Parlimentary action needed on lying aviation adverts (Email to David Drew MP)

Dear David,

Good to meet up again this morning.

As discussed, I am now getting no response from the Advertising Standards Agency following my complaints against the misleading adverts of the aviation industry. All the adverts that I have complained about erroneously claim that flying can be made environmentally friendly. Claims of this nature are becoming increasingly common.

I have pointed out to the ASA that the marketing strategy of the aviation industry is the same as that employed by the cigarette industry in the late 1940s when they claimed smoking filtered cigarettes was safe. We know that it is preposterous to think cigarettes can be safe, in the same way that we know aviations claim of environmentally friendly flying is also preposterous. However, we also know that the cigarette advertising strategy was overwhelmingly successful, making Marlboro the most highly valued brand in history. By employing the same methods, the aviation industry is being equally successful in getting people to ignore the clear and present dangers of climate change and to continue flying regardless.

As I am unable to make any further progress with the ASA in having adverts that are making deliberately misleading environmental claims banned, I would therefore ask that you raise this critical issue in parliament with other like-minded MPs.

I would further appreciate that you question in parliament the merit of having a self-regulating body policing the critical issue of advertisers consistently flouting the science on climate change. Page 3 of ASA code of practise states, “The Committee of Advertising Practice members include organisations that represent the advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing and media businesses.” The lack of action on the aviation adverts demonstrates a clear and dangerous conflict of interest as advertising for business expansion is given preference over truthful statements on climate change impacts.

The adverts that I have recently complained about and the ASA responses that I have received follow below. In each case the advert is in clear breach of sections 49.1 and 49.2 of ASA code of conduct.  

• Finnair claimed on London Underground bill boards that flying with them is “Eco-smart.” I complained, but did not even receive an acknowledgement.

• Airbus  claimed in a National Geographic advert they “see the bigger picture, and work to minimize environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”  This is unequivocal rubbish. Airbus will never work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and every efficiency improvement the aviation industry has introduced since the Wright brothers has never reduced CO₂ emissions. Despite this plain logic, the ASA rejected my complaint. I then had the matter referred to the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications. However he backed the council’s initial decision, which raises serious questions about his independence. Amongst the bizarre justifications he made was National Geographic readers would understand it to be false, irrespective of the advert being targeted towards children. Again, targeting adverts at children is a case of the aviation industry borrowing another tactic from the cigarette industry. It is outrageous that the ASA are still allowing this tactic.

• Easyjet claimed that we should demand a “more intelligent approach to aviation,” with the suggestion that flying EasyJet was environmentally intelligent. Easyjet’s advert also suggested that we pressurise airlines to fly the most fuel-efficient planes. My complaint to the ASA was again rejected, despite having no response from my letter to Easyjet suggesting that they change their fleet to fuel-efficient turboprops.

I have complained about three other adverts were aviation companies made erroneous claims about being environmentally friendly. In each case the ASA has upheld the advert and rejected my complaint.

In light of the events at Copenhagen this week, it is vital as a society we demand major companies and CO₂ emitters are truthful with their adverts and are not allowed to maximise profits by subverting the science.

Regards and best wishes,

Kevin Lister

More ongoing dialogue with the ASA

Dear Mr Caines,

You may wish to close this discussion, but I will not and you will be hearing more from me. Every time some organisation such as Airbus flexes its marketing muscle to discredit or subvert the debate on climate change, I will complain. On the basis my past experience of complaining to the ASA on false environmental claims, I expect the ASA to reject the complaint, and I will then appeal.

I will build up a file of the all the cases where the ASA does not take action on those companies deliberately subverting the debate on climate change and present this to my MP and other politicians who are actively pressing for the level of the debate on climate change to be raised.

As for the points in your letter:

I am not wrong to state that you and the ASA have upheld the Airbus advert. Your actions speak louder than words. You have chosen to take no action when you should have done so. The ASA web site says that that one of your aims is to stop misleading adverts. Airbus's claim that "it is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," is totally misleading and they are now free to continue these claims.

You say in your email that "I had not succeeded in making out a case." However, irrespective of what evidence that I would have presented, you would have come to the same conclusion, especially when it is absolutely clear that this decision is in breach of your own code. I would be interested to know how many ASA adjudications that you actually overturn, especially on sensitive issues such as this. I have previously spoken to people at the ASA and been told that ASA council decisions are rarely overturned by your "independent review."

It therefore seems that you are a rubber stamper, not an independent reviewer. I would therefore suggest that you consider early retirement and get out of the way to make space for a genuine independent reviewer.

So you are aware of the effectiveness of these types of adverts, only recently the government gave a 350 million pound loan to Airbus for the new A350, which was justified by Peter Mandelson as supporting the development of an environmentally friendly plane. This is after a billion of yet unpaid loans to support the A380. This comes at a time when the poorest people in our society are being told to expect to pay increased fuel bills to combat climate change. This is a propaganda coup that Goebbels would be proud of.

