Forum menu
Recognising a necessary evil doesn’t mean you have to prostitute yourself.
Is that what they're doing? Or are they just taking their money?
Are Shell actually anti-cycling? Or are they just doing a necessary job and trying to support good causes?
I'm not necessarily supporting Shell here, but just trying to steer away from a knee-jerk reaction. Shell only sell what people buy. Are they actually responsible for pollution or are we all?
Do you not think it’s just a bit inappropriate for the UK body responsible for the most efficient and eco means of transport to be sponsored by a company spending millions lobbying to maintain the status quo and destroy the planet through fossil fuels?
Is that actually what's going on? Or is it what right-on people want to think is going on?
I guess they are now spending fewer millions on maintaining the status quo (if that's actually what's going on) and more on the alternatives. Isn't that what you wanted?
Are they actually responsible for pollution or are we all?
Another good point.
My issue isn't just what they sell.
It's how they've behaved for decades. They've activity obstructed reduction in fossil fuels, they've actively blocked climate research and information. They've regularly been way the wrong side of law, justice, environment, health and 'better'. They've actively made the world worse, above just selling fossil fuels.
It’s how they’ve behaved for decades
And are they still doing it, or is this the start of them trying to do better now?
People need petrol for their cars. Therefore they buy fuel supplied from companies like Shell.
BC need sponsorship. Therefore they get it from whoever can provide it.. I don’t really see much difference. Certainly not enough to justify this hypocritical hand wringing
Twitter on form as ever. I wait for Daily Mash.
https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1579489645678985217?t=s7C6XZi8Tq-gg0yoDwQaQw&s=19
https://twitter.com/Ken_J_Murray/status/1579460650870648834?t=ulO9yHK6P8ii8_9GgG1Jjw&s=19
https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1579481584901951489?t=TWtoZ1uDh8-s9t0F16xh6g&s=19
I think it’s great and hope it will encourage, over a long partnership, Shell to transition faster and further into a green energy provider.
Sky had absolutely nothing to do with cycling either, nor did Ineos.
I’m not sure that there are many/any corporate sponsors with the kind of cash that BC will need who would pass an ethics test. Corporate sponsors are always going to be problematic,
Exactly. Let's be honest,it's a quid pro quo. Big company with shit loads of money gets some pr. Org with no money gets money.
Who exactly did y'all expect to be sponsoring?
I admire the optimism, naivety and blind faith some people possess
And are they still doing it, or is this the start of them trying to do better now?
A company still spending $49m annually lobbying to minimise change probably has a bit of work to do.
I blame Si Paton... if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have gone on the DH and 4x commissaires course, then been busted for a bald tyre on the way home and in so doing, blown my cover.
Ever since that fateful day, British Cycling has been in decline...
No further questions please
It’s how they’ve behaved for decades. They’ve activity obstructed reduction in fossil fuels, they’ve actively blocked climate research and information. They’ve regularly been way the wrong side of law, justice, environment, health and ‘better’. They’ve actively made the world worse, above just selling fossil fuels.
All fossil fuel companies do / have done this - "global warming" was known about as early as the 80's and the response was "oh good, when the Arctic has all melted, it'll give us easy access to a shitload more oil from under it!" alongside outright denials, obfuscation, lobbying and advertising.
Tobacco companies knew about the link with lung cancer decades ago, they did the same by paying off doctors (remember those adverts about "more Dr's smoke Camel than any other brand..."?!) and advertising and lobbying until it got to the point where they had no option but to back e-cigarettes as the "healthy" alternative.
Gambling companies do the same - all sorts of tricks to get repeat customers while putting in a sentence at the end "always gamble responsibly".
Everywhere you find something bad (junk food, alcohol...), you find clever marketing and advertising with a disclaimer at the bottom - "always eat a balanced diet" / "always drink responsibly".
And are they still doing it, or is this the start of them trying to do better now?
See my earlier post. This is the 432nd time they have pledged to do better in the future.
