Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to a think tank report, excessive advertising is driving materialist consumerism which is contributing to the destruction of the world through global warming. But in my opinion this is a thinly disguised attack on free speech.
Rein in advertising to help tackle climate crisis, report urges
Industry promotes materialism and lifts sales of climate-harming products, study says
Sandra Laville
Fri 27 Nov 2020 17.00 AEDTAdvertising needs to be controlled and changed to reduce its impact on the climate, according to a report released as consumers prepare to spend billions on Black Friday.
The report by the New Weather Institute thinktank and the charity We are Possible examines how advertising indirectly contributes to climate change and the ecological emergency.
…
The report says the advertising industry has so far escaped scrutiny about its role in contributing to climate change. Tim Kasser, an emeritus professor of psychology at Knox College in Illinois, who co-authored the report, said there was a body of evidence to show that in order to make progress in addressing and reversing climate and ecological degradation, it would be prudent to rein in and change the practices of the advertising industry.
“This report argues that enough sound empirical evidence exists to support the conclusion that the advertising industry indirectly contributes to climate and ecological degradation through its encouragement of materialistic values and goals, the consumption-driving work and spend cycle, and the consumption of two illustrative products, namely beef and tobacco,” Kasser wrote.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/rein-in-advertising-to-help-tackle-climate-crisis-report-urges
The executive summary of the report;
Advertising’s Role in Climate and Ecological Degradation
Many industries have been recognized as directly and indirectly causing climate and ecological degradation. So far, however, the advertising industry has largely escaped accountability. This report attempts to remedy the omission by looking at four ways that advertising indirectly causes such harm. Specifically, it reviews scientific literature showing that materialistic values and goals, the consumption-driving work & spend cycle, and the consumption of two illustrative products (namely beef and tobacco) are each a) encouraged by advertising and b) implicated in causing various forms of environmental damage. It seems likely that similar dynamics occur for other products, services, and experiences. This body of empirical evidence therefore supports the conclusion that if humanity hopes to make progress in addressing and reversing climate and ecological degradation, it would be prudent to rein in and change the practices of the advertising industry.
Read more: https://www.badverts.org/reports-and-publications
The author Tim Kasser is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Knox College, US, author of several books including Hypercapitalism (2018) and The High Price of Materialism (2002), and co-editor of Psychology and Consumer Culture (2004). He is a research advisor to the Badvertising campaign.
Although reining in advertising might seem like a great idea, especially as we all endure the frenzy of Christmas marketing, I see this whole idea as a thinly disguised attack on free speech.
I’m not disputing the harm tobacco causes, but once you have laws which regulate what people are allowed to advertise on the basis of the nebulous climate harm the products allegedly cause, its no big stretch to abuse those laws to regulate other forms of speech, such as advocacy for political opposition to renewable energy, on the grounds that the speaker is “advertising” activities or ideas which are harmful.
Rein in idiots like Maine Governor (King Godmother) Janet Mills before it’s too late….
https://www.centralmaine.com/2020/11/29/maines-bold-climate-action-plan-will-require-money-commitment/
Time to rein in the government funding of colleges, which has served mainly to drive up prices and produce political propaganda for the party giving the kickbacks.
The problem is that educators naturally tend toward idealism, and idealism is what Marx and Gore, etc., are all about.
Anyone tell Google?
What is the funding source for the Guardian? What is his name?
At my age advertising has very little effect on me, I buy what I want because I want it. Sometimes an ad for something that is new, or I have never tried, catches my eye, but I usually eventually don’t bother, or the price puts me off.
Focussing on beef is rather peculiar when the obvious ‘consumerism’ goes for throwaway gear of all sorts. It suggests that they think the first step in revamping the economy is to make us all vegetarian. The reference to tobacco, advertising of which is already controlled, is also weird.
Off topic. I listened to a recent lecture on global health by Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Officer for UK & lockdown czar) to find out more about him. His take on health is that it is unevenly distributed at both large and small scale topographic analysis. He will not be satisfied until health outcomes are completely homogeneous – everything from suicide rates to heart disease. How he is going to make dangerous professions like tree falling and mining have life expectancies identical to parliamentary secretaries is beyond me.
“How he is going to make dangerous professions like tree falling and mining have life expectancies identical to parliamentary secretaries is beyond me.”
“Logan’s Run” comes to mind.
This goes back to the standard liberal belief that the only reason why everyone isn’t a liberal is because evil capitalists don’t want them to.
In this case, it’s a firm belief in the myth that advertising has brain washed the masses. Of course the progressives aren’t swayed by this advertising, because they are morally superior beings. The average citizen though is too weak minded to resist, and thus has to be protected from himself. Our self declared superior beings are more than willing to to provide this service, for the good of mankind of course.
The reality is that advertising doesn’t create demand. Watching a Burger King ad doesn’t make someone who isn’t hungry suddenly start craving a Whopper. What it does do is direct someone who is hungry, to drive to BK instead of say, MacDonalds.
A lot of people in the ad biz are quite left of center. Although a loss for freedom of speech, it would be poetic justice if some got laid off.
Well he went from, “I do not like this,” to “You shall not be allowed,” in a split second.
That’s a progressive for you.
Also, it’s pretty short distance from “You shall not be allowed” to the gulags.
Let’s start with cutting back with advertising in The Guardian. Let them set an example for all as they lead the way with the headlines “Save the World, Stop Advertising with Us!” and start refusing money so they can rely upon the unicorn farts and unobtanium that will soon power the world and make us all millionaires.
I have avoided the politicised rag for decades, but seem to recall there was not a lot of commercial advertising in that bumf even then. Mostly public sector (BBC, local government), so was a way to skew their recruitment even more to the left. Hopefully, commercial advertisers will take note, and support the Gruniad’s position by not forcing that paper to take their money. There are plenty of other papers to advertise in, and even some that people still read from time to time.
Hmmm…psychology professor pronouncing the destruction of advertising for the greater good, who has advertised to sell his own books. Sent in his article to a publication that has advertising.
People in Glass Houses really shouldn’t throw stones.
As for the attack on beef and tobacco—I won’t even go there. I will say this: did he bang his cane against the floor when announcing beef as the big advertising problem?
Guardian HEAL THYSELF of all those advertisements by swearing OFF of them!
It’s a simple corollary that when global warming is claimed to affect everything, then everything thus becomes a legitimate target for regulation or outright banning. Which is just fine for those people that really really really like controlling what other people can do, say, or even think.
And of course, ‘studies’ ‘proving’ what the Grauniad claims magically appear… I recently heard of one on the Freakanomics podcast, which stated that some 90% of advertising was a waste of money.
Of course, the replicability crisis likely rears its ugly head in this case… I’m betting that in a handful of years, we’ll see another study which cannot replicate the results of the study highlighted in Freakanomics, with a quiet retraction and ‘correction’ which completely changes the results of the Freakanomics-featured study while claiming in the abstract that the ‘correction’ doesn’t change the takeaway, using some handwavium excuse as to why being diametrically opposite to reality is really just the same as reality.