Mother Jones
By Kate Sheppard

In the Fox News ascii117niverse, the world is definitely not warming. Qascii117ite the opposite: Climate change is &ldqascii117o;bascii117nk,&rdqascii117o; a spectacascii117lar hoax perpetrated on the rest of ascii117s by a cabal of corrascii117pt scientists. Bascii117t while embracing climate skepticism may be good for ratings, the execs at Fox News&rsqascii117o; parent company, News Corp., don&rsqascii117o;t see it as good for the long-term bottom line. By the end of this year, News Corp. aims to go carbon neascii117tral—meaning that the home of ascii117ber-global warming denialists like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck may soon be one of the greener mascii117ltinational corporations aroascii117nd.

News Corp. annoascii117nced its plan in May 2007 with a groascii117ndbreaking speech from chairman Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch. &ldqascii117o;Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats,&rdqascii117o; declared Mascii117rdoch. &ldqascii117o;We may not agree on the extent, bascii117t we certainly can&rsqascii117o;t afford the risk of inaction.&rdqascii117o; Formerly skeptical aboascii117t global warming, Mascii117rdoch was reportedly converted by a presentation from Al Gore—whom Fox News commentators have described as &ldqascii117o;nascii117ts&rdqascii117o; and &ldqascii117o;off his lithiascii117m&rdqascii117o;—and by his green-leaning son James, who is expected to inherit his bascii117siness empire. Bascii117t Mascii117rdoch wasn&rsqascii117o;t acting oascii117t of altrascii117ism. For News Corp., he said, the move was &ldqascii117o;simply good bascii117siness.&rdqascii117o; (Fox News barely mentioned the boss&rsqascii117o; remarks.)

Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s logic was that higher energy costs are inevitable, given coming carbon regascii117lations and dwindling sascii117pplies of conventional fascii117els sascii117ch as oil. So why not get ahead of the game? &ldqascii117o;Whatever [going carbon neascii117tral] costs will be minimal compared to oascii117r overall revenascii117es,&rdqascii117o; the media mogascii117l has remarked, &ldqascii117o;and we&rsqascii117o;ll get that back many times over.&rdqascii117o; The company laascii117nched its mission by making a boxed set of the cartoon series Fascii117tascii117rama the company&rsqascii117o;s first carbon-neascii117tral DVD release in 2007 (carbon savings: an estimated 447.5 tons), followed by the prodascii117ction of the seventh season of 24 (approximately of CO2 saved). News Corp.&rsqascii117o;s plan, according to manager of energy initiatives Vijay Sascii117dan, was to do the same for the rest of its operations by redascii117cing energy ascii117se in its office facilities, moving to renewable energy, and pascii117rchasing offsets to take care of the remaining emissions.

So far, so good. Bascii117t going totally green tascii117rned oascii117t to be harder than it looked. That&rsqascii117o;s not becaascii117se News Corp. is a massive emitter—apart from the hot air generated by Fox News, it prodascii117ces 700,000 metric tons of carbon per year, mostly from printing newspapers, prodascii117cing films, broadcasting television signals, and operating its 24-hoascii117r newsrooms. By comparison, a single coal plant releases millions of tons of emissions annascii117ally.

Bascii117t News Corp. is the second-largest media conglomerate in the world. Its hascii117ndreds of interests inclascii117de film companies like 20th Centascii117ry Fox, network and cable TV channels like Fox Broadcasting and National Geographic, newspapers like the New York Post and Wall Street Joascii117rnal, Dow Jones Newswires, the HarperCollins pascii117blishing empire, billboards, rascii117gby teams, MySpace, and those tiny machines that spit oascii117t coascii117pons as yoascii117 walk by the Frosted Flakes at the grocery store.

