The burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate crisis. It is therefore logical and right that the fossil fuel industry is under increasing pressure to end its disastrous practices. Motorists switch to electric driving, countries introduce CO2taxes, climate-related lawsuits are pending against oil companies, activist shareholders are interfering in oil companies’ strategy. Even the conservative International Energy Agency recently warned that the search for new oil and gas fields must immediately stop to limit global warming to one and a half degrees.
The once all-powerful fossil fuel industry must fight to survive. A simple ‘we are cleaner than the competition’, ‘we provide many jobs’ or ‘no (economic) future without us’ is no longer sufficient.
Advertising is the fossil industry’s frontline to defend its raison d’être. While companies such as Shell and KLM lobbying behind closed doors against stricter climate policies, they use advertising to prevent public and political support from crumbling even faster. They keep their ‘social license to operate‘ – acceptance by the general public – and avoid stricter legislation. It is not without reason that Greenpeace already argued for a ban on this type of advertising with an action in the port of Rotterdam on Monday.
These types of commercials are rarely about products. More often they are beautiful images and inspiring stories to make public opinion believe that the fossil industry is an important part of a sustainable future. Usually next to, before or after bad news about the climate. In the weeks that CNN reported on climate extremes in 2015 and 2016, there was according to media watchdog Media Matters five times as much airtime taken up by fossil fuel commercials.
Showing off sustainability
Shell’s advertising campaign, ‘Make the Future’, is also aimed at public opinion. Here, for example, Esmeralda, Stefan and Lisa talk about hydrogen, wind energy and electric cars. However, if you look at the facts, you will see that Shell between 2016 and 2020 Invested $106 billion, of which only 3 percent went to renewable energy. Because of that relatively small amount, Shell can show off sustainability in its advertisements.
And with success. When former minister Wiebes (Economic Affairs and Climate, VVD) organized a ‘climate day’ last year, the director of Shell Netherlands was a ‘frontrunner’ in the plenary opening panel. But someone who travels by plane is not a frontrunner because he comes by train to the airport?
Smart advertising is a proven concept. BP was suddenly renamed ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in 2002 and proudly claimed that in ‘energy diversity’ and ‘alternative energy‘ invested. However, BP included not only renewable energy sources under ‘alternative’, but also ‘natural gas‘. That name is also framing: ‘natural gas’ is simply natural gas, a fossil energy source that has been extracted for 200 years.
deception
The oil industry promotes ‘natural gas’ as a transition fuel: as a relatively clean and necessary intermediate step from oil and coal to renewable energy sources. However, natural gas is often just as CO2-intensive like coal or oil. As a greenhouse gas, the methane that is frequently released during the production and transport of gas is eighty times stronger than CO2measured over twenty years. Thanks to the well-oiled propaganda machine of the fossil industry, politicians at home and abroad believe in gas as a transition fuel.
Now there are all kinds of rules for advertising. Advertising, for example, should not be misleading and should not contradict the truth. For these reasons, the Advertising Code Committee has already reprimanded the fossil fuel industry several times. For example, Shell recently had to stop the ‘Make a difference. Row CO2-neutral’ and KLM should no longer give the impression that it mixes a lot of biofuel, because in reality this is only 0.18 percent.
The Advertising Code Committee also states that advertisements may not be contrary to the public interest and may not pose a threat to public health. As far as I’m concerned, the fossil fuel industry should not be allowed to advertise at all. It may take years, but there will undoubtedly be a total ban on advertisements from the fossil industry. Given the seriousness of the climate crisis, this is by no means patronizing.
Until the total advertising ban for the fossil fuel industry is introduced, everyone is free to ban such advertising themselves. For example, the city of Amsterdam, the concert building and the newspaper The Guardian already done. NRC can set himself up as a leader here. With ‘branded content’ from the XTR team, which operates independently from the editors, NRC is still unjustly helping companies such as Shell, BNP Paribas and BMW to achieve a green image.
Cleaner diesels
Since the Paris climate agreement in 2015, BNP Paribas has more than doubled its investments in the fossil sector, up to $40.8 billion in 2020. This makes the bank the fourth dirtiest bank in the world. But in XTR’s branded content, Ramon Esteruelas of BNP Paribas says that the bank is working hard on the energy transition. Thus the reader is deceived. BMW also has beautiful branded content about sustainability, while it recently paid a €373 million settlement from the European Commission: it had technology to make cleaner diesels, but decided not to use it in a cartel with Volkswagen and Daimler.
