New legal arguments support end to fossil fuel advertising
Image credit: Adblock Bristol
New research in the Journal of European Consumer and Market Law reviews the evidence to end advertising for fossil fuels. The research was first covered by our Dutch colleagues at Ban Fossil Advertising (Verbied Fossil Reclame) here.
The research by Clemens Kaupa from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam explores whether fossil fuel advertising can be misleading to consumers and how effective are advertising authorities - in particular the Dutch Reclame Code Commissie (DRCC) and British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) - in regulating false advertising claims and addressing complaints. Similar to tobacco products, the study shows fossil fuels adverts contribute to their normalisation in society. Because of the harmful impacts of fossil fuels on the planet, the research concludes that, following evidence from tobacco control, fossil fuel advertising should be considered a “misleading marketing practice”. Kaupa argues:
“In light of the massive and immediate greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to achieve the Paris goal, the representation of fossil fuel use as normal and acceptable is factually incorrect.”
Fossil fuel advertising slashes our climate efforts
The fossil fuel industry is actively undermining our societies’ capacity to decarbonise and meet the Paris climate targets. It does so in many ways and prevents rapid transition away from fossil fuels by locking our societies into fossil fuel infrastructures.
“With fossil fuel advertising ceaselessly promoting yesteryear’s carbon-based models of consumption progress is undermined at a critical moment.”
The research argues that fossil fuel advertising actively contributes to its promotion and casts uncertainty around the harmful impacts they have on our planet. While these companies are continuously claiming to be doing good for the environment, it makes it increasingly hard for the public to assess the reality of these claims. Furthermore, the industry portrays itself as a key player in the renewable energy transition, which contributes to distracting both the public and policymakers from its lobbying against climate regulation and concealing its responsibility in fuelling the climate emergency.
These are only a few examples of many cases in which misinformation is fed from companies to consumers. The authors suggest this directly impacts the way the public are able to make ‘rational’ and ‘informed’ decisions based on the evidence they are provided.
Failures from the advertising authorities
The research reviews the different complaints filed to the Dutch (DRCC) and British (ASA) advertising authorities. These authorities deem the adverts that provide “incomplete comparisons” as the most misleading form of advertising. For instance, when Breitling Oil & Gas claimed that replacing coal with fracked gas would reduce overall CO2 emissions, the ASA found this ad to be misleading because it did not take into account the total life-cycle assessment of carbon emissions from fracking.
The research also finds large discrepancies between some of the adverts that were removed by these bodies on misleading grounds and those that were still deemed acceptable. For instance, while the ad by Breitling was removed by the Dutch advertising authority, the British ASA did not legislate against chemical giant Ineos claiming that “gas is a fossil fuel, but is much less damaging to the climate and to air quality than coal or oil are” (a 7-page booklet posted in the Derbyshire Times in January 2017). In their definition of what is labelled deceitful advertising, the authorities fail to include forms of advertising which disguise themselves using a “climate friendly spin” and mislead the public.
A recent report by the Adfree Cities network supports the claims about the limited role of the ASA in protecting citizens from the harmful effects of advertising. The research found that only only 22% of complaints filed against adverts are investigated and only 2% upheld by the ASA. Similar evidence from the Belgian advertising authority (Jury d’Ethique Publicitaire / Jury voor Ethische Praktijken inzake reclame) shows that faced with an increasing volume of complaints the regulatory body simply did not address them altogether.
From tobacco to fossil fuels advertising bans
The research finds a problematic disparity between the widespread political and scientific support behind the phasing out of fossil fuels and their continuing promotion and legitimation through advertising efforts with references to the climate and the environment. In order to address the limited role played by advertising authorities - as shown above - the study suggests imposing a comprehensive legislative ban on all fossil fuel ads. To do so would follow the successful example of tobacco control which provides a useful precedent in the history of regulating against advertising for harmful products.
“Tobacco and fossil fuels are thus comparable at multiple levels, including their intrinsic harmfulness, and the willingness of both industries to systematically deceive the public over decades, inter alia by means of advertising.”
What about other high-carbon ads?
At Badvertising we believe that all advertising from big polluters - ie. automotive, airline and fossil fuel industries - need to be phased out if we want to meet the challenges posed by the climate crisis. This is why we campaign for stronger restrictions against all forms of high-carbon advertising. Several years ago, tobacco advertising was prohibited on the grounds that it is harming public health. Today it is high time to do the same for advertising that is fuelling the climate emergency.
Sign up for our joint webinar on the Advertising Standards Authority on Wednesday 14th April 2021 Junk food, fossil fuels and consumerism - how can we stop manipulative advertising? Register here.