[Because no individuals or organisations were specifically named in this section of the film, it was considered by the Standards Division of Ofcom, and not by the Fairness Division.]

[Narrator]	But the new emphasis on man-made carbon dioxide as a possible environmental problem didn’t just appeal to Mrs. Thatcher.
[Nigel Calder]	It was certainly something very favourable to the environmental idea – what I call the medieval environmentalism of: “let’s get back to the way things were in medieval times and get rid of all these dreadful cars and machines. They loved it because carbon dioxide was for them an emblem of industrialisation.

[Comment 75; The narrative, using an accumulation of interviewee and narrator statements (see Comment 80, Comment 81, Comment 120 and Comment 136 [below]), is presenting a wholly inaccurate picture of the environmental movement and its history, for which absolutely no evidence is provided. In fact no major environmental organisation advocates “getting rid” of cars. Greenpeace, for example, in its brochure “How to save the climate” (http://tinyurl.com/2qt7p9, PDF) (page 29) states:

The most important question when you buy your next car is: “What is its fuel consumption?”

Furthermore the programme gives a highly distorted and inaccurate impression by failing to mention the long history of environmental movements before the fall of the Berlin wall and the rise of anti-globalisation movements in the 1980s. For example, WWF has been campaigning since 1961 (see http://tinyurl.com/ywpfts); Greenpeace since 1971 (see http://tinyurl.com/2mn9jn); and Friends of the Earth since 1971 (see http://tinyurl.com/27eyrf).

This is therefore an apparent attempt by the film maker and by several of the interviewees to mislead the public about the views of environmental groups. Misrepresenting their views in this way is not only inaccurate but is also manipulative and slanderous, although as no individuals were named, it is unlikely to be actionable.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.9)

[Cut to film clip of people destroying the Berlin Wall]

[Patrick Moore]

The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed: the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them; and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than they do anything with ecology or science.

[Nigel Lawson]

The left have been slightly disoriented by the manifest failure of socialism and indeed, even more so of communism, as it was tried out; and therefore, they still remain as anti-capitalist as they were; but they have to find a new guise for their anti-capitalism.

[Comment 80: The above interview statements, which taken together amount to narration, imply that environmentalists are predominately anti-capitalist extremists. This is clearly designed to marginalize environmentalists, and by extension, the millions of ordinary people who are non-environmentalists but who are concerned about global warning. Representatives of environmental groups were not given the chance to reply to this characterisation, nor was any evidence presented to support it; and the strong counter-evidence against this characterisation was not mentioned.

In fact, far from being anti-capitalist, the leading environmental groups all collaborate with major corporate businesses on environmental issues: for example, WWF (http://tinyurl.com/37vcev), Friends of the Earth (http://tinyurl.com/3c27se). and Greenpeace (on the “Greenfreeze” alternative to CFCs, (http://tinyurl.com/28zgf7), which has been praised by Tony Blair as a “highly successful example of a green organisation and industry working together for the benefit of the Ozone layer” (http://tinyurl.com/24xvn6)).

Thus this was a clear attempt to mislead the public, and was based on a “straw man” logical fallacy (in this case, by characterising their opponents in this debate as extremists when most of them are not) and on an “ad hominem” logical fallacy (attacking one’s opponents rather than addressing their arguments).]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Nigel Calder]

And it was a kind of amazing alliance from Margaret Thatcher on the right through to very left-wing anti-capitalist environmentalists that created this kind of momentum behind a loony idea.

[Comment 81: It is beyond parody to call the 150 year-old theory of man-made global warming, based as it is on the fundamental laws of physics, “a loony idea,” while at the same time putting forward the view that Margaret Thatcher was engaged in an alliance with neo-Marxists – and all because, we are led to believe, she wanted to break the power of the miners' unions! (See Comment 72, page 65 [of the full complaint]). Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. Yet absolutely no evidence was provided, and this view was left unchallenged, in what was billed as a “science documentary”.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Cut to film of an unnamed activist giving a speech]

British-based corporations are some of the worst climate criminals on the planet. Shell is based in the UK, right here in London. We have the right and the duty to take it back into public ownership, dismantle it, break it up and send its managers to rehabilitation training.