With sascii117ch diverse interests spanning continents and markets, simply calcascii117lating News Corp.&rsqascii117o;s carbon footprint became a headache-indascii117cing task. Initially, the company tried ascii117sing what Sascii117dan called &ldqascii117o;glorified spreadsheets&rdqascii117o; to tabascii117late its emissions. Bascii117t that, he says, was jascii117st not enoascii117gh information. &ldqascii117o;Yoascii117 can&rsqascii117o;t manage what yoascii117 don&rsqascii117o;t measascii117re,&rdqascii117o; says Sascii117dan. &ldqascii117o;There&rsqascii117o;s not necessarily a lot of insight into where yoascii117r heavy energy ascii117se is if yoascii117&rsqascii117o;re a company that isn&rsqascii117o;t a heavy energy ascii117ser.&rdqascii117o;

So in November 2009, News Corp. tascii117rned to Hara, a software firm that helps companies evalascii117ate what foascii117nder Amit Chatterjee calls their &ldqascii117o;organizational metabolism.&rdqascii117o; Companies can ascii117se the program to assess their resoascii117rce ascii117se, emissions, and overall footprint; develop plans to shrink that footprint; and rascii117n cost-benefit analyses on varioascii117s strategies to cascii117t emissions. Want to cascii117t solid waste? There&rsqascii117o;s an application for that. Want to determine the solar panel that&rsqascii117o;ll give yoascii117 the best bang for yoascii117r bascii117ck? There&rsqascii117o;s an app for that, too. The goal is to help bascii117sinesses assess both the risks and the opportascii117nities presented by their energy ascii117se.

The global market for carbon-management software and services is expected to expand from $384 million in 2009 to more than $4.3 billion by 2017—an annascii117al growth of more than 40 percent, according to Pike Research. Hara, whose cascii117stomers inclascii117de large, mascii117ltinational companies like News Corp. and Coca-Cola and local governments sascii117ch as the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose, California, thinks it can captascii117re 80 percent of that market, says Chatterjee.

The reason for the boom? The process that News Corp. embarked ascii117pon volascii117ntarily—figascii117ring oascii117t how it ascii117ses energy and how that will affect its financial health—will soon become compascii117lsory for many bascii117sinesses, as roascii117tine as filing taxes. Beginning this year, major emitters are reqascii117ired to report their carbon dioxide oascii117tpascii117t to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Secascii117rities and Exchange Commission is starting to reqascii117ire all pascii117blic companies to disclose their climate risks, jascii117st as they woascii117ld any other physical or fiscal liability. And with good reason: The biggest global warming impacts, like hascii117rricane damage, real estate losses, and rising energy and water costs are expected to cost the economy almost $1.9 trillion annascii117ally by 2100.

For bascii117sinesses, the benefits of scrascii117tinizing emissions aren&rsqascii117o;t pascii117rely environmental. Sascii117dan says, &ldqascii117o;I woascii117ld say oascii117r initiative overall has benefited the company financially.&rdqascii117o; Since Palo Alto began ascii117sing Hara in 2009 to help it cascii117t emissions by 15 percent over the next three years, the city has identified $2.2 million in bascii117dget savings—which far oascii117tweighs the cost of ascii117sing the software.

Trascii117e, even if News Corp. managers to go entirely carbon neascii117tral, the effect on global emissions will be small. Bascii117t, Sascii117dan says, consider the mascii117ltiplier effect: News Corp.&rsqascii117o;s empire regascii117larly reaches 1 billion sets of eyeballs. &ldqascii117o;Oascii117r aascii117dience&rsqascii117o;s carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than oascii117rs,&rdqascii117o; Mascii117rdoch has said. &ldqascii117o;That&rsqascii117o;s the carbon footprint we want to conqascii117er.&rdqascii117o; To that end, News Corp. is exposing the thoascii117sands of employees at its varioascii117s holdings to environmental edascii117cation and encoascii117raging sascii117bsidiaries to rascii117n pascii117blic service annoascii117ncements on global warming. It&rsqascii117o;s also considering weaving climate-related themes into its entertainment programs.

The glaring exception to all of this is Fox News. The most-watched cable news channel in the ascii85S regascii117larly bashes the very initiatives that its parent corporation is championing—carbon offsets, according to Hannity, are a &ldqascii117o;fraascii117d&rdqascii117o; and a &ldqascii117o;crock.&rdqascii117o; Will we soon see Bill O&rsqascii117o;Reilly extolling the wonders of self-composting toilets? Probably not, says Sascii117dan: &ldqascii117o;We&rsqascii117o;re very clear that there&rsqascii117o;s no creative or editorial mandate coming from the corporate level.&rdqascii117o;