On Fox News, Hannity continued to call carbon offsets a "sham" -- still no mention of Murdoch
On the July 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity again criticized the purchase of credits to offset one's "carbon footprint" as a "sham," adding: "You know what it's like? It's like saying to your husband or spouse, 'I'm going to cheat, but I'll buy you a diamond ring.' That's what it's saying." As Media Matters for America documented, Hannity has previously derided carbon offsets as a "sham," a "crock," and a "ridiculous concept," and has repeatedly criticized former Vice President Al Gore's reported use of them. However, Hannity has yet to address the pledge by News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch "to be carbon neutral, across all our businesses" -- which includes Fox News -- "by 2010." Murdoch specifically mentioned that his plan calls for reducing net carbon emissions to zero "through a combination of operational changes and carbon offsets."
On May 9, News Corp. announced that all of its "business units will become carbon neutral by 2010 -- through energy efficiency, buying renewable power and offsetting otherwise unavoidable emissions. Becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning of the company's permanent commitment to change the way it uses energy and to reach its audiences on this issue." In a May 9 speech, Murdoch went into greater detail regarding News Corp.'s plan to use carbon credits to offset "unavoidable" emissions:
MURDOCH: While we reduce our own carbon footprint we will encourage the companies who truck our DVDs and newspapers, sell us paper, and provide an enormous range of products and services -- to all contribute.
Today, we are joining the Climate Group, a coalition of businesses and governments working together to solve the climate problem.
But some emissions will be unavoidable. As a last resort, we will offset these emissions.
A carbon offset is a financial tool to support projects that prevent carbon from being released into the atmosphere. Done right, they will widen the implementation of carbon-saving technologies, and give an incentive to create new solutions.
We have entered into an agreement to begin purchasing carbon offsets this year, from projects that provide wind power in India.
When our net emissions reach zero -- through a combination of operational changes and carbon offsets -- we will be carbon neutral.
As Media Matters previously noted, Hannity has not addressed this announcement. Rather, he has continued to call the purchase of carbon offsets a "fraud" and a "joke." Additionally, on the July 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity allowed Chris Horner, senior fellow for the energy-industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), to liken the purchase of carbon offsets to a priest buying "adultery offsets."
From the July 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: Will you -- because if I ever get Al Gore, I'll put him in the hot seat, and I'll ask him, "Will you promise never to get in a private jet again?"
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON (Huffington Post co-founder): What -- I'll tell you what he would reply. He would reply --
HANNITY: No. What would you reply?
HUFFINGTON: Well, I would reply the same thing, that if you are chartering a jet, or if it's your jet going somewhere, then you actually have to buy carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are great.
HANNITY: Carbon offsets are a sham.
HUFFINGTON: They're not.
HANNITY: You know what it's like? It's like saying to your husband or spouse, "I'm going to cheat, but I'll buy you a diamond ring." That's what it's saying.
HUFFINGTON: No, come on. Not at all, because it's doing something that actually helps the environment.
Hannity is under no obligation to mention Murdoch in this discussion. He is an employee of Fox News and his opinions about carbon offsets are irrelevant to what his boss' are, or Murdoch's plans for his companies.
When MM said "Still no mention" it was not saying that Hannity should have, they were pointing out that he hasn't. Clearly Hannity does not feel that the company he works for is heading in the right direction with respects to carbon neutrality and has called his bosses thinking "a sham". Tommy, do you agree that carbon offsets are a sham?
No, I don't believe they are a "sham".
Just because Hannity obviously disagrees with his boss, is he suppose to air his boss' view on this subject when he espouses his own opinion? No.
No, but he's supposed to not just pick on people he doesn't like to point out what they're doing wrong in his opinion.
It has nothing to do with Hannity expressing his opinion.
It has to do with Hannity being unfair in that he is singling out people he disagrees with to attack on a specific behavior, and failing to call his boss out on that same behavior. If he were being fair, he wouldn't do that.
I think it's clear how Fixed Noise wants to play the game of mixed messages by association.
Jet Blue must cave to Fixed Noise pressure and sever all ties with Daily Kos because people who comment in their forums are hate mongers.
