Background
Summary of Council decision:
Eleven issues were investigated and all were Upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet for Anglesey Against Wind Turbines, seen in February 2012. Text on the right of the ad stated "Anglesey Against Wind Turbines (AAWT) is opposed to the industrialisation of the Anglesey landscape. Onshore wind turbines are a grossly inefficient way of producing energy and contribute nothing to combating climate change".
In a list of numbered points, further text stated "1. Some of the proposed turbines are 300 feet, four times the height of the Marquis' column. 2. A tourist's first view of approaching Anglesey would be an industrialised landscape rather than some of the finest views in Britain. The turbines will be easily visible from the top of Snowdon. More Anglesey residents' livelihoods depend on tourism than any other business. A survey by VisitScotland concluded that over a quarter of tourists would be less likely to return to a turbinised landscape. 3. Low frequency noise generated by turbines affects your health. The noise is felt as much as heard. Think of the thudding bass of the next door neighbour's stereo that always plays the same song and is never switched off. The flickering effect from reflected sunshine can cause headaches and seizures. 4. Tubines [sic] do not create local jobs. Most turbines are built abroad and installed by the manufacturers. When in place they require minimal upkeep and are remotely controlled. 5. Turbines reduce property prices. Given two identical houses - one with a view obstructed by wind turbines and the other with uninterrupted views - which would you buy? 6. Television reception is affected in local properties causing ghosting and jittering on your TV picture". Further text stated "Who benefits? The energy industry receives huge subsidies from the government, paid for through all our electricity bills. (10% of your bill, contributing to fuel poverty) Landowners receive huge rents while the affected community receives nothing. The electricity produced goes into the National Grid and costs local residents just the same. Turbines are the most inefficient and expensive form of renewable energy; the industry is simply motivated by the huge profits achieved through subsidy. As Anglesey residents, we stand to lose something very valuable, whilst gaining nothing. Please contact your local councillor and council to make your opinions heard". On the left of the ad, the same text appeared in the Welsh language.
The middle of the ad had a picture of a wind turbine with the caption "Marchynys Penmynydd 60m Turbine". Below was a map of the region with a series of sites marked with dots and captioned "Current Planning Applications on Anglesey".
Issue
Sustainable Energy Alliance and Mon a Gwynedd Friends of the Earth challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Onshore wind turbines are a grossly inefficient way of producing energy and contribute nothing to combating climate change";
2. "A tourist's first view of approaching Anglesey would be an industrialised landscape rather than some of the finest views in Britain. The turbines will be easily visible from the top of Snowdon";
3. "A survey by VisitScotland concluded that over a quarter of tourists would be less likely to return to a turbinised landscape";
4. "Low frequency noise generated by turbines affects your health. The noise is felt as much as heard. Think of the thudding bass of the next door neighbour's stereo that always plays the same song and is never switched off";
5. "The flickering effect from reflected sunshine can cause headaches and seizures";
6. "Tubines [sic] do not create local jobs";
7. "Turbines reduce property prices";
8. "Television reception is affected in local properties causing ghosting and jittering on your TV picture";
9. "The energy industry receives huge subsidies from the government, paid for through all our electricity bills. (10% of your bill, contributing to fuel poverty)";
10. "the affected community receives nothing"; and
11. "Turbines are the most inefficient and expensive form of renewable energy".
Response
1. Anglesey Against Wind Turbines (AAWT) provided an article from UK Power magazine entitled "Wind Power may not be the answer".
2. AAWT said The Marquis Column in Llanfairpwll was 27 m high and that its base was at a height of 60–65 m above sea level, giving a total height of 87–92 m. They said this was a useful reference point as it was a structure that was clearly visible on one approach to Anglesey. They provided a list of three screening applications for large industrial scale wind turbines in the Penmynydd/Rhoscefnhir area and four in the Brynsiencyn/Dwyran area. They said those proposed turbines were a fraction of the total number on the island, and were all located towards the south. The total height clearly indicated that they would be visible as one approached Angelsey.
3. AAWT provided a copy of a VisitScotland report entitled "Investigation into the potential impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland".
4. AAWT cited a section from The Case Against Windfarms (TCAWF) entitled "Noise".
5. AAWT cited a section from TCAWF entitled "Quality of life and safety".
6. AAWT did not respond on this point.
7. AAWT cited another section from TCAWF and gave the name of a Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) report. They said a recent landmark case had shown evidence that house prices were affected by the close proximity of wind turbines. They said a council tax appeal ruled that the owner would get a discount on her Council Tax because her home had lost value as a result of a turbine. They said this ruling could be regarded as an official admission that wind farms had a negative effect on prices.
8. AAWT cited another section from TCAWF entitled "Television interference, radar and aviation".
9. AAWT cited another section from TCAWF. They also provided an Ofgem pamphlet about household energy bills and a link to a local newspaper article.
10. AAWT did not respond on this point.
11. AAWT provided a copy of TCAWF report and cited a specific section entitled "The problem of intermittency and the need for backup". They also provided a document from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF).
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad made the claim that wind farms were "grossly inefficient and contribute[d] nothing to combating climate change". The claim was unqualified and we considered that it was likely to be interpreted as a claim that wind farms did not generate sufficient power to justify the expense of money or energy used in their construction and operation. To substantiate that claim we expected to see robust and recent scientific evidence which had analysed wind farm efficiency and cost and showed that they were not an efficient means of energy production and that their use did not result in a reduction in carbon emissions.
