Where it's forbidden to serve meat- an article from BBC Travel

 

Long known as one of the world's holiest cities, India's spiritual capital is now luring culinary pilgrims as it transforms into a vegetarian paradise.

Inhabited since at least 1800 BC, Varanasi is well known for being among the oldest living cities on Earth, and one of the holiest for the world's estimated 1.2 billion Hindus. Every day, as the sound of ringing temple bells echo overhead, tens of thousands of devotees descend the city's 88 stone ghat steps and dip themselves into the Ganges river to wash away their sins. Bereaved relatives flock to Varanasi's two cremation grounds where funeral pyres burn around the clock, believing that Shiva himself whispers the Tarak mantra (chant of liberation) into the ears of all those cremated here, granting them instant moksha or salvation.

However, my reasons for travelling to Varanasi were quite different. I didn't come to confront death or cleanse my soul; I came to experience the city's unique vegetarian food.

I didn't come to confront death or cleanse my soul; I came to experience the city's unique vegetarian food

Driving through the city's busy streets, Rakesh Giri, chauffeur and raconteur par excellence, told me how Shiva, the destroyer of the universe, had founded Varanasi in the days of yore, according to Hindu belief. Like most Varanasi residents, Giri is a fervent Shaivite (Shiva worshipper). And since followers of Shiva believe he is a vegetarian God, he and most other Varanasi residents follow a strict sattvic ("pure vegetarian") diet.

"My family and I have been pure vegetarians for generations. We refuse to even drink water in a home where eggs are consumed," Giri said as he dropped me off.

Varanasi is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities – and the holiest for Hindus (Credit: Hitesh Makwana/EyeEm/Getty Images)

Varanasi may be India's spiritual capital, but it isn't exactly known for luring culinary pilgrims. Most food travellers will likely flock to the country's famous epicurean hubs of Delhi, Kolkata or Chennai before making their way to Varanasi. Yet, chefs from around the world are starting to draw inspiration from its culinary heritage, recreating its flavours in their restaurants.

Chef Vikas Khanna, who received a Michelin star each year from 2011 to 2016 when he ran Junoon in Manhattan, said he was bowled over by the vrat ke kuttu buckwheat-flour pancakes served in a single Varanasi temple. "I've tried my best to recreate it in my kitchen at Manhattan. It tastes heavenly," Khanna told Lonely Planet in 2020. 

Two-time Michelin-starred chef Atul Kochhar named his modern Indian restaurant in London Benares (the name of Varanasi during British rule). In his eponymous cookbook, the chef showcases vegetarian fusion recipes, such as chickpea pancakes and heritage tomato salad, that highlight the sweet-and-tart flavour combinations commonly found in the city. Even Indian celebrity chef Sanjeev Kapoor has written about his fondness for Varanasi food, highlighting its excellent vegetarian offerings. 

Of course, in a country that is 80% Hindu and 20% vegetarian, meatless options are ubiquitous in India. But what makes Varanasi's vegetarian cuisine so interesting is how its sattvic and vegetarian specialties are directly influenced by its strong sense of spirituality. A sattvic menu is based on Ayurvedic principles and adheres to the strictest standards of vegetarianism prescribed by the Sanatana dharma, an absolute form of Hinduism. As such, it forbids the use of onion and garlic in cooking, which are believed to increase anger, aggression and anxiety, among other things.

In recent years, chefs around the world have started drawing inspiration from Varanasi's culinary heritage (Credit: Richard I'Anson/Getty Images)

"Almost every Hindu household in Varanasi has an altar dedicated to Shiva in the house. Eating meat at home is unthinkable," explained Abhishek Shukla, a shastri (priest) at Varanasi's famous Kashi Vishwanath temple. "Staying sattvic is a priority for those who wish to attain salvation because we believe that our souls would suffer like those we killed for food otherwise. Meat, onions and garlic exacerbate tamasic (the opposite of sattvic) tendencies, making it difficult for people to concentrate and exercise good judgement." 

