Tanja Aidanjuuri wrote that the plan in Helsinki to ban advertising of fossil fuels could, according to her, cost the city nearly 100 million euros in advertising revenue. She criticized the proposal as unnecessary and absurd and listed as examples of potentially restricted advertising gasoline and diesel cars, flights, cruises, synthetic clothing, plastic products, and fossil fuels. Aidanjuuri described that the Greens in Vantaa could, in her opinion, follow the same line and that advertising would then practically be limited to, for example, veggie sausages, rainbow flags, and new mosques. She also pointed out that taxpayer money would be used for the handling of the matter. Aidanjuuri cited a proposal stating that the advertising ban would be investigated in the preparation of the next outdoor advertising agreement for Helsinki's public areas and that the advertising agreements of Urban Traffic Ltd would also be taken into account. The assessment would examine, among other things, the legal boundaries of the ban, its climate and environmental impacts, effects on the city's economy, the city's own communication and marketing, as well as the media landscape. The proposal also mentioned the possibility of examining advertising's ethical principles more broadly and limiting outdoor advertising from entities considered to violate human rights and particularly polluting industries. #Helsinki #ilmastonmuutos #mainonta (translated)
