Tom Nelson, the producer of the social media blockbuster Climate: The Movie, often tweets in reply to woke Net Zero nonsense: “It’s not about the climate, is it?” Edinburgh City Council is to ban adverts for cruise ships, airports, airlines and internal combustion engine cars. “It is just basic common sense that if the council is serious about its commitment to climate justice, we cannot allow council advertising space to be used to promote fossil fuel companies,” said Ben Parker, a councillor for the Scottish Greens, who is reported to have spearheaded the policy. Curiously missing from the banned list are medicines and plastics, along with other common products such as clothing, food preservatives, cleaning products and soft contact lenses. Together with countless other useful and essential items in widespread use, they are all derived from hydrocarbons, courtesy of oil and gas.
It’s not about the climate, is it?
The ban echoes similar advertisement crackdowns by local councils in Sheffield, Bristol, Cambridgeshire, Coventry, Liverpool and Somerset. The Financial Times notes that Edinburgh is committed to becoming a Net Zero city within barely more than five years.
Interestingly, all the councils who are moving to deprive their ratepayers of large amounts of advertising revenue, except Coventry, are signed up to the billionaire-funded UK100. This green operation targeting local authorities was founded by Polly Billington, a former BBC reporter and aide to Labour’s Net Zero fanatic Ed Miliband. Its main backer is the European Climate Foundation (ECF), a front funding operation for many of the largest names in climate activism. These include Bloomberg Philanthropies, the vehicle used by Michael Bloomberg to promote banning oil and gas production, and the Children’s Investment Fund, promoting the charitable good works of hedge fund manager Sir Christopher Hohn, former paymaster of eco vandals Extinction Rebellion. Other billionaire funders of ECF include names that crop up regularly in the promotion of Net Zero global collectivisation including Hewlett, IKEA, KR, Grantham and Rockefeller. One of five board members of UK100 is Madeline Carroll, described as a communication and campaigning specialist for ECF.
Local councils around the U.K. have signed up to a UK100 pledge, which commits them to “acting sooner than the Government’s goal” and making substantial progress towards Net Zero in the next decade. “We are closer to the people who live and work in our communities, so we have a better understanding of their needs,” says UK100, a debatable proposition given who is funding this waffle. “This means we can collaborate with them to build consensus for the solutions we need to transition to a Net Zero society that delivers multiple benefits and is fair, just and works for everyone.” Try telling that to the less affluent car owners forced off the roads in London by Mayor Sadiq Khan’s punch-down Ulez policy, backed by the notorious statistical construct of saving 4,000 lives a year. Khan is the current chair of C40, a group of 100 city mayors striving for similar goals as UK100, and backed by substantial grassroots donations from concerned citizens – no just joking, it’s backed by Michael Bloomberg and Sir Christopher Hohn.
Meanwhile, applications are currently being solicited for a three weekend, all expenses paid, residential course for elected officials at UK100’s Climate Leadership Academy later this year. Here, the officials will be groomed, or in UK100’s words given a “unique coaching opportunity”, to develop their political skills, knowledge and confidence “to become leading climate pioneers in local government”. Rather oddly, UK100 says it particularly encourages applications in Wales and Scotland, where you’d think that bonkers Labour/SNP/Greens Net Zero policies are already pretty advanced. There is a promise that ‘graduates’ of the course will have the opportunity “to act as spokespeople for UK100 in national advocacy initiatives”.
It is clear that all this green advocacy is being heavily funded by global billionaires carefully curating the agenda in the mainstream media, as well as academia and in political circles. Removing hydrocarbons in just a few years from human society is insanity on steroids, and support is starting to wane across the world as the full implications of the policy become clear. But it remains popular with the controlling elite who are clearly committed to a process of world de-industrialisation under the guise of a scientifically unproven climate emergency.
