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

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

Independent7 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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

George Osborne was on No 10 list to be UK ambassador to US, Keir Starmer's biographer says
George Osborne was on No 10 list to be UK ambassador to US, Keir Starmer's biographer says

The Guardian

time21 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

George Osborne was on No 10 list to be UK ambassador to US, Keir Starmer's biographer says

George Osborne was on Downing Street's shortlist to be the next UK ambassador to Washington, it has been claimed, despite the former Conservative chancellor being reviled by many in the Labour party and wider political left. In the new edition of his biography on Keir Starmer, the writer Tom Baldwin suggests the prime minister's senior aides 'invested considerable effort' in unsuccessfully pushing Osborne's application. Sources confirmed to the Guardian that the former Tory politician was approached about the role. However, Peter Mandelson was announced as the new UK ambassador last December after Starmer decided the Labour peer and former EU trade commissioner was the best candidate for what was going to be a delicate diplomatic role, with Donald Trump returning the White House. However, the revelation that senior No 10 figures felt that Osborne, the architect of the Tory austerity that brought Britain's public services to their knees, was a suitable candidate is likely to cast further doubt on their judgment among Labour backbenchers. There are already concerns over Downing Street's handling of the welfare cuts rebellion last week, which led to the bill being ultimately hollowed out with changes to disability payments dropped and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, left to plug a £5bn hole in the country's finance. At the time of the appointment, sources said Downing Street felt that a former politician might be the best option given how much Trump was opposed to bureaucrats. Lord Mandelson was an architect of New Labour and served as a cabinet minister under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. However, Osborne also had a reputation as a deft political strategist who had links to Washington neoconservatives. He is now an investment banker and podcast host. In an article for the New World newspaper, Baldwin, a close ally of Starmer, argued that the prime minister should trust his own political instincts and values to find a way through the daunting domestic challenges ahead – just as he had done while navigating difficult global issues. 'Another illustration of Starmer's straight-forward approach on foreign policy was over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to the US in December. He has generally been regarded as a success with his political skills and swagger adapting well to the narcissistic Maga-land of Washington,' Baldwin wrote. 'The new edition of my biography reveals that this was despite, just days beforehand, the name of George Osborne being added to the final shortlist presented to the prime minister by Downing Street advisers. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'They are understood to have invested considerable effort in unsuccessfully pushing the former Tory chancellor's application, even though that perhaps unnecessarily complicated what Starmer would ultimately regard as a relatively simple decision.' Downing Street has been approached for comment.

Doctors and public health organizations sue Kennedy over vaccine policy changes
Doctors and public health organizations sue Kennedy over vaccine policy changes

The Independent

time25 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Doctors and public health organizations sue Kennedy over vaccine policy changes

A coalition of doctors groups and public health organizations sued the U.S. government on Monday over the decision to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccinations for most children and pregnant women. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association and four other groups — along with an unnamed pregnant doctor who works in a hospital — filed the lawsuit in federal court in Boston. U.S. health officials, following infectious disease experts' guidance, previously urged annual COVID-19 shots for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in late May, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced he was removing COVID-19 shots from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. A number of health experts decried the move as confusing and accused Kennedy of disregarding the scientific review process that has been in place for decades — in which experts publicly review current medical evidence and hash out the pros and cons of policy changes. The new lawsuit repeats those concerns, alleging that Kennedy and other political appointees at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have flouted federal procedures and systematically attempted to mislead the public. 'This administration is an existential threat to vaccination in America, and those in charge are only just getting started,' said Richard H. Hughes IV, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. 'If left unchecked, Secretary Kennedy will accomplish his goal of ridding the United States of vaccines, which would unleash a wave of preventable harm on our nation's children.' HHS officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Also joining the suit are the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Massachusetts Public Health Association and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Race against time to change law on car park barriers before bereaved mum loses cancer battle
Race against time to change law on car park barriers before bereaved mum loses cancer battle

ITV News

time28 minutes ago

  • ITV News

Race against time to change law on car park barriers before bereaved mum loses cancer battle

Johnny Santer has been working to introduce 'Gabe's Law' to make safety barriers taller and prevent future deaths. He spoke to our political correspondent, Lise McNally. A father who is fighting to make multi-storey car parks safer after his son fell to his death says he hopes to change the law before his wife's terminal cancer progresses. Gabriel Santer was 15-years-old when he fell from the top of a multi-storey car park in October 2020. He had been with friends at the Q-car park, in Liverpool city centre, and had just texted his mum to tell her what he wanted for tea, but never came home. Since then, his dad Johnny Santer has campaigned to increase the minimum height of barriers on top of car parks through the Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill, known as Gabe's Law. But he says "time is of the essence" for his wife and Gabriel's mother to see the law passed before her cancer, which she has been living with for the last 10 years, progresses any further. Johnny said: "It would be lovely for her knowing Gabe's law has been enacted to protect the most vulnerable people in our communities and make sure no other family goes through the pain we have." On Monday, 7 July, Johnny met with the Building Safety Minister Alex Norris to make his case. If the law were to pass, it would see: "When you look as I have done extensively into this problem, specifically surrounding multi-story car parks, you realise we've got a really big problem", Johnny said. "We are having repeated preventable deaths - six at the last count in Liverpool alone since Gabriel's death, and unbelievably another from the same operator as the one that Gabriel fell from. It has to stop." The company that runs the site where Gabe died have previously said that their car park outperformed the required building regulations and they were cleared of any the Liverpool Garston MP Maria Eagle believes that is exactly why the regulations need to change, and says the best way of preventing future deaths is to "stop it being so easy." She said: "At the moment the law requires only a very low barrier, that people can easily topple, fall or jump over. So, make the barrier higher, people can't fall, and they can't jump, its simple as that." At the beginning of July, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer promised to review safety standards in multi-stories to 'prevent future tragedies." Speaking in Parliament on 2 July, he said the Government will conduct a call for evidence on minimum barrier heights in car parks. He added: 'We will conduct a call for evidence on part K of the building regulations about minimum guarding heights, so that necessary protections are in place to prevent future tragedies. "We will also look at the contents of the Bill.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store