Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSelling Ecocide
Is It Time To Consider A Ban On The Adverts Which Help To Cook The Planet?
I am sorry to be crude, but however else I try to say it, the phrase "lying bastards" comes to mind. In March I claimed that the government is fudging its figures on cutting carbon emissions, and that it is due to miss its targets for renewable energy(1,2). It denied the charges, claimed its cuts are "correctly quantified" and suggested I had got my facts wrong(3,4). Yesterday, the Guardian published a secret briefing by civil servants admitting that the government's programmes are way off track and urging ministers to try to amend them not with new investments, but through "statistical interpretations of the target"(5).
While no expense is spared in expanding motorways, airports and thermal power stations, every possible tactic is used to frustrate the programme for installing renewable power. The reason is not hard to fathom: big business has invested massively in constructing old technologies, and wants to maximise its returns before switching to the new ones. It also demands the hyper-mobility which enables its executives and its goods and services to go anywhere at any time.
But I write all this with the blush of the hypocrite, for I have been forced to concede that I too am complicit in the strategies of corporate power. A few weeks ago I was challenged by the editors of a website called Medialens over the adverts carried by the Guardian(6). Does not part of my living ultimately come from the companies I campaign against? Why don't I discuss this contradiction in my column?
It is a good question, and it requires an answer. You cannot open a newspaper without being confronted by incongruities. Yesterday the Telegraph urged people to share their car journeys as "a simple way to lessen your carbon footprint"(7). Beside this exhortation, and at six times the size, was an advert by Ryanair for £10 flights to France. Johann Hari in the Independent urged people to join the climate campers at Heathrow, then the newspaper pressed its readers to take advantage of its own special offers - to fly to Spain, Kenya or California. The Guardian led on its story about the government's renewables policy, then ran an advert for renewable energy by E.on, which (in view of its plans to build new coal-burning power stations) looks to me like greenwash. The paper also carried a reader offer of a cruise around Scotland, which begins by "flying from a range of UK airports". The editorials urge us to cut our emissions. The adverts urge us to raise them.
The World Development Movement kindly offered to conduct a survey for me. I asked it to add up the space given to adverts for cars, air travel, holidays requiring air travel and oil companies in the weekday print editions of the five quality dailies, across 10 days in July. The Financial Times carried the fewest such adverts - a total of 2.75 pages across the ten days, or 0.8% of its total space. Its weekday editions have fewer adverts of all kinds than the other papers (the result might have been different if we had assessed the Saturday papers).
The Guardian came next, with 15.6 pages of fossil fuel adverts (2.5%). The Independent carried 24 pages (3.1%); the Telegraph ran 30.5 pages (7.3% of the whole paper), and the Times devoted 42 pages to fossil fuel consumption (4.4%).
I sent the editors a list of questions about their adverts. Neither the Telegraph nor the Times would answer them: they sent me general environmental statements instead. I asked how much of the newspapers' revenue these advertisements provide. Only the FT would tell me. Advertising by travel and motor companies and heavy industry accounts for 13.7% of its total print advertising revenue, and 10.4% of all the paper's income(8).
I asked whether the papers are helping to accelerate manmade global warming by taking this advertising. The editor of the FT answered "no." The Independent argued that because it needs the revenue, "it is only by taking this advertising that we are, in fact, able to continue to raise these issues to the public's attention. We believe that the overall effect of The Independent and our green campaigns will slow down, rather than accelerate, the effects of global warming."(9) The Guardian noted that "carrying an advert does not imply endorsement of any product or service and we'd rather let readers decide what not to buy rather than deciding for them."(10)
I asked whether they would be contemplate ceasing to carry this advertising. "No" said the FT. The Guardian replied "We would rather encourage advertisers ... to become more sustainable. We have just appointed a commercial sustainability manager who will be considering ways to achieve this. She will also be looking at how [Guardian News and Media] can enable more sustainable companies to advertise with us." Dropping these adverts would be "financially damaging and ethically complex". The Independent proposed that "If it became financially feasible to continue to publish the newspaper without this advertising, it may well be an issue that is debated." But "ceasing to carry this advertising would also have wider implications for the independence of the advertising and editorial sections. ... Another problem is, where do you draw the line on what advertising does or doesn't contribute to global warming?"