One of the outfits campaigning for the Edinburgh ban, notes the FT, was Adfree Cities, a “volunteer group” lobbying for the reduction of “harmful adverts”. According to its web site, Adfree Cities is a network of bodies challenging corporate outdoor advertising and reclaiming public space for art, community and nature. Another interpretation might be removing the rights of a citizen to promote lawful products in favour of plastering public spaces with hideous Banksy-inspired illegal graffiti. According to Adfree Cities, advertising impacts us in many conscious and unconscious ways, “damaging our environment and wellbeing”. Of course, all of this juvenile attention-seeking requires outside funding and in this case it is supplied by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
This Left-wing money mountain sprays funding across a large numbers of activist groups, including operations claiming climate motives. Among recent beneficiaries is Climate Outreach which received £157,112 for work on climate change and migration, DeSmog which was helped with £157,257 to run its farcical ‘blacklist’ of sceptical scientists and writers, Faith for Climate, which was given a £170,000 grant for its Faiths for Climate Justice project, Fossil Free Pride given £164,500 to help sever ties between “queer culture and the fossil fuel industry”, and People and Planet which received a handsome £355,931 for climate justice.
It’s not about the climate, is it?
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All that is not compulsory will be illegal.
First they’ll come for your ads
Second they’ll come for your business
Then they’ll come for You
I think it is the other way around. The green tech industry wants to snatch vacation industry market share, and banning the ads is just a part of how they do it. People have only so much expandable income. If they already spend it on a cruise, they will have less to spend on electric car and solar batteries.
It would be interesting if the next target were sports and entertainment industry, which also emits a lot of CO2 while delivering a non-essential product. I can’t wait for all of these actors and singers to start asking us not to watch their movies and not go to their concerts to reduce our carbon footprint.
There’s also a lot of CO2 in Beer and Ale
the next target were sports and entertainment industry
Bread is getting too expensive for the masses, can’t take away their circuses too.
Bread produces a lot of CO2, so getting rid of bread is a good idea.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy
Start Painting cityscape artwork with the ads strategically placed within the artwork.
…A park pastoral containing several advertising kiosks with the cruise themed ads on them
Or create Bronze statues which represent the ads.
…A bronze of people buying cruise tickets.
The way to stop this nonsense is to give them precisely that which they demand.
The Fossil Fuel industry must send each of the 100 councils signed up to the policy of banning fossil fuels from their communities, a notice letter.
The letter would be supportive of the councils ambitions and would advise them no fossil fuels will be delivered to the council while the policy to ban such fuels in in place.
The letter would advise that only those signing up to support fossil fuel use will in future be allowed to purchase it.
The industry being targeted needs to become active in protecting its right to trade. If it fails to do that simple thing they will find they have no profitable business.
These kinds of suggestions will never succeed. Any attempt of producers/sellers to undertake such controls would immediate lead to legal action against them for restraint of trade or any other number of terms. The power only belongs to government until/unless the voters make changes — if they still have any chance to do so.
Andy, terms and conditions with signed contracts are a normal part of commerce. When an organisation actively demands the closure/cessation of your services, then it is perfectly normal to comply with their wish and not supply them.
Back in 1970 the US Congress passed a ban on Cigarette advertising which took effect con Jan 2 1971. It didn’t affect the sale of cigarettes one iota.
An ad ban on businesses that use fossil fuel (the City also uses fossil fuels in their fleet so they also couldn’t advertise). So long as the cities upholding the ban make use of fossil fuels in their fleet (Fire, Police, Ambulances, Maintenance, Utilities, etc.) these.services also cannot advertise. If they do, sue them for supporting Fossil Fuel Usage!
Oil companies need to go to court and get an injunction to stop supplying. That would implement the no gas and it would not be the oil company’s fault.
Can anyone confirm these very rich people practice what they preach and are prepared to live in these energy poor and hydrocarbon starved environments.
I’ll let you know when I see it.
Refuse to sell petrol to city service vehicles.
