Shell rebuked for 'greenwash' over ad for polluting tar sands project
source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/shell-rebuked-for-greenwash-over-ad-fo...
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
In an embarrassing rejection of Shell's "greenwash", the Advertising Standards Authority said the company should not have used the word "sustainable" for its controversial tar sands project and a second scheme to build North America's biggest oil refinery. Both projects would lead to the emission of more greenhouse gases, the ASA said, ruling the advert had breached rules on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.
Carried by the Financial Times on 1 February to accompany Shell's financial results, the company claimed: "We invest today's profits in tomorrow's solutions."
The advert continued: "A growing world needs more energy, but at the same time we need to find new ways of managing carbon emissions to limit climate change. Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future."
Shell explained it was harnessing its technical expertise "to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposits".
The WWF (formerly the Worldwide Fund for Nature) complained that extracting low-grade bitumen from sand was highly inefficient and destroyed huge tracts of virgin forest. In its defence, Shell maintained that new technology was reducing pollution from the Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta in which it owns a 60 per cent stake.
Shell quoted a critical WWF report as rating its Muskeg River Mine one of the least damaging coal-tar sands projects because it sought to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and organic compounds.
Making its ruling, the ASA quoted Canada's independent National Energy Board that oil sand developments had considerable social and economic impacts on water conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, land disturbance and waste management.
David Norman, the WWF's director of campaigns, said: "The ASA's decision to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that greenwash is unacceptable."
-
- groups:
- Green, Earth and Science
-
- tags:
- Green, Earth and Science, Environment, Climate Change, 15 more
-
-
plusaf [removed]
- This comment was removed by its owner.
-
plusaf [removed]
-
-
jjtcorsair
-
plusaf:
It's not just me.
- 3 years ago
-
jjtcorsair
-
-
jjtcorsair
-
I don't understand. Companies are made up of people. They're not some robotic mindless machine. People run these companies, people make the decisions and set the policies. Don't these people have children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews? Are they so delusional about what fossil fuels have done and are doing to the environment that they believe that it's business as usual and why not crank it up a notch while we're at it? What is this spell they're under? Do they think smog is really just haze?You would think that if they believed there was the slightest chance that what they were doing would harm their children they would stop, but apparently they must be making a very conscious decision that that field of black disgusting sludge is nothing to worry about.
And why not take a look at ourselves... we create the demand, we might be thoughtful and active in our conservation efforts, driving our Prius's and taking the bus and buying our energy star appliances but until theres no demand the people who create these scars on the earth will continue to make more.
- 3 years ago
-
jjtcorsair
-
-
cibalin
-
That is so right on. People need to know that the same products that big oil produces can be made from other more eco-friendly substances. Stop talking if you don't want to insert foot. Know your stuff before you write!!!
- 3 years ago
-
cibalin
-
-
plusaf [removed]
- This comment was removed by its owner.
-
plusaf [removed]
-
-
Wetdog
-
plusaf:
PetroSun is right now producing biodiesel from saltwater algae grown in sea water ponds.
The algae absorb power from the sun, and convert CO2 from the atmosphere into sugars, then oils.
The algae are then pressed and the oils removed.
The oil can be used in any diesel engine with no modification whatever, as is, directly as produced, no refining needed.
Oil from tar sands means you have to destroy the forests first----which take a LONG time to grow in the arctic, you don't have a very long growing season. Then you take off the oil by heating it----VERY hot. Hot enough to kill all the bacteria and destroy all the organic matter in it. What you are left with is rock and sand. Like an ocean shore. Not much will grow on ocean shore sands, certainly not a forest. Then you spread all the dead sand and rock back where it came from----a forest---but now nothing can grow there. Keep doing that over and over, and you have a desert where forests used to be. A cold desert. And nothing much will grow there for thousands upon thousands of years, because you have destroyed the ability of the land to support plant life.
After you get the oil, you have to ship it half way around the world. THEN you have to refine it. - 3 years ago
-
Wetdog
-
-
matt512
-
It's a shame we are all so quick to damn the companies that bring us the plastics our computers are made of and power the equipment that lets us exchange comment on the network.
- 3 years ago
-
matt512
-
-
Wetdog
-
matt512:
They could just as easily bring us biofuels that do exactly the same things as the fuels they provide right now. And they could do it at a lower cost because biofuels are made from raw materials that are about as cheap as you can possibly get. Pond scum and dead tree limbs.
We can make any kind of plastics you want from soy beans, corn and even wood.
There is nothing that petroleum does that we can not do with other bio sources.
- 3 years ago
-
Wetdog
-
-
Kati_kat
-
Argh, I am SO sick of the greenwashing epidemic that has seized modern marketing, its so disgusting, these people should not be allowed to manipulate the average consumer with BS tactics!
- 3 years ago
-
Kati_kat
-
-
Neghie
-
This sounds like McCains spiel on how we need to find alternative energy, but hey, why not drill off our coasts in the meantime! That'll shut you guys up and the richest of us all can continue to get rich off of the oil that has put us in the predicament we are in today...but I digress.