I believe that most of these answers are inadequate. Newspaper editors make decisions every day about which stories to run and which angles to take. Why can they not also make decisions about the adverts they carry? While it is true that readers can make up their own minds, advertising helps to generate behavioural norms. These advertisements make the destruction of the biosphere seem socially acceptable. If there is a case for banning adverts for tobacco and unregulated gambling sites on the grounds of the social harm they cause, there is a stronger case for blocking adverts which promote the greatest social hazard of all.
The Independent raises a difficult question about drawing the line. Almost all advertising - by promoting excessive consumption - threatens the biosphere. A ban on car advertisements would would prevent manufacturers from promoting the efficient models they might one day produce. Perhaps the most difficult case would be greenwash by oil companies. Adverts for their investments in wind and solar power are designed to distract attention from their core business, thereby promoting the brands which are wrecking the planet. But could the blocking of adverts for wind or solar power be justified, even if the space is bought by oil companies?
But some lines seem clear. Why could the newspapers not ban adverts for cars which produce more than 150 grams of CO2 per kilometre? Why could they not drop all direct advertisements for flights?
The reason is that the newspapers derive around three quarters of their income from advertising, and most of them are struggling. The media companies will not volunteer to lower their chances of survival. So the campaign for a ban on fossil fuel adverts will have to begin elsewhere. I urge you, hypocrite lecteur, to lobby to reduce the income that all newspapers now receive, by demanding that they drop some of their advertisements.
George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. George Monbiot, 5th March 2007. Just a Lot of Hot Air. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/05/just-a-lot-of-hot-air/
2. Dispatches: Greenwash, 5th March 2007. Channel 4.
3. David Miliband, 6th March 2007. We are on track to beat Kyoto target. The Guardian.
4. Email release from the Prime Minister's Political Secretary, 5th March 2007.
5. The memo can be read here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/08/13/RenewablesTargetDocument.pdf
6. Live online debate, 20th June 2007. The Guardian. http://environmenttalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?128@147.djq7ckKAUVO@.775eaab4)
7. No author, 13th August 2007. A greener way to make a living. The Daily Telegraph.
8. Email from Lionel Barber, Editor, 3rd August 2007.
9. Email from Imogen Haddon, Managing Editor, 9th August 2007.
10. Email from Elisabeth Ribbans, 12th August 2007.
© 2007 George Monbiot
8 Comments so far
Show AllI believe the line was "But I write all this with the blush of the hypocrite". Yes you do George.
The Gaurdian and most of the world's other print media are far more complicit in regard to environmental degridation than just their willingness to print ads for the benefit of corporations that pollute the planet. They too add their own share of pollution, from deforestation and processing paper to transportation of finished copy, to smelting metals for presses and dies and flying around to conventions and to cover pseudo stories.
The more lasting and damaging pollution produced by the media however, is the bullshit they print, and the crucial information they fail to print.
I can think of no product for which ads are placed that do no harm. From diapers to cheeseburgers, there is to some extent, harm being done to the environment in mass marketing them, or directly to the end user who consumes them. But George wants it both ways. He wants to continue benefitting from poisoning the environment while tossing around platitudes and feigning concern. Sorta like British Petroleum's current campaign that says they are investing $500 million on alternate fuels in the next ten years. What they fail to point out is that more than half of that will be spent on television spots patting themselves on the back for doing so.
If a journalist really cared to do his or her part in curbing environmental destruction they would be much more effective by reporting some real news. Each time a new law is written, they could expose it, I mean report about it. They could actually do some investigating, and enlightening of the public. They could also print statistics involving certain companies as to how they measure up in complying with the not so rigorous regulations. But that would have a real impact on their advertisers. It would have a real impact on how consumers behave with regard to the worst offenders. But it would also have an adverse effect on how advertisers spent their money with the print media...We can't have that.
Rather than banning advertising for products the use or consumption of which imposes social costs,it makes more sense to require manufacturers and producers to internalize those costs. Cigarettes, for example, would then sell for $41 per pack, gasoline for about $18 per gallon, and handguns for about $12,000 apiece.
To rachard.itani:
Thanks for that post, and for the link to medialens.org. You made my day.
