This city just made it illegal to advertise SUVs. Here’s why.

[aum]

Edinburgh became the latest European capital city to ban ads for aviation, SUVs and more.

 

City goers sit in the Princes Street Gardens in downtown Edinburgh, Scotland. (Eric Kruszewski/Design Pics Editorial/Universal Images Group/Getty Images)

 

EDINBURGH — Last month this Scottish city — filled with medieval spires and shadowed by the looming castle on the hill said to have inspired the Harry Potter books — made a startlingly modern decision. Edinburgh’s city council voted to ban fossil fuel advertisements on city property, undermining the ability of not only oil companies, but also car manufacturers, airlines and cruise ships, to promote their products. The ban targeted arms manufacturers as well.

 

Edinburgh is not alone. Amsterdam and Sydney have cracked down on advertisements for fossil fuels and high-emissions products. France also limited the promotion of coal, gas and hydrogen made from fossil fuels. Even the United Nations Secretary General, António Guterres, has joined in, endorsing a ban on fossil fuel ads this month in a speech in New York this month: “Stop the Mad Men from fueling the madness.”

 

“There’s a moment happening here,” said Ben Parker, the Edinburgh city councilor who spearheaded the ban and a member of the Scottish Green Party. “It’s a way of saying fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers are not welcome in our city.”

 

A local ban on fossil fuel advertisements might seem minor at a time when carbon emissions — and temperatures — continue to march upward. But there is evidence that sweeping advertising bans, such as those targeting tobacco products in many countries, can change how consumers view and purchase certain products. The question is whether the new fossil fuel advertising bans are substantial enough to have an impact.

 

“A lot of these bans that are being put forward are at the municipal and city level,” said Timothy Dewhirst, professor of marketing and consumer studies at the University of Guelph. “And partial bans have proven to be ineffective.”

 

Fossil fuel producers counter that they are focused on addressing climate change. “Our industry is focused on continuing to produce affordable, reliable energy while tackling the climate challenge, and any allegations to the contrary are false,” Scott Lauermann, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, said in an email.

 

Proponents of advertising bans seek to accomplish two goals: convince people not to use the product, and lower the reputation of an industry or company. Given how embedded fossil fuels are in modern society, some experts see the latter goal as more achievable.

 

At the individual level, seeing fewer advertisements for gas-guzzling cars or international trips could make people less likely to opt for those products. “What you are doing is reducing the amount of consumption that is coming from those advertisements,” said Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute and a campaigner for fossil fuel ad bans.

 

There’s evidence that this works. Starting in the 1970s, the constant drumbeat of new findings on the health effects of cigarettes triggered a lengthy process where nations restricted advertisements for cigarettes on TV, the radio and in public spaces. In the United States, bans began with cigarette advertising on television, and grew to covering the sponsorship of events, public transit ads and more.

Today, dozens of countries — including the United States, China and the European Union — have bans, restrictions or other limitations on selling tobacco products. There is even an international treaty under the World Health Organization, adopted in 2003, that urges all countries to enact bans that target all forms of tobacco advertising. There are currently 168 signatories on the treaty; the United States has signed on the treaty but not ratified it.

 

Research shows that those bans that block TV, radio, print and in-store advertising — as well as sponsorship of events — are most effective at stopping smoking, particularly among young people who have yet to start smoking in the first place. As of 2017, full bans were implemented in less than 20 percent of countries worldwide.

 

But bans that are partial, such as those that only target TV commercials, are less effective. Companies may just reallocate their advertising budgets to other media, or shift to sponsoring sports teams and similar.

 

“It’s like a tube of toothpaste,” said David Hammond, a professor of public health at the University of Waterloo. “If you press in just one spot, it just squeezes to another part of the tube.”

 

Fossil fuels also present a particular challenge: While an individual can choose not to smoke, it is almost impossible to disconnect from an electricity grid that runs partly on fossil fuels. Ad bans can target some discretionary spending, like cruise ships and air travel, but oil, gas and coal are deeply embedded in everyday life.

 

Parker, the city councilor, says that there are still reasons to target sources of global warming. “We protect people from things like gambling, alcohol, and tobacco,” he said. “Climate change is a different type of harm, but it’s still a harm.”

 

Meanwhile, some advocates and scholars emphasize that advertising allows companies to shape their public image, which can protect them from stricter regulation.

 

Researchers say that fossil fuel companies use ads to maintain their “social license to operate” — a shorthand for a corporation’s ability to be seen as acceptable by society and policymakers. By showing ads connecting their operations to clean energy, jobs, or energy security — and sponsoring popular events — fossil fuel companies can bolster their reputations in the public sphere.

 

“Political scientists refer to fossil fuel advertising as a form of ‘outside’ lobbying,” said Geoffrey Supran, associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. “It complements lobbying inside the Hill and in state governments and so on.”

Earlier this month, for example, the fossil fuel company Chevron sponsored the annual Congressional Baseball Game — which was interrupted by climate protesters.

 

Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of environment and society at Brown University, says that advertising allows fossil fuel companies to help define the solutions to climate change — such as things like carbon capture from oil and gas plants. “They’re saying ‘We need to be part of the solution, we have the technical know-how,’” Brulle explained.

 

In one study by Brulle and his co-authors, the researchers found that fossil fuel companies increased their advertising spending in response to congressional attention to and media coverage of climate change.

 

Even if there were substantial advertising bans instituted for fossil fuels, it would be difficult to measure how such bans affect a company’s reputation. But some experts believe that it could make a difference. “It would be monumental,” said Supran. “It could loosen the stranglehold of the industry in a way that would politically and financially open the door to lower carbon technologies.”

 

For now, ad bans are still only instituted in a small number of cities and nations worldwide — in a manner not so different from how tobacco advertising bans began. “It happened incrementally,” said Hammond. “It was a multi-decade process.”

 

Source