4 ms·

I understand gambling and cigarette advert bans, but how does a fossil fuel advertising ban help in this case exactly? It's not like we can stop using fossil fu

by zirgs 3y ago

I understand gambling and cigarette advert bans, but how does a fossil fuel advertising ban help in this case exactly? It's not like we can stop using fossil fuels completely right now. So it seems like hypocritical virtue signalling.

bamfly 3y ago
Seems to me if it doesn't help, then the ads weren't doing anything anyway, so they're doing fossil fuel companies a favor by saving them money that they were wasting.
- zirgs 3y ago
  The ads might influence which fossil fuel supplier people will pick, but in the end they have to pick someone, because we can't even get food without burning fossil fuels somewhere.
  - bamfly 3y ago
    Not all ads are sales ads. This is especially true for huge industries with a few major players and strong industry associations & lobbying groups. Double-especially true for such industries that also have a serious negative-externality problem and are facing significant regulatory risk. A quick image search for "[name of fossil fuel company] ad"—plus, just having seen lots of these ads over the years, in the wild—suggests that much of that spending is about PR and influencing policy opinions of voters, not trying to sell me some particular product. As you keep writing, the fuel that's needed will be purchased anyway, so the main effect of this would be reducing the reach of corporate PR (i.e. bullshit) campaigns. Seems like a cheap and easy win to me, and a service to their readers.
elliekelly 3y ago
We can’t completely stop people from smoking either. But we can prevent people from starting and we can perhaps prevent those who have already started from increasing their consumption. Slowing down the rate of use by banning advertisements isn’t “hypocritical virtue signaling” it’s a real, measurable improvement. Perfection is the enemy of progress.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Ads can only influence which fossil fuel supplier people will choose. They won't affect the rate of use. In the end someone will buy diesel from someone else and then deliver food to my local supermarket. With or without fossil fuel ads in The Guardian.

by zirgs 3y ago

bamfly 3y ago

Seems to me if it doesn't help, then the ads weren't doing anything anyway, so they're doing fossil fuel companies a favor by saving them money that they were wasting.

zirgs 3y ago
The ads might influence which fossil fuel supplier people will pick, but in the end they have to pick someone, because we can't even get food without burning fossil fuels somewhere.
- bamfly 3y ago
  Not all ads are sales ads. This is especially true for huge industries with a few major players and strong industry associations & lobbying groups. Double-especially true for such industries that also have a serious negative-externality problem and are facing significant regulatory risk. A quick image search for "[name of fossil fuel company] ad"—plus, just having seen lots of these ads over the years, in the wild—suggests that much of that spending is about PR and influencing policy opinions of voters, not trying to sell me some particular product. As you keep writing, the fuel that's needed will be purchased anyway, so the main effect of this would be reducing the reach of corporate PR (i.e. bullshit) campaigns. Seems like a cheap and easy win to me, and a service to their readers.

elliekelly 3y ago

We can’t completely stop people from smoking either. But we can prevent people from starting and we can perhaps prevent those who have already started from increasing their consumption. Slowing down the rate of use by banning advertisements isn’t “hypocritical virtue signaling” it’s a real, measurable improvement. Perfection is the enemy of progress.

zirgs 3y ago
Ads can only influence which fossil fuel supplier people will choose. They won't affect the rate of use. In the end someone will buy diesel from someone else and then deliver food to my local supermarket. With or without fossil fuel ads in The Guardian.