Environmental news round up – 30 June 2023

Government’s advisers say the UK is fundamentally failing to hit climate targets

This week saw the release of a report by the Climate Change Committee which confirmed that the Government is missing all its key targets to meet net zero by 2050.

This has meant that the progress made in the run up to our hosting COP26 as well as positioning through this to be world leading in climate change matters has been damaged as other nations step forward and have made more meaningful progress in mitigating the effects of climate change.

We insulated fewer houses meaning those houses used more energy and emitted more carbon which could have easily been reduced.

The Government failing to upgrade the grid, install new onshore wind farms, providing a secure investment platform for these technologies to grow has further damaged not only our resilience to the global energy markets but are ability to adapt our energy sources to reduce carbon emissions.

It will be interesting to see how this issue develops into the general election campaigns.

The full CCC report can be found here.

Thames Water possible collapse

We couldn't have a round up without mentioning the potential collapse of Thames Water. This is very worrying given the size of Thames Water and the communities it serves. 

Potentially this opens up a conversation about the practical value of privatising water companies. Since privatisation the water companies have paid out £72 billion in dividends, but have failed to upgrade the infrastructure required to meet our future needs or build a single reservoir.

Supreme court hears landmark Finch case – Do we need to consider downstream Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in planning permissions?

The outcome of this case could substantially affect the way in which planning decision are made in connection with the oil industry. If the Supreme Court rules favouring Ms Finch, then planning authorities would have to evaluate scope 3 emissions of developments for the extraction of fossil fuels. This could potentially stop new fossil fuels projects due to the additional burden required to evaluate and mitigate scope 3 emissions, which are effectively emissions made by third parties.

While the appellant provided that their case was only concerned with the extraction of fossil fuels, these are not the only projects that have scope 3 emissions. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling could potentially affect other type of developments like the wider extractive industries (i.e. mining), production of raw materials (i.e. plastic industry), transportation (i.e. airports, car parks), among other developments with scope 3 emissions.

We have published a separate article with a full update on this case here

Fine issued to site manager for bulldozing a badger sett

A site manager has recently been fined £3,600 for contracting workers to bulldoze over a badger sett. The fine was issued to the site manager despite the fact he did not personally destroy the sett.

The site manager told police, on their attendance at the site, that he had authorised any activity on site and that they had done checks and shaken the surrounding fences and bushes, but nothing came out and he therefore contracted persons to destroy the sett. It’s thought he did not inform those persons of the presence of the sett.

This demonstrates the willingness of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to take action against those breaking environmental laws, such as those protecting badgers and issue fines for such activities.

Read a full summary by COPFS here.

The Government’s consultation on onshore wind closes next week

The government are currently seeking views on developing local partnerships for onshore wind. The idea behind the proposal is that supportive communities will be able to host new onshore wind infrastructure and directly benefit from doing so.

The consultation says supportive communities will receive ‘community benefits’ which are financial packages made directly to the local community. 

These are said to be able to offer long-term, reliable and flexible funding. Examples given include Caro in Wales who used the benefit funds from a local wind farm to build a new school building. Payments are typically made by the developer to a community trust annually.

The proposal has the potential to harness the all-time high support for renewable energies. Although some argue it could go further in this regard and more generously engage local communities.

What is undeniable, is that we currently do not adequately utilise this form of energy. Onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy generation currently available and England is one of the windiest country’s in Europe.

However, wind farms can be famously difficult to secure planning permission for. The Guardian reported in May that Ukraine had completed more onshore wind turbines in the last year than England (only two have been installed in England since Russia invaded Ukraine).

In 2015, the Government issued a written statement that was then incorporated into the National Planning Policy Framework which has severely slowed the progress of onshore wind development in England.

Planning applications for onshore wind turbines must be on land identified as suitable for that purpose in the local authority’s development plan, and must demonstrate that, following consultation, the proposal has the backing of the local community. This is seriously delayed progress in securing permissions for new wind farms.

It is hoped the new proposals will encourage the development of more wind farms, and the consultation remains open until 7 July. The consultation is particularly seeking views on:

• Improvements to the way developers and communities engage when an onshore wind site is proposed;
• Whether improvements can be made to the system of community benefits.

The long read: New Code to Curb Deceptive Environmental Claims

On 23 June 2023 the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) issued its updated “Advertising Guidance: Misleading Environmental Claims and Social Responsibility” with a specific focus on addressing the practice of businesses exaggerating their environmental credentials.