Murdoch can advocate and enact measures taken by his media empire to contribute to a healthy environment, yet a person he employs can proudly advocate the feeding of thirsty SUV's.
Mixed messages? We are being told constantly by many posters here how the corporate conglomerates in the media speak with one Republican voice all the time. That their minions are under orders to further the rightwing agenda and that's that!
Your "mixed messages" characterization is at direct odds with that pronouncement.
Perhaps, but it doesn't disprove my point.
I might add, that "pronouncement" isn't necessarily the only one that we reality-based thinkers have toward Fixed Noise. There's also those oft-repeated and completely bogus claims of "real journalism" and "fair and balanced".
Tell me you're not asserting that Murdoch and Hannity's differing opinions and practices on the environment are proof of fairness and balance.
What are you talking about, Tommy?
He criticizes people for using carbon offsets.
Unless he criticizes them without regard to their political leanings, then he's being a hypocrite. If he's targeting some carbon credit users but ignoring other carbon credit users, then he's not being fair.
It's the fair thing to do. It's just like NBC News always has the declaimer on when they do a story about GE that their parent company is GE. It's fair. It would be fair for Hannity to address the usage by his boss, but he has not. That makes him a hypocrite, and it means that you have no point!
Obvioulsy Hannity feels that he can give his opinion without regard to how it may differ with his boss'.
I know that doesn't square with all the talk here of the corporate media keeping all their employees under their thumb and nothing more than mouthpieces for their interests, but in this case that little ridiculous theory is shot, again.
...and dare I say it, but I happen to agree with Hannity on this issue. (I feel dirty now.) The science of global warming is becoming pretty clear. However, the carbon offset market is a murky mess ready to prey upon a society eager for another quick fix.
I won't think poorly of carbon offsets IF (and that's a mighty big IF!) most of the profits go to developing and improving alternative fuel sources. I'm seeing lots of potential now in solar what with flexible panels and all, I'd like to see more improvements like this that continue to drive down the costs and make it more affordable. Since Gore is somehow connected to selling offsets, I hope he steps up to the plate and makes using profits in such a way a priority.
Please don't got to Steven Milloy (kicked out of Cato, but not Fox News apparently) for your environmental news.
As for offsets, there needs to be more verification for the projects they undertake. There are some solid companies doing some good hings and it's unfair to say the whole thing is useless.
I don't see anything particular questionable about Milloy's article, but here's a very progressive and thorough view. There are many other sources - and many other examples - questioning the practice of offsets. But please correct me if you know of a a company offering completely transparent, verifiable and useful projects.
There's no doubt that there are a lot of snake oil salesmen in the offset business right now, but I suggest you use "The Google", as many offset organizations, auditors, and exchanges are legitimate and transparent. For example, Green-e and the Chicago Climate Exchange provide transparent verification.
As for retailers of offsets, one that is "useful" is Bonneville Energy Foundation whose mission is to "change our current energy mix by adding more and more green energy to the power pool." BEF offsets help fund new renewable energy projects.
I suggest you check the source for your latest link. Carbon Trade Watch's mission is utopian and ultimately inconsequential in the CO2 debate. They argue against Kyoto cap-and-trade which appears to be the only implementable way to arrest CO2 emissions in the short-term.
If you don't agree with offsets, fine, but don't libel the entire offset industry.
Actually I agree with both you and Hannity, and there's something I never thought I'd say about the latter since taking the transatlantic flight to this site.
Carbon offsetting seems to be a rather convenient way of actually carrying on with your normal business activities without the guilt factor. On a global tour with a crew of 100, 20 trucks and a couple of jet airliners? Plant some trees, feel better and watch the money roll in while your green credentials look good to the intellectual set...
I also dispute global warming and I certainly don't think any government is taking it seriously despite saying they are. Climate change is undisputed, the cause? Not really defined. Still, let's set a few target on reducing carbon emissions and introduce some green taxes and everyone can feel better whilst we still raise fears.
If governments were really serious, then they would be introducing legislation RIGHT NOW to stop the manufacture of high emission vehicles (OK, cars mostly) and look seriously at other sources of high emissions. They're not. Lots of talk about recycling, which still isn't resolved here in the UK as it appears that some of the waste we diligently put out for recycling is shipped to China. How is that helping?
