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.
geoffchambers
Got your points (#25) on how the UK government climate ad was “supposed to be seen” and regarding the hyperbolic exaggeration “ad absurdum” of the AGW threat vis-à-vis the other examples of TonyN:
a) AIDs kills UK citizens and/or residents who get it (by not taking preventative measures)
b) Smoking kills UK citizens and/or residents who do it (at least it substantially increases the risk of contracting diseases that can kill)
c) Drunk driving kills UK citizens and/or residents who engage in this practice (along with a few innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time)
So these campaigns are directed at the UK public (taxpayer) to convince him/her to avoid behavior that can kill him/her.
AGW is touted as a threat to human society, to the survival of other species and to our planet, itself.
There are ample statistics on the human deaths caused by a) through c) above in the UK (and elsewhere).
There are no statistics on deaths caused in the UK by AGW. The threat is a paper hobgoblin that came out of a computer model.
This was my point on the absurdity of the UK government climate ad.
Then there is the outrageous cynicism behind it.
a) The government makes an unwise commitment to a costly plan to reduce carbon emissions in the future.
b) The government learns that the support of the public (taxpayer) for this unwise commitment is waning.
c) So the government decides to run an ad campaign to gain support of the public (taxpayer) for this unwise commitment.
d) The public (taxpayer) pays the costs of running the ad campaign.
e) The public (taxpayer) will be the one who pays substantially to implement the unwise commitment made by the government to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
In a democracy, what’s wrong with this picture?
Max
Peter Martin
Not to get too close to an “out of bounds” call by TonyN, but you wrote (#20) that the UK Conservative Party would likely rubberstamp the “climate policies” of the current Labor government.
Don’t be too sure about that, Peter.
Why do you think the government is running an ad campaign to gain support for its “climate policy”?
Could it be that polls are showing that the support among the (taxpaying and voting) populace for this policy (as well as for the current government) has waned?
How long do you think a new Conservative government would embrace the “climate policy” of the preceding Labor government that helped get it removed from office?
Use your head, Peter. In a democracy it will eventually be the (taxpaying and voting) public who decides who will govern and what their policies will be.
And, as I see it, this “climate policy” appears to be headed for the trash heap of history.
Max
I saw the ad on TV for the first time this morning (as opposed to watching it on YouTube) – Channel 4, around 9.25 AM.
Also, found an article about it on Brand Republic, which has the following:
“A spokeswoman for the Advertising Standards Authority also backed the campaign. She said: “The ASA has received complaints in the past disputing whether climate change is man-made or not; the ASA has dismissed these complaints in line with the overwhelming evidence of the majority of scientists who have studied climate change.””
I haven’t yet found anything on the net to back up this quotation, or a name for the spokeswoman. If true, it would mean that the chances of our complaints being upheld might be rather slim.
Can anyone find another reference to this?
Follow up to Alex #28
The same source has a follow up article today here:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/946365/Government-climate-change-ad-attracts-203-complaints/
which says “ASA is expecting to make a decision in the next week as to whether there are grounds for investigating the ad”.
Max,
You’ve confused my question about UK Tory party climate policy with someone who has claimed that it would be a “rubberstamp” of the present governments.
You could be right and it could change. But I’m just asking the question of why the Conseravtives would change from what you claim to be an unpopular policy before an election to a popular policy afterwards?
Doesn’t it usually happen the other way around?
[…] please visit TonyN’s excellent climate blog Harmless Sky for news about this ad campaign and the views of some of us who oppose […]
An update on my ASA complaint.
On Friday I received this email from Karen:
So, after what seemed to be a notably quick response, I face a disappointing delay, while the ad continues to be shown. Here’s my reply:
Then I received an “Out of Office” reply – advising me she was away for a week but giving me a new contact if an “urgent response” required. I forwarded my last email to Karen to the new contact.
Watch this space.
Alex: you say (#28) that the ASA’s spokeswoman’s alleged comment that the ASA has dismissed previous complaints “disputing whether climate change is man-made or not” on the basis that they were at odds with “the overwhelming evidence of the majority of scientists who have studied climate change” would, if true, “mean that the chances of our complaints being upheld might be rather slim”.
I’m not so sure. The basis of my complaint (and I would hope others’) is not so much as to whether or not the dangerous AGW hypothesis is true, but that it misleading to say that the UK is experiencing “very very strange” weather or to say, without noting that some disagree, that scientists say this (non existent) “very very strange’ weather is caused by “too much CO2” or to say that “the effects [are] happening faster than thought” when they are not. Also my complaint is that the representation of CO2 as nasty black stuff is inaccurate as is the suggestion that one of the consequences of “too much CO2” will be the flooding of UK housing (and the consequential drowning of doggies). Moreover, I would hope the ASA would appreciate that my concern about potential emotional harm to adults and especially to children is valid whether or not the dangerous AGW hypothesis is true.
There again perhaps my hope is naïve.
Robin, just to say I hope you are right and that I’m proved wrong! It would be an absolute delight for us to win this.
Conservative MEP Roger Helmer also complained about this ad last week:
“Speaking in Brussels, Mr. Helmer said “It is scandalous that the government is spending tax-payers’ money on this deeply biased campaign, which seems to be aimed at frightening children unnecessarily, and promoting unsubstantiated scientific speculation as fact. It is equally scandalous that the government is pursuing a programme of wind energy which according to a recent OfGem report will increase energy prices by at least 14% and perhaps up to 60% in real terms by 2020″.”
