Picture this. Poor people in developing countries suffering from a lack of modern energy supply. A young woman cooking on an open-pit fire. Two boys reading by flashlight. An old woman warming her hands in front of an indoor electricity heater fire. These images were found in a recent advertising campaign by Peabody Energy - the world’s largest private sector coal company - bearing the headline “Let’s brighten the many faces of global energy poverty”.

The accompanying advertising text claimed that energy poverty was “the world’s number one human and environmental crisis,” and that Peabody Energy is working to “end energy poverty, increase access to low-cost electricity and improve emissions using today’s advanced clean coal technologies.”

It all sounded so promising. Peabody Energy, the hero of the people, tackling energy poverty. That is until you realise that the company is nothing other than a wolf dressed in lamb’s clothing. A coal company faced with an uncertain future and mounting regulatory issues back home in the US. Its new strategy? Targeting poor nations arguing that coal is a solution to energy poverty.



The one thing that Peabody Energy omitted to say is that coal is one of the world’s dirtiest mainstream energy fuels for power generation. And that carbon dioxide and other air emissions associated with the burning of coal remain a major driver of global climate change and public health issues. Coal is one of the biggest sources of global man-made CO2 emissions contributing to climate change. Burning coal releases mercury, sulphur dioxide and other chemicals and pollutants which are major causes of acid rain and smog.



There are also severe health effects caused by burning coal. According to the report issued by WHO, around 7 million people died in 2012 - one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. Many of the 4.3 million deaths from indoor air pollution were attributed to coal and wood stoves.



When Peabody Energy published its advertisement in the European edition of the Financial Times last February, WWF filed a complaint to the British’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Marketing dirty coal to make it seem sustainable just doesn’t brush off anymore. People know there are clean energy solutions but coal isn’t one of them. It is coal that has profound health and social impacts on communities – especially in developing countries with weak governance.



WWF’s complaint focused on several statements made by Peabody Energy in the advertisement that it believed were misleading readers and violating the ASA code.



Among other points, WWF objected to Peabody’s statement that it is working to “improve emissions using today’s advanced clean coal technologies”. “Clean coal” is an ambiguous term that contradicts the scientifically-proven negative impacts of coal mining and burning. Coal is one of the most damaging fossil fuels even if burned in the most modern, efficient coal power plants and with application of technologies currently planned by the industry, deployment of which on a commercial scale has to date not been proven feasible.



Peabody’s call for more coal development is contrary to statements made by OECD secretary-general, Angel Gurría that “continued reliance on coal-fired power is a road to disaster” and by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary, UN FCCC who called on the World Coal Association to “diversify beyond coal” and transfer into renewable energy companies. Coal is dirty. Coal kills. Coal deeply impacts our climate. Marketing dirty coal to make it seem clean misleads people.



This week the ASA upheld WWFs complaint about its use of the phrase “clean coal”. While the ASA didn’t find in WWF’s favour on two of the three complaints, it directed Peabody to stop publishing its advert in the current form. It ruled that without further information, the advert’s wording, especially when followed by a reference to “clean and modern energy”, could lead consumers to misinterpret the word “clean” as meaning that “clean coal” processes did not produce any emissions. The ad was therefore deemed “misleading”.

Peabody Energy is not the only fossil fuel company to attempt to rebrand its business practices as environmentally friendly. BP attempted this in 2000 - until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which resulted in tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico - the worst oil spill in US history. Peabody, which is involved in campaigns to cut back emissions legislation, should learn a lesson and not let history repeat itself.

Darek Urbaniak is energy policy officer at WWF European Policy Office



Read more stories like this:

The role of business in development hub is funded by Business Call to Action. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.

Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox