Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who is sometimes mistaken for my twin, for opening the debate in a very balanced and fair-minded way.

What struck me when I saw the petition was that the petitioners are hitting on something so ever-present in our lives that it is almost background noise— one of those forms of advertising that we have grown up with, and are so used to that we would almost notice it more if it were not there. Of course, many types of advertising would fit that bill, but fossil fuel company ads are probably one of the most hotly contested; fizzy pop and cars do not feel quite so controversial. It is not just the big giants, such as BP, Shell, Texaco and Total, that we see on the top of petrol station canopies; in “Toy Story”—one of my favourite films growing up—the oil giant Dinoco loomed large in Disney’s fictitious advertising space.

It is important for us to acknowledge, as the petition does directly, the risks of so-called greenwashing—confuddling consumers with a wholesome-looking image of a bright, clean, green future that reality may make up only a tiny proportion of an organisation’s work, spending or plans for the future. Greenwashing is one of the things that makes me angriest—though all forms of dishonest advertising make me angry, because at their core they are designed to hoodwink the public. However, we must acknowledge that the concept of greenwashing and what constitutes fossil fuel advertising is hotly contested.

In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter mentioned the very relevant example of tobacco advertising being banned many decades ago on the grounds of harm to individuals’ health and the idea of the wider societal harm that can follow on from that. We did not ban tobacco, but we did ban its promotion. That is the central point in this debate, and the central question we need to address as parliamentarians.

Sometimes, too, greenwashing can be indirect and even adjacent to an organisation. I am thinking in particular of a Greenpeace campaign some 11 years ago, which targeted Lego for a partnership with Shell. Eventually, the campaign led to Lego dropping said partnership. One person’s clear line in the sand, however, is another person’s nuance. As my hon. Friend mentioned, many fossil fuel companies are investing billions in the transition to net zero—on a bigger or smaller scale, and through compulsion or choice, but they are doing that—and, let us face it, that funding will be crucial to reaching net zero.

Raising awareness of such efforts is crucial, as is ensuring that the generations to come are aware of the opportunities that are open to them in the green industries of the future. Unfortunately, few renewable energy companies or environmental non-governmental organisations have the resources that fossil fuel companies have to promote those opportunities.

Turning to sponsorship, I can definitely see the argument for restricting or banning fossil fuel companies’ ability to put money into things such as sport, which are ever present on our TV screens—especially at the moment, as we cheer the Lionesses on in the women’s Euros. If we are to discuss that, however, we need to think about the alternative funding streams. If we ban fossil fuel advertising, will there be alternative funding streams for sports teams, to encourage the next generation to come through and ensure that there is cash there to support them, too?

In conclusion, I fully support the motive behind the petition. Greenwashing is something we absolutely need to stamp out. We need stringent regulations to ensure that companies are not able to hoodwink the public, as I said, but we also need to be fundamentally honest about the transition to net zero, the role that fossil fuel companies and the like will have to play in it, and the expectations that we should have of those companies to help to promote that future, possibly giving them the freedom to do that within certain constraints. This has been an interesting debate; thank you, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to take part in it.