An online petition is asking the government to ‘ban fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship’. However, it is struggling to get the number of signatures needed to have a chance of making a difference.
Banning advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel companies?
Chris Packham, who set up the petition, makes the comparison between the introduction of a ban on the advertising of tobacco products, contending that this one has succeeded. He worries that the ‘continued use of fossil fuels will kill more people than smoking’. Campaigner, Mr Packham, is of the opinion that ‘advertisements have the effect of encouraging the use of products’. He thinks ‘sponsorships promote a positive reputation and create a social licence of trust and accuracy’.
Advertising and sponsorships seem like endorsements
Packham states that ‘fossil fuel advertising has a history of ‘greenwashing’.’ He pointed readers in the direction of a recent report entitled ‘Dirty Money…how fossil fuels are polluting sport’, which was published by think tank ‘New Weather Institute’, a green think tank which highlighted that over four billion pounds had been spent by fossil fuel companies on 205 active sports sponsorship deals. The Chief of the United Nations has said the same recently, and there has been a European Citizen’s Initiative collecting signatures for a ban not long ago, which got over 350,000 signatures.
The campaigner underpins his argument in favour of stopping the advertising and sponsorship of fossil fuels by ‘pointing to evidence suggesting that fossil fuel must be phased out’ to mitigate the worst impacts of what he described as ‘climate breakdown’. Mr Packham states he would like the UK Government to ‘stop companies from … normalising their activities’ and argues that ‘if the authorities take action to do so it would proactively assist in addressing the climate crisis’. He hopes a ban ‘would also mitigate the risk of future harm to human health’.
Fossil fuels and our planet
The longer we keep using fossil fuels, the bigger the effect on our planet and climate. Mr Packham hopes that by banning advertisements, society will stop seeing the use of fossil fuels as normal and be more inclined to move over to greener alternatives.
Government response to the petition
On 18 December 2024, the UK Government responded to the petition launched by Chris Packham, who is asking for a ‘ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship’. The UK Government disappointed all those campaigning to stop the advertising of fossil fuels and sponsorship, by responding that it has ‘no plans… to place restrictions on fossil fuel advertising’.
In its response, the Government explained that it was looking to lower ‘emissions’ from what it termed ‘high carbon products’ and showed its intention to ‘continue to bring forward proposals to do so’. All may not be lost for Mr Packham’s petition as the Government did not mention anything about whether it had any plans to restrict fossil fuel sponsorship. Mr Packham’s petition is still open and there is still time for you to sign it in case the government is considering restricting fossil fuel sponsorship.
However, one of the problems with the government’s response is that they failed to define what ‘high carbon’ products they were actually referring to, so this leaves a lot of uncertainty.
Have many people supported the petition?
Not many people in the North West have shown support for Mr Packham’s petition and his idea to stop the advertising and sponsorship of fossil fuels. When you look at the level of signatures in St Helens South and Whiston, out of the 85,200 constituents who are registered to potentially sign the petition, only 5 people have backed the campaign. In context, this is only 0.006% of the population of the area of St Helens South and Whiston.
The campaign appears to have garnered more support in the North West of England area of Westmorland and Lonsdale. Here, 55 people put their weight behind the petition. Compared to the constituency of St Helens South and Whiston, this on paper looks like a huge difference in the number of people who have supported the campaign. However, if you deep-dive into the numbers more extensively, this translates as fewer than half of one percentage point of the mammoth 118,000 people permitted to interact with the petition.
What could be the reason for the low number of signatures?
The presumed lack of enthusiasm for Mr Packham’s petition, may have been caused by campaigners failing to do enough to draw people’s attention to the fact that a petition is available to support by way of signature.
Another possibility is apathy of voters, caused by the fact that they feel politicians in the local North West area are not seen to be listening to people’s concerns, the issue of distrust in those elected to govern us, or the sentiment that even if they were to provide their support to campaigns of this nature, it would fail to make any real impact. After all, the Government response to most petitions that reach 10,000 signatures is ‘this is not in our agenda at the moment’, and after 100,000 signatures any ‘discussion in Parliament’ can happen in Westminster Hall, with no obligation for any MP to attend.
The UK authorities pointed people in the direction of the ‘Committees of Advertising Practice and Advertising Standards Authority’ as they ‘regulate both the content and targeting of advertising in the United Kingdom’ by applying the law. The Government also said that these ‘advertising codes include rules on claims of an environmental nature’.
Any readers thinking of supporting Mr Packham’s petition and pressurising the Government into action, particularly on the sponsorship of fossil fuels, should strongly consider putting pen to paper so to speak, and signing the petition.