- 3 years ago
-
Neghie
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
OIl sands pollution.
Pardon my caps but:
HOW IS THIS JUSTIFIED?
And Shell is the same company that is behind looking to spread lime on our oceans claiming it will absorb CO2 while they condone THIS and lie about it in their ads... BEWARE.
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Wetdog
-
JanforGore:
Ethanol has been in use in high pollution markets for over 15 years to reduce air pollution caused by petroleum.
Biofuels can do anything and everything that petroleum can, and do it better, and do it more cheaply.
Each gallon of biodeisel replaces a gallon of petroleum in a diesel engine straight 1 for 1. Diesel engines require no modification whatever to use biodiesel fuel. That is what they were originally designed for anyway. Each gallon of biodiesel produced replaces the need to import 2.3 barrels of crude oil. We'd need only 44% of the amount of crude oil we have to import to do exactly the same things with biodiesel.
Biodiesel is naturally lower in sulphur compounds than even ultra low sulphur petroleum diesel(which requires extra refining and a LOT of extra polluted water to produce). Biodiesel do not need to be refined. It can be used directly as produced. Biodiesel refining is only to remove high value, non fuel portions of the oil. The fuel is what is left over. There is no waste product pollution with biodiesel refining, there is no waste product at all.
Biodiesel can be made from variety of sources, including saltwater algae grown in seawater holding ponds---pond scum. It is being done commercially in Rio Hondo TX right now.
We can use biofuels in any internal combustion engine that we have right now.
- 3 years ago
-
Wetdog
-
-
Mobius2012
-
The same major corporations that once and continue to pollute the environment are now providing solutions for a cleaner environment because they can't get away with destroying and exploiting the earth for profit anymore. How hypocritical, and yet we stand by and allow it.
- 3 years ago
-
Mobius2012
-
-
damnneargenius
-
There's an "Advertising Standards Authority"?
Oh that's classic, where the hell are they when I'm watching cartoon foxes try to sell me "success kits" on TV with the fine print that says this entire commercial is a lie?
You want to solve the world's problems?
Double the size and infinitely expand the effectiveness of the "Advertising Standards Authority" to actually keep the bullshit that masks all the evil deeds out of the public's view.
Working in advertising/marketing myself, it grows increasingly harder to watch the amount of bullshit that is plastered everywhere you look. Newsflash: The majority of rich people behind the huge corporations are shady, greedy, lying bastards. The advertising is what totally blinds you into believing their bullshit.
It's REALLY hard to tell a good company/product from a bad one because the advertising is the same. If there were more Consumer Reports-type standards applied to things, the world would be a MUCH better place.
- 3 years ago
-
damnneargenius
-
-
handibaby_tgdallas
-
Without "someone" lusting after the huge profits of safely powering the country (USA), the "government", which is totally in the pocket of big utilities and oil, will never move off oil and coal. The shareholders who own these corporate killers and warmongers will continue to belittle the "greenies" and purchase whatever government officials they need to hold off any real effort toward safe, alternative fuels. A huge mercenary war "Viet Nam" was ended by the people. People who did more than talk, but got out in the streets and changed things. Clean energy will only arrive riding on that same passionate bus.
- 3 years ago
-
handibaby_tgdallas
-
-
jjmaster
-
handibaby_tgdallas:
I think you are right... We need a "Day the Earth Stood Still" campaign where millions don't ride in their vehicles, turn off their electronics, and get out in the streets and protest! But, who will lead? How do we organize it?
- 3 years ago
-
jjmaster
-
-
AreOh
-
While I am glad the truth has come out, we cannot expect an oil company who's main goal is profit to lead the way to change. This simply is not going to happen. If we are to change, it will have to be at the hands of the people, demanding our leaders to clean up their acts and support, in policy and financially, the research and implementation of sustainable and non damaging forms of energy. We have three billion different was to kill a man, but no ideas as how to cleanly power his house. This strikes me as a bit of a paradox...
- 3 years ago
-
AreOh
-
-
elegua
-
yeah, they don't mention how aboriginals 100 miles downstream (Fort Chipewyan) are getting stomach cancer from their polluted anthabasca... high traces of arsenic in the fish that they eat... to name one of the poisons that have been leeching into the anthabasca from their "tailing ponds" for the past 10 years.
- 3 years ago
-
elegua
-
-
jjmaster
-
elegua:
How can they be so ignorant and or cruel...
- 3 years ago
-
jjmaster
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
We don't need to or have to continue in the dirty old ways, and our planet can't afford us doing so.
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
good_stuff
-
Canadia here I come. I always have liked our friendly neighbor to the north, and it just keeps looking better. This is totally off topic, but does anyone know how hard it is to get Canadian citazenship?
