Should advertising of high-carbon products be banned?

Yes, restricting advertising by brands that couldn’t care less about climate change will help, but just a bit. Decades of mainstream campaigns and lobbying by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion and hundreds more NGOs have failed to meaningfully change the course of global production—or consumption. Despite research and media comment suggesting Gen Z and Alpha are ‘climate conscious’, they’ve proven to have a healthy appetite for carbon-heavy social networks, fashion and travel—all of which continue to thrive.

And though people get labelled climate change supporters or deniers, this is less so for brands. City traders and investors indiscriminately fill portfolios with fossil-extracting energy and mining companies, precious metal and mineral-intense hi-tech corps that generate profits for shareholders and pension funds. Few questions are asked.

Restricting ads from brands deemed carbon-intensive raises the question: How to determine what brands or parent companies are carbon-intensive? Getting agreement on a workable framework—and committing to it—would be insanely complicated.

Restricting carbon-intensive brands sounds appealing. But without legislation, it would be a half measure. That said, any curb on our seemingly endless consumption would help to some degree—and that’d be a degree more than we’ve so far achieved

The debate over implementing restrictions or bans on advertising carbon-intensive products and services is complex. Aviation, livestock agriculture and electronic devices all significantly contribute elevated carbon footprints. Whilst banning the advertising of these products may contribute to climate change mitigation and encourage more sustainable practices, the economic impact of doing so would likely paralyse progress on the carbon transition practices so desperately needed.

 

Added to that, advertising operates a long way downstream from where some of the most significant climate challenges surface. Certainly, we have a role to play in ensuring consumers are informed and environmental claims made by brands can be substantiated but the climate emergency needs far more than a neatly tied bow. Fundamental system level change and a co-ordinated response across government, civil society, corporations, academics and consumers is the only way forward. 

 

To that end, education, accurate reporting on carbon footprints and transparent transition plans combined with government intervention are likely to be more effective than outright bans. Right now, we need to use both the carrot and the stick.