Advertising Week APAC kicked off in Sydney with a debate about whether the advertising industry had caused the climate crisis that has led to heatwaves and wildfires in North America and Europe, successive hottest days ever and warnings about the destruction of Australian natural landmarks.
Chaired by Josh Faulks, CEO of the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA), the debate featured some big names from adland taking turns to debate the causes of the climate crisis and advertising’s role within it.
None of the speakers said that the industry we know and sometimes love was blameless. Instead, they debated the extent of our fault and the extent to which we can provide the solution.
“With a clear conscience, ask yourself when was the last time you bought something you wanted but didn’t need?” said Georgia Leathart, head of strategy at Hearts & Science Australia.
“Was it that pair of white sneakers you’re wearing that you got specifically for today? Was it that slightly newer model of phone that you saw on TV, even though your existing model was just fine? Was is that single-use plastic bottle of water you bought at the train station on the way here, even though you have half a dozen Frank [Green] water bottles sitting at home?
“Advertising is, without a doubt, a force for evil in the fight against climate change.”
Leathart’s opening statement was designed to elicit a Damascene revelation from the white sneaker-wearing, iPhone 14-toting, Frank Green water bottle-sipping audience. However, Sam Wagstaff, director at climate and nature investment and advisory firm Pollination, made it clear that adland was just one cog in a global death machine.
“I’m not from the advertising industry. I work with evidence and real science, no bells, no whistles, just facts for carbon accounting and corporate climate disclosure to decarbonisation strategy and clean tech,” he said.
“My company is helping save the world, but who’s destroying it? I know for a fact that the advertising industry isn’t the cause.”
Wagstaff then went on, using the narrative from a children’s book about an overloaded boat with a range of animals from cows to sheep and donkeys to a mouse representing the fossil fuel industry, government, investors and ordinary people, respectively. The message was clear, all of the occupants were in some way responsible for the boat being overloaded and sinking.
“Isn’t that cute? A children’s book to summarise an incredibly complex issue,” said Catherine Bowe, client council and industry trade lead at Meta APAC.
“I’m here to tell you that we’re responsible for more than just demand… The seemingly innocent and pervasive world of advertising constantly bombards us with messages and enticements is not just a nuisance to be annoyed. As we marvel at the power and reach of digital advertising, let us not be blind to the fact that it is responsible for a staggering four per cent of total carbon emissions.”
“The onus is on us, the advertisers to confront the undeniable truth. Advertising has caused the climate crisis in our pursuit of profits and growth.”
Then, Bowe went on to deliver some of Meta’s tried-and-trusted climate spin. It’s a carbon-neutral organisation, she explained, with its data centres being run on wind farms, for example. But, she said the fact remained that the demand created by advertising and the tech to support it caused the climate crisis.
Michelle O’Neill, director of brand at Nine, then took to the stage to explain that, yet again, advertising played a significant role in the climate crisis but “it is not the protagonist.”
Channelling the good book, O’Neill, explained that while advertising might have played a part in consumers coveting thy neighbour’s oxen in an effort to keep up with the Joneses, the audience had free will — “We live in Sydney, Australia, not North Korea.”
“What we have is an overwhelming choice. We are drunk with desire and often it’s a desire for more that we need. It’s the choices we make to consume every day that have us in the mess we’re in. If it makes you feel any better, we’ve been at it for ages,” she said.
“Gluttony, one of those fabulous seven deadly sins penned by Pope Gregory a few centuries ago is overconsumption to the point of waste. Another favourite was greed. I argue that more is our human condition. In my 40 years in advertising, almost every campaign I have worked on has been a comparative brand positioning.”
But rather than suggesting we’re all doomed — no good advertiser would do that — O’Neill said that advertising can lead the charge to a solution.
“It requires each of us to make changes. Brands are working at speed to do it. Companies are striving to do it. I just ask for all of you today to take ultimate personal responsibility to think less about more and think more about enough.”
Let’s see if that is reflected in Nine’s marketing for its upcoming shows.
In the end, the team that rejected the motion that advertising caused the climate crisis won the day in a popular vote. It was clear that none of them rejected the idea that advertising played a part but that the industry was not wholly responsible for the climate crisis.
Of course, in a room of advertisers, is that surprising? Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, after all.