I hope for more awareness and more action from everyone who earns money from advertising the fossil fuel industry. So also with media that publish branded content, journalists who write for it, with publishers and advertising agencies. Whoever accepts money to polish the image of the fossil industry indirectly exacerbates the climate crisis.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021
The burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate crisis. It is therefore logical and right that the fossil fuel industry is under increasing pressure to end its disastrous practices. Motorists switch to electric driving, countries introduce CO2taxes, climate-related lawsuits are pending against oil companies, activist shareholders are interfering in oil companies’ strategy. Even the conservative International Energy Agency recently warned that the search for new oil and gas fields must immediately stop to limit global warming to one and a half degrees.
The once all-powerful fossil fuel industry must fight to survive. A simple ‘we are cleaner than the competition’, ‘we provide many jobs’ or ‘no (economic) future without us’ is no longer sufficient.
Advertising is the fossil industry’s frontline to defend its raison d’être. While companies such as Shell and KLM lobbying behind closed doors against stricter climate policies, they use advertising to prevent public and political support from crumbling even faster. They keep their ‘social license to operate‘ – acceptance by the general public – and avoid stricter legislation. It is not without reason that Greenpeace already argued for a ban on this type of advertising with an action in the port of Rotterdam on Monday.
These types of commercials are rarely about products. More often they are beautiful images and inspiring stories to make public opinion believe that the fossil industry is an important part of a sustainable future. Usually next to, before or after bad news about the climate. In the weeks that CNN reported on climate extremes in 2015 and 2016, there was according to media watchdog Media Matters five times as much airtime taken up by fossil fuel commercials.
Showing off sustainability
Shell’s advertising campaign, ‘Make the Future’, is also aimed at public opinion. Here, for example, Esmeralda, Stefan and Lisa talk about hydrogen, wind energy and electric cars. However, if you look at the facts, you will see that Shell between 2016 and 2020 Invested $106 billion, of which only 3 percent went to renewable energy. Because of that relatively small amount, Shell can show off sustainability in its advertisements.
And with success. When former minister Wiebes (Economic Affairs and Climate, VVD) organized a ‘climate day’ last year, the director of Shell Netherlands was a ‘frontrunner’ in the plenary opening panel. But someone who travels by plane is not a frontrunner because he comes by train to the airport?
Smart advertising is a proven concept. BP was suddenly renamed ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in 2002 and proudly claimed that in ‘energy diversity’ and ‘alternative energy‘ invested. However, BP included not only renewable energy sources under ‘alternative’, but also ‘natural gas‘. That name is also framing: ‘natural gas’ is simply natural gas, a fossil energy source that has been extracted for 200 years.
deception
The oil industry promotes ‘natural gas’ as a transition fuel: as a relatively clean and necessary intermediate step from oil and coal to renewable energy sources. However, natural gas is often just as CO2-intensive like coal or oil. As a greenhouse gas, the methane that is frequently released during the production and transport of gas is eighty times stronger than CO2measured over twenty years. Thanks to the well-oiled propaganda machine of the fossil industry, politicians at home and abroad believe in gas as a transition fuel.
Now there are all kinds of rules for advertising. Advertising, for example, should not be misleading and should not contradict the truth. For these reasons, the Advertising Code Committee has already reprimanded the fossil fuel industry several times. For example, Shell recently had to stop the ‘Make a difference. Row CO2-neutral’ and KLM should no longer give the impression that it mixes a lot of biofuel, because in reality this is only 0.18 percent.
The Advertising Code Committee also states that advertisements may not be contrary to the public interest and may not pose a threat to public health. As far as I’m concerned, the fossil fuel industry should not be allowed to advertise at all. It may take years, but there will undoubtedly be a total ban on advertisements from the fossil industry. Given the seriousness of the climate crisis, this is by no means patronizing.
Until the total advertising ban for the fossil fuel industry is introduced, everyone is free to ban such advertising themselves. For example, the city of Amsterdam, the concert building and the newspaper The Guardian already done. NRC can set himself up as a leader here. With ‘branded content’ from the XTR team, which operates independently from the editors, NRC is still unjustly helping companies such as Shell, BNP Paribas and BMW to achieve a green image.
Cleaner diesels
Since the Paris climate agreement in 2015, BNP Paribas has more than doubled its investments in the fossil sector, up to $40.8 billion in 2020. This makes the bank the fourth dirtiest bank in the world. But in XTR’s branded content, Ramon Esteruelas of BNP Paribas says that the bank is working hard on the energy transition. Thus the reader is deceived. BMW also has beautiful branded content about sustainability, while it recently paid a €373 million settlement from the European Commission: it had technology to make cleaner diesels, but decided not to use it in a cartel with Volkswagen and Daimler.
