The Guardian has been steps ahead of any other major news organization in terms of the way it thinks about its coverage of climate change — which it actually now refers to as “climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown” — as an organization. Five years ago, it divested oil, coal, and gas companies from its investment fund, it’s vowed to achieve net zero emissions by 2030 and got certified as a B corporation, and on Wednesday it continued the trend: It announced it will no longer accept advertising from oil or gas companies in any of its properties, digital or print.

[ From “climate change” to “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”: The Guardian is changing the environmental language it uses ]

“Our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in [the fossil fuels industry] to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world,” the Guardian’s acting CEO Anna Bateson and chief revenue officer Hamish Nicklin said in a joint statement. (Bateson, by the way, will be succeeded by Annette Thomas — who holds a Ph.D in cell biology and neuroscience — in March.)

“The Guardian will no longer accept advertising from oil and gas companies, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels.”
A good start, who will take this further?https://t.co/csRuXWZXdG

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 29, 2020

Other news organizations have taken, um, heat for publishing investigations into the climate crisis on the editorial side while continuing to run advertising and branded content from fossil fuel companies. Here, for instance, is an exchange last month between environmental journalist Amy Westervelt and New York Times climate reporter John Schwartz.

All 👏🏼fossil 👏🏼fuel 👏🏼ads are “issue ads,” otherwise known as propaganda. If media outlets are going to not only run but also *make* them, they have to realize that the entire point is to confuse readers about information like this.

— Ida Tarbell (@amywestervelt) December 12, 2019

John, as I’ve said before, it’s about influencing *readers* not journalists. No firewall exists in readers’ minds. NYT making ads that promote natural gas undermines the great work of its reporters. I think you’d probably agree if it was any other paper

— Ida Tarbell (@amywestervelt) December 12, 2019

Even when the NYT is *making* the ads? Do you really believe oil companies spend millions on advertising campaigns that don’t work?

— Ida Tarbell (@amywestervelt) December 12, 2019

John, if the NYT attachment didn't matter, oil companies would just make the ads themselves like they did for decades before newsrooms decided to have brand studios

— Ida Tarbell (@amywestervelt) December 12, 2019

Over time, advertising is a diminishing part of NYT revenue; subscriptions have surpassed ads. That trend will continue. The issue you are focused on is going away. (This is an old chart, but shows the trend clearly.) pic.twitter.com/NUyS2GdbTM

— John Schwartz (@jswatz) December 12, 2019