeps readers coming back. There is nothing inherently biased about this article. It is simple reporting on current events and deductive reasoning. If you have some evidence that refutes the connections made above, feel free to share. Thanks for reading!