British Cycling agrees 8-year sponsorship with Shell

We can today announce @Shell_UKLtd as a new Official Partner for the next eight years, in a commitment to sharing world-class innovation, accelerating our path to net zero, and helping more and wider groups of people to ride. 
 
Read more: https://t.co/aay13fNkaj

— British Cycling (@BritishCycling) October 10, 2022

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

If you want to stop oil companies being oil companies, stop buying oil.

Is a fair point.

I’m trying to drive far fewer miles, and ride locally much more and commute by bike as often as I can.
I’m buying fewer clothes of higher quality, and more natural materials (shoosh you about chemicals and cotton). I wear everything until it’s in holes.
I’ve insulated my house.
I buy mainly UK or local fresh products, albeit from a large supermarket. I’ve not used carrier bags in years.
I am trying to wean myself off the worst of the damaging things I can, and the excessive bits I perhaps did before.

However, I’ll still go back and say, within shades of green/grey, an oil company sponsorship is pretty black. It’s so far out of step.
These companies need to be in a place where they know that the time is up. That they are selling something we’re addicted to, that the world’s downfall is connected to.
For years Shell and others have actively campaigned, undermined, de-invested and generally got in the way of efficiency, reduction and a migration away from thier product.

Thier motivation is profit. Not the global good.

I’m disappointed that BC think this is in anyway a good thing, short of the filthy money.

An aside – our organisation actuality saw other funders step forward after we decided to end our hypocritical partnerships. Our income rose, and we won work with organisations that would not have worked with us under the partnership we had before.

And I’ll be clear. Exxon paid half my salary for 6 years as part of a project I ran for them and my current employer. We were doing ‘environmental good’ in local schools. £5k at a time, £70k a year. In the last year we worked with them, they earned that £70k in 28 seconds and made 16% profit…. They have no intention of doing good, they are doing good business by good marketing.

It was you guys who decided to create this impossible barrier to clear before you’re even allowed to say anything.

Conversely, I think you’re setting that bar incredibly low.

If you don’t race or need the British Cycling race licence, but still want insurance + legal advice, both for individual and groups (incl event insurance), worth considering Cycling UK. Nice thing is they’re actually trying to increase off-road access too so bit of a win win.

Also can get 50% off subscribing to Singletrack too 🙂

I can’t take part in the poll. There’s no option for ‘a member because my quals are dependant on it but majorly pissed off by this announcement’

How can this help accelerate their path to Net Zero? That’s baffling me.

Of all the hundreds of companies they could partner with, ones who actually benefit from people cycling, they chose one of the few companies that benefits from people taking the car.

As @stwhannah says up there ^^, there are not hundreds of companies all lining up to sponsor BC, in fact it’s very difficult to find someone with the financial clout they need willing to commit to 4 year deals never mind 8. All the ones that have that sort of money (Sky, HSBC, Shell) are dodgy in one way or another, none of them got their billions by being nice and fluffy.

Basically at that level it’s Finance (banks, maybe a couple of insurance companies), oil (Ineos, anyone?!), tobacco and alcohol (neither of which are allowed in sports sponsorship any more) and maybe a conglomerate like Unilever or similar.
And then the challenge is finding one that actually wants to give BC tens of millions of ££ a year.

It’s literally a couple of dozen companies at most. I can see why they’ve gone down that route, no matter how tone deaf it might appear on.the outside. Put it this way, that money feeds through into grassroots sport. Without it, there won’t be the kids races, the basic coaching courses, Commissaire training, race equipment etc. The boring unglamorous stuff.

And you’ve got to admit that cycling as a sport (rather than as a means of transport) is not exactly green; the history of cycle sport is littered with car sponsors and oil companies.
I’d be interested to see the Venn Diagram of people on here condemning BC for the partnership vs those who post about how they drive their Audi 200 miles to a trail centre or their Transporter thousands of miles through Europe or take a flight to Spain for a week of riding.

So, sad as it is, we all depend on oil companies. There’s no point demonising them.

Recognising a necessary evil doesn’t mean you have to prostitute yourself.

I’ll also add: the move by Shell and others now to ‘green’ energy is 20 years behind when they could/should have done.

Put it this way, that money feeds through into grassroots sport. Without it, there won’t be the kids races, the basic coaching courses, Commissaire training, race equipment etc. The boring unglamorous stuff.

My experience of BC is they actually get in the way of grassroots sport, utility biking and health and well-being.
Thier only reason for being involved at grassroots is to have a funnel of a few hundred riders to whittle down into a couple of Olympians.

I’ll also add: the move by Shell and others now to ‘green’ energy is 20 years behind when they could/should have done.

I don’t think they’ve been complicit in the murder of any Nigerian activists recently, so it’s not all bad.

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.

Wait. You’re *check notes* “accelerating to net zero” by *checks notes* partnering with a fossil fuel company? pic.twitter.com/eLs05Z80Vc

— Emma Kennedy (@EmmaKennedy) October 10, 2022

@BritishCycling have made some strange decisions recently. "As a mark of respect to the Queen, don't ride your bike." "We're teaming up with a petrol company to promote cycling."

TBH, I'm glad I joined @WeAreCyclingUK instead.

— Ken Murray (@Ken_J_Murray) October 10, 2022

This @Shell_UKLtd ? https://t.co/8iPmvxc7eF This Shell, that fights against climate change action? https://t.co/hVkBEB9HQV What on Earth are you thinking?

— Matthew Todd ?? (@MrMatthewTodd) October 10, 2022

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”.

Pleased to premiere my new advert for @Shell in which I play CEO Ben Van Beurden repeatedly shitting out of his mouth. pic.twitter.com/obfQI59Uw3

— Joe Lycett (@joelycett) October 22, 2021

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.

Cancelling your British Cycling membership and wondering what to spend your savings on?https://t.co/SLEr8A73y9 pic.twitter.com/4HKTBFPDQK

— Roasting House coffee (@RoastingHouseUK) October 10, 2022

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%20Shell’s,branding%20at%20%2455%20million%20annually.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/green/amp/2022/09/23/shell-bp-exxon-seized-emails-reveal-deceptive-climate-tactics-and-greenwashing

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/09/28/bp-shell-climate-lobby-groups/amp/

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!