In 2021, an article published in the Journal of Environment Research found that pollution from burning coal, petroleum and gas was causing far more deaths around the world than previously thought.
In fact, the fine particulate matter (known as PM 2.5) from cars, planes, furnaces, coal plants and more, was behind the deaths of 1 in 5 people – slightly more than cigarette smoking.
This is a simple medical fact was put on the design for a billboard that Comms Declare and Doctors for the Environment recently submitted to Ooh Media, hoping it would be published on bus stops in Perth.
But it was knocked back, for being “political” and for depicting smoking.
To be fair, the proposed billboard was political in that it asked people to visit smokekills.com.au and email the federal government to stop new coal, oil and gas projects and to prevent fossil fuel advertising. It also showed a woman with a smoke stack near her lips, which may seem like smoking if you didn’t look too carefully.
But that’s only half the story.
Woodside, one of the world’s largest petroleum companies, has been running a billboard campaign across Perth which claims the company’s massive Scarborough gas project is “Good for WA.”
Woodside doesn’t sell anything to the public. The advertising makes no specific claims and is arguably misleading. That’s because the climate pollution from the project is nearly three times Australia’s annual emissions. That’s so high it puts global efforts to stay around 1.5 degrees of warming in jeopardy, which is no good for WA, or anyone else.
The fight over the Scarborough Gas Project caused a political storm, with the federal Labor government accused of watering down environmental laws on offshore gas projects after successful legal action from Traditional Owners delayed its construction.
So, how is an advertisement citing a medical fact knocked back, while Woodside can make spurious claims without restriction? How is Woodside’s billboard not deemed political, when it is clearly designed to influence public opinion on a political issue?
Ooh! Media was criticised on LinkedIn recently for allowing a blatant lie by astroturfing group, Advance, to appear on a billboard in northern NSW.
The billboard said, “Renewables cost the earth – dollars and destruction.” Ooh! Media took down the ad (which was due to be removed anyway) but approving it in the first place is an epic fail for a company that belongs to green advertising collective, ‘Ad Net Zero’.
And, of course they are not the only Out of Home company to face the challenge of deciding what content is appropriate in public spaces. JC Decaux spruiks its climate credentials while running billboards for companies such as the world’s largest coal exporter, Glencore.
But there is a clear double standard across the board when it comes to deciding what is political or controversial. I have heard many examples of truthful climate ads being refused by Ooh companies. It seems the interpretation of “political” can stretch to ads that might offend big companies or raise uncomfortable issues – like the end of a stable climate.
This extends to Meta – where even the words “climate change” can have your ad refused. The supremely uncontroversial New Zealand Geographic is the latest organisation to be blocked from boosting completely truthful climate content on Facebook.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies and their supporters spread misinformation with apparent impunity. Check out this Facebook ad which ignores all known science to declare that “Antarctic sea ice loss has slowed to near-record daily lows.”
With a federal election looming, and insufficient laws governing truth in political advertising, it’s unfortunately up to media platforms to decide whether the fact that fossil fuels are harming our health and future is too hot to handle.
We know advertising works. Governments should ensure it works for democracy and our future as well.
Belinda Noble is the founder of climate communications charity, Comms Declare
