Across Europe the movement to ban fossil fuel advertising is gaining ground. On January 1, 2025, The Hague became the first city in the world to implement a ban on fossil fuel-related advertising in public spaces (1, 2). Looking back, Amsterdam also banned fossil fuel related ads addressing gas-intensive products such as gas-powered cars and cheap flights in 2021 (3, 21). Another example is Stockholm who will implement a fossil fuel ban from January 2026 next year (16). These laws forbid advertisements for products and services such as petrol and diesel vehicles, air travel, holiday cruises, and energy contracts powered by fossil fuels on billboards, bus shelters, and digital screens in cities (11). The rationale is simple: just as tobacco advertising was phased out to protect public health, the logic goes, so too should fossil fuels be treated as a dangerous product incompatible with a liveable future. On paper this is a radical shift, but as more regions jump on board the question emerges: do fossil fuel ad bans meaningfully shift public opinion and corporate behavior? Or do they risk becoming another performative gesture in a sea of climate branding?

The power of visibility

The most important factor contributing to the continued, misleading normalization of fossil fuels is not the advertisement’s content, but its very existence. The presence of advertising in the public sphere is liable to be viewed as “social proof” that the production and use of fossil fuels continues to be acceptable and normal, even though it is not. Given this, it is hard to imagine fossil fuel advertising that does not mislead, just as it is quite impossible to imagine truthful tobacco advertising (13).

By banning such fossil fuel ads, policymakers hope to deconstruct the fossil fuel industry's social license. If oil companies can no longer advertise themselves as part of the solution, public narratives can shift. As Amsterdam’s deputy mayor put it, “we must make space for sustainable alternatives, not give fossil fuels a platform” (1).

Symbolism vs. structural change

The core aim of these bans is both cultural and political. Fossil fuel advertising, whether in airports, transit stations, or digital spaces, shapes public perception of the industry’s image. Companies like Shell, TotalEnergies and ExxonMobil spend millions positioning themselves as “green innovators,” with investments in renewables while continuing to expand fossil fuel extraction. Studies also show that public trust in fossil fuel companies remains surprisingly high in many regions, to some extent due to decades of strategic messaging (4).

However, symbolism cuts both ways. Critics argue that ad bans may function more as moral posturing than as substantive emissions policy. Bans affect marketing, not operations. Oil refineries continue pumping, airports continue expanding, and fossil fuel subsidies remain intact in most countries (3). Without binding legislation to restrict fossil fuel production and investment, some experts worry that ad bans offer political cover without real teeth.

Moreover, there is a new challenge among fossil fuel ads where the advertising itself is evolving. Traditional billboard or print ads are no longer the dominant channel. Instead, companies increasingly invest in social media campaigns, influencer partnerships and “native advertising” within news outlets and podcasts (6). Narrative advertising are brand messages within engaging stories portraying fossil fuel companies as responsible innovators or community partners. These narratives are created to build trust, diffuse criticism, and align fossil fuel brands with social progress (22). Such forms of communication are harder to regulate, as they blur the lines between marketing and media content.

These newer forms of communication are harder to regulate. This evolution highlights the limits of bans that target only physical or traditional media. Symbolic actions like ad bans can help shift norms and signal political intent, but they must further be paired with structural policies if the goal is genuine systemic change rather than surface-level messaging.

The missing link in effectiveness

Where bans do exist, the enforcement has proven patchy. In France, the world’s first national law banning fossil fuel ads took effect in 2022. Yet loopholes have been present ever since. Natural gas promotions are exempt until 2028, and many ads for hybrid or “low-emission” vehicles continue under vague eco-claims (7). Environmental groups have reported that major polluters continue to advertise on digital platforms without legal consequence (19).

At the city level, enforcement depends heavily on political will and legal authority. Amsterdam’s public transport system removed fossil fuel ads from its buses and subways in 2021, but neighboring municipalities have not followed, which weakens the impact (12). Without national coordination, local bans risk becoming inconsistent, particularly as advertising is often coordinated across regional and national markets (20).

