"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none, as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought." Clever...
"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none, as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought." Clever way to draw attention to the climate chance issue or blatant use of scare tactics? According to Treehugger, the Jack and Jill ad is one of four print ads, two billboards, and a television spot in an ad campaign by the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change. Britain's Advertising Standards Association has "rebuked" the ad campaign, stating that it is misleading. Treehugger reports:
It says the ads should have been "phrased more tentatively." Does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that a media advisory board is determining whether or not scientific findings are accurate or not? Whether or not the ads scare kids is one thing--whether or not they're factually accurate shouldn't be determined by a body with no expertise on the subject. Would you trust the MPAA to parse nuclear physics?Check out the full commercial over at Treehugger. I see nothing wrong with the ad itself, aside from being a tad melodramatic, but it will definitely get people at least talking about climate change. What do you think? With its doe-eyed blond and drowning animals, it the ad too much? Share your thoughts and reactions below.Photo via Treehugger