Sorry for going miles off-topic but this issue really bugs me.
"Hannity is under no obligation to mention Murdoch in this discussion."
Again with characterizing MMFA as a gestapo intent on repealing free speech.
Your gestapo reference is ridiculous. I was merely responding to the headline of this piece "....still no mention of Murdoch" - to which I said, so what?
They why else relentlessly prowl this site? Only state the numbingly obvious? And you did not merely say "so what". You inferred that MMFA is obligating someone to say something. Are you really that dead set on insulting the intelligence of MMFA and the people who comment here? Even a person of the most dense character knows that Hannity is not "obligated". Hannity deserves the scrutiny he's being given for selectively ridiculing those who want to make a difference for the health of our planet.
Scrutinizing and obligating are two very different things, which should be numbingly obvious to someone of your intelligence level.
Obligation? Probably not. But he is being subject to criticism over his double talking, much like with Fox's Holiday tree ornaments. That is what MM is supposed to do.
How exactly is Hannity "double talking"? His opinion on the carbon offsets is clear, and consistent from what I have heard.
Perhaps Hannity would prefer socialized energy production and use. I cannot think of what other option he would consider legitimate as an option other than that. He clearly seems to think a capitalistic approach as useless.
If that is the case he may be found to be correct in the century to come.
Right element, wrong table...
Apparently MMFA doesn't understand that in the Rovian/FOX NEWS world, they use a different periodic table.
Rupert's carbon is the good kind; Gore's isn't.
Its the imperiodic table they're using. They're only for superior people to handle.
Hannity is using the viewers' ignorance to imply that it is only the librul, left-wing Democrats who support the carbon offset policies.
If he mentioned Murdoch's support, it would undermine his implication.
Hannity can't have gray-areas or any nuanced issue. It's gotta be Democrats=bad, Republicans/Murdoch and -by association- Fox News=good.
Funny how Hannity singles-out only certain people as The Carbon Offsets Villains/punching bags, and that those people just happen to be Democrats.
Well, not funny really. Hannity -as always- assumes an audience ignorance on the matter of his boss' support of the policy. And what the audience doesn't know won't hurt them. Or him. Why tell them?
I actually caught Arianna's interview - she was very reasoned and calm while Hannity was spitting out "hypocrisy" and then even brought up the ridiculous clip of him badgering RFK Jr. about his flying in a private jet from 4 YEARS AGO.
What a tool.
So how does this carbon credit thing work?
If I leave my lights on all night long--wasting electricity, I have to plant a tree?
Now you surely don't expect Hannity to bring up Murdoch... let's get real.
However, Arianna Huffington, if she were on the ball, which she rarely is, should have brought it up.
Half the reason Hannity & others get away with what they do is because even when given a GOLDEN opportunity to challenge these guys, the Democrat spokesperson either chickens out or doesn't think of it.
To be fair, rarely does Hannity and Co allow a decent Dem on to represent our point of view because winning the battle of words is more important to them than the actual substance of the conversation.
Carbon offsets are a sham. If they weren't, wouldn't Media Matters put forth the proof that they aren't? That's what they do. But nothing on that.
No, instead they try to do an end run argument by making the dubious "hypocrisy" claim with regard to Murdoch, since they can't directly refute what Hannity said.
Bruce,
While I agree the whole tree planting idiocy as a carbon offset is a sham indeed, some of the other wind or solar alternatives are at least arguably more sensible.
Your characterization of this thread topic's motive is dead on, however.
Tommy et al,
This is the point, I can't do any better than to quote Dave from above, because he nailed it.
'Hannity is using the viewers' ignorance to imply that it is only the librul, left-wing Democrats who support the carbon offset policies.
If he mentioned Murdoch's support, it would undermine his implication.
Hannity can't have gray-areas or any nuanced issue. It's gotta be Democrats=bad, Republicans/Murdoch and -by association- Fox News=good.'
Now, you may argue it's Hannity's perogative to use this issue to score points by deliberately ignoring that both prominent dems and repubs are in agreement on climate change. That said, it's MMFA's perogative to highlight the fact that he is doing just that.
Bruce,
"Buying" Carbon Credits seem to be the way those that fly around on private jets & spend thousands a month on electricity attempt to convince us they are offsetting their excesses.