The updated guidance follows on from the ASA’s recent rulings issued on several cases involving advertisers in sectors identified as high-priority areas for consumer behaviour change by the UK Climate Change Committee such as the car, aviation, finance (not exclusive).  

These advertisements were ruled to be making positive environmental claims regarding specific aspects of their businesses, despite the fact that much of their business model contributed to significant environmental harm or emissions. The ASA had determined that the advertisements were in breach of the CAP Advertising Code on the basis that they were likely to be interpreted as claims about the businesses’ overall environmental impact and its positive initiatives therefore exaggerating their overall environmental credentials.

The updated guidance contains a new section entitled “Claims about initiatives designed to reduce environmental impact” which utilises the principles derived from the recent ASA rulings and also the guidelines provided by the Competition Markets Authority which businesses should have regard  to when making claims about initiatives aimed at reducing environmental impact

The ASA has stated that “it recognises that as governments set new and ambitious targets and as the scale of the challenge to avoid catastrophic climate change becomes ever clearer, advertising and, by extension, ad regulation needs to play its part in working towards agreed climate goals”.

Background

CAP and BCAP (sister organisations of the ASA) are responsible for the issuing and updating of the UK Advertising Codes which are then monitored and enforced by the ASA.

In December 2021 CAP and BCAP published its Advertising Guidance: Misleading Environmental Claims and Social Responsibility to assist with the interpretation of its rules in relation to environmental related advertising.  The rules broadly related to misleading and environmental claims.  The guidance also set out the principles of the ASA’s systems and regulation of environmental claims. 

The role of the ASA which enforces the CAP guidance, is to monitor advertisements making environmental claims and to take action against any misleading or unsubstantiated claims. 

The recent rulings made by the ASA in relation to unsubstantiated and/or misleading environmental claims made by to name a few were HSBC, Etihad, Deutsche Lufthansa AG t/a Lufthansa, Anglian Water and Shell.  In the ruling against Shell the ASA stated that “the ads created the impression that a ‘significant proportion’ of Shell’s business comprised of lower-carbon energy products” and that “the company misleadingly “omitted” information that oil and gas made up the “vast majority” of its operations”.

The main aim of the updated guidance apart from to incorporate findings from the recent ASA rulings and parts of the CMA Green Code, is to strengthen the rules surrounding misleading environmental claims in advertising: principally to help marketers and agencies interpret CAP and BCAP rules that concern environmental claims and social responsibility, which have been applied over decades by the ASA through rulings.   

There is also a general growing concern over ‘greenwashing’ and the need for there to be clear guidance for businesses and the advertising sector.

What are the Key issues Arising from the Updated Guidance

Some of the key updates to the Advertising Guidance are as follows:

• Marketers should take into account how consumers are likely to interpret a claim.  When a claim is broad or open to multiple interpretations it is necessary for marketers to provide additional information to ensure the intended meaning of the claim is clear:
• Environmental claims which relate narrowly to specific products should make this clear, to ensure that they are not understood as being representative of the entire business.
• Where businesses are responsible for a significant amount of harmful emissions or other environmental harm, ads which reference specific environmentally beneficial initiatives are more likely to mislead if they do not include balancing information about the business’s significant ongoing contribution to emissions or other environmental harm.
• Ads which refer to a business’s lower-carbon activities without including information about its overall harmful environmental impact may provide a misleading impression of the proportion of the business’s overall activities that are lower in carbon.
• The ASA is likely to consider a water company’s Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA), issued by the Environment Agency, when assessing its impact on the environment and whether that impact will be considered information the omission of which is likely to mislead.
• Absolute environmental claims (such as “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly”) must be supported by a high level of substantiation.
• Ads which present a business’s negative environmental impact as being in the past are likely to mislead if the company is still having a significant negative impact

Conclusion 

By updating the Advertising Guidance it appears that the ASA is making it a priority to take action against greenwashing in order to ensure that environmental claims are substantiated and are not misleading.  

The message for business in order to avoid falling on the wrong side of the ASA and the negative impacts that can follow from that such as lack of consumer confidence, adverse publicity, is to exercise caution and ensure that environmental claims are accurate, substantiated and do not mislead customers.  

Exaggerated or misleading claims that can create a false impression in relation to environmental credentials are to be avoided.  Businesses should be able to provide reliable evidence to support their environmental claims and to look at how a consumer will interpret the claim/s.

Making unsubstantiated and misleading claims leads to loss of consumer confidence, holds back progress on addressing climate change and achieving net zero.