Traditionally, many Varanasi restaurants have served meat to cater to Western tourists and non-vegetarian Hindu pilgrims, and local sattvic cuisine was primarily eaten at home. But in 2019, the Hindu-nationalist BJP government banned the sale and consumption of meat within a 250m radius of all Varanasi temples and heritage sites. This encouraged restaurants to start featuring local vegetarian and sattvic recipes that have been passed down for generations within Varanasi homes but were previously unavailable to visitors.

You may also be interested in:
• India's brilliant Bombay duck
• An Indian meal with more than 60 dishes
• The world's oldest vegetarian restaurant 

Inside the luxury hotel BrijRama Palace, an imposing sandstone structure on the Ganges at Munshi Ghat, executive chef Manoj Verma applies his encyclopaedic knowledge of traditional textbook vegetarian Varanasi cooking. "When I first took over the kitchen, I immediately included dishes like khatta meetha kaddu (sweet and sour pumpkin) and nimona (spiced mashed peas) on our menu," Verma said. "These are humble dishes that our guests would have never had the opportunity to taste otherwise," he added.

 Verma demonstrated how he prepares nimona, reducing a green pea purée in a pan, adding boiled potatoes and pouring over a mixture of fragrant spices such as whole cumin seeds, asafoetida and green chillies tempered in hot oil. Served with a dollop of ghee over steamed basmati rice, the creamy sweetness of the peas and the contrasting bite from the potatoes is essentially Varanasi's answer to Italy's cucina povera, in which local "peasant" foods are being elevated by innovative chefs.

Chef Manoj Verma’s nimona is served with rice and raita at BrijRama Palace (Credit: Amrita Sarkar)

Verma indicated that the 2019 meat ban has fostered creativity among a new generation of chefs in Varanasi. Although he had fed his share of celebrity Indian and international guests, his greatest honour came when chef Khanna came to taste his food. In what is considered to be the ultimate mark of respect in Indian culture, the Michelin-starred chef bent down and touched Verma's feet. "It was in the midst of other diners at my restaurant. I will never forget it, " Verma said. 

Across town, Shree Shivay is one of a growing number of restaurants serving local sattvic recipes. Today, locals estimate are anywhere from 40 to 200 sattvic restaurants in Varanasi, a huge jump since the 2019 meat ban. The restaurant's menu, which changes twice a day based on what is available at the local market that morning, features thalis, or set offerings, with at least 12 different dishes. After months of careful experimentation, the restaurant's three chefs came up with a formula where they could mimic the taste of any sauce or gravy using five key ingredients: cashews, poppy seeds, melon seeds, tomatoes and chironji (a nutty seed endemic to northern India).

My thalifeatured items like kadhi pakora (fried chickpea flour dumplings in yoghurt sauce), rajma (red kidney beans in tomato gravy) and paneer (Indian cottage cheese). The flavour of roasted chickpea flour in the kadhi, the viscosity of the rajmasauce and the freshness of the paneer were unlike anything I had experienced across northern India. 

Beyond its restaurants, Varanasi's street food scene is as vibrant and electric as that of Bangkok or Istanbul but enjoys none of the media hype. Although many of the sattvic foods sold are unique or inventive variations of snacks found elsewhere in India, they do not benefit from the hype of Delhi's chaat (savoury snack combining several textures and flavours) or Mumbai's vada pav (potato burger).

Shree Shivay is one of a growing number of Varanasi restaurants serving local sattvic dishes (Credit: Amrita Sarkar)

One such example is the tomato chaat, sold at the Kashi Chaat Bhandar stall. "When the daughter of billionaire industrialist Lakshmi Mittal got married in France, they chose us as one of the caterers," said third-generation owner Yash Khetri. Made with a tangy and spicy base of mashed tomatoes bathed in a cumin-spiked sugar syrup and topped with crunchy sev (deep-fried chickpea flour noodles), the original recipe was developed in 1968 by Khetri's grandfather. Today, you won't find it anywhere else outside of Varanasi. 

