We banned cigarette ads for the good of public health – fossil fuels must be next

Independent

14 hours ago

There was a time when doctors in both the United States and the UK were only too happy to promote 'the health benefits of smoking '.
From the 1920s right through to the 1950s, actors were taken on to play the part of doctors to promote different cigarette brands, with the companies vying in their claims for the level of support they had among the medical profession, as in 'more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette'.
Today, this sounds completely outlandish. But I'm reminded that my own father, an eminent surgeon here in the UK, would have been completely comfortable about these adverts.
As someone who smoked cigarettes (and then a pipe) enthusiastically for 60 of his 90-year lifespan, he was slow to embrace the increasingly authoritative research links between smoking and cancer. It was clear to me, as a rebellious teenager, that he was a complete addict. As was my mother. As was my sister. And brother.
Unfortunately, many people are still addicted to nicotine today. But it's our addiction to fossil fuels that is causing by far the greatest damage to people and the planet.
Improbably, back in 2006, it was the then US president, George W Bush, who acknowledged in his State of the Union address that 'we have a serious problem'. 'America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.' He was particularly concerned about imports from Iran. What comes around …
That's why today's debate in Parliament is so important. MPs are discussing a petition calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, much like the existing bans on tobacco advertising.
The petition, signed by more than 110,000 people, argues that such advertisements 'encourage the use of products and sponsorship promotes a positive reputation and creates a social licence of trust and acceptability'. The debate reflects growing public concern about the legitimacy of fossil fuel companies sponsoring cultural, sporting and educational events.
Societal addiction is even more of a problem than individual addiction. And those whose job it is today to reinforce that collective addiction to fossil fuels – through advertising, public relations, marketing and sponsorship – are no less reprehensible than those agencies which profited so handsomely from promoting cigarettes over many, many decades.
It's a surreal situation we find ourselves in. Governments are committed in principle – with varying degrees of ambition, integrity and policy consistency – to transitioning away from fossil fuels, by far the most important priority in terms of getting to grips with the climate crisis. Yet their actions belie that intent at every turn.
To cite but one example, government subsidies to fossil fuel companies in 2023 amounted to an astonishing $1.4 trillion. And this is just the tip of the problem, as the level of advertising by fossil fuel companies at the Formula 1 British Grand Prix at Silverstone at the weekend demonstrated.
The easiest way to understand the astonishing reach of the fossil fuel incumbency is to see it as a global imperial power, operating in every corner of the Earth, regardless of the political status of countries – whether democracies, autocracies or failing states – subject only to partial and ineffective regulation by those countries once they've been effectively 'captured'.
This is achieved by the limitless amounts of money and other inducements the industry has deployed throughout that time to persuade politicians where their best interests lie. Equally limitless amounts of money are available for marketing and advertising campaigns of every description, for sponsorship arrangements and for high‑profile charitable activities.
What is even more extraordinary is that none of these companies has ever, at any stage in their history, been required to pay for the social and environmental costs incurred in bringing their products to market.
Governments have simply permitted them to 'externalise' the cost of all those billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean those costs disappear: it means that they're paid by individuals and communities affected by their often grotesque polluting activities, by the environment – in the form of pollution of soil, water and forests – and, of course, by future generations.
Which is why Elisa Morgera, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, is now urging the UN General Assembly to support a total ban on both lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel industry.
She is pressing for its continuing, pernicious misrepresentations about the reality of the climate crisis to be criminalised. Emphasising the obligation that all states have to inform their citizens about climate change, she could not have been clearer that the 'fossil-fuel playbook' needs to be completely shredded.
At the heart of her report to the UN General Assembly is the conviction that continuing to promote fossil fuels – directly and indirectly – represents an astonishing betrayal of young people today.
There's never been an incumbency as pervasive and powerful as this one. It's not just the companies themselves, comprehensively dominating the visible foreground, that make up this incumbency, but just behind the scenes there is an even more extensive network of financial and professional interests that provides the funding; facilities; insurance, legal and consultancy services; and the vast array of transport, infrastructure, logistics and retail businesses that distribute and sell the industry's products.
Whichever way you look at it, this is indeed such a shocking example of intergenerational injustice that it's hard to believe the level of invective young climate campaigners are subjected to simply for trying to get today's 'grown‑ups' to start paying a bit more attention.
Any suggestion that the industries primarily responsible for these current and future bills should now be held to account – both politically and financially – is still peremptorily dismissed as unworldly or, worse yet, as prejudicial to shareholder interests and to capitalism itself.
We must start to address these issues. A ban on fossil fuel advertising – which is already being adopted by cities like Edinburgh and Sheffield, and by other local authorities – would be an ideal first step.
This would mean, for example, ending fossil fuel sponsorship of our leading cultural institutions – including BP's long-standing sponsorship of the British Museum and Science Museum; its arrangement with the Tate galleries ended in 2017 after protests by climate change activists. It would also put a stop to advertising by oil and gas companies on the London Underground.
Only then can we say we're getting serious about undertaking the much‑needed total transformation in our relationship with the fossil fuel industry.