- 3 years ago
-
good_stuff
-
-
ihateyou
-
good_stuff:
ive been looking on moving to canada, it depends on your situation, if you got money it shouldnt be a problem, or if you have a college degree, also you could marry someone from canada. however for someone like me who is broke and i dont have a college degree it can be very difficult.
here is a good website
http://www.immigration.ca/index2.asp - 3 years ago
-
ihateyou
-
-
jubal
-
good_stuff:
You gotta be rich or an artist or be a professional with a business to relocate there. Its not that easy.
- 3 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
JanforGore
-
Their stock should drop because of this.
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Wetdog
-
JanforGore:
Their stocks will only drop when there is a product on the market and available for people to use that replaces oil.
Ethanol and biodiesel do everything and anything that oil does, and they do it better, and they do it cheaper.
To get biofuels on the market, we need for millions of small investors to invest $100-$1000 or whatever they can in companies that will produce and market biofuels
If ten million people invest $1000, that is $10 Billion dollars. Is it possible to find ten million investors in a nation of over 325 million people?
- 3 years ago
-
Wetdog
-
-
jubal
-
It is so laughable when people in these Public Relations and Advertising firms think that by using buzz words such as "green" or "sustainable" or "earth friendly" in their advertising will somehow ease people's fears and concerns; when they are actually polluting and slowly murdering the planet
It has become all too common in this upside down inside out world. Up is down. Left is right. Good is Bad, and Evil is Love.
Sometimes it is so frustrating that I wish a meteor would strike the planet and send us all back to the stone age; or Jesus would come real soon and take all those ignorant people away from this planet in a rapture so the rest of us can get on with the business of restoring this planet to a living garden; or hostile Aliens would attack the earth uniting all of us in a common cause. (fantasy mind at work under the influence of rage)
- 3 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
JanforGore
-
jubal:
I've had those thoughts too. I used to laugh about a " rapture" coming... now I find myself wishing it would.
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Beta_Boy
-
I can't understand how these companies can make profits that make your eyes pop out of your head yet can't get their house in order. Our dependency on these companies is something that needs to be addressed, their profits should be forceably ploughed back in to renewable sources.
- 3 years ago
-
Beta_Boy
-
-
onechance
-
"In its defence, Shell maintained that its new technology wasn't causing them to feed off of the bodies of living puppies or throw human babies into the sea."
- 3 years ago
-
onechance
-
-
jefftego
-
Oil company telling lies about environmental impacts? Shocker.
- 3 years ago
-
jefftego
-
-
JanforGore
-
They wouldn't need to outrightly lie to consumers if they knew their product was good. They however know their product contributes to climate change, pollutes air and water, and causes diseases... yet they still sell it thinking consumers are gullible enough to fall for their lies as they now back a project in Canada that has totally destroyed one of the most pristine places on Earth, the Boreal Forest. Damn them all to hell, and I hope more consumers wise up to their greedy immoral tactics to put gold bars ahead of our planet and our children. We have other safer cleaner options to power our planet. The time is now to use them.
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
jefftego
-
"In its defence, Shell maintained that new technology was reducing pollution from the Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta "
What a joke. Reducing pollution from something so environmentally destructive isn't really reducing pollution, is it?
- 3 years ago
-
jefftego
-
-
onechance
-
Sick bastards. I can't help but thing of the "Clear Skies Act" and the "Patriot Act" and "No Child Left Behind". All examples of people calling something the exact opposite of what it really is they are doing.
- 3 years ago
-
onechance
-
-
jjmaster
-
onechance:
Yes, tricking the public using selective semantics!
- 3 years ago
-
jjmaster
-
-
damnneargenius
-
onechance:
Evil bastards!
- 3 years ago
-
damnneargenius
-
-
MeganMcKenzie
-
This article points out how each of us need to read closely and attend to details.
Shell et al are destroying us. I intend to continue to boycott Shell, Exxon etc.
I am walking more, biking when I can, and driving very little.
- 3 years ago
-
MeganMcKenzie
-
-
jjmaster
-
MeganMcKenzie:
Keep talking too Megan... we have to get the message out!
- 3 years ago
-
jjmaster
-
-
Wetdog
-
MeganMcKenzie:
Megan---invest some money into companies that will produce and market biofuels.
The way to kill oil is not to ride a bike or walk, although there is nothing wrong with that for other reasons.
To kill a dragon you have to use a sword, The only sword that will kill the fire breathing black oil dragon is the sword of market competition.
Ethanol and biodiesel can do anything and everything that oil does. Biofuels are clean, cheap, and renewable. And with the sword of biofuels you can grab the oil dragons by the b@lls and cut them off.
- 3 years ago
-
Wetdog
-
-
JanforGore
-
SUSTAINABLE? What planet are these people living on?!
- 3 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
jjmaster
-
JanforGore:
It is sustainable for them... Same rate of profit and earth debauchery!
- 3 years ago
-
jjmaster
-
-
Wetdog
-
JanforGore:
Remember your old Superman comic?
It MUST be the planet Bizzaro they think they are on.
- 3 years ago
-
Wetdog