Another example is the frothy sweetened milk tea served at the Lakshmi Chai Wale stall in terracotta cups with a side of malai toast. This delectable accompaniment consists of two slices of bread grilled over hot coals, then slathered with fresh cream and sprinkled with granulated sugar.

Across town, the chief attraction at Varanasi's Baati Chokha restaurant is baati,a hard, unleavened wheat bread and a typical food in the surrounding state of Uttar Pradesh that's baked on dried cow dung cakes. In fact, as diners enter, they are greeted by the sight of dried cow dung cakes stacked up to the ceiling in an outdoor shed. The restaurant does everything in-house, from pounding their spices in stone mills to grinding the flour for the baati. The vegetables for the accompanying chokha made with eggplant, potatoes and tomatoes, are also roasted on top of the same dung cakes, before simmering in a spice mix in clay pots.

Local guide, Manjeet Sahani, who frequently takes visitors to the restaurant, said, "Initially, I thought that the sight of cow dung cakes might put people off. Honestly, most people I bring here tell me that this is the best food they have ever eaten in India."

Baati Chokha serves traditional unleavened bread baked on dried cow dung cakes (Credit: Majeet Sahani)

Most Indians know that Varanasi is the capital of paan (betel leaf), and I was not going to leave Varanasi without having tried one. Paan is usually enjoyed at the end of a meal as it aids in digestion and functions as a breath freshener. At the Netaji Paan Bhandar stall, the original founder's grandson and the current owner, Pavan Chaurasiya, layered rose petal jam, areca nuts and slaked lime on the fresh betel leaf before folding it with origami-like precision and presenting it to me on a silver tray. On the countertop lay a laminated newspaper clipping showing when India's former prime minister, Indira Gandhi, visited their shop in 1976. I could not have asked for a more fitting end to my vegetarian Varanasi pilgrimage than the lingering sweetness of this long-beloved paan. 

Millions of visitors come to Varanasi every year during non-pandemic times, and the Indian government recently announced that it will start issuing visas to international travellers starting this November. While most may come looking for spiritual salvation, this culinary pilgrim came away enlightened by this vegetarian heaven.

 It all looks really delicious!  

The blog song for today is:"Travellin' in style" by Free

TTFN

Why Is the Biden White House Refusing to Confront the Oil and Gas Industry? A report from :https://www.sierraclub.org

 

Why Is the Biden White House Refusing to Confront the Oil and Gas Industry?

Environmental and Indigenous groups are increasingly frustrated with inaction

By Nick Cunningham | Jan 10 2022

Last November, the Biden administration announced that it would protect the Greater Chaco Canyon landscape in New Mexico from future oil and gas leasing. The area is culturally significant for Pueblo peoples in the Southwest, and the decision was seen as both a victory for Indigenous nations and a setback for the fossil fuel industry.  

“No group of Americans has created and cared more about preserving what we inherited than the tribal nations,” Biden said when making the announcement. “We have to continue to stand up for the dignity of sovereignty of tribal nations.” He billed the move as a win for Indigenous communities and for the fight against climate change. The New York Times described the executive order as an element of the administration’s “ambitious climate agenda.”

Just two days later, however, the Biden administration held a large auction for new oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The lease sale had been ordered by a federal judge, who earlier in 2021 had ruled that the administration hadn’t followed the law in pausing oil and gas sales. Nevertheless, environmentalists were dismayed. Earthjustice called the lease sale a “huge climate bomb.” 

The contradictory moves—blocking oil and gas development in one area but greenlighting an expansion in another, even if under judicial duress—exemplify President Biden’s approach to climate change in his first year in office. While he has made some important steps to cut US greenhouse gas emissions, his administration's reluctance to directly confront the oil and gas industry is becoming increasingly apparent, according to environmental and Indigenous groups.  

