We banned cigarette adverts - fossil fuels must be next

There was a time when doctors in both the United States and the UK were only too happy to promote "the health benefits of smoking".

- JONATHON PORRITT

From the 1920s right through to the 1950s, actors were taken on to play the part of doctors to promote different cigarette brands, with bcompanies vying in their claims for the level of support they had among the medical profession, as in “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette”.

Today, this sounds completely outlandish, but I’m reminded that my own father, an eminent surgeon in the UK, would have been completely comfortable with these adverts.

As someone who smoked cigarettes (and then a pipe) enthusiastically for 60 years of his 90-year lifespan, he was slow to embrace the increasingly authoritative research links between smoking and cancer. It was clear to me, as a rebellious teenager, that he was a complete addict. As was my mother. As was my sister. And brother.

Unfortunately, many people are still addicted to nicotine today. But it’s our addiction to fossil fuels that is causing by far the greatest damage to people and the planet.

Improbably, back in 2006 it was George W Bush who acknowledged in his State of the Union address that “we have a serious problem. America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” He was particularly concerned about imports from Iran. What goes around…

That’s why today’s debate in parliament is so important. MPs are discussing a petition calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, much like the existing bans on tobacco advertising.

The petition, signed by more than 110,000 people, argues that such advertisements “encourage the use of products and sponsorship promotes a positive reputation and creates a social licence of trust and acceptability”. The debate reflects growing public concern about the legitimacy of fossil fuel companies sponsoring cultural, sporting and educational events.