Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700024 relating to fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Let me begin by thanking the 110,519 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition and welcoming those in the Public Gallery. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Chris Packham, the petition’s creator, who is known to many as a passionate and persistent voice for nature and environmental justice. Another petition of his was debated in Westminster Hall just last week; he likes to keep us in the Petitions Committee on our toes. Chris has used his platform and credibility to bring this issue to national attention, and I am grateful for the opportunity to open this important debate.

I thank all those who spoke to me while I was preparing my opening remarks, particularly Kate Copeland-Rhodes of The Globe Foundation in Uttoxeter in my constituency. We have had a lot of engagement from climate groups and campaigners, but not so much from fossil fuel companies. I cannot possibly think why, but I will do my very best to represent their arguments.

The question before us today is simple to ask, but difficult to answer: should fossil fuel companies be allowed to advertise and sponsor content, events and spaces in the United Kingdom? In truth, it is a question of what kind of future we want to build, what kind of public discourse we want to cultivate and what role, if any, we believe advertising should play in shaping our societal values.

Those who oppose a ban on fossil fuel advertising typically begin with a defence of freedom of expression, not just for individuals, but for businesses. In a pluralistic society, they argue, even controversial companies have a right to communicate. After all, debate is healthy and the public are not stupid; they can make up their own minds.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

We know that we need to transition away from fossil fuels. My Climate and Nature Bill is a vital opportunity to back a joined-up, science-led approach to the climate and nature crisis, but that drive—that transition—is being undermined by advertising falsely giving the impression that business as usual is sustainable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must act now to ban those adverts, and that they must give the Climate and Nature Bill the debate time it deserves?

[Jacob Collier]

I will come on to some of those arguments, but I recognise what the hon. Lady says. It is important to note that fossil fuel companies will be key to the transition. Many are, in fact, investing heavily in renewable energy, alternative fuels and low-carbon technologies.

The Advertising Standards Authority, which I met ahead of the debate, made it clear that it has no official position on a ban and that it is for Parliament to decide. It is cautious about stepping into territory where it might be seen to regulate brand image rather than specific advertising claims. Frankly, it has a point, because there is a fine line between stopping misleading adverts and telling a company that it cannot speak at all. The ASA also noted that when companies are genuinely diversifying—investing in wind, solar and hydrogen—they should be allowed to share that progress; otherwise, how do we know if they are making any?

Then there is the issue of capacity. As Badvertising and others have noted, the ASA is already stretched. It often takes months to investigate ads, by which time the advert in question has already run its course, its messages have been absorbed and its impressions have been made, so we are left with a reactive system chasing after a rapidly moving industry. Some critics make the slippery slope argument: “If we ban fossil fuel ads, will cars be next? What about flights, steaks and leather shoes? Where do we draw the line before we are banning Sunday roasts and petrol lawnmowers?”

Let me be clear that those are not trivial objections—they speak to the real tensions between climate emergency, free enterprise and democratic openness—but now I want to turn to the other side of the debate. While all speech may be free, speech is not without consequence, and fossil fuel advertising is not just a matter of a few billboards here and there; it is increasingly a co-ordinated strategy to build trust, shape culture and delay structural change. Groups such as Badvertising and the New Weather Institute have made that clear in both their research and their rhetoric.

As was revealed by internal BP advertising memos, fossil fuel companies seek to reinforce their social licence and influence consumer behaviour by associating themselves with progress, positivity and public good. The issue is not just what they say, but where and how they say it. A 2022 report by DeSmog revealed that over 240 fossil fuel campaigns ran across the Transport for London network in six years. Fossil fuel ads appear in Westminster station, for example, not because consumers need urgent advice about offshore drilling, but because that is where we, the policymakers, walk.

We must also talk about greenwashing, which is no longer just a fringe concern; it is now central to the conversation about advertising ethics and consumer trust. Yes, the ASA has taken action—in 2023, it banned Shell, Repsol and Petronas ads that were misleading in their environmental claims, chiefly by omitting the fact that their business remains overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuel production—but companies are evolving. In 2025, Shell released a new advert that on the surface was still greenwashing, but this time included qualifying language in the small print about its continuing investments in oil and gas and, as a result, technically met the rules. We are in an era of compliant deception: an ad can be accurate but also misleading. A message can be truthful in parts but dishonest in tone. It is a bit like a politician claiming that they never technically lied but conveniently forgetting that they answered a different question altogether—I am not naming any names.

Beyond formal adverts, we must confront the world of sponsorship, where the relationship is less about information and more about association. Fossil fuel companies sponsor not just events, but sports, music, festivals, education initiatives and even museum exhibits. Why? Because we do not remember the product; we remember the feeling, and if the logo has an association with the feeling, the brand has woven itself into the cultural fabric of our society.

