Baker targeted by cosmetics firm

Kristin O'Donnell manager, Jasmine Redfern and Leah Guy with their display
Kristin O'Donnell manager, Jasmine Redfern and Leah Guy with their display

BILLBOARDS targeting Seaford MP Norman Baker, accusing him of ‘failure to keep dirty tar sands out of the European Union’, have been plastered across the front of Eastbourne’s Lush store.

The cosmetics store chain, which has a shop in the town’s Arndale Centre, launched a pressure campaign against Mr Baker this week.

The Brighton shop is also displaying the same billboards.

The large campaign signs include Mr Baker’s face covered in oil with the tag line ‘Norman Baker: Tarnished. Blowing his chances to keep dirty tar sands oil out of Europe’.

Lush is not just campaigning in its stores but is sending out 40,000 leaflets homes in Mr Baker’s Lewes, Seaford and Polegate constituency.

Lush Cosmetics is known uses its retail presence to raise awareness on environmental concerns.

This latest campaign, which targets Mr Baker, is concerned with Canadian Tar Sands.

Campaigners at Lush claim the tar sands is the ‘most environmentally destructive project on the face of the earth’ as oil companies turn to the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, in a last ditch attempt to keep the oil flowing.

Transport Minister Norman Baker responded to the campaign by saying:

“I have made it plain to Lush, and others, that I am seeking to secure the best deal I can for the environment from the discussions ongoing in the EU about the Fuel Quality Directive.

“In my view, that means tackling all highly polluting crudes equally, not simply oil sands from one particular country.

“I simply don’t understand why people who care about the environment can ignore all these other sources of dirty oil. These certainly represent a problem, but so do other crudes, and it makes no environmental sense to ignore these.

“We want to deal with them all, not just one type, and in a way that is based on robust and objective data, related to their carbon emissions.

“I accept that there may be a genuine debate to be had about tactics, but I find it disappointing, and actually a bit insulting, that Lush ascribes motives and explanations to me that are simply wrong. It seems anyone who disagrees with their analysis must therefore be acting in bad faith.

“What I am putting forward, if I can make it stick, far from being a wrecking move, will produce a better result for the environment.”