Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

Debate between Roz Savage and Jacob Collier

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.

Gender Self-identification

Debate between Roz Savage and Jacob Collier

Monday 19th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I wholeheartedly agree that equality means equality, no matter who the individual concerned may be. Even the Government’s much-lauded £5 GRC fee is meaningless when the necessary private medical reports, blood tests and hormone prescriptions cost thousands. This is simply inaccessible to many people. It is not a system of integrity, but one of delay, expense and quiet exclusion leading to quiet desperation.

Meanwhile, there are some rays of hope. Organisations such as the Trans Legal Clinic are stepping in to fill the gap. Founded just three years ago, the clinic now supports trans people across the UK with legal issues relating to discrimination, housing, gender-based violence and access to care. Its staff are unpaid, its clients often arrive in crisis, and its work is saving lives. Its message to us as parliamentarians is clear: legal recognition reduces suicide risk. Gender recognition reform would directly improve mental health outcomes. We need to get past this toxic debate and focus on the urgent reality of trans people who face violence, homelessness and systemic neglect.

I will end this speech with a simple reflection. There are, as far as I am aware, no trans MPs in this Chamber, but we all have trans constituents, and we all have the capacity to imagine. Imagine waking up tomorrow exactly as you are—same body, same mind—but the world is treating you as somebody that you are not. They call you by the wrong name. They dismiss what you say because they do not see beyond the gender issue. That is the daily experience of many trans people in the UK.

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

The hon. Lady has made a comprehensive opening statement on behalf of the Petitions Committee, so I thank her for that. Does she agree that trans voices are often left out when we talk about these issues and have this debate? We need to remember that there are humans on the other side of this, and we need to listen to our trans community when we make decisions that directly impact their lives.

[Dr Savage]

I have worked closely with a member of my team who is a trans person in preparing this speech. It has been eye-opening for me, as a cis woman, to find out so much about the toll on members of the trans community as they try to navigate these impossible systems. I could have put so much more in this speech that would only arouse even more compassion. In my own small way, I am doing what I can today to try to be that voice for the trans community, which, as the hon. Member said, is not heard enough in this debate.

To any trans person listening to today’s debate: please know that even in a Parliament where your voice is still too often missing, there are people who see and hear you, and who will fight for your right to be yourself. As parliamentarians, we have a choice: we can stoke fear and division or we can show leadership. Let us choose dignity and compassion. Let us choose to recognise people for who they are as individuals, and give them the legal recognition and protection they deserve.