Of course if they took Commercial flights, and rationed their electricity consumption, they'd accomplish the same thing ;-)
I believe the goals of many of these ideas may be worthy ones, at least to explore them as alernatives - but when they are trotted out by some rich hypocritical liberals who want the rest of us to live a certain way, and they have no intention of living like the rest of us because they don't have too - their message gets lost, understandably.
There's a stance that deflects from you, Tommy. They're hypocrites because they don't live like us? Who to this day thinks that way about FDR? Still listed as one of the greatest presidents EVER.
I don't believe I said "all", but rather "some". FDR is off topic and irrlevant to my point.
OK, I'll give you the "some". point noted.
Exactly Tommy.
I'm all for alternative energy.
Some Liberals talk a good game, till push comes to shove...
When Liberal kingpin Teddy Kennedy shoots down windmill farms off the coast of Cape Cod it smacks of hypocrisy.
Guys like Teddy-Boy are all for alternative energy projects – as long as they are not in his backyard.
Ted Kennedy....whoa! There should be a "hypocritical move of the day" website devoted exclusively to him.
Here's an example of carbon credits: I don't smoke but you ppound two packs of nails per day. Everyone is alloted one pack of nails per day. You pay me to not smoke, which I don't, and you continue to pound your two packs per day. And you feel better about it. Gee, what a concept!
Yes, but the reality may actually be worse. Under the current accounting it seems you may be able to add another non-smoker to the system at a later date, a person who never existed previously. They can then sell their "offset" to the smoker.
You got it...a +1 pack net effect!
there is a company that issues carbon debts that vows to offset Gore's carbon credits. They will kill a tree for you and email Al Gore and make a plaque for you. For only about $5K you can fly to Arizona and they will allow to drive their machine that crushes 100 trees in a day.
http://www.carboncreditkillers.com/default.asp
Al Gore buys carbon credit companies and then asks the world to install carbon credits which make him even richer. France wants a worldwide global warming tax. There is a alot of scamming going on.
Why can't right wingers grasp the fact that Gore does not sell carbon offsets? It's a fairly easy, verifiable fact to digest, is it not?
Hmmm...even we appear to be on the same side of a debate you offer stupid comments. Amazing.
Instead of spending so much money, why not just hang an "I'm a d**k" plaque your wall.
Just curious if you supported the energy offsets that the republicans trotted out in the 70's to 80's.
They cover each issue separately. Here the issue is Hannity's false view that offsets are a liberal/Democratic thing.
This is the most flawed logic I've seen in a while.
Just because Hannity Doesn't attack his Boss doesn't mean it isn't a sham.
It is a sham.
Lastly, I find it disingenuous that MMFA is basing the validity of Carbon Credits on Murdoch.
Gore legitimized this scam, and now it is going to be pushed by the people socialists at MMFA hate: Big Corps.
I'm with you, CopDis, that is some of the most flawed logic I've ever seen, not to mention displaying a complete lack of comprehension of the topic.
But enough about your post, what do you think of the MMFA item?.
So Rupert wants News Corp to be carbon neutral by 2010. That means he'll have to find some areas where he can cut down on unnecessary gas. Hmm.
It is absolutely valid to blast a "newsperson" for taking a position against a situation which the company that employs them seems to benefit from -- if they do not say, "despite my issues with it my company does it." I hate to use the word "newsperson" but that is how Fox plays it until they are calle don it then their people are political commentators. If you want to be called Fox News then you have to act like it -- otherwise you are the Colbert Report without the integritas or truthiness.
Are we going to have a countdown again for when Hannity finally mentions Murdoch. Whatever happened to the countdown on the wait for David Horowitz to rebute MMFA findings on his book The Shadow Party? Hmmm...haven't heard anything.
Aaaahhh, Sean Hannity. Economist? Lawyer? Sociologist? CLIMATOLOGIST? Nope. College dropout. I HATE being preached to by people who have no real understanding of what they are talking about.
Also, by taking the standard partisan line on a subject, and then working backward to try support his stance, he is actually trying to thwart the scientific method altogether. Which is, of course, just a stupid thing to do when trying to debate the scientific validity of a theory.
But, of course, you have to be educated to know these things.