In their 2008 book, The Hot Topic, Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King observe that:

The richer the world gets, the farther it wants to travel and the less carbon efficient the means it chooses. As the wealth of a nation rises, its citizens change from walking and cycling, through buses and local trains, to cars, high-speed trains, and air travel. (p. 110)

Overlain on this tendency towards travelling further using less carbon efficient modes of transport, is the imperitive that "bigger is better". Given this mentality, cycling is often perceived as either not progressive or reflective of a low wealth status.

In much of the consumer imagery around automobiles is the idyllic green nature scene with the vehicle comfortably situated in it. The imagery is meant to suggest that buying this vehicle is either good for the planet or better for the planet relative to another vehicle. But is it?

Perhaps one of the options that we should be advertising is the choice between buying a vehicle and not buying a vehicle. To sell the null purchase option might require a more aggressive approach towards the automobile industry in which vehicles are situated in less appealing surroundings, some atmospheric facts and societal trend data are quoted, and the real option is put to the consumer: purchase a vehicle which may spew more co2 and pollutants than your moral quota, or investigate and spend your money on alternative methods of transport.

The green movement has recognized the need for eco-justice lawyers to defend the earth against unsustainable development, however it does not seem to have recognized the need for eco-advertisers to help shift the consumer mindscape into more sustainable directions.