13
Aug 2008 - A Shell suggestion in advertising
that oil sands were a sustainable energy
source has been ruled out of order by the
UK’s Advertising Standards Authority, upholding
a complaint lodged by WWF-UK.
WWF-UK today launched
its own advertising campaign via a video
billboard at central London’s busiest railway
station, stating that "Shell can't
hide the environmental impact of their oil
sand projects".
Examining the advertisement
placed by Shell in the Financial Times earlier
this year, the Advertising Standards Authority
branded it “misleading” due to its ambiguous
use of the word “sustainable”.
The advertisement referred
specifically to the company's oil sands
deposits in Alberta, Canada and their work
to build the largest oil refinery in North
America in Port Arthur, Texas. WWF-UK asserted
that Shell's repeated use of the term “sustainable”
was entirely at odds with these activities.
A recent report released
by WWF-UK revealed that the production of
oil from tar-soaked shale or sand can create
up to eight times as many emissions as conventional
oil production does.
"Oil sands are
one of the world's dirtiest sources of fuel
and have a major impact on the environment,"
said David Norman, Director of Campaigns
at WWF-UK. "Their extraction cannot
be described as a sustainable process and
for Shell to claim otherwise is wholly misleading."
Shell argued that to
meet vast energy requirements it had to
look beyond conventional sources of oil
and gas, "but also the development
of vast resources of unconventional oil
and gas, such as oil sands".
The ASA said that the
use of the word "sustainable"
throughout the advertisement was defined
as "primarily in environmental terms".
Because Shell had not provided evidence
that it was "effectively" managing
carbon emissions from its oil sands projects
"in order to limit climate change",
the ASA deemed that the advertisement was
misleading.
The ASA came to the
same conclusion about Shell's claims about
the redevelopment of the Port Arthur oil
refinery and said the advertisement should
not be shown again in its current form.
WWF's advertisement
was launched today on giant digital screens
at London’s Waterloo Station. The 20-second
ad, featuring images of stripped mining
landscape in Canada, accuses Shell of "greenwash"
and claims that their operation releases
three times more greenhouse gases than conventional
oil production.
Half of the remaining
boreal forest in the world is situated in
Canada and large areas of this have already
been destroyed by oil sand extraction. Alberta
is also home to some of the largest dam
structures in the world, which were built
to hold in huge tailing ponds of waste water.
These ponds, some of which are visible from
space, are the toxic by-product of the oil
sand industry.
"The ASA's decision
to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong
signal to business and industry that greenwash
is unacceptable," David Norman continued.
"Oil sands are an incredibly destructive
source of energy and, along with the expansion
of Shell's oil refining capacity in Texas,
cannot be considered a sustainable way to
meet the world's future energy needs.
“If Shell were serious
about sourcing sustainable energy, then
they would be far better placed investing
in renewable energy, such as wind, tidal
or solar power."