Not in Knightsbridge or Belgravia, Kensington etc
They will respond from their G-VI’s on their way to their yachts.
Just what is this “council advertising space” where they can ban something?
Will it actually mean anything to most people, that is will people still be able to access as much advertising of anything and everything as they could possibly stomach, regardless of what the silly City Council may do?
Bus stops, billboards, park kiosks, anyplace within the city boundary where advertisements are placed.
Anyone wanting to go on a cruise or purchase airline tickets need only access the internet.
I Khant believe just how petty they are
You can’t advertise cake on the tube etc. people might be easily influenced…
Emergency energy bill help for Scots hits record levels as 1 in 5 Scots in poverty (The Herald, Glasgow).
‘Climate justice’ has resulted in 1 in 5 Scots being in energy poverty, yet another example of one the left’s favourite ploys viz. corruption of the language: ‘but if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought’ (Orwell: Politics and the English Language).
It is all very baffling, if Edinburgh were to have say 2C increase in the daily mean temperature over the next century it would be the same as London is today.
I had a look at desmog’s list of ‘climate sceptics’. It’s a very long list with many highly qualified people. Wikipedia pulled their list when they realised that the more names it contained the more it supported the sceptics. Maybe desmog will do the same – or maybe not because they have taken a lot of money for it. I started writing to them to ask them to add me to the list, and then I thought … no it’s a waste of time because no-one reads their nonsense.
Wikipedia, I think, is still a cesspool of “climate” misinformation and nonsense. I can’t say because I no longer read any material about such issues on those pages. No donations going that way either. When it is all rewritten in a non-biased way, wake me.
Russell remarks in the ‘History of Western Philosophy’ that as the Roman Empire crumbled in the late 300s and early 400s, the finest minds of the time, such as St Augustine, were spending their energies preoccupied with arriving at the exact definition of when virginity had or had not been preserved.
One would have thought the folks in Edinburgh have enough to worry about, high drug deaths, failing education systems, poverty… but what they think is their urgent priority is this thing they call climate justice, which is somehow impaired by people putting up ads for cruise ships.
In other parts of the Scottish forest politicians are focusing on the importance of keeping puberty blockers freely available to children and allowing male rapists who say they are women to be incarcerated in women’s prisons. That is, they still are supporting self identification of gender and treating gender as sex, and rejecting the Cass Report. They are preventing improvements to the A9, the most dangerous road in Scotland and perhaps in Europe. Improving it would condone driving, and we have to think about climate justice don’t you know.
Go figure.
I hope it also bans councillors from travelling more than 30 miles from Edinburgh. They’re the ones pushing this nonsense, they should be the ones that set the proper example.
I wonder how long they would do that before trying to change the rules?
Make that 45 miles so they can make the round trip in an EV without stopping to recharge and only in the summer.
EV – which is made, and transported to Scotland, using – you guessed it – Fossil Fuels.
No – 6 and two-thirds miles, – far enough to far there and back in a day.
Councillors only, mind.
Auto
True, why should some people be allowed to pollute visual space just to manipulate others?
“pollute visual space”
Yet that is what you post here for.
A visual advertisement of your fascist totalitarian.
Why should normal people have to be exposed to what the far-left degenerates, like you, think is “art” ??
Are you that easily manipulated that a stupid advertising sign for a cruise would cause you to take one? Then again you do believe in global warming and climate change…
Would you forget that cruise ships exist if you failed to see advertising promoting them? Unlikely!
But should they be banned from advertising? Not in a sane world!
Are you that easily manipulated
Obviously so.
But this isn’t the argument. One can imagine a reasonable person saying that cities would be greatly improved with no billboards. Edinburgh has previously restricted their use for that reason.
But Edinburgh is not saying that in the present case. What they are saying is:
…if the council is serious about its commitment to climate justice, we cannot allow council advertising space to be used to promote fossil fuel companies…
The policy seems to be restricted to council advertising space, and is that on council advertising space they will not accept postings for a small number of specific products or services.
