Why Does National Geographic Report on the Dangers of Global Warming then Fill its Pockets with Ad Money from Oil Companies and SUV Makers?

The National Geographic Society says global warming is wrecking the Earth and that fossil fuels are to blame. The National Geographic Society also says one of its official goals as an organization is the protection of the Earth’s natural resources. So why does the National Geographic Society accept amazingly ambitious and slick multi-million dollar ads from oil companies and SUV makers? Is it time for an ethical reckoning at Old Yeller?

According to National Geographic magazine, climate change is already virtually out of control. The magazine’s June 2007 cover shows the Greenland ice sheet imploding with the headline: “The Big Thaw: Ice on the Run, Seas on the Rise.” The article, among many run by National Geographic in recent years, graphically illustrates the impacts of climate change: polar bears starving and drowning, ice vanishing worldwide, and the likelihood of 3 feet or more of sea-level rise by 2100, inundating places like Miami and lower Manhattan.

Yet the same magazine routinely runs major ads from oil companies and SUV makers. Indeed, the July 2007 issue, astonishingly, included an entire 9-minute DVD advertisement movie about the great work Shell Oil is doing in Indonesia to squeeze every last drop of oil from the ocean floor. The film is truly shocking. It paints Shell Oil in utterly heroic colors, never mentioning the words global warming and the fact that every drop of that extracted oil contributes to the climate catastrophe featured by National Geographic magazine just the month before. This Shell Oil DVD was delivered to nearly one million North American readers of the magazine this summer.

So isn’t there a contradiction here, especially given that one of National Geographic Society’s official goals is to “protect the planet’s natural resources”? Isn’t it fair to wonder why the Society doesn’t simply refuse ad dollars from companies that not only directly contribute to climate change but work very hard to stop statutory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in America and abroad? Does global warming, in short, raise new moral responsibilities for National Geographic and other respected media outlets?

I sure think so. National Geographic officially admits that it refuses ads “for weapons, illegal drugs or pornographic material.” I think that’s great. But why not refuse ads from the company that knowingly causes more violence and suffering on the planet than any other in history: ExxonMobil. Exxon has done more to challenge the science on global warming and scuttle meaningful climate legislation in Congress than anyone else, bar none. Yet the July 2007 issue of National Geographic magazine has a big Exxon ad in it.

So my guess it that National Geo, having the ethical sensitivity to refuse ads from pornographers and machine gun manufacturers, probably wouldn’t take Exxon’s money if Exxon was in the business of flying to the Arctic and clubbing baby polar bears to death and selling the pelts for profit. Yet if Exxon brazenly and recklessly spews greenhouse gases that starve polar bear cubs on shrinking ice flows, then no problem. Take their ad money. Promote their product