Tag Archives: must

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026





The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 


 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026





The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 


 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026





The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 


 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

EU Parliament must reject Juncker’s anti-environment Commission Updated for 2026





The Green10 are concerned that the structure of the new European Commission, the mission letters, and the choice of Commissioners, as presented, reveal a serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.

This would represent a betrayal of the interests of EU citizens, a vast majority of whom feel strongly about the environment.

The special Eurobarometer 416 from 8 September 2014 shows that despite the economic crisis, 95% of the 28,000 interviewed citizens said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. It shows a solid majority of citizens support EU environmental legislation and asks for more forceful implementation.

It shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. This would also represent an unacceptable de facto scrapping of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP), a legally binding commitment that was negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament little over a year ago.

In practice, President-elect Juncker appears to ignore these legally binding priorities.

What can the European Parliament do? The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate. As a minimum the Parliament must demand to:

1. Establish a Vice-President for Sustainability coordinating the environment, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy portfolios. This would allow a proper space for environmental and resource efficiency policies.

In addition to that the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness needs to mainstream environment in his agenda explicitly.

2. Upgrade the Vice-President for Energy Union to a Vice-President for ‘Climate Action and Energy Union’ and have this reflected in her mandate. This would mean that the Commission representative within the international climate negotiations would have a clear mandate to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore climate action should become a cornerstone for the work of all eight members of the Project Team for a Resilient Energy Union and a Forward- Looking Climate Change Policy.

3. Ensure the Environment portfolio is reinstated, restoring its competences and providing the Commissioner with a new mandate to respect the European 2 Parliament’s work and implement the 7th EAP.

The Parliament must furthermore demand that the mandate to the environment commissioner to weaken the Nature Directives is replaced with an instruction to strongly implement nature conservation legislation and to work to achieve the EU 2020 biodiversity target.

He should also continue to give priority to protecting people’s health by strengthening, not weakening key legislation on air quality and chemicals, and move the responsibility for biocides and pesticides back to DG ENV.

4. Resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio.

A number of key concerns also arose from the new Commission set-up, as presented on 10 September:

For the first time in 25 years there will be no fully empowered Commissioner for the Environment

The move from a Commissioner with dedicated responsibilities for environment to having this policy area shared with other demanding dossiers represents a clear relegation of environmental issues in the order of political priorities.

The downgrading of the environment portfolio is hugely reinforced by the virtual lack of any reference to environment in the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents. Environment will now fall under the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate.

Furthermore, the shift of the responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, from DG Environment to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment and flies in the face of the objectives of the REACH Regulation.

Sustainability has disappeared from EU priorities

Environmental sustainability, resource efficiency and the green economy are not covered at all at Vice-President level, except for a meager reference to ‘green growth’ in the mandate of the Energy Union Commissioner.

This implies a Commission that will be operating on the basis of an outdated paradigm of economic growth, one that benefits the industries and jobs of the past over those of the future, and detached from real world constraints and limits and in many cases with huge external environmental and healthcare costs.

But the implications are much more far reaching. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker made it clear that only Vice-Presidents will be able to bring forward legislation and only legislation in line with his priorities will be accepted. In his mandate to his Commissioners, Junckers stated:

“As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.”

As the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de-facto shut down of EU environmental policy making.

The mandate to the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner is entirely centered on deregulation

Commissioner Vella is asked to overhaul and consider merging and “modernizing” the Birds and Habitats Directives. These are well known code-words used by those seeking to lower the level of nature protection in the EU.

This is outrageous as the EU is still failing to achieve its biodiversity target and to live up to its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

On a formal level, this pre-empts the ongoing fitness check process as the Commission is currently conducting an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

This is even more troubling as the Environment portfolio is given to a Commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation.

MEPs have repeatedly criticized Malta for the large scale killing of migratory birds in contradiction to EU law. Now a member of the Maltese government condemned for breaking this law is charged with amending it.

The mandates furthermore explicitly orders Commissioner Vella to stop and assess the two most relevant policy packages inherited from the current Commission: the air quality package and the Circular Economy package.

While we appreciate that the written mandate to Commissioner Vella refers to implementing the Common Fisheries Policy in a sustainable manner, we are shocked that it omits to mention any of the EU’s environmental objectives that are laid out in the 7EAP including the EU 2020 biodiversity target, and instead focuses on simplification and burden reduction for business.

It does not mention the need to actually achieve any already agreed EU objectives, let alone take new initiatives. This reads as a mandate for inaction and erosion of current levels of environmental protection.

Putting people’s health at risk

Threats to health from environmental pollution and degradation are a key concern for Europeans. Environment & health is one of the three priorities of the 7th EAP.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities and structural re-shifting would put citizens health at risk: the shift of several responsibilities on regulation of harmful chemicals from DG Environment and DG SANCO to DG Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment.

The announcement to review the air quality package suggests that Jean-Claude Juncker is willing to continue to let European citizens pay the staggering bill of up to €900 bn annually in health costs due to air pollution.

The merging of the climate and energy portfolios and putting this Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy market considerations.

Relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy

Bringing climate action and energy policy under one Commissioner and the absence of climate from the mandate of the Vice-President for Energy Union (and the title given to that VP) suggests the relegation of climate action to a marginal element within a yet to be defined energy policy.

This is unacceptable at time when scientific consensus is that climate change is one of the greatest threats to mankind and has far reaching implications for the economy, security, immigration etc.

A conflicted choice of Climate and Energy Commissioner

The choice of a Climate and Energy Commissioner with well-known links to the fossil fuel industry raises issues of conflict of interest.

According to his declaration in the context of the 2014 European Parliament election, Commissioner Cañete owns shares in oil business making it a clear conflict of interest.

The role he has personally played on Spain’s environment, agriculture, fisheries and climate policies over the last years has been consistently criticized as regressive by civil society.

 


 

Action: Write to your MEPs asking them to vote against approving the European Commision. Feel free to copy and paste from this article or refer to them to it in its entirely.

Green10 includes: Birdlife, CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN-Europe, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), HEAL, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Naturfreunde, Greenpeace and WWF.

 

 




384682

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

We must protect our seas! Updated for 2026





I’ve just completed the first long-distance swim in the seven Seas of the ancient world. I’ve experienced some things I will never forget. And seen some things I wish I could erase from my memory, but which will haunt me for the rest of my days.

I will never forget the people I met along this journey, the literally hundreds of people from all walks of life who helped us and supported us and jumped in the sea to swim with us, just to be part of this mission, just for their love of the sea.

And then there are the things I would rather forget. Such as the sea floor under me as I swam the Aegean, which was covered with litter. I saw tyres and plastic bags, bottles, cans, shoes and clothing – but absolutely nothing that qualifies as ‘sea life’.

Turtles and jellyfish – but where were the sharks?

In the Arabian Sea I swam through vast shoals of turtles, which was spectacular. They do belong there. But so do many, many other fish species, and those were nowhere to be seen.

I never saw any fish bigger than the size of my hand, in any of the seven Seas. The larger ones had all been fished out.

The Black Sea was full of jellyfish. This is not a good thing, because they don’t belong there – they were brought in with the ballast on visiting ships and wrought havoc on an ecosystem that was already unbalanced.

In the entire four weeks I did not see one shark, anywhere.

As I was about to jump in the water for the Red Sea swim I asked the boat’s skipper whether I should keep a look out for sharks. He told me not to worry, because the sharks have all been fished out. That’s exactly what does worry me. A healthy ocean is an ocean with sharks.

Suddenly, the Red Sea came to life

But I did see something astonishing in the Red Sea. It was when I swam through a Marine Protected Area, and experienced a sea as it was meant to be: rich and colourful, teaming with abundant life.

And then, just two kilometres on, outside of the protected area, the picture changed again. There was no coral and there were no fish. It looked like an underwater desert.

If I had needed more proof that Marine Protected Areas really work, that was it. Everything I knew about how MPAs allow marine life to recover, how they protect and restore fish stocks, how they provide income-generating livelihoods for local people, how they boost ecotourism and ensure long-term sustainability, was all there in front of me.

Many of the people I met along the way have experienced it too. They have seen their seas changing. They know that there is a serious problem. And they have seen that the problem is reversible, IF we take urgent action and create Marine Protected Areas.

Thinking ahead

There’s a reason we ended our final North Sea swim at the Thames Barrier. It’s a highly symbolic example of foresight and visionary design. When it was built 30 years ago, its engineers had no idea how crucial it would be. They thought it would be used two or three times a year.

But this last winter it was used 48 times. Where would London be today without the Thames Barrier? In a word: underwater.

I don’t want to imagine what the world will be like in 30 years time if we don’t protect our marine resources today.

The world’s waters are changing. The seas and oceans are in a state of crisis. And we rely on these seas and oceans – all of us on this planet, wherever we live – for our very livelihood.

I am well aware that the world is caught up in a number of serious global political and humanitarian crises right now. It is certainly not my intention to trivialise any of these. But in focusing solely on the current state of global hyper-conflict, we run the risk of losing sight of something that is going to affect our children and grandchildren.

Protecting resources fosters peace

The biggest risk the world faces right now is what is being done to the environment, and a large part of that is what’s happening in our seas.

When Desmond Tutu came to wish me well at the outset of this expedition, he reminded me of something fundamental. He reminded me that so many of the world’s conflicts are over resources. When we fail to protect our resources, we set the stage for conflict. But when we protect our resources, we foster peace.

I dream of a peaceful world of well-managed Marine Protected Areas, protecting our coastlines and extending across our high seas. Of abundant oceans teeming with fish, big and small, with turtles and whales and sea-birds. Oceans filled with sharks.

Now is the time to make that dream happen. To reverse the rampant devastation of our marine resources, to provide them safe havens that allow them to regroup and recover.  Too many species are dying out, hunted to near extinction, slipping through our fingers, like sand.

Let’s stop fighting. And start giving our seas a fighting chance.

 


 

Lewis Pugh is an ocean advocate and a pioneer swimmer. In 2010 he was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and in 2013 he was appointed Patron of the Oceans by the United Nations Environment Programme. http://lewispugh.com

This article was originally published on Lewis’s blog.

 




383435