Advertising Watchdog Says Peabody Energy 'Clean Coal' Advert Was Misleading

authordefault
on

CLEAN COAL, it’s the two-word catch phrase the coal industry has used for years as it tries to convince the world its climate changing energy source has aย future.

While the term โ€œclean coalโ€ is rightly met with ridicule and derision by many, up until this week it has been allowed to stand โ€” at least in the world ofย advertising.

But now the UKโ€™s advertising authorities have told Peabody Energy that it can no longer freely dangle its โ€œclean coalโ€ mythology in front of consumers without explainingย itself.

The advert, devised by global PR agency Burson-Marsteller, claimed that Peabody was using โ€œtodayโ€™s clean coal technologiesโ€ to โ€œimproveย emissionsโ€.

In an adjudication, the Advertising Standards Authority said:

Notwithstanding the fact that โ€œclean coalโ€ had a meaning within the energy sector, we considered that without further information, and particularly when followed by another reference to โ€œclean, modern energyโ€, consumers were likely to interpret the word โ€cleanโ€ as an absolute claim meaning that โ€œclean coalโ€ processes did not produce CO2 or other emissions. We therefore concluded that the ad wasย misleading.

The ASA said that the complainant, environment group WWF, had argued the term โ€œclean coalโ€ was misleading and that it โ€œimplied that the advertiser’s impact on the environment was less damaging than was actually theย caseโ€.

Peabody Energy's 'misleading' advert

Tony Long, director of WWF European Policy Office, said: โ€œCompanies trading and selling polluting energies have a responsibility to be open and honest about their activities and products. The last thing they should be doing is trying to claim spurious environmental benefits from coal consumption. This merely damages the already tarnishedย reputation

of a strugglingย sector.โ€

WWF said Peabody, the worldโ€™s biggest privately-owned coal company, ย should โ€œtake the ASA ruling seriouslyโ€ and the group said it would be monitoring media for other examples of misleadingย adverts.

The advert was part of Peabody Energyโ€™s โ€œAdvanced Energy for Lifeโ€ campaign that aims to take a moral high ground by claiming coal is a key to ending โ€œenergy povertyโ€ in developing countries. The advert showed images of children in poverty-strickenย circumstances.

WWF had also challenged a claim in the advert that โ€œenergy poverty is the world’s number one human and environmental crisisโ€, butย ASA rejected these complaints,ย saying:

We understood that, in this regard, Peabody Energy considered that they were working towards a solution to energy poverty which, although differing from WWF‘s understanding of best practice, would nonetheless provide sources of energy to those populations that did not currently have reliable access. Although we appreciated that the use of coal-based energy to do this may be contentious, we did not consider that the ad was misleading by implying that Peabody Energy was attempting to find a solution to global energy poverty or by omitting information about the potential negative effects of coal-powered energyย production.

A statement from Peabody said it โ€œapplaudedโ€ the ASA for standing by its claims to want to use coal to end โ€œenergyย povertyโ€.

Peabody has now added a footnote in small print to the advert. Bloomberg reported Peabody was โ€œconfidentโ€ this tweak would satisfy the advertisingย watchdogs.

The โ€œAdvanced Energy for Lifeโ€ campaign has a website targeting China, the US and Australia and was developed by Burson-Marsteller, one of the biggest PR firms in theย world.

Burson-Marsteller has worked with the tobacco industry, aided governments with questionable human rights records and helped Union Carbide spin the aftermath of its infamous Bhopal poisonous gas explosion that killed thousands and injured manyย more.

The claim that coal burning should not be restricted because it can help lift poor nations from poverty has been an increasingly popular line from coal bosses across the world. Climate science deniers at the last major United Nations climate negotiations in Warsaw claimed coal was the โ€œmoral choiceโ€.ย 

The argument is also a favourite of Danish poilitical scientist Bjorn Lomborg, as outlined here on my Planet Oz blog for The Guardian.

Earlier this week, Australiaโ€™s public broadcaster the ABC screened an episode of its investigative current affairs program Four Corners looking at the impact of coal on the Great Barrier Reef.ย In the program, the countryโ€™s environment minister Greg Hunt equated stopping massive coal export projects to โ€œcondemning people toย povertyโ€.ย 

Related Posts

Analysis
on

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.
on

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.
on

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.
Analysis
on

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.