Some may not be aware that the ASA is, in no sense, an official, Government or Parliamentary body. This is from its website:
In other words, it really is independent. As Christopher Booker said in his article yesterday,
I received a letter from my MP (Peter Lilley) this morning. He says that he understands my concerns and continues “I have taken up the points you raised with Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As soon as I have received a reply, I shall be in touch with you again.”
Bradshaw is an interesting choice of minister. I can understand it as this is a media matter. Nonetheless, I would have thought Ed Miliband (Secretary of State for Climate Change) or Hilary Benn (Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs) more appropriate. I understand their departments are the sponsors of “Action on CO2”.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see the minister’s response.
Robin 36
You are obviously someone who understands politics, so wonder if you would like a copy of my article on the politics of climate change that I have sent to some of the others here on request.
If so please respond and tell TonyN you want him to send me your email address.
Tonyb
Thanks, TonyB – I’ll do that.
Robin, I must say I admire your tenacity.
Have you read Kafka’s “The Castle”?
Regards,
Max
Max: yes, I have – but prefer not to be reminded of it at present.
Anyway (to prove your point) I just received the following reply from the new ASA contact I referred to at post 32:
Hmm … that seemed rather unsatisfactory so I replied as follows:
Groan: I hope all this is worth it.
Robin
Emily says:
I seem to remember something in an earlier email from the ASA to the effect that they had yet to take a decision to investigate. If this was the case then it sounds as though a decision has now been taken.
Robin,
I seem to remember that you all previously protested strongly when I pointed out the link between far right politics and opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Didn’t you say at the time that you were a sensible moderate type of person?
I’m just wondering what are the political opinions of people like your MP, Peter Lilley? Or, MEP Roger Helmer? Or, the Czech president Vaclav Klaus? Are these all middle of the road types too?
I can understand that you might have had little or no support from the governing Labour party in the UK. But what about the Lib Dems, or any of the other half dozen political parties, who aren’t their friends, which are represented in the UK parliament? Have you received any support at all from them?
Peter Martin
I think you would be very surprised at the opposition to AGW amongst many politicians, or at the very least a desire for greater discussion and a little more in the way of democratic decision making. It is simply that they all feel gagged, and feel that in the face of an election it would be political suicide to rock the boat. The Lib Dems have AGW and climate change as the centre piece of some of their policies but it has not done them any good in the three key elections held this year. In fact they have lost ground as have the greens.
I believe that David Cameron and the Tories are going with the flow on AGW until after the election. They will not allow Labour to use this subject as an additional tool during the election, and don’t want the electorate distracted from the only issue that really matters here and that is the reduction in Public spending. Just watch unnecessary and frivolous spending on climate research dry up.
MP’s such as Peter Lilley are amongst that rare bread that have the courage to go with their convictions, and have never been afraid of speaking out, but this attribute will often leave them saddled with a left or right tag, tags that are completely inappropriate in this day and age. I just wish a few more were as forthcoming.
One more aspect of UK politics that is distorting everything currently is the crisis over expenses. This problem is set to run further and it will change the face of British Politics for years to come. It is going to take a great deal of hard work to rebuild the trust between politicians and the public. Social engineering of the type that the Labour Party has engaged in over the last 12 years will be consigned to oblivion. This however will not Stop Gordy boy making a fool of himself between now and Copenhagen as desperation steps in.
Peter G,
You write “I think you would be very surprised at the opposition to AGW amongst many politicians”. I’m sure we are all opposed to it pe se, aren’t we? That’s why we are calling for reduced CO2 emissions. But, well yes I probably would, if you mean opposition to the scientific consensus on the subject as represented by the IPCC. I’d be even more surprised if you could substantiate this. How “many politicians” would you say there are are? Who are they?
Peter:
As usual, you are displaying a lack of logic. You seem to believe that, because I hold a particular view on a particular topic and other people share that view, I must therefore share their views on other topics. Clear nonsense.
In any case, what connection has your comment with this thread?
Robin
Some of PeterM’s hobgoblins:
Hobgoblin #1: Runaway man-made global warming (the dark monster in the UK government TV ad).
Hobgoblin #2: Right-wing reactionaries who oppose progress as defined by the scientific consensus and, therefore, also reject Darwinism.
There are probably more out there, hiding in the bushes.
Max
Two more hobgoblins:
Hobgoblin #3: Greedy corporate oil and coal executives who spend exorbitant sums to squelch the scientific truth on AGW, as defined by consensus science.
Hobgoblin #4: Money-grubbing stooges of #3 who hide behind the cloak of rational scientific skepticism to spread a false message of AGW denial.
I know that we are marking time at the moment while decisions are taken by the ASA and Ofcom but lets not drift away from the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss the ‘left / right divide’ on AGW yet again, please do so on the NS thread.
TonyN: hear hear.
I had a telephone call from Emily just now (she was responding to a voicemail message I left yesterday – superseded by my email at 40). Anyway, she told me that my complaint had passed from the hands of the “Complaints Executives” (of whom she is one – as is Karen) into the hands of an “Investigations Executive”, from whom I would hear in due course. I commented that I’d heard there had been a few complaints about this ad. “Oh” she said “we’ve had lots and lots – and there are even more still coming.”