I hope for more awareness and more action from everyone who earns money from advertising the fossil fuel industry. So also with media that publish branded content, journalists who write for it, with publishers and advertising agencies. Whoever accepts money to polish the image of the fossil industry indirectly exacerbates the climate crisis.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021
The burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate crisis. It is therefore logical and right that the fossil fuel industry is under increasing pressure to end its disastrous practices. Motorists switch to electric driving, countries introduce CO2taxes, climate-related lawsuits are pending against oil companies, activist shareholders are interfering in oil companies’ strategy. Even the conservative International Energy Agency recently warned that the search for new oil and gas fields must immediately stop to limit global warming to one and a half degrees.
The once all-powerful fossil fuel industry must fight to survive. A simple ‘we are cleaner than the competition’, ‘we provide many jobs’ or ‘no (economic) future without us’ is no longer sufficient.
Advertising is the fossil industry’s frontline to defend its raison d’être. While companies such as Shell and KLM lobbying behind closed doors against stricter climate policies, they use advertising to prevent public and political support from crumbling even faster. They keep their ‘social license to operate‘ – acceptance by the general public – and avoid stricter legislation. It is not without reason that Greenpeace already argued for a ban on this type of advertising with an action in the port of Rotterdam on Monday.
These types of commercials are rarely about products. More often they are beautiful images and inspiring stories to make public opinion believe that the fossil industry is an important part of a sustainable future. Usually next to, before or after bad news about the climate. In the weeks that CNN reported on climate extremes in 2015 and 2016, there was according to media watchdog Media Matters five times as much airtime taken up by fossil fuel commercials.
Showing off sustainability
Shell’s advertising campaign, ‘Make the Future’, is also aimed at public opinion. Here, for example, Esmeralda, Stefan and Lisa talk about hydrogen, wind energy and electric cars. However, if you look at the facts, you will see that Shell between 2016 and 2020 Invested $106 billion, of which only 3 percent went to renewable energy. Because of that relatively small amount, Shell can show off sustainability in its advertisements.
And with success. When former minister Wiebes (Economic Affairs and Climate, VVD) organized a ‘climate day’ last year, the director of Shell Netherlands was a ‘frontrunner’ in the plenary opening panel. But someone who travels by plane is not a frontrunner because he comes by train to the airport?
Smart advertising is a proven concept. BP was suddenly renamed ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in 2002 and proudly claimed that in ‘energy diversity’ and ‘alternative energy‘ invested. However, BP included not only renewable energy sources under ‘alternative’, but also ‘natural gas‘. That name is also framing: ‘natural gas’ is simply natural gas, a fossil energy source that has been extracted for 200 years.
deception
The oil industry promotes ‘natural gas’ as a transition fuel: as a relatively clean and necessary intermediate step from oil and coal to renewable energy sources. However, natural gas is often just as CO2-intensive like coal or oil. As a greenhouse gas, the methane that is frequently released during the production and transport of gas is eighty times stronger than CO2measured over twenty years. Thanks to the well-oiled propaganda machine of the fossil industry, politicians at home and abroad believe in gas as a transition fuel.
Now there are all kinds of rules for advertising. Advertising, for example, should not be misleading and should not contradict the truth. For these reasons, the Advertising Code Committee has already reprimanded the fossil fuel industry several times. For example, Shell recently had to stop the ‘Make a difference. Row CO2-neutral’ and KLM should no longer give the impression that it mixes a lot of biofuel, because in reality this is only 0.18 percent.
The Advertising Code Committee also states that advertisements may not be contrary to the public interest and may not pose a threat to public health. As far as I’m concerned, the fossil fuel industry should not be allowed to advertise at all. It may take years, but there will undoubtedly be a total ban on advertisements from the fossil industry. Given the seriousness of the climate crisis, this is by no means patronizing.
Until the total advertising ban for the fossil fuel industry is introduced, everyone is free to ban such advertising themselves. For example, the city of Amsterdam, the concert building and the newspaper The Guardian already done. NRC can set himself up as a leader here. With ‘branded content’ from the XTR team, which operates independently from the editors, NRC is still unjustly helping companies such as Shell, BNP Paribas and BMW to achieve a green image.
Cleaner diesels
Since the Paris climate agreement in 2015, BNP Paribas has more than doubled its investments in the fossil sector, up to $40.8 billion in 2020. This makes the bank the fourth dirtiest bank in the world. But in XTR’s branded content, Ramon Esteruelas of BNP Paribas says that the bank is working hard on the energy transition. Thus the reader is deceived. BMW also has beautiful branded content about sustainability, while it recently paid a €373 million settlement from the European Commission: it had technology to make cleaner diesels, but decided not to use it in a cartel with Volkswagen and Daimler.