[Comment 120: By showing at this point a speech by a fringe anti-capitalist, the programme is trying to confuse in viewers’ minds the tiny number of people in the environmental movement who hold extreme views, with the vast majority of people who are simply concerned about the environment.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Narrator]

To former environmentalist, Paul Driessen, the idea that the world’s poorest people should be restricted to using the world’s most expensive and inefficient forms of electrical generation is the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign.

[Comment 132: So far as we are aware, nobody other than the narrator and Paul Driessen has ever suggested that “the world’s poorest people should be restricted to using the world’s most expensive and inefficient forms of electrical generation”. See Comment 123, page 104 and Comment 129, page 109 [of the full complaint]. The narrator and Driessen are using the logical fallacy known as a “straw man” argument (see Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/75l4l) – by pretending that their opponents are taking an absurd position that they are not taking, and then attacking that absurd position. In doing so they are misrepresenting the facts to the public.

There are certainly people who are encouraging developing countries to include alternative energies in a diverse energy mix, and for very good reasons: Africa is still expanding its energy infrastructure, making both grid-connected and decentralized alternative energy options cost-competitive in different situations. Most developed nations planned their infrastructure in an era when fossil fuels were assumed to be endless and benign; and now they have a host of issues because of it.

Most environmentalists accept that coal will continue to be important for India and China, as well as South Africa. But there is large scope for emissions reductions from their coal use: by energy efficiency improvements, and – in time – from the use of carbon capture and storage (if it can be demonstrated to work). For more detail on this, see the International Energy Agency’s series of World Energy Outlook reports at http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Paul Driessen]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: if we’re telling the third world that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is: you cannot have electricity.

[Comment 133: So far as we are aware, no one is actually advocating this.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[James Shikwati]

The challenge we have, when we meet western environmentalists who say we must engage in the use of solar panels and wind energy, is how we can have Africa industrialised; because I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry – how a solar panel, you know is going to power, maybe, some railway train. It might work, maybe to power a small transistor radio.

[Comment 134: So far as we are aware, no one is actually advocating this either; and the above statement is also highly misleading, because there are low-carbon power generation technologies available now that can deliver enough power for large scale applications such as steel mills or trains. Some of these are: hydroelectric power, large scale wind farms (such as the offshore wind farms being installed in Denmark and now the UK); coal fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (although this is still being developed), nuclear power, and biomass.

In addition, in the tropics, photovoltaic solar panels can produce large amounts of electricity very efficiently. As already discussed, for rural villages photovoltaic solar generators are often far more efficient and cost-effective than a national grid; but in tropical and sub-tropical regions, photovoltaic panels can also form an efficient part of the supply mix used by a national grid – for example see Watt et al, 2006. Photovoltaics research and development in Australia, http://tinyurl.com/yttmoj.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Patrick Moore]	I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticisation of peasant life; and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.
[James Shikwati]	One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there’s somebody keen to kill the “African Dream;” and the “African Dream” is to develop.

[Comment 135: See previous comments, especially Comment 123, page 104 [of the full complaint] – this statement is either extremely ill-informed or profoundly and intentionally misleading.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)

[Patrick Moore]	The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.
[James Shikwati]	We are being told: “don’t touch your resources; don’t touch your oil; don’t touch your coal.” That is suicide.
[Patrick Moore]	I think it’s legitimate for me to call them anti-human – like, okay, you don’t have to think humans are better than whales, or better than owls, or whatever, if you don’t want to, right; but surely it is not a good idea to think of humans as sort of being scum, you know – that it’s okay to have hundreds of millions of them go blind, or die or whatever. I just can’t relate to that.

[Comment 136: Again, (see previous comments, especially Comment 123, page 104 [of the full complaint]), this statement is either extremely ill-informed or profoundly and intentionally misleading. Furthermore, it is an extreme ad hominem attack (an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, which consists of replying to an argument by attacking the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument).

Moore’s comments are also a further example of the “straw man” logical fallacy (see Comment 132 [above]) since very few (if any) members of the environmental movement hold the views he ascribes to them. The remarks are also deeply offensive and slanderous to many millions of people, but are unlikely to be actionable since no individuals are named. It is in clear breach of Section 7 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.9)