At the risk of sounding like a broken record I feel I must express my stunned disbelief at the ad I just saw here on celsias where "climate change is not a spectator sport".

How many climate change campaigners are attempting to reign in the the aviation industries climate wrecking habits? There has been huge effort on by activists here in the UK to stop a third runway at Heathrow and to generally raise awareness of the implications of travelling by air.
But, fueled by the British public's desire for holidays in the sun the short haul flight industry has become epidemic. These flights are entirely unnecessary as most of these locations can be accessed by train. One could argue the need for a foreign holiday at all and the impacts inherent in such luxury but that is not the point I am making here.

Isn't advertising designed to encourage the use of the advertised product? Of course it is. Given that, I would submit that an ad extolling the virtues of Doncaster's Robin Hood airport and all it's short haul flights is completely against the ethic of this site. It has changed the meaning of "Climate is not a spectator sport" around 180º. It is participatory and we here at celsias are now complicitious.

I've been linking to celsias content on my blog and will be sorry to have to stop but I'm afraid I find this situation unacceptable. I have far to much respect for the people willing to be arrested, tear gassed, and defamed by the authorities in an attempt to fight climate change to help support the undermining of their efforts with inappropriate advertisement here at celsias. I am going to take Jeremy's lead and have a close look at the ads placed on my site and will discontinue if necessary. In the meantime I will stop linking directly to any celsias content until this issue gets sorted. I will however be happy to continue contributing to the dialog here at celsias.

Written in October 2008

As usual Mr. Monbiot is spot on. I can only recall disagreeing with him once, I felt the people responsible for intentionally
slowing progress towards mitigating climate change through obfuscation of truth and promotion of misunderstanding of science should be held accountable and charged with crimes against humanity, he did not.

In this case he has asked all the right questions.

This bit of Mr. Monbiot's article sounds very familiar;
"I asked whether they would contemplate ceasing to carry this advertising. "No," said the FT. The Guardian replied: "We would rather encourage advertisers ... to become more sustainable. We have just appointed a commercial sustainability manager who will be considering ways to achieve this. She will also be looking at how [Guardian News and Media] can enable more sustainable companies to advertise with us." Dropping these ads would be "financially damaging and ethically complex". The Independent proposed that "if it became financially feasible to continue to publish the newspaper without this advertising, it may well be an issue that is debated". But "ceasing to carry this advertising would also have wider implications for the independence of the advertising and editorial sections ... Another problem is, where do you draw the line on which advertising does or doesn't contribute to global warming?"

Mr. Monbiot's response is in line with my own view, he says it far better than I could;
" While it is true that readers can make up their own minds, advertising helps to generate behavioural norms. These advertisements make the destruction of the biosphere seem socially acceptable. If there is a case for banning ads for tobacco and unregulated gambling sites on the grounds of the social harm they cause, then there is a stronger case for blocking ads that promote the greatest social hazard of all."

I urge those involved in this thread to read the entire article.

Written in October 2008

So Charles, are you in a position to influence the decisions about what ads are placed on celsias? If not who is and are they checking this thread out? The reason I ask is, I keep finding great content I'd really like to link to but can't/won't until there is movement towards some sort of ethical ad policy.

Written in October 2008

I think celsias works really well. It is informative, polite, wide ranging and diverse. The fact that this thread is still running actually increases my sense of connectedness. Analysing media and it's practices is central to the work that needs to be done to bring our culture to a sustainable foundation.

I agree, a clearly spelled out policy is needed but I also believe black and white stands are needed.

I used to argue with my father about his investments in an attempt to convince him to pursue social or ethical investing. He did quite well without ethics and used his profits to secure his future but also generously supported organizations like the NRDC, The Trust for Public Lands, and various local social initiatives. My point was that this was like buying fuel for the bulldozer you then laid down in front of.

Allowing ads from companies that aren't committed to the cause is the same. They are out there, Patagonia, Interface Carpets, Dr. Bronners soaps, etc.

In answer to Bruce's previous point. We are clearly so deep in troubled waters with consumerism and it's effects that expecting a company to behave like a responsible citizen in every way should be a minimum. After all, corporations are citizens in and of themselves, equal in the eyes of the law. Also by law, they must consider profits to the shareholder as the first priority. This is the root of the problem. Some believe that CSR is a myth and will always be just greenwash, that we should strip corporations of personhood and return to the founding concepts of corporate law. Corporations were initially developed to be PUBLIC instruments for the common good, founded by those who understood the business they were getting into. They accomplished the goal of incorporation and were disbanded.

For me a company that releases a green product to test the waters while having a poor CSR record in every other way is not to be encouraged. They are to be avoided. When that company remakes itself from the inside out to be a responsible and sustainable corporate citizen then it is worth looking at. In any event we need to stop considering minimal measures to be sufficient.

We don't have time for half measures.

What do you think Nick? After 17 replies I'd be interested to hear your take on all this. Is celsias headed towards an ethical ads policy?

Written in October 2008

I did notice that Jeremy. A hopeful sign.

Written in October 2008