Dictionary meanings of words are not necessarily the generally accepted nuances of the words or phrases. Take the words “sustainable energy” and “alternative fuels”. Used almost interchangeably to mean
fuels that will sustain the earth and not destroy it, green groups feel that any other meanings are not valid. And their theory was put to the test earlier this summer when they lodged a complaint against Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Apparently Shell launched an advertising campaign whereby they claimed “the challenge of the 21st century is to meet the growing need for energy in ways that are not only profitable but sustainable”. The full page ad was promoting Shell’s exploration in Canada’s tar sands and production of synthetic oil as well as their plans to build the US’ largest oil refinery in Texas.
The World Wildlife Federation felt that the statement was a misuse of the word sustainable and deemed that Shell was misleading the public with the ad, obviously to protect the potential profits from the projects. Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority agreed noting that Canada’s National Energy Board had previously indicated some concern over the use of tar sand oil. The Authority further disbelieved Shell’s contention that the refinery in the US would lower emissions.
Shell countered by saying that sustainable meant long-term jobs and stability to the economy but the Authority opinion was that the public does not refer to the word sustainable energy in regards to helping economic woes. As a result, Shell was forced to pull the ad campaign much to the delight of green organizations. Not so much interested in winning the complaint per se, but rather feeling that the government backed the underdog against bad business practices.
