The authoritarian streak running through climate fundamentalism, and indeed climate policy, is already difficult to miss, and it’s only going to become more visible, if (or, I think, when) the reckless rush to net zero starts creating enough political opposition to alarm those now steering policy.
In the meantime, there are decisions like this (via the Guardian):
The UK advertising watchdog has banned two Toyota adverts for condoning driving that disregards its environmental impact in a landmark ruling, stating that the SUV ads had been created without “a sense of responsibility to society”.
It is the first time the Advertising Standards Authorit y (ASA) has blocked an SUV advert on the grounds of breaching social responsibility in an environmental context.
The regulator barred two ads, first released in a 2020 campaign: a poster and a video shown on social media, where dozens of Toyota Hilux cars drive across off-road terrain, including a river, while a voiceover describes the scene as “one of nature’s true spectacles”. The vehicles then join a road and drive through an urban area, before a lone car enters a driveway, with the voiceover continuing: “Toyota Hilux. Born to roam.” The poster shows two SUVs in the foreground, followed by a swarm of others traversing a rocky terrain over a cloud of dust.
The complaint was lodged by Adfree Cities, a network of groups trying to get advertising out of public spaces. They argued, in partnership with the UK campaign group Badvertising, that the adverts condoned environmentally harmful behaviour, and are calling for an end to advertising of high-carbon products and services.
The ASA ruled that the adverts “condoned the use of vehicles in a manner that disregarded their impact on nature and the environment … they had not been prepared with a sense of responsibility to society”.
The ASA is a self-regulatory body. It is funded (on a voluntary basis) by the advertising industry, not the taxpayer. Its rulings are, as far as I know, typically complied with. They do not have statutory force, but the ASA can, under certain circumstances, refer “offenders” to regulatory bodies that can take further, legally binding action against them. So, until that step is taken, the ASA’s actions are not, strictly speaking, an act of government censorship, but they are nonetheless interesting as indications of the thinking of Britain’s ruling establishment.
And note this:
[Veronica Wignall, a co-director of Adfree Cities] said: “This ruling is a good moment to think about the limitations of what the regulator can do,” noting that the body relied on civil society to monitor ads for potential harm. “The ASA can only act on adverts that are environmentally damaging through breaches of advertising codes . . . But the harms caused by high-carbon advertising go much deeper than that.
“Advertising for SUVs is pushing up demand for massive gas-guzzling, highly polluting cars in urban environments, just when we want streets that are safer and cleaner and an [accessible] low carbon transport system,” Wignall said, adding that the situation was similar for flights, meat and dairy.
She called for the government to “stop high-carbon advertising at source” with a tobacco-style ban. “Similarly, climate breakdown is increasingly damaging health in the UK, as well as obviously across the world where impacts are felt more severely.”