The New Weather Institute’s “Dirty Money” report found that oil and gas companies are now spending over $5.6 billion across 205 active global sports sponsorships. This is not just a side hustle; it is a strategy. This is where it gets complicated. We had the British grand prix this weekend. That industry is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, albeit Formula 1 is on track to be net zero by 2030 and some teams, such as McLaren, are already carbon neutral. Are we to say that a fossil fuel company should not sponsor a sport that at present is a big polluter?

There is a key precedent: in 2002, we passed the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act to ban tobacco ads and sponsorships, not because cigarettes had changed or become healthier, but because the science had clarified that the social harm was overwhelming.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Each year, air pollution causes an estimated 43,000 premature deaths in the UK, and around 1,200 in my Greater Manchester area. Burning fossil fuel is a major cause of that, so does he agree that the Government must treat this as a public health crisis and act now to ban fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, just as he mentioned we did to protect people from tobacco?

[Jacob Collier]

My hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to some examples from around the world that could act as a marker for us.

At the time, the tobacco firms argued for nuance—they were exploring reduced-risk products, sponsoring arts initiatives, funding schools in developing countries—and yet we drew the line. Today, fossil fuel air pollution kills more people than smoking. It accounts for one in five deaths globally. The BMJ confirmed that in 2021. Yet fossil fuel adverts still run on our buses, on our television screens, in sports stadiums and increasingly on social media, where the targeting is opaque and the influence invisible. If tobacco’s harm justified a ban, how can we not at least ask the same of an industry whose products now threaten life on earth as we know it?

We are not alone. In France, a law passed in 2022 bans fossil fuel advertising, with exemptions only for low-carbon gas, and Amsterdam, The Hague and Sydney have introduced their own versions. The Hague’s policy was challenged in court, but the court ruled in favour of the city’s right to act in the public interest, affirming that the freedom of advertising does not override the responsibility to prevent harm.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has my hon. Friend noted the call from the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, for Governments to ban fossil fuel advertising to protect public health and address climate change? Does he feel that, alongside the examples that he cited, that is evidence of increasing momentum towards such a change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier]

I think my hon. Friend has read my speech, because I was just coming to the UN Secretary-General’s comments. She may also know that there are similar bans on fossil fuel company advertising in Edinburgh, Sheffield, Cambridgeshire, Liverpool, Norwich and North Somerset. Even advertising agencies themselves are stepping back, with many refusing to take work from fossil fuel clients. The momentum is not marginal; it is building.

The Government’s official response to the petition was issued on 18 December. It stated that although the UK is “committed to reducing emissions”, there

“are currently no plans to restrict fossil fuel advertising.”

Instead, the focus is on voluntary eco-labelling schemes and better enforcement of existing rules. Voluntary schemes are important, but they do not curb the underlying issue that advertising has become a tool for delay, distraction and reputation laundering. Banning fossil fuel advertising is not about censorship; it is about recognising that certain messages, delivered by certain actors in certain contexts, can cause harm.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) said, the UN Secretary-General called for a global ban on fossil fuel advertising earlier this year. He was not being radical; he was being proportionate. We ban tobacco ads not to silence smokers, but to protect children. We restrict junk food advertising during children’s programming not because we do not like Big Macs, but because the power to persuade can do real harm if left unchecked.

We are not asking fossil fuel companies to shut down tomorrow; we are asking them not to mislead the public today. We are not asking them to abandon all communications; we are asking them not to dominate our public spaces with ads that obscure reality. In a world that is now averaging 1.63°C above pre-industrial levels, the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to. This debate is about balancing the freedom of expression and free enterprise with the real need to take action to prevent a worsening climate emergency. The advertising regulator has said that it is down to this place to act, if it so chooses. In that spirit, I look forward to the debate and to contributions from other hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier]

When I spoke to Chris Packham ahead of this debate, I think he was quite disappointed that last week’s debate about banning grouse shooting had gone a particular way. This one probably went a bit more in his favour. I hope that, watching on, he will be happy with how it has gone.

I thank all the organisations that have spent their time and expertise helping me to prepare my opening remarks, from the Advertising Standards Authority to The Globe Foundation, Badvertising, Adfree Cities and of course Chris Packham; he said that this would just be the start, so I imagine that he will continue to apply pressure in this place. I thank everyone who has participated in the debate, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for taking time out of her swimming schedule to be here, and I thank everybody who signed the petition. I know that this is a debate that will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700024 relating to fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship.