From the TIMESONLINE website:
Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.
The £6 million campaign, which begins tonight in the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street, is a direct response to government research showing that more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.
Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.
The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children. It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece
You can also watch the advert using the link above to the TIMESONLINE website
Some Harmless Sky readers have made complaints about the advertisement and I have started this thread because there is obviously going to be a lot of discussion about how the regulators react.
Alex Cull’s complaint can be found here
The full text of Robin Guenier’s complaint is here
Robin has also written to his MP, Peter Lilley, who was the only member of the House of Commons to speak out strongly against the Climate Bill.
I have received the following updates form Robin. Things seem to be moving very rapidly.
14/10/2009 16:13
I called Karen Harms [at the ASA] to discuss this. My fear was that, by turning this into a “political” issue the ASA might wash its hands of the affair & simply dump it on Ofcom – who, in turn, would prevaricate as they have with you, even deciding in the end that it isn’t political after all. But her line was busy & I left a voicemail. Then she called me, but I was on another important call &, this time, I missed her. However, she sent me an email with more detail which, to some extent, allays my fears. In my complaint, I cited ASA’s TV Code section 4 (d) [it’s interesting that they’ve already considered my complaint in some depth to get down to this detail!] – Section 4 is about “Political and Controversial Issues” and 4 (d) says that “No advertisement may show partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy”. That seems to distinguish “current public policy” from “political controversy” and I was concerned with the former not the latter. She now (her latest email) relies on a note to Section 4 that says (para 2) “The term ‘political’ here is used in a wider sense than ‘party political’ – e.g. “campaigning for the purpose of influencing legislation or executive action …” and goes on to say (para 3) “The … investigation of complaints in relation to political advertising … remains a matter for Ofcom.”
She is (per her latest email) relying on that to say the 4 (d) part of my complaint is a matter for Ofcom not the ASA. Essentially that meets my concern – I refer to about 16 other sections of the Code and they stay with the ASA so my “dumping” fear is unfounded. But I’m unsure about 4 (d) anyway – I’m talking about “partiality” re “current public policy” and that, if I read ASA’s Code correctly, is not a “political” matter (see above) – unless they argue that the ad is designed to “influence” “executive action”. Why would the Government wish to influence its own action.
Anyway, I called her to discuss all this. And, once again, had to leave a voicemail – asking her to call me back. I’m waiting.
14/10/2009 16:33
I’ve now spoken to Karen. She was very helpful. She listened to my interpretation of their Section 4 and understood my points, saying she wasn’t herself able to agree or disagree with me although she appreciated my logic on the matter. She said, therefore, that she would contact Ofcom herself and get their view and contact me when she had done this. In the meantime, she confirmed that ASA (i.e. Karen) would be considering my overall complaint with specific reference to my other 16 Section references, noting that this would not preclude her from referring also to other relevant Sections that I might have missed.
I.E. she could hardly have been more helpful.
This seems, so far, to be moving remarkably quickly. I’ll keep you posted.
I am also moving relevant comments to this thread from the New Statesman thread. The problems with references to comment numbers are unavoidable I’m afraid.
UPDATE: It’s proved impossible to move the comments because the vast size of the NS thread makes the software I use fall over. If you want to refer to them you can create links by right-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘link location’ and then pasting in a link in the usual way.
Discussion of the adverts on the NS thead starts here
Updates: 16/10/2009
If, after viewing the advert, you want to complain about it, then you can do so at the Advertising Standards Authority here:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
It was broadcast again on Thursday 16th October 2009 on ITV1 between 8.00 – 8.30 PM.
There is discussion of the government’s reaction to a flood of complaints about the advert at The Guardian website here.
Update 18/10/2009:
Robin has received another response from the ASA. See his comment here.
Update 24/10/2009:
You can sign a petition against the government’s TV climate change adverts on the Downing Street website here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/sign
TonyB, A regular contributor here, has written a paper that adds very interesting context to the governmen’s TV advertising campain. It can be found at Air Vent here:
This has also been picked up by WattsUpWithThat as well.
I don’t wish to over-anticipate events, but it would be utterly delicious (and almost worth £6m) to hear the government issue a retraction. Now I’ve written that, I can see how improbable it sounds, but it’s still a sustaining thought!
