Extract from Friends of the Earth campaign webpage on fighting fracking
A campaign website which said fracking was incompatible with tackling climate change did not break the advertising code, the watchdog has said.
In a ruling published this morning, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did not uphold a complaint that the statement on a Friends of the Earth web page was misleading, exaggerated or unsubstantiated.
The ASA also did not uphold a complaint about a statement by the organisation that “fracking risks contaminating groundwater”.
“Serious doubts that fracking can meet climate tests”
Friends of the Earth told the ASA there were “serious doubts” that shale gas production at scale would meet three tests, set by the Committee on Climate Change, to be compatible with UK climate targets.
The first test – that emissions at development, production and decommissioning stages must be strictly limited – depended on the strength of UK regulation, FoE said. In 2016, the CCC said the UK needed clearer and stronger regulation.
On the second test – gas consumption must remain in line with carbon budget requirements – Foe said there were no provisions to ensure shale gas produced by the UK would remain unused by another nation.
The third test – accommodating shale gas production emissions within carbon budgets – was unlikely to be met, FoE said. A report from University of Edinburgh quoted by the organisation estimated that just a 1% rate of fugitive emissions from shale gas would risk exceeding UK carbon budgets.
Even if all three tests were met, FoE said it would not show that fracking was compatible with tackling climate change. It said the CCC had considered only UK climate targets, which were lower than the Paris Agreement of 1.5 degrees.
From FoE’s evidence, the ASA said it understood:
- Shale gas found through fracking would be over and above known fossil fuels in the UK
- Shale gas could not help to phase out coal for electricity production in the UK because it would not be available for another 10-15 years
- UK shale gas production would be unlikely to displace fossil fuel production in other countries
The ASA said:
“On the basis of the substantiation provided we considered that the claim was not likely to mislead consumers who viewed the web page, based on their understanding of the claim and the overall context in which it was presented. We therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.”
“Regulators unable to prevent pollution”
On the risk of fracking to groundwater, Friends of the Earth argued that the regulatory framework in the UK was relatively untested and it could not ensure that the risk of contamination was removed.
A report commissioned by the organisation showed that groundwater contamination could have a significant impact on drinking water sources. It argued that the regulatory systems were unable to prevent pollution occurring.
There was a strong overlap between aquifers used for groundwater supply and areas where fracking could take place, FoE said. The British Geological Survey had reported that aquifers used for public water supply extended across 81% of England and Wales and, of these, 47% were underlain by shale or clays.
The ASA said the evidence showed that where communities relied on water from Source Protection Zones 2 and 3 (where fracking is allowed), there was a risk that fracking could contaminate groundwater and that the groundwater could end up being used as drinking water.
It concluded that the statement was not misleading.
Categories: Opposition
DRILL OR DROP? 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/climate-change-action-effective-ipcc-report-fossil-fuels
Very interesting post and gratifying to hear some sanity. Lord Nigel Lawson will I am sure be happy living in France where fracking is banned, and avoiding a any fallout….. Thus do Tories act when they have made life intensely difficult for the people of the U.K. – they run away.
Gratifying indeed to those who refuse to accept that things are as they must be, that there is no redress. Now we must get this message out to all: fracking is incompatible with tackling climate change. The motives of those who brought this complaint before the ASA are open to scrutiny.
If we are to believe humans are to blame for climate change (very much open to debate) then we’d really need to go back to the stone age in terms of restricting use of fuels etc.
There is no magic answer and as shown in Germany, green energy is a genuine myth at the present time.
“If we are to believe humans are to blame for climate change(very much open for debate)”
No it’s not open for debate. YOU can believe what ever you like, However the scientific consensus is the anthropomorphic climate change is occurring right now.
Your beliefs have a name too and they are called Climate a Change Denial. People are entitled to hold those beliefs but it puts them right up there with Flat Earthers for gross stupidity.
Yes, we must also get the message out that if you plaster on certain cosmetics or wear certain underwear you look like a super model-because the ASA says that is OK too.