To conclude, the lack of consistent enforcement and national coordination weakens the effectiveness of fossil fuel advertisement bans. While some regions and cities make progress, the absence of unified policies and clear regulations create gaps.

How is fossil fuel marketing adapting?

One of the central challenges is the fossil fuel industry’s ability to adapt its messaging. As promotion of fossil fuels becomes more contentious, companies have shifted toward reputation advertising and vague commitments. Terms like “net-zero,” “nature positive,” or “climate aligned” appear frequently in fossil fuel campaigns, often without accountability. These claims are rarely backed by science-based targets, and critics argue that they contribute to a new form of greenwashing (8).

Banning ads could accelerate this trend. Rather than disappearing, fossil fuel marketing may evolve into softer narratives, brand partnerships with universities, “educational” campaigns in schools, or sponsorships of climate-themed events. And this has already been happening for some time. For instance in the U.S., major oil firms like BP and Shell have funded youth and cultural programs from workshops for Girl Scouts to sponsorship of the British Museum (23). In other words, unless regulation evolves alongside industry strategy, ad bans risk addressing the symptom rather than the system.

The need for systemic policy alignment

Experts suggest that ad bans will only be effective if they are a part of a broader regulatory ecosystem. This includes transparent climate disclosures, carbon reduction targets for companies, legal accountability for misleading claims, and public investment in low-carbon alternatives. Without this context, ad bans risk becoming a climate virtue signal rather than a climate strategy (15).

This is particularly urgent given the growing disconnect between climate ambition and fossil fuel expansion. According to the UN Production Gap Report, countries plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with 1.5°C climate targets (9). Meanwhile, fossil fuel majors continue to pour billions into new oil and gas projects, often with government support (18).

Furthermore, concerns about potential public backlash against such advertising bans may be misplaced. Unlike taxes or behavioral bans, restrictions on advertising primarily target the consumer information environment. Advertising bans generally entail lower costs and fewer implementation requirements for governments compared to many climate policy alternatives. Importantly, a ban does not restrict consumers' freedom to purchase fossil fuel products or services. Given this favorable condition, there is currently a 'window of opportunity' for fossil fuel advertising bans to expand to similar locales and larger governance scales.

A start, not a solution

Despite the limitations, some argue that fossil fuel ad bans still have value if they are framed correctly (14). They can help delegitimize an industry that has long delayed climate action, and they can open up public space for more honest climate communication. However, for them to make an impact, they must be followed by structural change. These are for instance binding emissions laws, subsidy reform, and serious investment in clean alternatives.

As pressure mounts on governments to “do something” on climate, symbolic policies like ad bans are tempting. But without follow-through, they risk becoming what one researcher called “carbon theater”, performative acts that make climate action visible without making it real (10). To avoid this, climate policy must focus on outcomes. In the end, banning fossil fuel ads may be a useful tool but only if it’s the opening act, not the finale.

So where does that leave us? These bans are best understood as entry points instead of endpoints. They open the door to bigger conversations and bigger decisions. And that’s where you as a reader come in. Reflect on how fossil fuel messaging shows up in your daily life, on social media, in museums, in education. Question who controls the narrative. Talk with friends, colleagues, and communities about the role advertising plays in shaping our perception of climate solutions. Shall we?

This article is part of The Outside World, ftrprf’s very own research center.

For organizations, it’s pivotal to thoroughly understand what is happening in society. We help companies generate comprehensive insights into societal change and its potential effects on their strategy and operations, both negative and positive. With actionable societal insights, courageous plans, and a can-do mentality, we connect the outside world to your company's strategy. For these outside-world insights, we use a rigorous methodology that includes data processing, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and a thorough review process to ensure the accuracy and consistency of our findings.

For more information, please contact theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com.

At The Outside World, our very own research center, we keep a pulse on global developments through a societal lens. As part of this mission, we’ve created The Outside World Journal—a weekly digest delivering a curated selection of the most compelling news insights with our interpretation of why this matters and what the consequences for society might be. Read the journal here.

Sources: