Shell get their wrists slapped for lying in an advert

Spotted in this weeks Advertising Standards Authority adjudications was a complaint about a print ad from Shell International. The ad printed in the UK national press stated that "We invest today's profits in tomorrow's solutions". Ignoring for a minute that any corporation actually has to invest today's profits for the future profits of it's shareholders, otherwise it would be doing them a disservice, such is the wanky nature of the modern business model the ad went on to say

Text at the top of the ad, attributed to Shell's Chief Executive, stated "A growing world needs more energy, but at the same time we need to find new ways of managing carbon emissions to limit climate change. Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future". Further text at the bottom of the ad stated "The challenge of the 21st century is to meet the growing need for energy in ways that are not only profitable but sustainable. As our 2007 results show, we're investing heavily in new technology and assets to safeguard the interests of our shareholders and future generations. In Canada we're harnessing our global network of technical and financial expertise to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposit. In the USA we're helping to build what will be the nation's largest refinery. And we're exploring a new generation of biofuels made from non-food sources. Difficult yes, impossible no". The ad then directed readers to full details of Shell's 2007 results on their website.

The accuracy of this advertisement was challenged by the World Wildlife Fund UK on 2 fronts, namely whether:

1. by harnessing the potential of the Canadian oil sands deposit, Shell was helping to provide a sustainable future; and

2. by helping to build the largest refinery in the US, Shell was helping sustainable energy production.

As a result the advertisement was investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental claims), in other words they were accused of making shit up in order to hop onto the environmental bandwagon.

To summarise the ruling both complaints were upheld, Shell were playing fast and loose with the facts and particularly by claiming that making a larger oil refinery they would be assisting with sustainable energy production when in fact they would be increasing CO2 emissions overall, and by describing oil sands as sustainable when according to the WWF they are actually one of the dirtiest energy sources.

Unfortunately all the ASA are able to do is instruct Shell not to run the ad again, but the chances are more people saw it than will see the ruling so I doubt that they are that bothered.

The rather lengthy response from Shell, and the full ruling from the ASA can be read here, and the response from the WWF UK is here.

Another "Green" F1 Story

Whilst it was never our intention to give so much attention to Formula 1 (despite the coincidental domain name with Honda F1's "positive marketing" campaign) we couldn't pass up the opportunity to report on the latest piece of green waffle from the motor sport governing body the FIA.

With a new season starting in Australia last weekend (incidentally the highest greenhouse emitting nation per capita in the world) the FIA issued a release in which the F1 drivers pledged their support to the "Make Cars Green" campaign.

The aims of the campaign are laudable, to quote the press release

Make Cars Green is a global campaign, aimed at helping to reduce the impact of motoring on the environment.

We can't really argue with that. We won't end mankind's love affair with the automobile, and it's not what Earth Dream is about to argue that we should. And as we commented last week the big brains in the F1 teams have a rich history of pioneering technologies that have made it into modern road cars.

Where we do take a slight issue is the method by which they are doing it. You see F1 engine development is now frozen for a number of years, despite the thirsty nature of the current power units, and additional power can only be delivered by hybrid "Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems", or as the FIA release puts it

The Make Cars Green campaign forms part of the FIA’s ongoing commitment to work with policy makers, industry and motoring consumers to encourage greener motoring. The FIA Formula One World Championship will take a lead in this when in 2009 hybrid devices called KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) will be introduced. These devices can store energy under braking and re-use that energy for acceleration. It is the first in a number of initiatives set to make the sport more road relevant and environmentally sustainable.

All well and good, but why have they shackled the F1 designers? These are incredibly intelligent and inventive engineers. These people don't need to be given the "solution" to investigate by the governing body. By telling them "KERS is the way to make cars greener now go and do it" you miss the possibility that they might be able to concoct better more efficient technologies by being given a wider brief.

What the FIA has done is effectively bet the farm on KERS becoming the hybrid technology of choice, and with the resources F1 teams can put into it and the strong links to many major auto manufacturers the FIA is effectively forcing their pet technology to the fore.

