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

Demand for Appeal on Airbus Advert complaint

Dear Julia,

Thank you for your response to my complaint. However I am appalled by your decision that shows a wilful disregard of the facts and total contempt for your position.

You say in your response that, “We can and do take action where we feel that an ad is likely to cause harm or misleading consumers to their detriment.” This advert is a clear and blatant attempt to do this.

For Airbus to claim that they will “reduce greenhouse gases” is a blatant lie and does nothing other than mislead consumers. In your decision you have made the assumption that the airlines passengers are rational and informed individuals who care about climate change. I beg to differ. I have known many that do not care, who believe climate change is fraud, or believe that because they are flying modern jets they are environmentally friendly. Many of these people simply seek to find the information that justifies their actions. Adverts of this type perpetuate this illogically selfish attitude and provide food for their actions.

You have said, “[You] note that [I] object to the advertisers’ claim to be reducing its environmental impact by lowering fuel consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While such claims would require substantiations, we have studied the ad and note that the advertisers are in fact more circumspect. The claim in the press ad doesn’t state that they have lowered fuel consumption and reduced noise and greenhouse gas emissions by a specific amount.” The advert does not need to claim it is reducing its emissions by a specific amount. By your argument the passengers of an Airbus should understand that they are causing untold environmental damage, and hence when they read that the manufacturer “works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” they would expect a significant reduction in the totality of the emissions. In reality the reverse is true. The efficiency gains that Airbus achieves will be used to sell planes that travel further and carry more people and not to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions. Thus there is no way that Airbus can ever make a justifiable claim to be working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


Also, Airbus has deliberately targeted the sale of A380 Super Jumbos as private jets. This is further categorical evidence that Airbus is not in any way working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

You are entirely misinformed in your decision on biofuels. You say the first generation types of biofuels “are unsuitable for use in the aviation industry.” There is no evidence at all that the aviation industry will not try and make use of palm oil, coconut (as used by Virgin Atlantic) or any other crop that they can economically purchase. Further more, the second-generation biofuels such as Jatropha (as used by Air New Zealand), which is being grown in Africa and India, has lead to wide spread deforestation and displacement of indigenous people. Despite what the proponents of biofuel say, in our over crowded planet there is no unused marginal land and Jatropha does not grow in deserts.

The much touted third generation biofuels using genetically modified algae and other crops have not yet been proven and will introduce many other dangerous environment risks. Many of these risks will have profound implications for biodiversity on our planet.

Finally you say, “We are therefore satisfied that consumers are likely to understand that, despite the increase in air traffic, the advertisers are actively seeking ways in which to reduce their environmental impact.” This assertion of yours is root of the problem and demonstration that you have not understood the implication of my complaint. Firstly, there is absolutely no way that Airbus can claim to be reducing environmental impact when they are simultaneously selling as many of the worlds biggest super jumbos as possible. Secondly, as you say many readers will fall for the claim of this article and actually believe that Airbus are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is your job to stop this happening.

You also need to consider this article in the context that denial of climate change has been the biggest fraud perpetuated on the human population. It is a fraud that has been pushed by those organisations such as the oil industry, car manufactures and the aviation industry and others through a concerted effort. I refer you to David Wasdell's You tube video. This advert, having the underlying claim that aviation can be made environmentally friendly, is part of this fraud. I re-emphasise that it is your duty to ensure that this fraud is not perpetuated at this time of planetary emergency.

I therefore insist that you take action on this or refer me to either a higher body with the ASA or an appeal process.

I will copy this email to my MP.

Yours,
Kevin Lister

.

PS.................

.

I note that the ASA Annual Report says on environmental issues, "There is a lack of official consensus on definitions and what can be called ‘green’. Set against this, ASA research last year revealed little basic understanding of environmental claims."

Given this statement from your own organisation, then your assertions that, “We think that most consumers are likely to understand their [Airbus’] claim to be working towards reducing that [environmental] detriment is relative to the industry within which they operate,” is even more ridiculous. From the statement in your Annual Report, it is reasonable to assume that most passengers are probably unaware of the environmental damage that aviation is causing and that the scientific evidence now points to runaway climate change having started. This advert, which contains the blatant mistruth that Airbus are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adds to the false impression that climate change can be stopped by simple initiatives such as flying on modern jets.

There can be no dispute that the intent of this advert is to portray Airbus as a concerned company against all the evidence of the damage that their products are causing. It is equivalent to a tobacco company sponsoring a school fete, and the parents being told that it is okay because all kids know that tobacco can kill them.