I wonder how the BBC would handle the news that the ASA had condemned the ad as misleading or inappropriate..?
James, it is definitely a sustaining thought. Could go either way, and the danger is we’re setting ourselves up for disappointment, but… what the hell. I’m thinking of it as an experiment – whatever the outcome, there will be something to learn.
Robin’s positive experience with the ASA person tends to confirm my experience years ago as a market researcher for the Central Office of Information (responsible for all Government advertising) – that civil servants are extremely meticulous about sticking to their rules. There’s something more important than the fate of the planet at stake here, after all – the reputation of their department. (No, seriously) If the public lose faith in the truth of one official advertising campaign, bang goes the credibility of a dozen efforts on AIDS, vaccination, road safety – who knows?
I posted a serious complaint like Robin’s and Alex’s. I rather wish I’d just pointed out the implicit message: Switch the lights off, children, or your doggy will drown. From my marketing experience, I’d say it’s important that everyone reacts according to their own feelings. A wave of heartfelt protest is more impressive than a carefully orchestrated campaign.
TonyN
Not being a citizen of the UK, I am a bit at a disadvantage discussing the government advertising campaign there.
However, I find it curious that taxpayer money is being used to convince the same taxpayers that are funding this campaign that they need to change their minds to support a government plan to tax them even more heavily.
Can you explain the logic of this procedure?
Max
PS My personal opinion: You guys need a change of government fast.
to manacker #4
The rationale, from the government’s point of view, is to persuade people to cut down on energy consumption, in order to help the government to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. Since the three main political parties are in agreement on these targets, the government may argue that the campaign is not controversial. The countering argument s that it is not based on scientifically proven facts, and is therefore misleading, even if it has cross-party support.
A change of government will make no difference. Only public protest has a chance of being effective.
In his post above, TonyN quotes my “fear was that, by turning this into a “political” issue the ASA might wash its hands of the affair & simply dump it on Ofcom”. This concern followed an email I received from my new friend Karen which said “If you believe that this is a political ad, you need to contact Ofcom for their view”. However, it turned out this referred only to my citing paragraph 4(d) of the ASA’s TV Code (I referred also to 16 other paragraphs) and, following my discussion with her on this, she said (as noted above) that she would contact Ofcom herself and get their view and contact me when she had done this. And ASA would deal with the other 16 paragraphs themselves.
For anyone interested in nit-picky detail, here’s my follow-up email to Karen (14 October):
We certainly do need a change of government, but unfortunately there has to be widespread agreement on the best alternative, and there are only so many floating voters.
The upshot is that a party remains in power for long enough to make a complete hash of things, then the other lot are given a go, and so on. It’s a sort of reverse Peter Principle, where you finally get demoted when your incompetence becomes obvious. I suspect it’s the same elsewhere.
To paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the worst system, apart from all the others.
As for the advert, I think that Geoff’s summary (switch off the lights or the dog gets it) is very apposite. I shall put that in my complaint.
geoffchambers
To your #5, there are nuances here.
I can see that trying to induce the voting populace to conserve energy by avoiding waste, improving efficiency, etc., is a good thing, which most people would support.
To ask the voting populace to “tighten their belts” to help mitigate against the “impending climate crisis” is a more dubious request, especially if this is being requested so that the government can meet its carbon emission reduction targets (does a majority of the voting and taxpaying public really care an iota about the government meeting these?).
To ask them to pay a carbon tax that will ostensibly be used for installing windmills all over the scenery (where this will have no real impact on either the UK’s carbon footprint or global temperature) is folly.
To this comes your argument that the whole concept of government commitments to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid an impending climate crisis is based on highly questionable scientific assumptions.
If it is true, as you say, that all politicians and political parties have jumped on this bandwagon, then you are correct in saying that only public protest will work.
The politicians and parties must not be allowed to forget that the entire funding of the government plan will be carried by the voting public, not by the government bureaucrats or politicians.
Max
Re: Geoff, #3
From your marketing experience, how successful would you expect that ad to be given that, according to the TIMESONLINE report it is specifically targeted at hard line sceptic?
Re: Max, #4
I think this advert is supposed to be seen in the same category as similar campaigns dealing with AIDs, smoking and drink driving. But that parallel doesn’t seem to work and I am having difficulty in defining why this is so.
