Register to receive updates when we add new features, get your own username and avatar, and enter our competitions.

British Gas is in the dock this morning, charged guilty by the Advertising Standards Authority of misleading us punters with an advert claiming its green electricity and gas tariff was "zero carbon". Do you think British Gas deserved the verdict? Did it suggest magic CO2-free gas rather than carbon offsetting? Hit the comments and let us know.
The case against
British Gas ran an advert that ended with a voice-over saying, "Our new dual fuel package is our greenest. With zero carbon." Meanwhile, small print at the bottom noted that the zero carbon was achieved through carbon offsetting. Passing verdict on the ad, which attracted 14 complaints, the ASA said: "Viewers were likely to infer from the claim that the gas supplied by British Gas was carbon-free."
The defence
Here's what British Gas had to say: "The name 'zero carbon' relates to the net impact of the supply of gas and electricity through the tariff being zero carbon emissions, and the ad clearly states that this is achieved through offsetting schemes. It is disappointing, therefore, that the ASA has underestimated how commonly used and understood the term zero carbon is."
What we think
While we think the tariff itself is pretty green -- Alex Lambie from Green Energy Helpline says it's "the greenest in the UK" -- the advert unfortunately came across as greenwash. Using the words "zero carbon" could fairly be misinterpreted as the energy equivalent of a cure for cancer -- that magic, alchemy and fairies had helped British Gas to burn gas without producing carbon dioxide.
Since offsetting is what the tariff does, why not just use that as the big print? Why hide it in the small print? Was British Gas worried that the phrase "carbon offsetting" had weathered so much bad press that it should be avoided?
We'll never know, and maybe the words "zero carbon" were used innocently and everyone really does know that the phrase actually means "zero carbon through carbon offsets." Either way, the net result for British Gas is that the ad has now been banned. We'd love to show you the video of the ad, but YouTube and the rest of the web doesn't appear to have it -- if you find a link, please post it below.
What do you think? Do you understand what "zero carbon" means? Did you find the advert misleading? Hit the comments below and let us know.
30 January 2008 12:16pm
I didn't see the ad, but I just think the words zero carbon words don't mean anything. why not just say offsetting?
30 January 2008 12:36pm
Well, we know a certain deodorant doesn't make us tall, blond and pretty although its ads tell us that -- so why would we believe a gas company can be "zero carbon"? I think British Gas should have been honest about the offsetting business, but at the same time I think consumers should be less stupid and stop believing everything we're told by ads and marketing people!
30 January 2008 12:50pm
This does nothing to change my gut instinct that the whole carbon offsetting thing is a complete con
30 January 2008 12:52pm
Surely most people understand that burning gas creates carbon?
While I am anti stupid small print, I think it's odd that a) the ASA has banned the advert b) British Gas didn't make it more clear that this was done through offsetting.
It is a shame that British Gas are in trouble for trying to make a positive change though.
30 January 2008 01:01pm
Yea, agreed -- sounds like ASA is overreacting to a common advertising ploy. Even so, carbon offsetting is no good. It's just removing the blame to someone/somewhere else. The CO2 is still pumping into the air at the end of the day.
30 January 2008 01:03pm
If the Coke Zero cans had fine print saying, "The calories in this can will be offset by exercising for 15 minutes," we'd call it a con, so I don't buy their argument about zero carbon.
Zero is, you know, nothing. Nada. Zip. Nought. Zilch.
30 January 2008 01:04pm
Stupid small print, and they got busted for it. Agree with Ian Morriss that it's a shame that they messed up communicating something that could be positive. Not sure about off-setting at all. It feels more like playing environment musical chairs and hoping you don't get caught when the music stops.
30 January 2008 02:03pm
When things like this happen, it makes me really think sceptically about big companies advertising green initiatives. What crazy scheme is lurking underneath?
30 January 2008 02:42pm
Offsetting seems like a con. You change your carbon footprint by changing your habits, not by paying someone else to clear up after you. It's a product of the decadent capitalist system we inhabit. As for this advert, well, advertisers lie.
30 January 2008 03:18pm
SURE British gas Are The best in Conning Punters
Drop Prices One year & treble It Next
STEER CLEAR, Its Time Punters Sacked Them & Maybe They might
Just might see the Light, NOT GAS PRICES
30 January 2008 03:57pm
thats rubbish to above... as prices are 6% cheaper than they were in 2006 and they have offically the cheapest tariff of online.. so your point is null and void.
30 January 2008 05:06pm
Here is a comment I thought you might appreciate:
"British Gas were slammed today for misleading consumers in adverts for their so-called Zero Carbon tariff. They launched this tariff with much fanfare last year as the "greenest domestic energy tariff" in the UK.
Ahem... we'd beg to differ...
Not only do they mislead with their zero carbon ads, but they actually spend zero on the real green stuff - New Green Energy that actually makes a difference to carbon emissions.
We've just calculated each suppliers investment in renewables last year (soon to be published on www.whichgreen.com )... and guess what... British Gas spent nothing all year. A big fat Zero.
Last year they launched a 'green' arm to their business and called it New Energy (you've probably heard that term somewhere before...), they can pinch our name but clearly with Zero spending, New Energy is not a philosophy they believe in.
Who are they trying to kid?"
Dale Vince - Ecotricity
www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/asa/asagas.php
30 January 2008 11:09pm
Zero carbon fuel? well - even the devout renewables evangelists wouldn't claim 'zero carbon' - my vote it is total greenwash... offsetting doesn't offset - it compensates, but that is a very different proposition than generating electricity without producing carbon in the process (or nuclear waste for that matter). Of course - the only carbon free, zero carbon energy is the energy we don't use...
02 February 2008 01:12pm
Also on the same website YOU mentioned- Dale Vince - Ecotricity,
"British Gas - are well underway constructing what will be the UK's largest offshore wind park to date off the Linconshire coast. The 54 turbine site with a capacity of 180MW should be up and running by the end of 2008."
They may havent spent zero in 07, but this clearly wont be the case THIS year, also they have the lowest CO2 emmisions of the major suppliers for THREE years running.
And none of their powerstations are on the dirty 30 list of europes biggest polluters unlike other suppliers.
In fact on the WWFs website they list British Gas (Centrica) top for companies' efforts to reduce their CO2 emissions along with their development of, and investment in, renewable energy programmes and energy efficiency measures;
"Centrica stood out as the overall leader, not only as a result of its core business being focused on clean gas technology , but also because of its emissions reduction achievements, energy efficiency target compliance, and development of renewable energy assets."
The facts speak for themselevs, dont think they're trying to kid anyone..
See for yourself on http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001762.asp

Register to receive updates when we add new features, get your own username and avatar, and enter our competitions.