Kevin Lister

---

From: john caines
To: Kevin Lister <>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 1:51:55 PM
Subject: Re: ASA Case A09-101952: Airbus - Request for Review



Dear Mr Lister

I am replying to your email below, not because I think that there is much value in prolonging this exchange of correspondence (now that I have closed my file on the case), but because I regard it as desirable to put on record where I consider that you have got things wrong.

You are wrong to suggest that in my letter to you of 28 September I have made a decision to uphold the Airbus advertisement. You are also wrong to accuse me of supporting what you describe as Airbus' propaganda and false representations.

The only point contained in my letter of 28 September was my conclusion that you had not succeeded in making out a case to justify my asking the Council of the ASA to reconsider its decision not to investigate a complaint which you had made about an Airbus advertisement. I have not "upheld" that advertisement. Nor have I said that I support that advertisement. I have merely said that you have not persuaded me that the ASA Council's judgement was either unfair or unreasonable.

Your assertion that I work to protect the interests of business rather than the interests of individuals is both unjust and unfounded. During my ten years as Independent Reviewer there have been many occasions when my decisions have been against the interests of business.

You also imply that the ASA is biased in favour of business. It is not for me to try to defend the ASA. It is well able to do that itself. My own experience of dealing with some 500 review request cases during the past ten years has shown me that you are totally unjustified in making such a statement.

Yours sincerely

Sir John Caines

Independent Reviewer

Letter to Sir John Caines - ASA Independent reviewer

Dear Sir John,

Thank you for you letter – I am however extremely angry with your decision to uphold the Airbus advert. My anger will be shared by many others. The population is becoming increasingly terrified by the prospects of climate change and angry about the way in which large organisations such as Airbus are continually subverting the debate to protect their short term profit motives. We suffer this terror as we watch organisations such as Airbus receiving protection and support from the state, whilst the self evident rights to the future that we should enjoy are denied us.

Your action to support Airbus’s propaganda and false representations only reaffirms that the systems in place do not protect the individual, but are designed primarily to protect the rights of business to develop irrespective of the environmental damage caused.

Your decision to uphold the Airbus advert is based on several alarming, naïve and dangerous positions.

In your justification letter to me you have said:-

• “The Council’s view was based upon a judgement that readers of National Geographic would understand that the advertiser was not claiming that the aviation industry had no adverse impact on the environment.” Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the National Geographic is aimed an articulate and intelligent audience they will automatically be able to decipher fact from fantasy? History is full intelligent people who have been lead astray with disastrous consequences. Airbus’s advert is in the National Geographic precisely because it is a prestigious publication. Airbus’s marketing department clearly wanted its name associated with the National Geographic as a way of combating the debate on the impact of aviation on climate change. The fact that it is in the National Geographic gives credence to its claim that it is “working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

• “Readers of National Geographic would be unlikely to regard the advertisement as a claim that Airbus was taking actions which would lead to absolute, rather than relative, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” This a ridiculous position for the Advertising Standards Agency to take. Firstly, you have no way of knowing how this advert is perceived by National Geographic readers. Secondly, the aviation industry this week has been peddling its nonsense about being able to reduce its absolute emissions by 50% by 2050, when it has already failed to meet any of its past environmental targets. The reader will clearly assume that this advert is relating to absolute emissions. This after all, is the intention of the advert.

• “The Council has to strike a balance between preserving freedom of expression and ensuring that such freedom is not seriously harmful to the interests of others.” Are you saying that an organisation such as Airbus can be allowed to use its massive marketing budget to blatantly lie about its environmental credentials as this is essential to the preservation of freedom of expression? You should know that the combined marketing budgets and publicity machines of the many carbon intensive companies such as Airbus by far exceeds the worlds scientific budget on climate change. Ever since climate change was first highlighted as a serious problem in the late 1970s, big business has successfully subverted the debate to ensure profitability. This is not freedom of expression or open debate. This is manipulation on a grand scale, and this advert is simply part of this.

• “I know that this decision will be a disappointment to you and for that I am sorry. I realise that you feel very strongly about the impact of the aviation industry on the environment” This is patronising and belittling nonsense that I can do without. To say that I feel strongly is a gross understatement. I am angry at my environment being destroyed and my taxes being diverted to the aviation industry. Not only am I angry, but so are thousands of others. Many of these intelligent people are now sacrificing their own liberty by taking direct action, as there is no other real option to influence decision making. You have demonstrated again that the only way forward is by direct action.

Finally you may want to explain to me what the Advertising Standards Agency is for? This complaint, and the lack of adherence to your own code, clearly demonstrates that it is not to ensure truthful and honest claims to the public. Instead it seems that the ASA’s job is to ensure that the marketing interests of business are allowed to operate, irrespective of the environmental damage that may ensue. You have demonstrated the truth of the Plane Stupid claim that the "ASA are as toothless as a new born."

I will post this correspondence on my blog, and copy to my MP.

Kevin Lister