But, the majority are wiser than you think.
No it doesn’t, please show an example of the ASA upholding an ad making those particular claims. Usuall MC contrarian rubbish.
[Comments removed by moderator]
I am not surprised that the ASA upheld FoE in this instance. The statements are opinions. However, it is easy to pick apart these opinions.
1) Fracking is incompatible with climate change. That depends on the context. With regard to gas production – emissions are likely to be greater by importing gas (especially LNG). We need gas at the moment to back up intermittency of renewables, & renewable capacity is not high enough to take on more load such as space heating that currently is provided by gas. Also fracking is a technology required for geothermal (a renewable energy source). Fracking will also be required for underground energy storage (ever more important as take of renewables increases.
2) A risk to the local environment. The level of risk is not stated, nor are comparative risks. Many human activities are a risk to the local environment. Since FoE are showng a flower meadow – it is clear that modern agricultural practices have caused the main loss of flower meadows in the UK.
3) Fracking risks contaminating groundwater. The level of risk is not stated, nor are comparative risks. Agriculture is one of the highest proven risks to groundwater contamination in the UK, with potable aquifers showing nitrate & pesticide contamination.
3) Renewables can provide us with more jobs. This might be true, but the gas industry provides significant employment already
4) Renewables & Energy efficiency will do more for energy security than fracking. This might be true too, this is a statement about the future. Note the solar panel image. The public needs to be told that the average load factor for solar panels in the UK is @10%. . So a 1KW rated solar panel will only deliver 100W on average annually. This has been a stubborn statistic for several years. Energy security is about reliability of supply – so once again we are back to gas backing up renewables. It is highly unlikely that solar in the UK will cover the associated emissions with their manufacture, installation and maintenance. So how much is solar in the UK compatible with tackling climate change.
5) Energy bills – fracking is unlikely to reduce energy bills. This an opinion that is not yet tested. Renewables are to some extent being subsidised by gas back up. Plus good renewable sites are finite – so as renewables become more dominant t=some will be sited in less favourable places – plus more energy storage infrastructure will be needed to deal with renewables intermittency.
As usual FoE promote a renewables ony source for primary energy. This is naiive & unrealistic & misleads the public. We need a mix of primary energy sources which include renewables, decarbonised fossil fuels (gas is the easiest fossil fuel to decarbonise) & nuclear.
I could say more but that’s enough for now.
“decarbonised fossil fuels (gas is the easiest fossil fuel to decarbonise)”
I’m very interested in how we get CCS in place to support this process within the timescales required. Can you elaborate from your experience please?
Dr Riley, you are aware that industry and the majority of economists have stated that fracking will not have an impact on energy costs? Indeed even our previous Prime Minister Mr Cameron was ruled against by the ASA for claiming it would lower prices. It is no secret that the industry in the US is heavily in debt and in many cases not making a profit but is continuing to be financed by cheap credit. Further, here in the U.K. we can never replicate the US situation in so far as scale of operation. We simply don’t have the land mass or same quantity of shale, yet our production costs will be at least as high if not higher. Plus the U.K. forms part of the European gas markets and grid and if or when any shale gas is produced I am sure it will be sold for the highest price the market is willing to pay.
KatT. Yes I am aware the USA situation regarding some of the shale gas industry in the USA being heavily in debt, & in some cases not making a profit. The same applies to some renewables over here (e.g. closure of bioethanol plants, wave & tide generation companies, & solar) & many other industries. The gas market in the UK is very different to the USA, with gas in the UK (& Europe) being at a much higher price, and in the case of the UK, very close to consumers, with an existing grid in place. I suppose you are aware that shale gas has contributed to the demise of the coal industry in the USA (which Trump is vainly trying to rescue). As for the UK, we are in the exploration & testing phase for shale gas. The results of which will be dependent, not just on the geological conditions, but the cost burden around regulation, & limitations about the ability to fracture the rocks effectively within the regulatory environment. The shale resource is huge, if we include the offshore – but no-one will start in the offshore areas until the onshore setting is tested & is succesfull. Regarding export of gas into European markets. That also applies to renewable electricity. We have gas & electricity interconnectors with mainland Europe and the Island of Ireland. The latter for which we have obligations to supply (though this my change if we have a hard Brexit). The argument you have for gas also applies to renewables – are you proposing that all renewable electricity & biogas generated in the UK can only be used within the UK??