“They can't have it both ways. They can't talk about climate and then commit massive amounts of new fossil fuels in the face of a climate crisis,” Taylor McKinnon, senior public lands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Sierra. “They're plagued by a lack of climate ambition at the highest levels of the administration.”

During his first days in office, Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline and directed the Department of the Interior to pause oil and gas leasing on federal lands while it undertook a comprehensive review of the programs. Those moves signaled that climate change would be a central theme to the Biden era.  

In April, Biden held an international summit with global leaders, during which he announced a new emissions target—the United States would aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030. The announcement also nudged other countries to ratchet up their ambition.  

During the summer, the Department of Treasury pushed multilateral development banks to end overseas financing for most fossil fuel projects, and this past fall, the EPA announced new regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Right before Christmas, the EPA unveiled tough new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks—an especially important move, given that transportation is the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions. 

Despite these moves, Biden’s climate record to date has been more piecemeal than transformational. The White House is not yet employing all of the levers available to the executive branch to tackle the climate crisis. So far, the Biden administration appears to be prioritizing the easy actions while avoiding moves that could antagonize political enemies—like the powerful oil and gas industry. 

For example, Biden has remained silent on a long list of projects that environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and other local grassroots movements have pressed him on. Biden took no position on the Line 3 Pipeline, even as Indigenous water protectors and allies disrupted construction of the tar-sands-related project and faced arrest by Minnesota state police. Biden has said nothing about the Line 5 Pipeline, despite the fact that a dozen Indigenous nations in Michigan, along with a coalition of environmental justice organizations and the Democratic governor of Michigan, seek the pipeline’s closure. 

In spring, a federal judge gave the Army Corps of Engineers, which is under the administration’s control, multiple chances to request the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline in light of the fact that the pipeline is operating without a valid easement. Instead, in April, the corps stuck with the Trump administration’s policy and allowed the contested pipeline to continue to operate.  

Last summer, the Interior Department suspended leases in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But at the same time, the Department of Justice defended the Willow project in Alaska, a massive oil development led by ConocoPhillips (a federal court later shot down permits for the project). 

There does not seem to be an overarching philosophy that explains why the administration takes action in one area and not another, other than what appears to be a desire to avoid serious confrontation with the oil industry. “They pick and choose the things that are going to be the easiest,” Joye Braun, the national pipelines campaign organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, told Sierra. 

She pointed to the recent protections for Chaco Canyon. “While that is extraordinarily important and a decades-long fight for the tribes down there, it doesn't do anything for the tar sands that are moving through Line 3. And it doesn't do anything for the replacement of Line 5 or the building out of Mountain Valley [Pipeline]” in Appalachia, she said.  

Braun praised the Biden administration’s cancellation of Keystone XL and his appointment of Deb Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo, to lead the Interior Department. Braun also said the White House has listened, at times, to Indigenous voices, which was a departure from the previous administration. 

But beneath a lot of the rhetoric, there is plenty of continuity with the business-as-usual approach of past administrations. “Trump was just very overt: ‘We're going to do all this extraction, and we're going to do all this damage, and there's nothing you can do about it.’” Braun said, summing up Trump’s approach. “Biden is being sneaky.” 

While Biden has made some important steps to cut US greenhouse gas emissions, his administration's reluctance to directly confront the oil and gas industry is becoming increasingly apparent.

When asked how Braun would describe the Biden administration’s approach to Indigenous peoples, she responded, “paternalistic.” In communications with the White House, Braun said that Biden officials point to their accomplishments on climate change and question why Indigenous communities and other activists are still criticizing them. “I'm not going to sit there and play the good little Indian,” she added. 

“There is a story in the Lakota tradition called Double Faced Woman. I liken [Biden] to her,” Braun said with a chuckle. “She’s not a good character.”

For some environmental advocates, a clear example of the administration’s allergy to tough decisions came in late November when the Interior Department released its highly anticipated review of the federal oil and gas leasing program. Instead of ending new oil and gas leases on public lands and waters—as many environmental groups had hoped and Biden himself promised on the campaign trail—the report merely called for higher royalty rates and recommended not leasing in sensitive areas. In other words, there would be no meaningful change to the fossil fuel bonanza on public lands. 