Surely if F1 was serious about "going green" a better approach would be to tell the teams that they were going to limit the amount of fossil fuel available to them over subsequent seasons. If teams were told that their fuel allowance would be progressively lower until in 5 years time they would need to complete the race with a 1 gallon fuel tank and no refuelling stops you would see some radical solutions to the problem of "Green Motoring". With the average F1 race clocking in at around 200 miles and some road cars (such as VW's Blue Motion) claiming 70+ mpg already this must be a realistic target.

Imagine what the boffins could come up with if incentivised like that!

Sadly "Mad Max" has bottled it. Which is bizarre as compared to some of his suggestions over the last few years such as making drivers swap cars for each race it would seem a pretty sensible approach.

Still the headline "Make Cars Green" is nice marketing spin for the most environmentally unfriendly of sports and let's them make comments like this

The Make Cars Green campaign seeks to reduce the impact of motoring on the environment in a number of ways. These include: the promotion of more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient driver behaviour; the introduction of new technologies to help motorists monitor their environmental impact; the improvement of tyre design to help save energy; and by encouraging the global use of unleaded and sulphur free fuels.

For further reading the FIA's press release can be found here and the FIA related Make Cars Green website can be found here which features a 10 points for greener motoring section which bears some remarkable similarities to the motoring part of Earth Dreams own Five Things... article.

UK Energy Saving Day Fails

Apparently 27th/28th February 2008 was the UK's first "E-Day" energy saving day in which UK residents were encouraged to turn off unwanted electrical appliances for 24 hours.

Unfortunately the organisers forgot to tell anyone about the day with the net result being a slight increase in the amount of electricity drawn from the national grid (due to colder than usual weather).

To be honest even we at Earth Dream have only just found out about the day after the event - not that it would have made much difference, we turn off our lights and TV's already ;) - which just goes to show quite how badly publicised it was. Which is a shame as obviously quite a bit of effort has gone into the website at e-day.org.uk and it wouldn't have been much of a leap to convert some of that effort into some actual proactive PR (and no, Facebook pages don't count) so that people at least had a chance to take part in the event.

Hopefully they've learned their lessons and will make a proper fist of it next year.

The Success of Green Marketing

I've recently spent a little time lurking around the Friends of the Earth forum. Now you would think that the people who post there would be fairly clued up on the type of issues that we concern ourselves with over here at Earth Dream but my God are there some easily fooled (environ)mentalists out there.

OK so it would be a sweeping generalisation to suggest that even the majority of posters follow any sort of stereotype but there is a significant minority that inspired this update.

Here are a few pointers:

Just because something sounds like your message is getting through it doesn't mean that it is. Case in point the widely lauded move by Marks and Spencer to start charging for plastic carrier bags. Hello, is this not a classic case of profiteering masked as environmentalism. OK so they aren't keeping the 5p's and are apparently giving them to environmental charities - but does anyone really think this is anything more than a marketing policy designed to appeal to the mostly middle class middle england environmentalism-lite politics of it's current consumer base, get a few positive news stories published in the media and hopefully attract a few people into the stores that might normally shop elsewhere? For the record M&S generally aren't that bad a retailer, just look into the welfare of the animals used to make their food.

Likewise Mayor Ken and his green congestion charge in London. Does anyone really believe that putting a big charge on certain types of car to drive in the city is anything other than a political gesture? Look beneath the surface and you'll find that you can still buy a huge 4x4 that averages 20mpg (less in London) but because it has a bit of a battery in it it's technically a hybrid so exempt from charges - any sensible "green tax" would surely cover a machine such as this which is a Gas Guzzler by any definition.

The whole thing is a bit of spin directed at people that aren't usually part of Red Ken's general voting demographic and is actually damaging as it makes people believe something is being done about green issues when in fact it's a self serving cover up. And only having Roller's on the streets of London is good for the capitals image I guess. Even if they have stuck a minicab licence on the back to avoid the charge.