Refraktion, my views are set out in this publication. https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2018/04/action-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Since I wrote the article earlier this year, the UK Government has now set out its strategy on CCS & CCSU. You can find that here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/727040/CCUS_Cost_Challenge_Taskforce_Report.pdf
Thank you Dr Rily
So you would like CCS to be in place but you accept that we are a long way from it being a commercial reality? Is that a fair summary?
I couldn’t find anything in your article which explains how we get CCS in place to support this process within the timescales required for climate change mitigation. Did I miss something?
Government needs to make CCS happen, as do the large energy companies, that is the tone of my article. It is a high cost up front technology & cannot be done as incrementally & and at a small a scale as renewables. However, we will not meet climate targets (even 2C) without it. Regarding the recent IPCC report, this was done in response to the signatory countries requesting what is needed to stay within 1.5C. The report demonstrates that it will be impossible – we have already run out of time. The renewables only lobby – are just making an already extremely difficult target, even more difficult by discounting CCS & nuclear. “The perfect often stops the good”
This will be appealed. I think its an open and shut case, as this is so dodgy.
FoE have ignored the EA, the HSE, the Royal Academy of Engineering report and dozens of other experts reports that all accept that water contamination is not an issue. There is no info that suggests that it is and the 100% safety of properly regulated deep fracking is also good evidence. Markswell wood was turned down by the EA in spite of the oil co saying was OK. That in itself is very good evidence that the EA regulate.
On the subject of climate change the ASA have accepted a misleading info from FoE as if it was Govt policy. The 2018 CCC report makes no mention of shale gas being an issue. More to follow. Its long and complicated.
Good luck with that one Ken.
How many rulings have you managed to get out of the ASA so far? Zero isn’t it? How many attempts have you and Michael made?
And how many times have they ruled against pro-fracking publications?
Not that even the Guardian have covered this. We shall see!
Terrible twosome fail yet again isn’t a huge story for the nationals Ken, however important you may believe yourself to be.
I guess Ruth only covered it because it is fracking related.
You have not seen the ads. crembrule? You need to get out more.
You also need to DYOR into advertising. There is advertising that contains an explicit message and advertising that contains an implied message. Most visual advertising is based largely upon the latter. Either can be challenged, but the latter is much more difficult to rule either way, so is rarely challenged unless very obviously incorrect-such as the Lake District pictured in respect of fracking. The majority do understand what is being stated, or implied, a bit of research will soon show you that.
Further education will be charged, so suggest DYOR.
So you have no proof to put forward and therefore your original statement is baseless. Attempting to offset the onus of proving or disproving your claim is a cop out.
Your subsequent post is just bluster that doesn’t support your initial post with fact but just attempts to underpin your uncorroborated statement of opinion with more unfactual opinion.
Crem – May I suggest that you copy and paste your answer into a doc and save it away for repeated use? It may save you a lot of effort. In fact I may even borrow it.
It wasn’t an answer because he gave no proof, just his opinion around a subject he has little experience of. Yes, I’m sure you will repeat the same. Probably around majorities and minorities and Market Research.
Do you have any substantive information to back up you spurious claims or not Martin?
How do you know they are spurious when I was educated in marketing-including advertising-and utilised those skills for many years and you did not?
You can easily do some study and you will find I speak with that experience and knowledge factually and truthfully. Absolutely thousands of text books on the subject and good old Giggle might help you out. But, as I stated, if you are not wanting to do any research when it is so easy why should I do it for you? I have done that in the past and found you were not really interested to learn anything even when the reference was handed to you on a plate. That’s your choice. But others will be less blinkered.
Seems the media is beginning to learn that as well.