A private member's bill put forward by NDP MP Charlie Angus is closely modelled on the Tobacco Act, which successfully controlled tobacco advertising in the face of that public health crisis.

It seems NDP MP Charlie Angus has hit a nerve.

Last week, heeding the call of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), Angus tabled a private member’s bill in the House of Commons to prohibit fossil fuel advertising. As doctors and other health professionals across the country have been saying, “Fossil fuel ads make us sick.”

It’s long been my view that if you are looking for a shorthand heuristic to judge the strength and merit of a climate policy, look at the reaction of the fossil fuel companies. If a climate policy is announced and fossil fuel companies are on the stage claiming they can get behind the plan, then friends, you do not have a climate emergency plan. If on the other hand, the oil and gas companies are protesting loudly and you can see panic in their eyes, then you have a plan with real potential impact.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            3·
            9 months ago

            Isn’t that what people still do? If I see something in an ad then it means they are charging me too much

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            9 months ago

            Which old days are you referring to? Like Roman times? They had praeco. Praeco played various roles, including auctioneering, making public announcements, and calling the public to attention for official proclamations or events.

          • Formes@lemmy.ca
            34·
            9 months ago

            Which is all well and fine, until you realize the way you learn about new innovations tends to be through advertisement of some sort - word of mouth is a form of advertisement, and, if you can make it work for you: It is by far the most effective.

            Thing is: Companies are out to make money, people want to provide affordable access to their product, and when you combine these two desires together - you get advertisements.

            The key to making sure it is fine is, regulate and enforce - stop false advertising in it’s tracks. When an advertisement makes a claim: Make them back it up, or face severe economic sanctions such as fines, requirement to spend the same money and time on putting out a recall of the message in the advertisement, and so on. Do that a few times and allow for automatic re-voting on issues where false advertisement was used to oppose a bill and you will quickly see all of that scummy behavior go away.

            The problem right now, is companies aren’t really penalized sufficiently for false information spread and other behavior: So, the fine is just a cost of doing business. Just look at cities with “Catch and Release” policies regarding crime - and it is starting to go through the roof. And it’s not the criminals being impacted negatively: It’s the law abiding citizens who are finding their amenities locked up, their grociery stores barring entrance, box stores closing down. This is the same issue so many people have with gun control laws: Law abiding citizens are NOT the ones causing headaches - it’s the people willing to go to a sketchy alley at 2 in the morning willing to pay extra to skip the background check who are absolutely causing problems. It’s the organized crime syndicates that can get their hands on a CNC mill and a machinist who will make the firearms for them - and they will pay.

            Unless Law Breakers face real consequences: Nothing changes, and the problem perpetuates or even worse: Gets worse.

  • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
    28·
    9 months ago

    I worked in tobacco control in the US for a while.

    The approach you’re seeing is literally referred to as the tobacco playbook. That’s exactly what they’re doing. It’s a bit older now, but I highly recommend d checking out a book called Merchants of Doubt.

    Not only are they making the same moves and the same arguments, in many cases it’s the exact same PR firms and even some of the same consultants and lawyers as the tobacco industry used.

    I really hope you folks do a better job than we’ve managed to do.

    • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
      17·
      9 months ago

      There was a billboard where i live 2 or three years ag that always cracked me up. It said something like: banning cigarette ads bow could mean (sausage company) is next.

      And i always imagine who in the world would see that and go: NOT MY ADS! FINE, KEEP THE CIGARETTE ADS.
      Or vice versa, see that and not go: alright, fine.
      Like even if i super duper like something, i’m 100% fine to never see an ad of it. Isn’t that the norm? Do some people need ads or like ads?

    • Inky@lemmy.caEnglish
      6·
      9 months ago

      Or those Dairy lobby ones that talk about how much work they are doing to save the environment. What a crock