And the 432nd time they've found some useful idiots to shill for them.
Back to the first page:
Of all the hundreds of companies they could partner with
Umm, like all the companies waiting to be shirt sponsors of Premier League football clubs but can't pay as much as betting companies?
I just find it staggering how everyone is blaming oil companies for climate change.
Thankfully the diesel I put in my tank which the bikes on my roof cause to burn quicker when I drive to trails comes from renewable sources. The earth must regenerate about a tank's worth every turn of the moon so I'm covered.
I just find it staggering how everyone is blaming oil companies for climate change.
I'm not.
I'm blaming oil companies for actively lying and advertising against climate change (and many other environmental issues).
And they have not yet changed thier spots.
I mean, that Forbes article:
The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects.
Ok, so 3% - that doesn't sound like much. How much should they be spending? How much is available to spend? How many of those 'lobbying activities' are necessary marketing actions to keep the company in business versus the other companies?
Like I say I'm not pro big oil, not at all, but I'm also anti bandwagon jumping boo-hiss nasty oil company when they are simply supplying things essential to the world we live in that we've ALL helped to create - unavoidably, to an extend. The carbon is on all our hands and whilst we can reduce it we can't get rid of it.
I’m blaming oil companies for actively lying and advertising against climate change
Recent example? If you've got some, this is what you need to be bringing up.
Is that what they’re doing? Or are they just taking their money?
An argument you could make about taking money from any company on the planet. I think BC should aim to do a bit better.
Ugh. Really bad.
If I understand right, it isn't a full sponsorship deal, so we won't be seeing Shell logo on the team kit? Myabe that is the only silver lining.
But honestly, partnering with a fossil fuel company to help BC reach net zero really stinks.
Shell still spend more money on marketing than on renewables. And their actual % capital expenditure on renewables is <5% (compared to a target of nearer 10%). In contrast, TotalEnergies is at about 25% (though still planning on overall increase in fossil fuel extraction). So Shell are right at the bottom end of the European fossil fuel majors. They are really not driving the energy transition, but in many ways actively working against it.
There are many bad companies out there, but some are institutionally evil.
I do think we are at a time where we need to show fossil fuel companies that they do not have a social licence to operate. Yes in the end we need government to step in and agree, but we as individuals and as members of our clubs have a voice too. I'll be cancelling BC membership in the morning.
Recent example? If you’ve got some, this is what you need to be bringing up.
https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/shell/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20InfluenceMap%20assessed%20Shel l's,branding%20at%20%2455%20million%20annually.
I'm quite surprised by the pro-shell comments here tbh. Fossil fuel companies aren't just passive suppliers of demand - with the huge amounts of money they make from the earths resources they buy governments. Liz Truss is the most blatant - as well as handing over money for high gas prices with no windfall tax, she is preventing government from even gently advising people on the best way to use a bit less energy. This would save govt - ie us taxpayers - far more than it costs thanks to the subsidy. Today I see even wanting to stop solar power - I work in energy and buildings so straying from transport, but same old fossil fuel tactics. Take hydrogen for heating - the thermodynamics of using renewable energy this way is so poor compared with heat pumps there is no contest - it will never be affordable or safe - but has £££ of gas industry behind it to try and stall the alternatives so they can sell more gas and emit more CO2.
Historically things have been more subtle - various little grant schemes for renewable energy now and then - but somehow badly run so things always boom and bust, cowboys appear to cream off the grants and the tech gets bad name, and money quickly runs out so sustainable responsible business can't do so well.
Of course we all use the products of the fossil fuel industry - they've been fanatical about preventing us having any choice for decades.
Do CyclingUk offer accident/legal cover akin to BC (Leigh day)? That’s the main reason I have/had BC membership, the CUK website mentions a legal advice line but is a little inconclusive.
Yep, and it's very good if you get injured.
Unless you are a petrol/diesel free household, I'm not sure this is the hill to die on.