The report barely mentioned climate change, and the fact that it was released on the Friday after Thanksgiving struck many as an admission on the part of the administration that it was retreating from its promises and was hoping to avoid a negative news cycle. The Center for Biological Diversity called it “flimsy.” Earthjustice said, “We expected much more, especially given the Biden administration’s deeply disappointing and legally avoidable Gulf lease sale.”

The reluctance to phase out oil and gas drilling on public lands is especially problematic since it resides in a legal area where the president has strong executive authority to act and doesn’t need Congress, according to Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center. 

“I think what's concerning to me, especially relative to fossil fuel production, is the unwillingness of the administration to deal with that supply side,” he told Sierra. “You can't avoid taking a position on this. They seem to be avoiding taking a position on it, and they're just pissing everybody off.” 

“If you take a look at all the peer-reviewed science out there about how we align our country's greenhouse gas emissions trajectory ... you need to have a decline in oil and gas production,” Schlenker-Goodrich said. The oil and gas industry “is probably laughing internally” at the call for higher royalty rates, he added, which would have very little financial impact on the industry and would do little to slow the pace of leasing and drilling.  

“It just suggested that the administration's ambition and capacity to run the gauntlet with the oil and gas industry is not there. That they seem unwilling to actually confront the power of the oil and gas industry,” Schlenker-Goodrich added. “They're approving drilling permits at a rate faster than the Trump administration.”

The Biden administration is staking much of its climate legacy on the $550 billion in funding for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other climate programs in the Senate-stalled Build Back Better Act. Experts say that the shift to renewable energy will accelerate substantially if Democrats succeed in passing that legislation into law. By any measure, it would be a major achievement—if only it can get beyond the stalemate in the Senate. 

But heavy investments in renewable energy are not enough on their own, especially with the oil and gas industry still eyeing growth.  

"Tackling the climate crisis requires both major investments in clean energy and an immediate halt to the expansion of fossil fuels—not one or the other,” said Athan Manual, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “President Biden has made it clear that he understands the need for this all-hands-on-deck effort, but that understanding still needs to be matched with ambition to make it a reality."

And perhaps this is how they all start to twist and turn away from the agreements made at COP26? It didn't take long did it? It is really difficult to believe anything that these people say.

The blog song for today is: "LA Woman" by the Doors

TTFN

Bad Advertising: The evidence and the problem from https://www.badverts.org/the-problem Part two -Airlines and Fossil fuel Companies

Airline advertising

We all want to be able to travel and go on holiday, but we don’t need to fly to do this. For people to be able to enjoy seeing the world without harming it, we need progressive policies including affordable rail travel and good holiday leave to allow us to travel more slowly. We also need measures such as a frequent flyer levy, which place higher taxes on the frequent flyers who take the majority of flights and cause the most pollution. 

Having refused to take meaningful action on climate change for 30 years, airlines are still encouraging dangerous growth in sales using advertising. This video from Easyjet below is a good example of highly emotive content being used to override any concerns we might have about climate breakdown.

 Airline bosses’ behaviour during the pandemic has shown that they can’t be trusted to act responsibly. They’ve demanded huge public bailouts, pushed to start flying again regardless of the health impacts, and are firing thousands of workers so they can re-employ them with worse conditions. It’s clear that airlines need greater regulation to stop them causing harm, and their advertising is part of the problem.

 

Fossil fuel company advertising

Oil and gas companies such as Shell, BP, Total and Exxon use advertising to promote themselves as environmentally responsible. Looking at their adverts you could be forgiven for thinking they are mostly renewable energy companies. But the reality is that their businesses remain almost entirely focused on digging up polluting fossil fuels. In the UK, the body that regulates advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), recently ruled that Shell made misleading environmental claims in its adverts - so-called ‘greenwash.’