So they are not (in this measure) restricting billboards. They have done that in other measures. Nor are they reducing council owned billboards. They have picked some goods and services as climatalogically incorrect, and are banning the advertising of them on council owned billboards.
Non-council billboards will continue. Advertising of the climatealogically incorrect products and services will continue on them. Its only on the council owned billboards that this applies, and its only to a small number of named goods and services.
As people have pointed out, they have picked services which are not particularly carbon emission intensive, and have not picked others which are. It will have no effect whatever on emissions. Its virtue signalling.
As the remark by the councillor quoted above actually hints.
Do they not have anything better to think about? Like drug deaths and education and alcohol abuse?
How can you defend this silliness?
True, why should some people be allowed to pollute visual space just to manipulate others?
good question. you should ask that of the installers of miles of solar and turbines across the globe. or do you not consider that a visual space?
Really good comment from joe X ! 🙂
The really interesting thing about this is that its an example of a growing social trend, in which people in responsible positions, working for a company or organization, decide they will take some action because of their personal feelings. Action which changes the conduct of the organization or its delivery of its services.
The first example I recall of this was when some Muslim supermarket checkout cashiers in England proposed doing their jobs as usual but refusing to sell pork or alcohol. They had religious objections. That went nowhere. Then there have been cases where publishing staff have demanded that a given author or book not be published by their employer.
A similar phenomenon is when staff at an organization decide to widen its remit into things its original mission has nothing to do with. As when the National Trust decides that it will decolonize its exhibits, or compel all volunteers to wear rainbow ribbons to show support for LGBQT…etc. Or as in the present case, when a council whose aims should be looking after the welfare of their local people starts to set its sights on contributing to global climate justice, whatever that is. Or at least, taking a public stand on the issue.
There are lots of other instances one could enumerate. The attempts to cancel J K Rowling. The attempts to block organizations from relations with Israel. The latest, the attempt to have book festivals in the UK refuse donations from Bailie Gifford. And so on.
Sometimes one feels tempted to think we are living in the Age of Hysterial but perhaps the truth is even worse, we are living in the Age of Frivolity.
So you favor a ban on all advertising? Or only advertising that you disagree with?
“Faith for Climate”?
Also curiously missing from the list is fertilizers.
Fertilizers missing? That’s no BS! 😎
I wonder, will this create another “Streisand Effect”? Will the average normal person think, “Hmm… They don’t want me to think about going on a cruise, so I’ll check out cruises on Expedia.”?
So how did Scotland produce folks like Adam Smith then turn around and do stupid stuff like this?
How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It: Herman, Arthur: 9780609809990: Amazon.com: Books
It is clear that all this green advocacy is being heavily funded by global billionaires
I’m trying to understand what they think they will gain by this course of action. Is it really only about power, as Orwell suggested?
“challenging corporate outdoor advertising and reclaiming public space for art, community and nature.”
Does art, community and nature pay for spaces?
Has an audit been done to see loss-of-funds if such ads are banned?
Will this put a little-hole or a big-hole in the council’s budget?
Doing what is “right” is more important than the cost.
The problem is the definition of what is right.
“Doing what is “right” is more important than the cost.”
… as long as I don’t have to pay that cost.
So if it’s met by little people – deplorables as one Hillary put it – then the cost is fine – little people can stump up [certainly rather that than they eat well!].
Auto
“Edinburgh: A city that ought to be in England but doesn’t deserve to be.”
The best insult ever. Told to me, of course, by a Glaswegian.
It is reasonable for the the Scottish Greens to try to protect their constituents from the influence of advertising.
They know that their constituents are not very bright and thus very gullible.
The proof is that they voted for the the Scottish Greens.
So have they banned golf and whisky tourists from travelling to Scotland yet?
Clear as day, bad government.
Bad government that was voted in by stupid citizens.
Every country gets the government it deserves.
-Joseph de Maistre