Americans tend to be completely taken aback when they learn that the UK has a body that rules on what can and cannot be said in the public sphere; they see the Advertising Standards Agency as an affront to the hallowed principle of free speech. A ruling against an advertisement in the Telegraph by US unconventional gas company Breitling suggests that they are right to do so.
This is not the first time that the ASA has been called on to adjudicate in a shale gas case. Last year, shale gas operator Cuadrilla was hauled up in front of them after a complaint about a leaflet it had distributed. Some of the ASA's ruling was bizarre. For example, a statement that
The Government's own review, published in April 2012, also concluded that it was safe to resume hydraulic fracturing [in the Bowland Basin].
was ruled misleading because the government review had said that operators would need to be cautious. Similarly, a statement that
"This data will allow us to adjust the injection volume and rate during the fracturing procedure, managing the process to ensure that no one should notice any disturbance or even be aware of the activity".
was ruled out of order because the government review had not "had not suggested that in doing so [tremors] were unlikely to be noticed at all". The ASA case seems bizarrely to be based around an argument that a 0.5ML tremor might be noticed by someone.
The new ruling against Breitling includes similarly extraordinary arguments. I urge readers to read the whole thing: it's lynch mob justice in action. Take, for example, the claim that replacement of coal with gas would lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. You might think this would be seen as wholly uncontroversial. But not, it seems, for the ASA:
We referred to the 2014 US Environmental Protection Agency report supplied by Breitling. We acknowledged that it attributed the reduction in total US greenhouse gas emissions from 2011 to 2012 in part to a shift towards natural gas. However, it was also clear from the report that other factors had played a role, namely, an increase in fuel efficiency across transport modes, limited new demand for passenger transportation and much warmer winter weather, leading to decreased demand for heating fuel.
Although it appeared likely that UK shale gas extraction would deliver a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coal, we noted that this was not a universally accepted opinion and understood that it was itself dependent on the set-up of the extraction site(s) and the success of any measures that would be put in place to mitigate against fugitive methane emissions. Further, we understood that, because of the limited life span of shale gas wells, shale was proposed as a bridge technology rather than a long-term energy option. We noted the concern expressed in the policy brief cited under point 5 that adopting a gas generation infrastructure could undermine wider efforts to decarbonise the UK power sector.
So the ASA, in the first sentence, completely accepts Breitling's evidence, but goes on to say that other things can reduce greenhouse gas emissions too. To which the answer is surely "So what?". Breitling's case was that replacing coal with gas can reduce carbon emissions, not that it is the only thing that can do so.
The following arguments by the ASA are interesting though. Let me reword slightlly:
Although it appeared possible that windfarms would deliver a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coal, we noted that this was not a universally accepted opinion [see Gordon Hughes] and understood that it was dependent on the effect on intermittent energy on the rest of the grid.
It seems to me that any claim that windfarms reduce carbon dioxide emissions overall would be open to a complaint to the ASA which they would have no choice but to uphold. They would surely have to uphold complaints made about claims derived from climate models.
Or at least they would have no choice if they were not headed by Chris Smith who, as head of the Environment Agency, needs little introduction to BH readers. Under Smith's chairmanship, the EA has developed into an organisation so beset by corruption and graft that it would do a Latin American dictatorship proud. I doubt therefore that being perceived as running a kangaroo court would be of very great concern.