"Greenwashing, pure and simple" - fury as Shell UK sponsors British Cycling

levestane wrote:

 This said, Shell 

lobbying of government has continued oil dependancy.

Even now when we know that we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, the oile companies are spending more profits on exploring new oil fields, than developing alternative technolgies.

For all the talk of using the profits from oil now to fund a sustainable future tomorrow, it is not happening.  

Agreed, but it's not at all clear that alternative technologies will get us very far either.

That's not quite true.

Ørsted, one of the biggest players in renewable energy, used to be an oil and gas company (Danish Oil and Natural Gas - DONG - No sniggering at the back).

Rich_cb wrote:

That's not quite true. Ørsted, one of the biggest players in renewable energy, used to be an oil and gas company (Danish Oil and Natural Gas - DONG - No sniggering at the back).

That demonstrates that government majority control (Danish govt. owns 50.1%) can be a force for good.

Not really.

It demonstrates that one state owned oil company has successfully pivoted to renewables.

There are many state owned oil companies that are doing no such thing.

Rich_cb wrote:

Not really. It demonstrates that one state owned oil company has successfully pivoted to renewables. There are many state owned oil companies that are doing no such thing.

Spoilsport!

Exactly.

I've said much the same whenever Ineos are criticised in a similar manner.

for me its not so much that Shell are an oil company, I dont have an issue with Ineos sponsoring a pro tour team, just like Im not anti Total Direct Energie or have a problem with Repsol sponsoring Movistar. UAE & Bahrain its more to do with the regimes that I take issue with, not the oil part.

and thats similar with Shell, its not just about the oil, its about the company themselves, how do they operate, are they trying to make a better world or only a quick buck and just a quick google and theres alot of material from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and even Amnesty International, that make me think they arent the kind of organisation BC should be associated with.

That's fair enough. If the objection is based on corporate governance that's an entirely different matter.

I have similar reservations about Bahrain and UAE as well as Israel.

Sportswashing is far more of a problem than greenwashing IMO but still not as much of a problem as excessive portmanteauing.

It is very difficult indeed to not be complicit. This article gives some background.

I do drive a car occasionally, I don't fly, I do buy plastic but avoid it if I can. I've had two children (the worst thing you can do for the planet is have children). Most importantly though I've always voted Lib Dem in the hope that PR of some sort will be introduced and then I can vote Green with some chance of my views being represented in the government of this country. I'm afraid what other countries do is completely out of my control.

Unfortunately my efforts have come to nought as the people in power have control of the education system and the media and the two have combined to produce an electorate which will do as it's told. All that's left to me is to protest in which ever way I can and leaving British Cycling is one of those.

What a dumb comment, you can't boil it down to, if you don't live in a cave, you may as well do what you like.
It's not do terrible or be perfect. We can just try and do better.

Exactly. I don't drive or fly and buy my electricity from a renewables tarriff. Of course I'm complicit with plastics for everything from mudguards to food wrapping, but I try to minimise and look for alternatives where possible. The idea that you may as well not bother unless you can prove you never let oil in your life in any way is both defeatist and lazy.

The impact of our personal consumption is vanishingly small compared to that of globally significant corporations, though isn't it? This is an erroneous claim. Yes, we can make choices that reduce our personal consumption footprint, but these choices would be offset by the consumption and damage wreaked by Shell et al.

This train of thought seems to overlook the fact that Shell aren't just digging up fossil fuels for the fun of it.

They're selling them to each and every one of us.

The only reason these corporations do so much damage is because they act as aggregators for the damage done by every individual. You can't dismiss the effect of individual choice.

If we look at the growth of vegetarianism/veganism we can see the effect of aggregated consumer choice even when big corporations oppose the direction of travel.