Like Shell, BP have been criticised for heavily promoting their renewable energy projects, when they only account for around 4% of their investments. This allows them to appeal to climate-conscious consumers and maintain a facade of good corporate citizenship. They won’t draw attention to the other 96% of their investments in fossil fuels.

But people are now sceptical about their green rhetoric. As recently as 2018, major oil companies spent $50 billion on fossil fuel projects in direct contradiction of the Paris climate goals according to research group Carbon Tracker, and an estimated $200 million was spent lobbying against climate action. The public sees these companies talking green but acting brown, sticking with business and investment models that plan to extract and burn far more fossil fuels than the climate can safely withstand. Revelations that companies like Exxon knew that their products were driving dangerous climate change decades ago, but kept these findings secret, has further damaged trust in oil companies’ sincerity.

Advertising and PR campaigns are a means by which these companies present an image of themselves, greenwashing, which is different to the reality. 

What we’re calling for:

• Energy company adverts must come with Climate Health Warnings explaining the climate impact of their company’s core business.   

• Additionally, media outlets and advertising companies should not run adverts from fossil fuel companies. We define fossil fuel companies as firms that have over 80% of their investments in coal, oil and gas. Carbon Underground 200 provide a useful methodology for this definition. We call on all media outlets to follow the example of The Guardian in the UK and Dagens ETC in Sweden and not accept fossil fuel advertising. 

  Find out if you're invested in 200 of the largest owners of carbon reserves

  The Carbon Underground 200™, compiled and maintained by FFI Solutions (formerly Fossil Free Indexes℠), identifies the top 100 coal and the top 100 oil and gas publicly-traded reserve holders globally, ranked by the potential carbon emissions content of their reported reserves.

  Rankings are constructed using a reserves-based methodology with the underlying core data based on “reported” reserves. Coal reserves are the sum of proven and probable reserves based on the last reported reserves amount by mine. Reserves are allocated to listed companies based on percentage ownership of individual mines. Oil and gas companies are ranked on proven reserves (1P) net of royalty payments.

  The Carbon Underground 200™ relies on the IPCC Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories as a methodological framework. The calculation of CO2 emission potential requires several conversions to the raw reserves figure.

  Use this link to find out more:

  https://www.ffisolutions.com/research-analytics-index-solutions/research-screening/the-carbon-underground-200/  

  In a future blog I will be looking into the differences between, flying, Cruise ships, ferries and Cars to see exactly how much each one is doing to the environment and to see which one is the worst!

  The blog song for today is: "seven seas of Rye" by Queen

  TTFN 

   

 

Bad Advertising: The evidence and the problem from https://www.badverts.org/the-problem Part One -Cars

 

---

Where do we see advertising?

We are so surrounded by advertising that it can become oddly invisible. As a result advertisers shout louder and louder for our attention, using ever more clever techniques and digital media. Advertising is the cultural water in which we swim. It shapes our choices and wants, our priorities and what we consider to be ‘normal’ and part of the good life. More worryingly, research shows that we soak-up the messages and manipulations of marketing whether we are consciously aware of them or not.

Figure 1: Data adapted from Advertising Association, WARC (2018)

This table shows for one country - the United Kingdom - the different types of advertising people encounter. It’s fairly typical for a relatively wealthy nation. Online advertising, including social media platforms like Facebook, has become (measured by spend) the biggest advertising medium. Governments around the world are struggling to keep pace with new technologies. Regulation is running behind how our data is harvested, re-sold and used to target adverts at us. TV advertising continues to be key for big companies with sufficiently large advertising budgets. 

Outdoor advertising such as giant billboards, digital screens, and panels placed at bus stops and other places for public transport, are particularly problematic because unlike other mediums, we have no choice over whether we view them or not. Unlike when you buy a magazine that you choose to read, adverts in the public domain are non-consensual intrusions. As the outdoor advertising industry likes to brag: “Outdoor advertising is a medium which cannot be turned off, closed, missed or minimised.”  Digital advertising screens are also extremely energy intensive, with one large ad screen using the same electricity as 11 average UK households.