It’s probably fair to say, I don’t think the replies to their announcement on Twitter are what they were hoping for if I’m honest
Then they deserve sacking for not spotting that it would go down like a lead balloon.
I feel sorry for the poor social media lackey. After the fun of the "thou shall not cycle on the day of THE funeral" they got given this to send out and unlike the former chances of being able to roll it back are minimal.
I’m quite surprised by the pro-shell comments here tbh. Fossil fuel companies aren’t just passive suppliers of demand – with the huge amounts of money they make from the earths resources they buy governments.
Yes, they do. Why? Money. And they, as much if not more than anyone else can see which way the wind is blowing (pun intended) Renewables is/are now a significant and growing part of their plans. Why not be part of that change? Why not have them sponsor cycling and use their leverage to accelerate renewable transition by lobbying government? Shell, BP, et al are no longer just oil companies, they’re energy providers and whether you want it or not, they WILL be part of the energy value chain in coming years. Let’s see if we can influence a positive direction whilst they’re still on that journey.
So their leverage is nothing to do with the government reclassifying farmland to block solar installations, opening new North sea exploration licenses and reopening fracking.
Optimism is good!
Pure coincidence of course...
https://twitter.com/chris_breeze/status/1150834963618705412
(Among a long and varied career at the highest echelons of government, including a conveniently timed stint in Paris and later shutting down the Serious Fraud Office's investigation of the Al-Yamamah, ahem, OIL for arms deal that almost had Prince Andrew sweating, most recently, Sherard Cowper Coles has been Global head of HSBC's Public Affairs)
Urgh. Grubby, eh?
As a racer, coach and organiser I've been in with BC for a long time. It's never been an advocacy organisation for me. It's about competitive sport and making that happen. Sport inspires those watching it. Win Olympic medals on TV and more people will ride bikes, simple as that. BC aren't there to campaign for safer roads, considerate overtaking, cycling to school or better cycle lanes. They exist to put races on, keep it safe, make the competitors better, try and win medals at the Olympics and make sure there's a steady stream of competitors coming through when those currently doing it go off to do something else.
All that needs money. Everything I do for BC is for free - I have a job, a boss and I don't need another one. Bike racing is what I do for fun, I don't want it to be work (even though organising national championships most definitely feels like it).
Feeling the way I do about Rupert Murdoch made me feel sick when Sky started sponsoring BC. But I can't deny without their cash, things wouldn't have pushed on the way they did. I got given kit with the Sky logo on it, I didn't like that.
Feeling the way I do about the machinations of international finance and the glib way it affects the lives of ordinary people transferring wealth to the already-wealthy made me feel sick when I got given new kit with the HSBC logo, but it took that cash to pretty much just keep up.
This sport is expensive (and I'm not talking about middle aged men rolling round sculpted paths in forests) and if we want to watch the likes of Evie Richards and Tom Pidcock - and, more importantly, those coming up behind them - then someone with deeper pockets than the BC membership has to pay, I understand that.
Still gives me the boak though.
But I seriously doubt there was a meeting room booked in Manchester earlier this year for the BC executive board to sit around and weigh up all the competing multi-million pound 8-year deals against each other.
Pretty depressing, all things considered.
I’m quite surprised by the pro-shell comments here tbh.
I'm not pro-Shell I'm pro analysis.
Shell was also criticised for greenwashing its activities in its 2018 #makethefuture campaign which used Instagram posts, short films, music videos, and a London-based “festival” to market clean-tech solutions to a millennial audience.
Company in marketing thing it's done shocker. Not bad enough, next.
But Shell and BP ― the second- and fourth-largest oil companies by revenue last year ― are still active members of at least eight trade organisations lobbying against climate measures in the United States and Australia that were not disclosed in the public reviews, an Unearthed and HuffPost investigation has found.
Reviews of leaked and publicly available documents show those groups are part of the sprawling network of state and regional trade associations that have, in at least one case, boasted about quashing the very carbon-reduction policies the oil giants publicly claim to support.
