Climate Action
Stop Spreading the News: Advertising Bans
July 25, 2024
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres delivered a speech in June, urging the expansion of global sustainability efforts. Guterres said, “It’s climate crunch time,” as he pushed for an end to greenwashed sponsorships and advertising space for high-carbon businesses, like Big Oil.
Take Chevron for example, a leading American energy company, which aims for zero carbon emissions by 2050. However, a report found that Chevron’s plan encompasses only 10% of their ‘business-related emissions’, overlooking the pollution caused by consumer use, such as vehicle tailpipe emissions. Phasing out fossil fuels is the only solution to zero emissions, yet Chevron’s 11% capital increase in new gas and oil projects contradicts their emission-free goals.
In 2018, ExxonMobil released a paid post in the New York Times promoting two plant-based energy research programs. The proposal aimed to develop a synthetic oil-rich strain of algae, converting plant waste into sustainable “bio-oil.” The project touted its goal to “produce 10,000 barrels of algae-based biofuel a day by 2025,” and cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50%. It sounded impressive.
Just six years later, ExxonMobil pulled funding from Viridos, after investing $350 million in the project, claiming that there are natural limitations to these new low-carbon technologies, and they are not ready for wide-scale use. The costs of researching these algae based biofuels may not appear justified, but the favorable advertising they generated made the project worthwhile in terms of impact.
ExxonMobil and Chevron are not alone in using advertising in their greenwashing campaigns. The question is, could environmental objectives actually be better achieved if fossil fuel companies were prohibited from producing these advertisements?
By distorting the truth, investing strategically, and controlling media messaging, high-carbon businesses are working against climate action. This ‘high-publicity’ approach aligns with the potency of harnessing online platform coverage.
In the United States alone, 68% of consumers rely on social and video platforms for news. With New York Times podcast promotions, PR influencers and Super Bowl Ads, it is becoming easier to reach a wider group of people and influence their perceptions about the oil industry.
Many believe that advertising bans could limit the impact of Big Oil’s greenwashing tactics.
What Are Advertising Bans?
Advertising bans are regulatory policies imposed by governments or legislative bodies to restrict or limit the advertising of harmful and deceptive products or services. These bans can vary from mild constraints on content, placement, and broadcast time to complete prohibitions, counter-advertising, and advertisement taxation. We can see two clear examples: tobacco demonstrates how complete bans can be effective, while the other, alcohol, shows how avoiding such bans can benefit business to the detriment to human health.
First, tobacco products. Since the 1960s, medical authorities around the world have recognized the severe, cancer-causing effects of tobacco. In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which urged countries to implement all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorships (TAPS) regulations. The WHO asserts that only comprehensive bans are effective, as partial bans, such as those in place in the United States, enable tobacco companies to exploit marketing and legal loopholes.
Another example is alcohol. Despite the well-documented health issues associated with alcohol consumption, it remains one of the least restricted products in terms of marketing worldwide. Thirty-one countries do have complete advertising bans, but most are Muslim nations where the consumption and sale of alcohol is also prohibited. The United States operates under a self-regulating system, following placement and content guidelines determined by the Fair Trade Commision (FTC). American advertisers are required to include health disclaimers, limit deals that encourage excessive consumption, and avoid websites with underage audiences. Beyond that, they remain free to advertise.
Fossil Fuel Rejection
In this decade, the rejection of toxic fossil fuel businesses is growing, from colleges to civic society to museums. As Big Oil becomes more entrenched in public health issues, ecological disasters and the cause of climate change, many institutions and organizations increasingly do not wish to be associated with it.
Given that pollutants from fossil fuels cause an estimated 5.13 million deaths a year, compared to 2.6 million alcohol and 8 million tobacco related deaths, it is evident that fossil fuel advertising should be more strictly regulated. High carbon companies are clearly dangerous to global health.
It’s Not Just Big Oil, But…
Many advertisers participate in greenwashing, misleading consumers with vague terminology claiming their products are “green,” “eco-friendly”, “recyclable” or “sustainable” – when their product is none of these things.
But it is high-carbon advertisers who embrace these marketing techniques the most, using climate doubt, deception, and misinformation to manipulate and maintain public opinion. Further, an analysis of tax filings across US trade associations found that coal, gas, and energy enterprises invested $3.4 billion in climate-related political activities from 2008 to 2018. The largest expenditure, at $2.17 billion, was allocated to advertising.
So What is Being Done Globally to Counter the Greenwashing?
Countries, including France, Amsterdam, and Scotland, have enforced various levels of advertising restrictions on fossil fuel companies. Although there is no current ban on fossil fuel advertising in the United States, climate litigation is on the rise. Many human rights organizations, non-governmental organizations, and individual actors are targeting fossil fuel businesses in courts.
One report, on global climate litigation, found that the number of cases has nearly tripled in frequency since 2017, with 70% of those cases – 1,522 in 2022 – filed in the United States.
With these kinds of laws and litigation becoming more popular, it’s important to shift the responsibility back toward producers, removing social pressure from consumers. At present, a complete advertising ban against high-carbon and greenhouse gas emission businesses is not plausible in the United States. Partial advertisement bans have proven unsuccessful, shown in U.S. alcohol advertising, due to fragmented regulations, industry stakeholders, and first amendment protections. But, vast changes are on the horizon as the inevitability of climate justice continues.
Platforms Need to Take Responsibility
Companies such as Google and Vox have pledged to address misleading advertising related to climate change denial. Enforcing these pledges is crucial for our planet. Through climate litigation and accountability campaigns, fossil fuel companies participating in climate-washing advertisements will lose their partnerships with mainstream advertisers, eliminating the fossil fuel industry’s influence, changing public policy, and saving our planet. So, yes, advertising bans are important and they work!
