The British public is showing growing support for new rules to regulate ads promoting high-carbon products like gas-powered cars, air travel, and red meat, according to a new study by Lancaster University. The research — part deliberative democracy, part national polling — reveals a clear demand for more transparency around the climate impact of consumer choices.

Advertising plays a significant but often overlooked role in shaping our climate crisis. A recent book, Badvertising, argues that ads for polluting products normalize and promote unsustainable lifestyles, contributing to overconsumption and climate inaction. In fact, advertising is often highlighted as one of the biggest problems for sustainability.

One proposed solution seems surprisingly simple: slap a red, amber, or green label on advertisements to quickly signal the carbon footprint of the featured product or service. Think nutritional traffic lights, but for emissions — applied to hamburgers, SUVs, even luxury getaways.

But would people care? Would they even notice?

Apparently, yes.

What the people want

“There’s previously been a lack of research on people’s views on the advertising of products with high environmental impacts,” said Professor Rebecca Willis, one of the authors of the report. “We wanted to find out more about what people in the UK think about advertising high-carbon products and services and we discovered that there is strong support for regulating their advertising.”

To gauge opinions, the researchers first assembled a “Citizens’ Jury”. This group of 25 individuals was carefully selected to mirror the UK population in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, education, climate change concern, and political views. Over several sessions, the jury learned about current advertising regulations and the links between consumption, advertising, and climate change. They heard from experts including the Met Office and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). They were then tasked with deliberating and recommending potential changes to advertising practices.

The most popular idea was a carbon label — bright and bold, modelled after food health scores — designed to inform consumers about the climate cost of what they’re buying.

“Labeling was seen as an effective way of informing and educating the public about how to lower the climate impact of their consumption choices, while also raising public awareness and understanding of climate change,” said Dr. Jacob Ainscough, Lancaster researcher and co-author of the study.

Putting the findings to the test

Following the jury’s deliberations, its findings were tested through a national poll of 2,000 adults. The results showed a broad consensus favouring change. Only 29% of those polled wanted no alterations to existing advertising rules.

The most favoured proposal emerging from the jury was indeed the green/amber/red system. 69% of the polled public supported this approach (with 44% showing strong support). Similar to nutritional labels on food, this system would assign a red, amber, or green rating based on the lifecycle carbon emissions of the advertised product or service.

“People said they feel under-informed about the climate crisis and how they can contribute to addressing it, and felt labelling could help provide information and clarity. They also saw it as a way of shaping corporate behavior, as companies would not like to have a red rating beside their products or services,” added Ainscough.

Still, jurors emphasized that advertising reform alone won’t solve everything. Price, access, and convenience are powerful forces. Any change to advertising rules, they argued, needs to be part of a broader effort — through education, government leadership, and smart climate policy.

The traffic light system may not be a silver bullet. But it’s clear that the public wants more clarity, and even more than that, they want change.

The report may be read in its entirety here.