 Digital advertising screens are also extremely energy intensive, with one large ad screen using the same electricity as 11 average UK households. 

Throughout this toolkit we will outline policy measures for different levels of government and regulatory bodies to limit our exposure to high carbon adverts.

 

What is ‘high carbon advertising’?

This toolkit focuses on the climate damage done by advertising high carbon goods and activities (such as SUVs and air travel). But the ad industry has a track record of criticism for its negative impacts on health and well being, for portraying people in discriminatory ways, and promoting out-of-date attitudes.  Health campaigners have been fighting for decades to strengthen regulations on tobacco, alcohol, gambling and junk food advertising. Feminist and equality movements critique the role of marketing in idealising certain body shapes or skin tones - and confront the industry’s attacks on self esteem and mental health.  

Similarly, experts on wellbeing argue that the constant pressure to purchase and consume ‘must-have’ brands undermines mental health and promotes attitudes and values that make us feel worse (For more on this see Tim Kasser’s book The High Price of Materialism . Sometimes impacts can be quietly profound. Communities living next to large, new digital screens, for example, say that advertising billboards can create a subtle reduction in our sense of belonging and place, and intensify the commercialisation of our public spaces. It is important to keep these broader concerns in mind when discussing necessary checks and balances on advertising.

This toolkit looks at the ecological and climate impacts of advertising from these high carbon industries:

• petrol and diesel car advertising, particularly for the largest and most polluting cars such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs)

• airline advertising for flights

• fossil fuel companies (such as Shell and BP) 

While some may claim to be cleaning up their operations and going green, their track records on climate change are those of delay and spreading confusion. Car manufacturers and oil companies lobby to weaken climate action, and airlines are failing to take meaningful action to reduce their overall pollution whilst aggressively pushing to increase the number of  flights.  

From March 2020 onwards, both international air travel and urban transport around the world have been seriously constrained by the coronavirus pandemic and related social distancing measures. Now there is a real danger that, as people are warned to avoid public transport, even more polluting cars will clog up our streets and create soaring levels of lethal air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. When we urgently need cleaner air for our health, and more space on our streets for people, it makes no sense to have multi-million pound ad campaigns encouraging us to buy over-sized new SUVs.

Car advertising

Transport is Europe’s biggest source of carbon emissions, contributing a massive 27% to the EU’s total CO2 emissions in 2018, with cars and vans representing more than two thirds of these. In recent times, the auto industry has been mired in scandals relating to ‘cheat devices’ built into vehicles to get around laws and targets governing fuel efficiency.

Car adverts often display images of exotic, wild or rural locations surrounded by plenty of space. They promise adventure, escape and the open road; but the reality in many world cities is gridlocked traffic jams and soaring, illegal levels of air pollution. The car has become culturally dominant and car advertising has played a key role in positioning car ownership as the ultimate status symbol. Many urban centres are struggling to provide to transit systems based on majority public transport or active travel because cars are culturally locked into both our infrastructure (with space for roads and parking prioritised over cycle lanes and green spaces) and our travel behaviours.

The rise of SUVs

Read the full report

Over the past ten years, car manufacturers have shifted away from selling family cars towards ever bigger, more polluting - but much more profitable - ‘sports utility vehicles’ (SUVs). The industry’s drive to persuade us to buy these larger, dirtier vehicles has been so effective that it now threatens to trash our climate change targets.

Now, with the coronavirus pandemic, we also need as much space on our streets as possible for pedestrians and cyclists to get around and commute to work safely. But as well as being dirtier, oversized SUVs take up far more precious urban space than conventional cars. Why are we allowing marketers to push cars onto our streets that are so big they do not fit in a standard UK parking space?

Recent years have seen vehicle manufacturers move the bulk of their advertising spend to promoting their SUV ranges rather than traditional cars. In 2018, car maker Ford reportedly spent 85% of its advertising budget promoting SUVs and light trucks in the USA. As a result, more and more people are buying SUVs, when we could instead be investing in a cleaner future. If we want to encourage sustainable transport and travel, it’s time to end advertisements promoting big, polluting SUVs.

Key SUV facts

• In 2019, over 150,000 new cars were sold in the UK that are too large to fit in a standard parking space (according to European Environment Agency vehicle sales figures). 

• For every one fully electric vehicle sold in the UK in the last four years, 37 SUVs were sold.

• These unnecessarily large, energy hungry vehicles produce around 25% more CO2 emissions than a medium sized car.

• Globally, rising sales of SUVs are the second biggest cause of increasing CO2 emissions (after power generation, but ahead of aviation and heavy industry)

• Air pollution, largely from motor traffic, kills between 28,000 and 36,000 people a year in the UK.

• The government’s statutory advisors the Committee on Climate Change have recommended a total phase out of sales of new internal combustion engine cars by 2030 to ensure the UK can meet its net zero commitments. Clearly advertising fossil fuelled cars should be phased out in advance of this date.

What are the limits on CO2 emissions from cars in Europe? 

Since 2020, all new cars sold in Europe - including the UK - must not emit more than 95grams of CO2 per km. Carmakers breaching these standards will be required to pay a fine of €95 euros (the equivalent of £83) for every gram over the imposed limit, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold. According to a recent study, the 13 biggest car manufacturers are all set to largely miss the new CO2 emissions targets and will be required to pay billions of euros in compensation.  In the UK alone, average CO2 emissions from cars were 127g/km, 35% above the 95g/km target. This is largely due to an increase in the sales of SUVs and other large vehicles. 

Car manufacturers need to urgently switch away from the production of these vehicles - and stop promoting their dirty vehicles to consumers through multi-billion pound advertising campaigns. In France, the car industry spends €2.5 billion (£2.2 billion) on advertising making it the sector with the second largest ad budget (behind retail). Only 5% of the spending for these media ads was allocated for the promotion of electric vehicles.

Campaigners from Resistance A’Laggression Publicitaire and other networks have proposed in the Climate Citizens Assembly to the French government that curbs on advertising for the most polluting cars must be introduced soon. 

Car advertising - industry pressure waters down European Directives 

Car adverts in the EU are already required to feature the kilograms of CO2 per mile each car emits (under Directive 1999/94/EC, known as "the car labeling Directive").  However, a 2016 review found the directive has so far had limited impact. Motor industry lobbying pushed the information into the small print of adverts, and presents them without context, making it difficult for consumers to know what they mean.

What we’re calling for:

In the UK, we propose that publishing adverts for new cars with emissions exceeding 160g CO2/ per km or with an overall length exceeding 4.8m (that’s longer than your average crocodile) should no longer be permitted in the UK in any form. These thresholds would equate to an advertising ban on the dirtiest third of the UK car market in terms of carbon emissions; and on all cars which are too big to fit in a standard UK parking space. 

The same does apply here on Menorca, there has been a steady rise of people driving around Ciutadella in these great big cars, which take up two spaces or stick out a mile, for what reason I don't know. There's not an awful lot of off-roading to be done here. The roads are quite narrow and mostly one way. We even had a Hummer once, however, there was an incident, in Mahon (a place of many hills) , I think,where the driver parked it up and forgot to put on the handbrake.

We do have problems here with elderly people driving when they really should have stopped years ago. I really don't know how they are still permitted on the road.  The parking is awful, they either drive at breakneck speed or like a snail, either way it is so dangerous. One elderly lady, didn't see the roundabout with the horse on it (by the BP garage) and just drove straight onto it. It even made the daily paper here!

On that note I will leave you with the blog song for today:" pol;;;;;;klo (sorry that was one of the cats walking across the keyboard) "Telephone" by Lady Gaga.

 TTFN