Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A magazine ad for Esso Petroleum Company Ltd, seen on the 18th and 24th October 2019, featured an image of a plant with text that stated "Plants capture CO2. We’re finding ways industry can too … Scientists believe that carbon capture is a critical technology to help meet the world’s ambitious goals for reducing CO2 emissions … As a leader in both research and deployment of carbon capture technology, we’re working on ways to make it scalable and more affordable. This includes new approaches, like using fuel cells that could capture up to 90% of the CO2 from large industrial sites and capturing CO2 directly from the air. Learn more about the potential of carbon capture at EnergyFactor.uk”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims that:
1. “Scientists believe that carbon capture is a critical technology to help meet the world’s ambitious goals for reducing CO2 emissions” was misleading and could be substantiated;
2. Exxon “a leader in both research and deployment of carbon capture technology” was misleading and could be substantiated; and
3. “fuel cells that could capture … CO2” was misleading, as they understood fuel cells were not functionally capable of carbon capture.
Response
1. Esso Petroleum Company Ltd (Esso) said the weight of scientific opinion supported the assertion that carbon capture would be important in reducing global CO2 emissions. They said global energy demand was increasing and that even with the growth of non-fossil fuels, mitigating the effects of fossil fuel usage through carbon capture was vital. They cited reports from the Royal Society of Chemistry, The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Committee on Climate Change to Parliament, and the UK Committee on Climate Change in substantiation of the claim.
2. Esso said their parent group ExxonMobil, had researched, developed and applied technologies that could play a role in the widespread deployment of carbon capture over the last 30 years. They said they had a working interest in one fifth of the world’s carbon capture capacity and had captured over 7,000,000 tonnes of CO2 in 2017. They also provided 2018 data from the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute that they said showed ExxonMobil had captured more CO2 than any other company since 1970. Esso said in 2019 they had been involved in the start-up of the Gorgon LNG project in Australia, in which they held a 25% share. That project, they said, was one of the largest in the world.
Additionally, they were involved in a joint venture with a Qatari petroleum producer that would capture 2,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. They had also signed agreements with ports in the Netherlands and Belgium to capture, transport and store CO2. They were a founding member of a multi-industry coalition that promoted policies to support carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) deployment in the US, a partner in a US Department of Energy-sponsored research facility, and a leading member of a US government advisory committee that was developing ways to integrate CCUS into the energy and industrial marketplace. They provided a copy of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute’s 2019 Global Status Report on that point. They said ExxonMobil had also been granted more patents in the US between 2010 and 2019 for carbon capture than any of their competitors in that country.
3. Esso said Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC) were functionally capable of carbon capture. They explained an MCFC, in common with traditional fuel cells, had an anode and a cathode – the anode was fuelled with hydrogen from natural gas, and the cathode was fuelled with oxygen and CO2 from industrial emissions which then formed carbonate. When carbonate reacted with hydrogen an electrical circuit was created. MCFC were therefore powered partly by natural gas and partly by CO2 captured from industrial activity. CO2 could then be compressed and piped underground for storage.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Scientists believe that carbon capture is a critical technology to help meet the world’s ambitious goals for reducing CO2 emissions” to mean that there was a scientific consensus supporting the premise that carbon capture will be crucial in reducing global CO2 emissions. The CAP Code stated that in order to avoid misleading their audience, marketing communications must not suggest that claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed. We considered that the claim would need to reflect a strong informed or scientific consensus in order not to mislead. We noted the contents of the extensive reviews of carbon capture produced by the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Academy of Engineering, both of which concluded that any approach to global decarbonisation would need to include carbon capture as an integral component. A 2019 report from the Committee on Climate Change to Parliament featured broadly similar conclusions and stated carbon capture deployment in the UK was needed.
We considered that these three publications, all of which were extensive in scope and had been published by independent bodies, pointed towards a prevailing consensus among scientists that carbon capture would be necessary for reducing global CO2 emissions. We considered that while other forms of CO2 emission reductions, such as improvements in efficiency and the discontinuation of fossil fuels entirely, might be more effective at reducing CO2 emissions, there appeared to be a broad consensus that carbon capture was an additional technology that would be critical in combatting global carbon emissions. We considered the evidence provided indicated that carbon capture, alongside other important methods such as replacing fossil fuels with renewable alternatives and improving fuel efficiency, would be critical in combating global carbon emissions.
We therefore concluded there was not a significant division of informed or scientific opinion on the issue and that the claim was not misleading. On that point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (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 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim that Esso was “a leader in both research and deployment of carbon capture technology” to mean that Esso was one of a number of companies leading the way in both research and active use of carbon capture technology. We acknowledged the reports provided by Esso and noted they had been produced by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, an internationally recognised think tank in the area of CCS, of which Esso was a member. We noted the contents of the 2019 update from the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute on Historical Carbon Capture & Injection Volumes which showed ExxonMobil, Esso’s parent company, had cumulatively captured more CO2 than other companies operating in the field, as of 2019.
The contents of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute’s Global Status Report for 2019 showed ExxonMobil as holding around 21% of operational CO2 capture capacity, on a net equity interest basis. In addition, the information showing the number of patents ExxonMobil had been granted for carbon capture technology between 2010 and 2019 was the highest of their competitors in that country.
We considered, based on the information provided, ExxonMobil was clearly one of a number of leaders in the field of carbon capture. We considered the evidence provided indicated that Esso was one of a number of companies leading research, development and deployment of carbon capture technology. We therefore concluded Esso’s claim to be a leader in the field was not misleading.
On that point we investigated the ad under 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), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim “This includes new approaches, like using fuel cells that could capture … CO2”, in the context of the ad, to mean that Esso were exploring the possibility of using new approaches that would have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions by capturing and storing CO2. We understood the complainant was concerned that the claims about carbon capture were misleading because the advertised fuel cells were not functionally capable of carbon capture. We understood that the term “fuel cells” in the ad had been used to refer to MCFCs.
We noted Esso’s explanation of how MCFCs operated, which included capture and storage of CO2. We understood that MCFCs were currently in development and so any statements about their efficacy were likely to be theoretical, or at least based on preliminary trials. We considered that few consumers would be aware of the difference between fuel cells, which we understood were generally functionally incapable of capturing CO2, and MCFCs, which were a type of fuel cell that, in theory, were capable of CO2 capture and storage. However, we considered that Esso had likely used the term “fuel cells”, when referring to MCFCs, as a way of simplifying the term and the message for lay consumers.
We therefore concluded the claim was not misleading. On that point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), and 11.2 (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