A good point.  Yes Shell aren't doing this for fun.  That's a point in another sense though: they're making unimaginable amounts of money.  It isn't an artisan petroleum product crafting business.  ("Personally I go to the Shell shop and order Shell products for all my energy and plastics needs - including my packaging, the cover on my passport, the fuel for transporting those goods into this country..."  ) So whatever they say they'll do, it's unlikely to lead to them shrinking their business, reducing their dividends and putting their management team out of work.  And around large concentrations of money reality is not just warped but actively bent.

BTW I'm with Awavey on this one - I doubt that any big energy company could be remotely saintly but this particular one is an especially poor choice.  Shell have a well-documented history of some extremely unpalatable practices (e.g. see actions in Nigeria).

You can't dismiss (aggregated) individual choice.  But large existing companies (or industries as a whole) have a crucial advantage - they have disproportionate influence on individual politicians and governments!

Looking at history I'd say it's the same with the dominance of the private motor car.  Yes - on one view you could say we're here because people voted with their wallets.  They wanted "better" transport.  And when it appeared in the form of cars they saved up to buy them and even moved where they could better use them!  However to get there required a lot of pump-priming (effective subsidies for motoring - still ongoing as motorists don't pay for the total of all the costs of it), preparation (roads were not built for cars...) and promotion.  In that case I think you can see the substantial effect of individual choice by a rather small group of individuals!

We also have a couple of strong examples of areas / countries which have followed that path but at some stage along it then diverted some resources into other modes (e.g. The Netherlands again).  They're still "car-addicted" but are in a much better position to be flexible on that aspect should they want / need to.  (The Netherlands is not a "green examplar" in general - I'd be the last person to suggest that...)

chrisonatrike wrote:

Looking at history I'd say it's the same with the dominance of the private motor car.  Yes - on one view you could say we're here because people voted with their wallets.  They wanted "better" transport.  And when it appeared in the form of cars they saved up to buy them and even moved where they could better use them!  However to get there required a lot of pump-priming (effective subsidies for motoring - still ongoing as motorists don't pay for the total of all the costs of it), preparation (roads were not built for cars...) and promotion.  In that case I think you can see the substantial effect of individual choice by a rather small group of individuals!

We also have a couple of strong examples of areas / countries which have followed that path but at some stage along it then diverted some resources into other modes (e.g. The Netherlands again).  They're still "car-addicted" but are in a much better position to be flexible on that aspect should they want / need to.  (The Netherlands is not a "green examplar" in general - I'd be the last person to suggest that...)

The problem with "people voting with their wallets" for personal motor cars is that they've been denied information or even willfully misled by oil interests. It's plain to see in car adverts where they don't show the misery of waiting in traffic. If people were told about all the problems with lead additives, would they have been so quick to design cities for the (almost) exclusive use of motor vehicles?

(This is one of the core problems with free-market capitalism - the rich will have greater access to information and much greater influence over media to push particular narratives and thus influence consumers unfairly.)

Oh I guess Shell aren't so bad then..

We dont know they couldnt attract a better suitor because BC will never release all the details, or even tell us what the deal theyve signed with Shell really surmounts to.

However we do know, because they documented it, Shell werent the only bidder,or major company, in this contest.

But hey could have been worse,they could have picked a cryptocurrency partner instead... 😉

Awavey wrote:

But hey could have been worse,they could have picked a cryptocurrency partner instead... 😉

Or the VW Audi Group, although given how dangerous many of their drivers are around cyclists they would never be oblivious enough of this to sponser a cycling organisation, or even a major cycling event . . . . . . . . .

But its incredibly disappointing for a national federation to make that choice. Private teams that's their own choice whose money they take they only have to answer to themselves, BC represents over 165,000 members.

And BC said they had many high value companies vying for sponsorship opportunities, so to pick the one company who even a cursory background check carry alot of baggage with them. As one article I read described it whilst a bunch of other organisations are moving away from sponsorship from the likes of Shell or BP, why is BC running towards the fire ?

The worst part is for all the grief and backlash it's going to cause, it's likely not even to be that big a money deal for BC based on the amounts of sponsorship HSBC were providing, this doesnt deliver kind of next level funding for BC activities.