Re: RObin, #6
As I am sure Robin knows, when dealing with the kind of rule orientated burocratic process that Geoff mentioned in #3, that kind of ‘nit picking’ is essential and can make the difference between success and failure.
The Guardian has just picked up on this story.
The ad was shown again on ITV1 between 8:00 and 8:30 PM last night.
To TonyN at #9
You ask how successful I think the ad will be. If it’s supposed to be aimed at hardline sceptics like me, not at all, but I doubt whether that is the case.
I used to conduct focus groups on subjects like race relations and social security benefit takeup. The idea would be to recreate the ‘pub discussion’ atmosphere, and inject advertising concepts to see how they influenced opinions. I imagine the market research behind this campaign must have made the following recommendations:
– emphasise the future; “it’s about the children”
– steer clear of science, because it gets people arguing
– don’t make any specific claims which might be challenged
It’s quite clever really, since we hardline sceptical knowalls are effectively excluded from the debate. Everyone agrees with switching off lights, which is what allows Caroline Lucas (I think it was her) to claim on Newsnight that 97% of people are doing something to combat climate change. This in turn will allow the government (any government) to claim that public opinion is behind them when they double energy prices or deface the country with windmills.
The weak point of the campaign is that it more or less admits that the global warming story is a fairy tale. A noisy backbencher of left or right could make mincemeat of this.
Now hurry along to the Guardian thread linked by Alex, boys and girls. Let’s flog this dead horse and put a stake through its heart.
TonyN
You wrote (I assume it was “tongue-in-cheek”)
The UK government advertising campaigns against these other threats were based on their known impact on UK citizens:
AIDs kills people
Smoking does so more slowly, but there are enough hard data showing that it does, indeed, kill people.
Drunk driving is faster (and it also kills non-drinkers), but it is also a sure killer, as many statistics all over the world have shown.
Anthropogenic Global Warming has killed no one, least of all a UK citizen and resident, to date.
There is no good reason to believe that AGW will ever kill any UK citizen and resident.
As an outsider sitting near the snow line in Switzerland, I see it like this (but I may have missed something here):
The current UK government made a silly commitment to reduce carbon emissions and is now using taxpayer funds to run an advertising campaign to sell its taxpayers and voters (who will pay dearly for the implementation of the actions required to realize this silly commitment) the benefits of this silly commitment.
Seems like someone goofed by “jumping the gun”. These guys should really be fired, and the “other team” who will then be voted in should be told in no uncertain terms why the current government was fired.
Power to the people! After all, they pay these guys’ salaries.
Max
Hi Max #13
If you are interested, if you would allow TonyN to give me your email address I will forward you a copy of an article I have written on the politics behind AGW which culminated in this advert.
It is a sorry and disturbing tale of how the British Govt has used the alarming notion of ‘catastrophic climate change’ to actively promote their own political agenda to achieve ‘one world living.’ It is thoroughly researched and documented so is entirely factual, although it would make a very good plot for a best selling novel.
It is much too long to post here :)
tonyb
If any of you are discussing this at other blogs, can I ask you to include a link to this thread, particularly as there is a link here that will allow people to watch the advert and also a link to the ASA’s complaints site.
This is the URL:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=228
TonyB
I hereby authorize TonyN to give you my e-mail address (which, as he knows, has changed).
Looking forward to your message.
Max
P.S. I’m not a citizen of the UK, so am not directly involved with this ad campaign, but I find it atrocious that the government would have the unmitigated gall to use taxpayer money in order to convince the taxpayer that he/she should pay dearly to help the government live up to a silly commitment it made without first asking the taxpayer, who will then be asked to pay for the consequences.
Are you guys living in a democracy or in a banana republic?
TonyB and TonyN
I’ll put my advice regarding your current government in “New York-ese”
Get ridda da bums fa chrissake!
Max
Tonyb My son could use your report for his dissertation this year which is on this very subject. I’m happy for tonyN to give you my email address as well if you are happy to let use see the report
Peter Geany.
That would be fine.