Spot on, as you Brits say. Indeed, here is the very problem for a free press. We do not have a free press because the Left, and Labor, do not advertise. We need to meet the Capitalists head on and show we have some horns, too. Contesting global warming is left to the non-profits, and the non-profits are easily pooh-poohed as feel-good liberals. When the hell is Labor going to rediscover its genitalia, get pissed off, really pissed off, and stand up for the workers and for the planet! I know this sounds like a rhetorical question. - Bill Witherup
This problem reaches across all areas, and it's due to the fact that petroleum products are the only choice - the renewables that could replace them haven't been allowed onto the market, or only at exorbitant prices.
There are numerous examples. Take pension funds in the United States- most are invested in companies like Exxon. Should the public require their pension funds to divest from companies which are tied to global warming, and which spend millions on dishonest PR practices (astroturfing, etc. - see http://www.desmogblog.com/ )?
What if that means the value of the fund goes down? The fact is that renewable energy just isn't as profitable as oil - there's no way to artificially restrict the supply of sunlight in order to drive prices up, for example.
How many people are willing to make minor sacrifices today for major benefits 100 years from now (when they'll be dead)? Are human beings capable of planning for the future, or not?
Big questions, huh?
A "ban on adverts" is about as un-American as can be. It's up to us, We The People, to vote with our wallet. If we don't want FOX, or Exxon, or Wal Mart - then boycott them, period. They may have rigged all the markets, but the one thing they cannot control is what we buy, and from whom. No money, no company - it's the last rule even the big boys can't avoid. Usually. On the other hand, if we're all too lazy and stupid to use the power we have, we deserve what we get.
I say, George old chap, so you've finally had to grapple with this on a personal level, eh? Welcome to my world.
Was a Professional Land Surveyor here in the good ol' US of A and for many years tried to put my expertise to use for progressive ends. Stripmine reclamation, a trash-burning power plant, a municipal sewage sludge composting facility. What I met at every turn was corruption, waste, fraud, and virulently active efforts to circumvent all rules and responsibilities.
Figured I'd had enough whoring for the ones at the top and after talking it over with the wife, decided we could get along on one income.
I know that many will chastise me because I've labelled some controversial efforts as "progressive." If you don't think municipal sewage sludge is a problem that must be addressed in a more rational manner, then pucker up down there and hold it in. And yes, the trash burner was a sad lesson that I guess I had to learn firsthand. At least I learned.
The striking aspect of the figures presented above is that for the FT, a mere 0.8% of the paper's ad space that's sold to the "travel and motor companies and heavy industry" generates a proportionately whopping 13.7% of the paper's "print advertising revenues" and 10.4% of its income! This would seem to suggest that the FT overcharges the travel, motor and heavy industry companies compared with other sectors of the economy. One's first reaction --which the papers mentioned woudl no doubt encourage-- would have to calculate how much dearer the price of subscription would need to become (for both the print and web editions) to make up for the loss of income that the papers (or rather their media owners) would suffer if they dropped all advertising for such products. Of course, that would be the wrong reaction, for two reasons: 1- These media companies have no inherent right to the revenues they derive from advertising harmful products and life-styles; 2- Society has the right to demand that only ethical and non-harmful products be advertised by media companies. The ban on cigarette advertising is a case in point. While Mr. Monbiot ends his article by urging his "hypocritical lecteur" to lobby newspapers "to reduce the income they now receive by dropping some of their revenues", I believe he would have done better to provide his responsible readers (he'd be surprised how much more populous this category is, compared with the "hypocritical" crowd) with the e-mail addresses to which their lobbying missives should be directed. One place to start would have been to provide the website of Medialens, where the names and e-mail addresses of the major media editors and commentators can be found. I would therefore urge those readers who have not yet visited the excellent Medialens website to do so at www.medialens.org, and to follow the links that will lead them both to the media contact addresses, and to the exchange of e-mails the Medialens editors had with Mr. Monbiot on the subject of his article. While at the Medialens site, readers might want to register for the Medialens Alerts that are sent occasionally by David Edwards and David Cromwell. These are amongst the very best that the web has to offer. As are Mr. Monbiot's own recommendations where it comes to Global Warming and other events that his excellent writings touch upon. A parting thought: why not also lobby the editors and owners of the media empires you might decide to contact, that they also include a regular weekly column by Messrs. Edards and Cromwell, for the sake of a more informative and more balanced presentation of the facts than they currently provide today?