Misleading Advertising: Nuclear Energy Is Not Clean, but Is It CO2 Free?
A discussion of the decision of the Dutch Advertising Code
Committee dated 27 February 2009 (RCC - file 2009/00088).
Complaints and Defense
Atoomstroom, a supplier of electricity that is generated with
nuclear energy, argues in advertisements on its website and in the
media, inter alia, that nuclear energy is clean, CO2 free
and not subsidized. Greenpeace thought that these advertisements
were misleading and submitted a complaint to the Dutch Advertising
Code Committee (Reclame Code Commissie (RCC)).
Greenpeace first and foremost argued that Atoomstroom wrongfully
suggested that nuclear energy is clean energy. According to
Greenpeace, nuclear energy is not clean because during the
generation thereof nuclear waste is created. This wast remains
hazardous for a long period of time. For this reason, the
advertisement was said to be misleading. Atoomstroom put up a
defense against this complaint by arguing that during the
generation of nuclear energy no contaminating substances are
emitted and that the radioactive waste is stored carefully. For
that reason, nuclear energy was said to be clean indeed.
Greenpeace also complained about the fact that in its
advertisements Atoomstroom argued that nuclear energy is CO2 free.
According to Greenpeace, during the production of nuclear fuel, the
construction of nuclear power stations and the processing and
storage of nuclear waste, amongst other things, a lot of CO2 is
actually emitted. Atoomstroom argued that this complaint only
related to the generation of nuclear energy and that no CO2 is
released during this process as such.
To conclude, Atoomstroom was said to argue wrongfully that
nuclear energy is free of subsidies. In Greenpeace's view,
nuclear energy is subsidized by the government. Atoomstroom
disputed this complaint too.
Decision
The RCC held first and foremost that it must be examined what
the consumer's expectation is if energy generation is
recommended as being clean. In this respect, the RCC took the
average consumer as a starting point rather than the highly
educated, critical consumer. According to Atoomstroom, it is true
that the advertisements are specifically aimed at the latter
consumer, but in the opinion of the RCC these advertisements have a
considerably larger scope and also reach a general public.
The RCC was of the opinion that the average consumer - when
reading or hearing the words 'clean energy' - will think of
energy that is generated by, for instance, sun, wind or water. In
other words: generation that does not cause contamination. However,
during the generation of nuclear energy contaminating and hazardous
radioactive waste is created. Despite the fact that this waste is
stored as well and as safely as possible, the RCC was of the view
that this cannot be called clean energy. Moreover, the RCC was of
the view that in its recommendations of the concept of clean energy
Atoomstroom does not give the average consumer clear information
about this. The consumer is denied essential information that is
required for the consideration of whether or not to purchase the
product of Atoomstroom. For this reason, the RCC was of the view
that the statement that nuclear energy is clean is misleading and
unfair.
The other two complaints were rejected by the RCC. The RCC
thought that nuclear energy can be called CO2 free, because
Atoomstroom is using this argument in particular where it concerns
the generation of electricity, and nuclear power stations do not
emit any CO2 during the generation itself. The RCC also disagreed
with Greenpeace that indirect governmental subsidies for the
insurance of nuclear power stations and the storage of the nuclear
waste for many years may be regarded as
subsidies.
Conclusion
The RCC based its decisions on the Dutch Advertising Code
(Nederlandse Reclame Code, NRC). The NRC contains rules
which advertising has to meet and consists of a General Section and
of Special Advertising Codes. In the General Section it is
stipulated, inter alia, that advertisements may not be
misleading or untrue. The Special Advertising Codes apply to
advertising for specific products and services. For instance, there
is a code for alcohol and tobacco products, for food products and
for environmental matters, as in the present decision (Code for
Environmental Advertising).
I think that the decision of the RCC that nuclear energy is not
clean, because of the radioactive waste left behind in the
environment due to its generation, is correct. However, the
decision of the RCC on the second complaint deserves some
criticism. According to the RCC, Atoomstroom appears to link the
claim 'CO2 free' directly or indirectly to the generation
of electricity. However, in my opinion, the RCC assumes too easily
that in that case the consumer himself will understand that the
other stages of the chain are not necessarily CO2 free. In
particular because the RCC thinks that the advertising of
Atoomstroom is aimed at the average consumer, and not at the highly
educated critical consumer. It is questionable whether this average
consumer recognizes and understands this distinction between the
generation and the other stages in the production chain in which
CO2 is indeed emitted as such. Moreover, Article 4 of the Code for
Environmental Advertising stipulates that if environmental claims
(virtually) exclusively relate to particular constituent parts or
aspects of the products recommended, this limitation will have to
be stated clearly in the advertisement.
Kennedy Van der Laan assisted Greenpeace in drafting the
complaints. You will find Greenpeace's own opinion regarding
the decision of the RCC here:
http://www.greenpeace.nl/news/reclame-code-commissie-kernen