Will the ASA also be clamping down on bogus claims by "green" bodies such as the Soil Association claiming benefits for Organic food which simply don't exist and alternative energy companies expounding doomsday scenarios if "something" isn't done. A case in point is the current "consultation" for Transport for London in respect of linking the level of congestion charge to exhaust emissions. In order to skew the results, the advertisements claim that current levels of emissions are "not sustainable". Why? What evidence do they have that the CO2 emissions of people entering the congestion charge zone are so important to the world environment that something must be done?

Wilkie, London, UK

It's about time! The consumer is definitely being 'conned' by companies into believing that something is 'green', 'eco-friendly', etc when they clearly are not . They are taking advantage of the lack of knowledge about the subject of the majority of the general population.

The next area that needs to be looked into are some of the claims in advertising made by the large homebuilding companies in order to sell their homes as being 'green, 'environmentally friendly', 'energy saving', 'low CO2', etc , which are simply inaccurate and totally misleading.

It's painfully obvious to those of us that do know about the subject, that this is advertising gimickry in its most pure, simple, and dishonest form that is aimed only to deceive!

Malcolm Worby Designs - Natural & Sustainable Building and Energy Consultants.

Malcolm Worby, Cape Town, RSA

It is good to hear that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is clamping down on fake and exaggerated ‘green’ claims – there are certainly plenty around. On the other hand, there is a baby in the bathwater.

Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) fell foul of the ASA last year by claiming it planted trees to balance CO2 emissions produced by consumer’s gas heating and household waste. And indeed there is truth in the statement because World Land Trust, a registered charity which saves and replants forests for biodiversity, organises the planting of these trees. I can confirm that they are averaging more than 150,000 trees a year across three years, and are being planted by WLT’s local NGO partners in Ecuador, Paraguay and Brazil. These are all native trees, reforesting areas that extend or buffer threatened habitat for endangered species.

This is surely commendable – if the El Oro Parakeet survives, for example, Scottish and Southern Energy and its consumers have played an important role. And reforestation is a fully acceptable way of absorbing atmospheric CO2. It is included in the Clean Development Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol and forest-based approaches, including curbing deforestation, are most likely going to become even more important in the future, as expressed in the recent Stern Report.

So, should SSE have couched its agreement with WLT in terms of CO2 absorbed rather than trees planted? Possibly yes is the answer if SSE are promoting their ‘green’ claims based on offsetting CO2 emissions. But tree-planting is an acknowledged part of the tool-kit to sequester greenhouse gas emissions, alongside other approaches. We believe that SSE is taking a realistic and informed approach with clearly demonstrable results. A superficial greenwash? – most definitely not.

John A Burton
CEO, World Land Trust
www.worldlandtrust.org

john A Burton, Halesworth, England, Suffolk