Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives for their presentations. Deeming something as wrong or incorrect is the crux of the matter. When we look through many of the decisions, it seems they are concerned with where a false claim has been made as opposed to what I consider greenwashing, which is to undermine climate action in the consciousness of the public.

That is the dangerous part of this advertising because it is so clever and subtle. The companies know they are doing it. They are not saying anything that is literally wrong that could be upheld in court but it is having a massive effect on us reaching our goals as has been outlined. I am wondering what we can do. We need to resolve this issue. That is the ultimate goal. I look down through much of the advertising that is fairly clearly greenwashing and it has not been upheld such as in respect of Dacia. I will quote this particular ad. It compares commuting by car to jogging and states:

Is your morning commute is getting you down? Think about jogging to work instead. Get up at 5 a.m., do some calf stretches, swallow a few raw eggs, don't forget to pack a Band-Aid for those blisters. Ah no, we're only messing.

Essentially, it makes it sound absolutely awful to do something in active travel and then says buy this car instead. The complaint against that ad was not upheld by the ASAI, but the damaging effect this has on people over time can be seen. There are many others and they do seem to tend to relate to cars. For instance, we have all seen the ads for Land Rover with various celebrities making sustainable choices, they will say, by planting trees and then still driving a Land Rover. Again, this was not deemed inappropriate or greenwashing when, objectively, it is. The ASAI does not seem to have any controls over greenwashing; what it has are controls over something being factually correct or incorrect. Do the representatives agree with that?