I hope for more awareness and more action from everyone who earns money from advertising the fossil fuel industry. So also with media that publish branded content, journalists who write for it, with publishers and advertising agencies. Whoever accepts money to polish the image of the fossil industry indirectly exacerbates the climate crisis.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021
The burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate crisis. It is therefore logical and right that the fossil fuel industry is under increasing pressure to end its disastrous practices. Motorists switch to electric driving, countries introduce CO2taxes, climate-related lawsuits are pending against oil companies, activist shareholders are interfering in oil companies’ strategy. Even the conservative International Energy Agency recently warned that the search for new oil and gas fields must immediately stop to limit global warming to one and a half degrees.
The once all-powerful fossil fuel industry must fight to survive. A simple ‘we are cleaner than the competition’, ‘we provide many jobs’ or ‘no (economic) future without us’ is no longer sufficient.
Advertising is the fossil industry’s frontline to defend its raison d’être. While companies such as Shell and KLM lobbying behind closed doors against stricter climate policies, they use advertising to prevent public and political support from crumbling even faster. They keep their ‘social license to operate‘ – acceptance by the general public – and avoid stricter legislation. It is not without reason that Greenpeace already argued for a ban on this type of advertising with an action in the port of Rotterdam on Monday.
These types of commercials are rarely about products. More often they are beautiful images and inspiring stories to make public opinion believe that the fossil industry is an important part of a sustainable future. Usually next to, before or after bad news about the climate. In the weeks that CNN reported on climate extremes in 2015 and 2016, there was according to media watchdog Media Matters five times as much airtime taken up by fossil fuel commercials.
Showing off sustainability
Shell’s advertising campaign, ‘Make the Future’, is also aimed at public opinion. Here, for example, Esmeralda, Stefan and Lisa talk about hydrogen, wind energy and electric cars. However, if you look at the facts, you will see that Shell between 2016 and 2020 Invested $106 billion, of which only 3 percent went to renewable energy. Because of that relatively small amount, Shell can show off sustainability in its advertisements.
And with success. When former minister Wiebes (Economic Affairs and Climate, VVD) organized a ‘climate day’ last year, the director of Shell Netherlands was a ‘frontrunner’ in the plenary opening panel. But someone who travels by plane is not a frontrunner because he comes by train to the airport?
Smart advertising is a proven concept. BP was suddenly renamed ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in 2002 and proudly claimed that in ‘energy diversity’ and ‘alternative energy‘ invested. However, BP included not only renewable energy sources under ‘alternative’, but also ‘natural gas‘. That name is also framing: ‘natural gas’ is simply natural gas, a fossil energy source that has been extracted for 200 years.
deception
The oil industry promotes ‘natural gas’ as a transition fuel: as a relatively clean and necessary intermediate step from oil and coal to renewable energy sources. However, natural gas is often just as CO2-intensive like coal or oil. As a greenhouse gas, the methane that is frequently released during the production and transport of gas is eighty times stronger than CO2measured over twenty years. Thanks to the well-oiled propaganda machine of the fossil industry, politicians at home and abroad believe in gas as a transition fuel.
Now there are all kinds of rules for advertising. Advertising, for example, should not be misleading and should not contradict the truth. For these reasons, the Advertising Code Committee has already reprimanded the fossil fuel industry several times. For example, Shell recently had to stop the ‘Make a difference. Row CO2-neutral’ and KLM should no longer give the impression that it mixes a lot of biofuel, because in reality this is only 0.18 percent.
The Advertising Code Committee also states that advertisements may not be contrary to the public interest and may not pose a threat to public health. As far as I’m concerned, the fossil fuel industry should not be allowed to advertise at all. It may take years, but there will undoubtedly be a total ban on advertisements from the fossil industry. Given the seriousness of the climate crisis, this is by no means patronizing.
Until the total advertising ban for the fossil fuel industry is introduced, everyone is free to ban such advertising themselves. For example, the city of Amsterdam, the concert building and the newspaper The Guardian already done. NRC can set himself up as a leader here. With ‘branded content’ from the XTR team, which operates independently from the editors, NRC is still unjustly helping companies such as Shell, BNP Paribas and BMW to achieve a green image.
Cleaner diesels
Since the Paris climate agreement in 2015, BNP Paribas has more than doubled its investments in the fossil sector, up to $40.8 billion in 2020. This makes the bank the fourth dirtiest bank in the world. But in XTR’s branded content, Ramon Esteruelas of BNP Paribas says that the bank is working hard on the energy transition. Thus the reader is deceived. BMW also has beautiful branded content about sustainability, while it recently paid a €373 million settlement from the European Commission: it had technology to make cleaner diesels, but decided not to use it in a cartel with Volkswagen and Daimler.
I hope for more awareness and more action from everyone who earns money from advertising the fossil fuel industry. So also with media that publish branded content, journalists who write for it, with publishers and advertising agencies. Whoever accepts money to polish the image of the fossil industry indirectly exacerbates the climate crisis.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021