ASA Adjudication on Enertrag UK Ltd

Ad

A circular, for a proposed wind farm, stated "HEMPNALL WILL BE A BETTER PLACE FOR US ALL WITH THE HEMPNALL WIND FARM ... We all want electricity and 70% of the public support onshore wind farms. Please give us your support ... CLIMATE CHANGE WILL ALTER YOUR LANDSCAPE FAR MORE AND FOREVER".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether Enertrag UK Ltd (Enertrag) could substantiate the claims:

1. "70% of the public support onshore wind farms"; and

2. "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL ALTER YOUR LANDSCAPE FAR MORE AND FOREVER".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Enertrag said many studies of public support for wind farms had been carried out and their "70%" claim was conservative.  They submitted the sources from which they had drawn their statistic; these comprised booklets, briefing sheets and website extracts from organizations such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the British Wind Energy Association and the Scottish Government.

2. Enertrag explained that the claim was intended to compare the local, reversible effect of turbine installation with the irreversible effect of global warming.  They submitted documents which, they said, catalogued the potential changes to climate, environment and landscape which would be brought about by climate change.  The documents were from sources such as the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered the claim "70% of the public support onshore wind farms" implied a representative survey of the UK population had recently been carried out to gauge support for wind farms.

Enertrag had sent us details of several surveys of public support for wind farms.  Most of the surveys involved 1,000 adults or fewer and the most recent research was carried out in 2005, with the exception of some research in Wales undertaken in 2006.  In some cases, there was no information on how many people were surveyed, in which geographical area the survey was carried out, the questions asked, the methodology or the breakdown of responses.

However, one piece of research, conducted by MORI for a UK energy supplier, included details of the survey's methodology, the questions asked and a breakdown of the answers given.  The survey was conducted in November 2005 and 1,931 British adults were surveyed.  We considered that a representative sample of 1,931 British adults was large enough and that November 2005 was sufficiently recent.  We noted 72% of respondents in the MORI survey said they would support wind farms on the land.  Although 39% said wind farms spoilt the landscape and 60% said wind farms were a disadvantage because they did not "work continuously all the time", we considered that did not negate the result that 72% of respondents supported wind farms, because it was rational to support wind farms and yet think they had some disadvantages.  We concluded that Enertrag had substantiated the claim "70% of the public support onshore wind farms".

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the documentation submitted by Enertrag.  Some of it referred to risks such as species extinction, declining crop yields, droughts, rising sea levels and flooding in parts of the world.  We noted an extract from the Environment Agency's website stated that the landscape of Britain would start to alter quite significantly as a result of climatic changes; it referred to dust storms, soil erosion, rivers drying up, forest fires and an increased risk of flooding in winter.  Other documents mentioned the difficulty of accurately predicting the impacts of climate change.  However, we considered that, although there was uncertainty about exactly what would happen and when, there was common acceptance in the scientific community that climate change would affect the landscape.  We considered that the ad's objective was to encourage the community to engage in public debate about the issue of wind farms and climate change and, in that context, the claim was likely to be seen as an expression of Enertrag's opinion about the longevity of the impact of climate change, and was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)