(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green):...My amendment 208 seeks to address the regulatory gap
as a matter of urgency. It would create a regulator that is
independent, transparent and one that can take timely action,
thus better protecting consumers from misleading messaging by
polluters and other harmful commercial actors. I think consumers
want action. They are increasingly concerned about the role of
companies in producing waste, pollution and environmental harms,
and ignoring human rights. Yet in response these same companies
turn to advertising to try to clean up their image and shore up
their social licence to operate. New evidence reported in the
Financial Times shows that Shell
one of the world’s top polluters, is estimated to have spent £220
million on advertising in 2023. Much of that advertising is aimed
at younger generations, who are perhaps more vulnerable to
misleading claims.
Misleading green advertising and greenwashing is on the rise. The
ASA’s response has been to update its minimal environmental
guidance to advertisers and to rule against just a tiny number of
adverts for Shell
HSBC and other high-carbon advertisers for making misleading
green claims. Those rulings are often slow and are often made
well after the damage has been done. Time-consuming complaints
have largely been brought by civil society organisations
concerned with the impact of advertising and greenwashing on
consumer wellbeing and their rights, but it should not be left to
those organisations to have to try to enforce misleading adverts
and to ensure that those adverts do not go unchecked. We need a
robust regulatory framework and it is disappointing that the
Government did not use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to
deliver one.
High carbon clearly means fossil fuels, flights and SUVs. I would
argue that it also probably means fast fashion, most meat and
dairy, and the banks funding the likes of BP and Shell
I therefore back the many campaigns for a ban on high-carbon
advertising and for interim measures, such as car advertisements
with mandatory content about the benefits of active travel and
public travel, as has been done in France. In the meantime, and
in the absence of a Government prepared to act in line with the
climate science and other evidenced demands, my amendment 207
would bring consideration of net zero emissions by 2030 into the
consumer protection regime envisaged by the Government. Let me
say a few words about why that is 2030, rather than 2050...
For context, OPEN HERE
