The Illusion of Control

By Noah Rothman

Monday, May 04, 2026

 

There is still much debate over whether banning advertisements for tobacco products on television and radio had the intended effect of ensuring that fewer people smoked. Some studies say it did. Others disagree. But what every side of this debate concedes is that tobacco consumption is a luxury habit. That lends some superficial credence to the admittedly patronizing notion that fewer people might use these products if they weren’t regularly reminded of their existence.

 

The city of Amsterdam is trying a different approach. It, too, is getting into the advertisement-banning game. But the banned ads aren’t for discretionary products. Rather, they are necessities, albeit the sort that irritate the environmentalist left.

 

“Amsterdam has become the world’s first capital city to ban public advertisements for both meat and fossil fuel products,” the BBC reported.

 

“Politicians in the city say the move is about bringing Amsterdam’s streetscape into line with the local government’s own environmental targets,” the report continued. “These aim for the Dutch capital to become carbon neutral by 2050, and for local people to halve their meat consumption over the same period.”

 

The report is loaded with react quotes from supporters of this program from within Holland’s environmental activist community, some of whom seem sensitive to the criticism that this is an example of the “nanny state” in action. “Everybody can just make their own decisions,” said a Dutch representative with “Party for the Animals,” which is, sadly, not a fun event but, rather, a political party. “In a way, we’re giving people more freedom because they can make their own choice, right?”

 

That’s some high-test condescension. The notion that the omnivorous human species would never crave animal protein unless they were guided into temptation by malign commercial forces is absurd. So, too, is the idea that the public would slough off the internal combustion engine if not for those pesky billboards advertising competitive gasoline prices.

 

People eat meat because it tastes good and provides essential nutrients. People buy petrol because it helps them get around. Alternatives to these things struggle to catch on in the marketplace because they don’t provide consumers with the same level of satisfaction or a sense of efficiency. The billboards aren’t the issue.

 

Still, the environmentalist left is congratulating itself. Banning the 0.1 percent of ad spending devoted to promoting meat consumption and the 4 percent devoted to fuel advertisements may not drive down consumption, some admit. But the ban “sends a message,” the BBC continued. “Grouping meat with flights, cruises, and petrol and diesel cars reframes it from a purely private dietary choice to a climate issue.”

 

Of course, “There is no direct evidence that removing meat advertising from public spaces leads to a shift toward more plant-based societies,” the report concedes. Still, the BBC’s sources are hopeful that this “fantastic natural experiment” will alter public behavior. If nothing else, it will ensure “that big polluting companies will be extra scared.”

 

So, there’s no empirical data to suggest this policy will have its explicitly desired effect. Really, all that can be said in the ban’s favor is that it imposes a “tobacco moment” on meat and fossil fuel producers, and it satisfies those who “don’t think it’s normal to see murdered animals on billboards.”

 

What we’re talking about, then, is an aesthetic initiative, not a public health campaign. A set of fastidious busybodies who cannot accept the notion that other people chose lifestyles they abhor want the government to ensure that they will stop being confronted with that fact. But that is something that no government in a free society can achieve. Thus, supporters of this campaign are destined to be disappointed. They want a world without meat and fossil fuel combustion, and they want their environment to reinforce the illusion that they’ve achieved their goal.

 

For a time, the ad ban’s supporters may find some fleeting contentment. But the world outside their bubble will intrude again soon enough. Fortunately, there’s always something else to ban.