Adverts for the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) made misleading claims about pollution levels across the capital and inside cars because they relied on modelling estimates and not actual data, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled. The Independent has more.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said claims made by Transport for London (TfL), which runs Ulez, that levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) had reduced by almost half as a result of the scheme were not based on measurements of air quality taken before and after it was implemented, as listeners of the radio ad might expect.
Instead, TfL based its claim on calculating the difference between current air quality measurements and a “non-Ulez scenario”, but without qualifying this for listeners and likely misleading them, the ASA found.
The ASA also upheld complaints about claims in a second TfL ad that most deaths related to air pollution “actually” occurred in outer London, when this was in fact based on modelled estimates.
The ASA said the ad was likely to mislead listeners because it did not explain the basis of the claim.
In a separate ruling, the ASA found a claim made in a radio ad by the Greater London Authority that “according to research, one of the most polluted places in London is inside your car” was misleading.
The ASA said evidence provided by the GLA did establish that car users were exposed to air pollution when inside their vehicle and that it could be higher than when using other forms of transport.
However, the GLA had not directly compared pollution inside a car in London with other locations around the city, meaning it had not been adequately substantiated and was likely to mislead listeners.
The ASA, which received a total of 504 complaints about six TfL ads for Ulez and 38 complaints about the GLA ad – only some of which were upheld – stressed that it was not its role to rule on the validity of Ulez, but rather to assess whether claims made in the ads were presented alongside robust evidence.
The watchdog has told both TfL and the GLA to ensure that claims relate to relevant evidence more closely in future.
Credit to the ASA for refusing to go along with the idea that modelling is robust evidence – one of the foundational tenets of the modern technocratic regime that brought us Net Zero and Covid lockdowns. Please can the ASA be put in charge of the Covid Inquiry?
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The ASA has also ruled that electric cars cannot be advertised as “zero emission” because of the carbon dioxide that is generated when they are made and charged. The Telegraph notes this ruling is actually at odds with the Government’s own messaging, which calls battery-powered EVs “zero emission vehicles” for the purposes of the newly introduced ZEV mandate.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Boy, I sure am glad we’re doing all these investigations now, AFTER Khan was allowed to go ahead with his authoritarian schemes. Where were all these overseers when people were screaming at them that what he’s doing isn’t legal, ethical, or moral?
This is them saving face. They waited this long cause they know it can’t be easily reversed. And now they’re trying to pretend like they’re on our side so we trust them next time around. BS.
Another question to ask is whether “the model” is susceptible to the Linear-No-Threshold fallacy. Under that fallacy, doubling the low concentration of a harmful substance is assumed to double the incidence of harmful effects, including death, in a population. Its most notable failure is the inaccurate predictions about the effects of ionising radiation. Does “NOx modelling” have the same problem? Doubtless the answer depends on who funds the modellers.
The harmful effects of NOx depends where you have your nose. If it’s on your foot or leg, much greater than if on your face.
Oddly gases do obey gravity and vehicle exhaust pipes are underneath, near the ground.
Also depends whether in a building or in the street.
And of course some of the manufacturers use that term on their products, e.g. many Renault Leaf cars carry badges that claim that feature.
Shock news. Government propaganda lied to us, lied to us. Tears in my eyes. How can this be? The great truth tellers, lied to me? I feel so ashamed and hurt.
You know things have to be really bad when one set of bureaucrats tells another set of bureaucrats that they’re going too far.
I wouldn’t count on that happening too often though.
The Science™️ “… they relied on modelling estimates and not actual data…”
Add to the list: climate change; CoVid scam; vaccination.
It’s science Jim, but not as we know it.
Post Modern Pseudo Science in support of Public Policies.
EVs emit brake and tyre dust.
All claims about climate are based on models. ——–But we are constantly told it is all about the “science” and “all scientists agree”. ———How totally bizarre. Yet most people actually believe that what they hear on TV is coming straight from the mouths of “scientists” who busy themselves all day with barely time for a cheese roll and then run to government with their findings and government have no choice but to act. —-ha ha ha jeez —–This is all part of the biggest pseudo scientific fraud ever, and ofcourse you can only get away with stuff like this if the lie is so huge that people could not comprehend a lie so enormous and therefore assume it must all be true. —-Wakey wakey people MODELS are NOT SCIENCE. You are being played for fools on Climate and Ulez and any other issue where government have an agenda.
That’s a bit useless as Khan said (in the article) that he’s convinced the ads weren’t misleading which I understand as him stating that he means to ignore this.
Computer modelling is the antithesis of science, dressed up as science. Project your prior assumptions into a software program and, hey presto, give a take a bit of tweaking, the ‘right’ conclusions will be result.
Politics in scientific clothing.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-futility-of-uk100s-net-zero-ambitions/
Gillian Dymond with a no holds barred letter to:
Dame Norma Redfearn, Mayor of North Tyneside, about North Tyneside Council’s signing up to UK100, ‘a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target’.
Why are these treasonous, humanity denying money-grubbers always dames or ladies?
As the letter points out none of the constituents have been notified or informed about the forthcoming assaults on their lifestyle, let alone the costs.
Democracy eh?