Badder, but still very easy to explain by Shell simply having to make a living, and not necessarily directly instigating the particular boasting in question.
I mean this is all insinuation, and tied up with the fact that yes, Shell is implicated in doing something negative, but it's all heavily tied up in the fact that they produce something we all use and to an extend we all need, and they have to compete with other companies doing the same thing.
What's been posted so far is nowhere near Ford Pinto or BAT levels of scumbaggery. I mean yea, it's not a great look and this kind of reaction should have been predicted, but this really feels like there's a lot more to it than people seem to think on here.
Pretty depressing, all things considered.
I fully agree with that - it's depressing such things are needed, and that big companies of all kinds have such lobbying influence.
they’ve been fanatical about preventing us having any choice for decades.
I'm pretty sure that's not the oil companies' fault...
I’m pretty sure that’s not the oil companies’ fault…
Whose fault is it?
Whose fault is it?
Governments.
Governments.
Why?
Sorry to break the rose tinted specs @Daffy, but you might want to look at this. They are making lots of the right noises to make us belive they are "part of the solution" but follow the money and it is virtually all going towards new oil and gas. The averages hide some variation, with TotalEnergies coming out 'least bad', but none of them are making investments that are anywhere near aligned with a goal of keeping warming to <2 degrees.
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change - asset managers with £trillions under management, so not exactly looney lefties - developed an oil and gas net zero standard that Shell and BP and others were involved in. It is incredibly flexible compared to other standards, but NONE of the oil and gas companies come close to meeting the criteria.
There are a lot of individually good people working for those companies, but together they are bad.
My point wasn’t so much that they ARE good, but that over 8 years and in the climate (again pun intended) they find themselves, that they will have to BECOME good. EV ownership is only going one way. After Ukraine, renewables are only going one way. They know this, but will extract what they can during the period it’s worth most waiting for government support to do what’s right. Just because something’s broken, doesn't mean it can’t be fixed. Leaving them alone wont help fix it, maybe this might? Sponsorship can go both ways.
They are making lots of the right noises to make us belive they are “part of the solution” but follow the money and it is virtually all going towards new oil and gas.
So, if we keep buying it, what are they supposed to do? Refuse?
If I go and check my BC discount codes will I find 10% off at my local Shell garage?
@molgrips who do you think is influencing the government? That's what lobbying is, flinging money at folk to listen to your agenda and push it for you. It's bribery by any other name, if I did such a thing at work I'd be out on my arse for breaking the bribery and corruption policies!
And "just trying to sell their product" doesn't wash. Would you extend the same argument to tobacco companies? Arms* manufacturers? Drug cartels?
All of them are bad for us. None of them have to exist in the way they do. Yet here we are. Letting them corrupt and shore up their positions.
This might be a small fight but if enough members feel that strongly then more power to them.
*of the "personal defence" variety.
Given the amount of fuel cycling consumes following a peloton then it strikes me as a good match. Let’s face it all the bikes are make from oil. The riders clothes are all made from oil. All the travel elite and upcoming racers do is all oil based it kind of makes sense.
The virtue signalling of people trying to pretend cycling for leisure has anything to do with being green is laughable. Let’s face it you could throw a whole load of criticism for being sponsored by one of the biggest financial companies in the world.
EV ownership is going to plateau unless and until there is significant investment in the re-charging infrastructure and, based on my horizon scanning, that's not happening.
Completely agree that renewables are only going one way but planning and development restrictions and timescales will impede progress.
I'm disappointed that STW haven't taken a clear editorial stance on BC's acceptance of Shell's funding; a readers' poll is, I think, a cop-out.
Compare'n'contrast with the rapid and definitive statement STW issued on trans rights.
If STW are (fully) independent of BC they should, as a responsible publisher and advocate for cycling, take a stance and publish it.
The virtue signalling of people trying to pretend cycling for leisure has anything to do with being green is laughable.
You could try to make your case without besmirching those with whom you disagree.