Time for a ban on fossil fuel advertisements and sponsorships

Gone are the days when fossil fuel industries would publicly reject the climate crisis. Scratch the surface and not much has changed. What has altered, significantly, is the climate, as predicted and hidden by oil companies. Now the number of floods, droughts and fires across the world are so frequent it is simply impossible to ignore reality.

We now know that Exxon , the world's biggest oil company, was fully aware that fossil fuel extraction would raise the world’s temperature, and yet they paid people to deny it for almost thirty years.?

The IPCC report has rung the alarm bell loud and clear: it's "code red for humanity" , and some damage is already irreversible. With fossil fuels making up 89% of the world's global CO2 emissions, a rapid fossil fuel phase out is the only option for a survivable planet.

But where would this climate action leave the likes of Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP or Total? In survival mode. Rather than embracing an energy transition or taking heed of the science, they have invested millions of dollars to appear as if they care about climate change and like they are investing in renewable technologies. Their focus is pushing dangerous false solutions and to point the finger elsewhere, often at consumers - in other words, you and me.??

The power of words should never be underestimated. Climate disinformation - greenwashing - by fossil fuel companies delays climate action, and we are against the clock. But the climate movement is watching and acting.

When BP launched international multi-million dollar advertising campaigns proclaiming their deep commitment to renewable energy while still investing 96% of their business in oil and gas, they got called out by Client Earth in a legal challenge for misleading the public.?

In the recent Greenpeace report "Words vs Actions" , we found that 6 European fossil fuel companies had an average of 61% greenwashes in their adverts. Half of the companies assessed, including Shell, were dedicating 81% to greenwashes while investing 16 billion dollars in oil and gas this year.?

Shell, in particular, seems to believe that words speak louder than actions, and have spent more money on marketing costs this year than on renewable energy. This is a clear indication they care more about their image than committing to developing much needed renewable energy. Shell has also openly refused to meet a Dutch court's demands that they reduce their emissions by 45%.

But the latest favourite of the fossil fuel industry, which will be discussed with their backing at COP26, is offsetting. Offsetting is based on the idea that if you buy or use a carbon heavy product, or if companies drill oil or harm the planet, they can balance out that harm with “good”. An example of this is planting trees without actually reducing overall emissions.?

In Europe, offsetting is advertised as something completely innocent. Just this August,? nine law students from the Free University of Amsterdam challenged Shell on an advertising campaign that promoted a deal whereby customers buying petrol and diesel were given an opportunity to offset their purchases. Shell claimed this would make the overall transaction 'carbon neutral'. Last month the Dutch watchdog ruled this advertisement as greenwash, noting that Shell could not provide credible evidence of this claim and asked Shell to remove this advertisement.

One of the most toxic techniques that fossil fuel companies use to deflect attention away from their central role in the climate emergency is of course blaming the public for a rise in emissions. In 2018, it was found that 71% of the world's emissions were the responsibility of just 100 companies including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP.?

BP to date have tried the hardest to shift the blame. In 2003 they worked with the advertising industry to create the idea of a 'carbon footprint' . This was launched with a carbon footprint calculator that encouraged the public to look up the emissions they cause, not BP. This term has stuck in climate debates ever since, and shifted the focus from the companies that knew they were causing people and the planet harm for decades.?

As part of the European Citizens Initiative , Greenpeace is calling for a ban on fossil adverts and sponsorships. This ban wouldn't just affect one fossil fuel company, but any car, airline and maritime company still dependent on fossil fuels. If we get 1 million signatures , we can activate a debate on changing EU law and legislating for a ban on fossil advertising and sponsorship, much like the EU Directive banning cross border tobacco advertising and sponsorships.?

Tobacco was (still is) killing people, so advertising laws changed : the same should be applied to the climate crisis being driven by fossil fuels. Altogether we can defy the political stalemate on climate action, and remove the microphone from some of the world's most polluting companies.

That’s why I recently volunteered with 80 activists from 12 European countries to block Shell’s oil refinery in Rotterdam . In the past five decades, Greenpeace has challenged Shell in their oil rigs, headquarters, ports and recently in court, with a historic ruling in the Netherlands that stated Shell is liable for damaging the climate. Despite this, Shell’s boss has said he has no plans to change the course of their business.?

Today we are facing a whole new range of unprecedented challenges in our pursuit of a fossil free world. We need to come together and call for a ban on fossil fuel advertisements and sponsorships to put an end to these lies and propaganda, which is costing us all so deeply. The more we expose these greenwashers, the more the fossil fuel industry will run out of places to hide.?

It is time to legally ban fossil advertising and sponsorships, and it is high time for a Fossil Free Revolution .?