Tonyb
Max and UK residents,
You write “You guys [in the UK] need a change of government fast.” The present UK government have been in charge for over 12 years and after that length of time, yes, there is nearly always a “time for a change” feeling. Although, I suspect that most UK contributors to this blog wouldn’t be able to support their argument logically. They wouldn’t get much further than expressing a dislike of their present government.
If there is a change in the UK, it will almost certainly be towards a Conservative government even though they only have minority support. Some UK contributors to this blog might be hoping for a different climate change policy. So, where do the conservatives stand?
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Energy.aspx
“With our energy supplies increasingly sourced overseas, and with urgent action needed to combat climate change, it’s time to rethink the way we supply and consume energy in Britain. We urgently need to move to a low carbon economy in order to strengthen our economy, help guarantee our energy security and protect our environment for future generations.”
UK residents may be able this question. Is there any real difference between the Conservatives and the other main UK parties? The paragraph above wouldn’t be out of place in any European political parties election manifesto. But, maybe they are just adopting the line they feel will give them the best chance electorally?
It seems you lot are in “letter to the editor” mode at present. I thought I’d try and be helpful for once and I’ve composed a “model letter” for UK residents to send to that nasty PM of yours.
Dear Mr Brown,
I would like to express my outrage over political advertisements interrupting Coronation Street. Everyone knows, you just have to pick up a copy of the Daily Mail or Express, that it’s not getting warmer, it is the way that thermometers are placed too close to air-conditioners, or the wrong dates being chosen when drawing graphs, remember 1998, or if it’s not that it’s Cosmic rays. But if it was getting warmer, which it isn’t, it would be due to the sun, and it would be a good thing, as everyone likes warm weather, except polar bears and there are more of them than many people think, but if it was getting warmer, which it isn’t, then its certainly NOT due to increasing carbon dioxide, there was more of that around when we had dinosaurs, so it’s a natural gas and it is just rising because it is getting warmer, which it is, as everyone knows that Co2 increases lag behind temperature rises and they predicted that we would have an ice age in the 70’s and they couldn’t get that right. They can’t get next weeks weather right either and its cold outside now so it can’t be getting warmer, there is no empirical evidence, except just a bit warmer, enough to cause CO2 levels to rise but not enough to notice. I certainly haven’t noticed that the sea has risen a lot recently. I could go on but Coronation street has started again and I have better things to do with my time”
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (or wherever)
……………….
PS to Gordon Brown,
“I’ve never voted for Labor anyway, but I wish I had now, so that I could tell you that I wasn’t voting for you next time!”
Max and Peter (tempterrain)
It’s fine to discuss party politics only to the extent that this relates to AGW, so lets be very, very careful. I want his thread to stay strictly focused on the government advertising campaign.
However if someone was feeling mischievous they might like to contact the Conservative’s press office and ask whether they approve of the way this advertising campaign is being conducted.
Peter:
Re politics and AGW – there is no political issue in the UK. See the quoted letter (under Section 4) in my letter quoted at post 6 above.
Please send my e-mail address to TonyB. His previous references to Green PR outfits etc and their non-democratic input to the political process have been very revealing. It seems anyone with a degree in environmental studies can call themselves a Climate Consultant and get the ear of Miliband and big contracts. It’s like Feng Shui with graphs.
to Manacker at #13
TonyN was perfectly correct, and not tongue-in-cheek, when he said:
“I think this advert is supposed to be seen in the same category as similar campaigns dealing with AIDs, smoking and drink driving”.
and particularly when he adds:
“That parallel doesn’t seem to work and I am having difficulty in defining why this is so”.
There is a problem with the dangerous AGW argument over and above the scientific argument. It’s in the structure of the argument, and probably belongs to the philosophy of science, or some abstruse corner of thought with which I’m not familiar. Instead of arguing from a particular cause to a particular effect, AGW science argues from particular causes to a global average cause to particular effects. Even if all the estimates of forcings and what-have-you were correct, the logic would still be dodgy.
It’s difficult enough to prove that smoking kills; proving that passive smoking kills is even more difficult. Now try and imagine proving that your smoking results in species loss on the other side of the planet; or that your not wearing a seatbelt contributes to an average global devil-may-care attitude which will result in accidents in ten years’ time. That’s the epistemological mess which climate science has got itself into, and tht’s why their ad is so unconvincing. They can’t make a better case, without stretching the science.