We noted the article provided by AAWT. However, that article had been written in 2004, speculating about the potential effects of wind farms that were scheduled at that time and did not relate to the technology, policy or cost of current onshore wind turbine developments. We therefore did not consider that article was suitable substantiation for the claim and we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We considered that the claim "A tourist's first view of approaching Anglesey would be an industrialised landscape rather than some of the finest views in Britain" would be interpreted by readers as an expression of AAWT's strong opinion about the effect of a large number of turbines being built on Anglesey, rather than a claim capable of objective substantiation.
However, we considered that the claim "The turbines will be easily visible from the top of Snowdon" was an objective claim. Although we noted the list of heights of some of the proposed developments, we considered that AAWT needed to provide evidence in support of the claim, for example: a full summary of all of the proposed turbines along with a geographical and topographical analysis, ideally supported by photographic evidence, that showed that the turbines would be visible from the top of Snowdon. Because we had not seen such evidence we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
We noted the study provided by AAWT, which incorporated a survey of visitors to Scotland and in which 28 per cent of 180 respondents had expressed either slight or strong agreement with the statement "I would tend to avoid an area of the countryside if I knew there was a wind farm there". However, that report was published in 2002 and we did not consider that responses to a survey ten years ago would necessarily be reflective of current attitudes to wind power. We considered that readers were likely to understand the claim referred to a recent survey and that AAWT should have used more recent survey data if it were available.
Although we understood the claim accurately reflected the result of the survey, we considered that AAWT should have made clear when the survey was conducted and the size of the survey, by perhaps stating the number of respondents, so that readers could make an informed decision about the reliability of the survey result. Because they had not done so, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and 3.9 (Qualification).
4. & 5. Upheld
We considered that, in order to substantiate the claims, AAWT needed to provide robust and recent scientific research which showed a demonstrable link between wind turbines and human health. We noted the relevant sections of the report provided by AAWT but those sections only encompassed a brief discussion of the issues around sound and flicker and did not contain any evidence in support of the claims made.
Because we had not seen evidence to show that "Low frequency noise generated by turbines affects your health" or that "The flickering effect from reflected sunshine can cause headaches and seizures", we concluded that the claims were unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.
On these points the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
6. Upheld
We considered that, in order to substantiate the claim, AAWT needed to provide robust research examining the effect of turbine construction on local job markets and which showed that they did not create local jobs. Because AAWT had not responded on this point we had not seen such evidence and we concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
7. Upheld
We noted the section of the report cited by AAWT but that brief section only incorporated a selection of observations about how wind farms might affect property prices and did not contain any evidence to show if, or how, they were affected.
We also noted the reference to the RICS report but AAWT had not provided it. Notwithstanding that, we had already examined that report in the context of previous investigations and we understood that it had not shown a clear relationship between house prices and proximity to wind farms and that its results had been inconclusive.
We also noted the reference to a recent Council Tax appeal, however AAWT had only provided limited information about the case and, notwithstanding that, we did not consider that the specifics of one case alone, if substantiated, could be extrapolated to the wider property market.
We concluded that the claim "Turbines reduce property prices" had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
8. Upheld
We noted that the section of the report cited by AAWT asserted that wind farms affected broadcast television and fixed radio links, mostly at microwave frequencies. However, that brief section did not contain any evidence to substantiate the claim that "Television reception is affected in local properties causing ghosting and jittering on your TV picture" and we concluded that it was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
9. Upheld
We noted the section of the report cited by AAWT which argued that the Renewables Obligations Certificates scheme amounted to a subsidy by increasing the cost of electricity to consumers. However it did not show that 10% of domestic energy bills were used in this way.
We noted the Ofgem pamphlet, however AAWT had not explained its relevance. Although it explained that 10% of household energy bills went to government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and tackle climate change; a fact repeated in the article also provided by AAWT, we did not consider that substantiated the, much more specific, claim that 10% of a user's bill subsidised the energy industry.
Because we had not seen evidence to show that 10% of a household electricity bill was used to subsidise the energy industry we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
10. Upheld
We understood that local communities were often given a community fund and benefit over the lifetime of a wind farm. We further understood that industry schemes and local Council planning guidance also often required such payments to be made before developments would go ahead.
AAWT had not responded on this point and we had therefore not seen any evidence in support of the claim "the affected community receives nothing". We therefore concluded that claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
11. Upheld
We considered that, in order to substantiate the unqualified claim "Turbines are the most inefficient and expensive form of renewable energy", AAWT needed to provide a robust, independent comparative analysis of the efficiency of all renewable energy sources which showed that onshore wind turbines were the least efficient and most expensive.
The section of the report cited by AAWT argued that wind turbines were inefficient on the basis that wind, and therefore turbine output, was unpredictable and therefore required backup from traditional power stations at additional cost. However, it did not include the kind of comparison or analysis we considered was required to substantiate the specific claim made in the ad. We also noted the report from the REF which critiqued various aspects of renewable energy but again, did not include the analysis required to support the claim. We concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told AAWT to ensure that they held appropriate substantiation for the claims made in their advertising.
