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

You: 'Fracking and drilling for oil in the UK are not incompatible with the ambition for net zero.'

IPCC and IEA: Fossil fuel projects must be closed down not expanded if we are to have any hope of staying within 1.5C.

If it doesn't increase the amount of fossil fuel used then how can it worsen climate change?

That is exactly the point - it involves new reserves of fossil fuels when we know we can't burn existing reserves.

Committed emissions from existing projects are 936bn tonnes. To have a 50% chance of remaining within 1.5C, 500bn tonnes is the most we can emit. Therefore over 40% of current reserves must be left in the ground.

New licences for oil and gas wells and fracking are madness, and guaranteed to wreck the climate further.

Rich_cb wrote:

Fracking and drilling for oil in the UK are not incompatible with the ambition for net zero. Were going to be using fossil fuels for at least the next 30 years. Why not use our domestic supplies rather than import them? If you think net zero can be achieved significantly before 2050 I think you've underestimated the enormity of the task. Fossil fuels are embedded into every aspect of our society. Ending our reliance on them within one generation is going to require a herculean effort. Aiming for 2050 is not 'kicking the can down the road' it's moving as fast as possible.

Well, we're going to disagree on this.

I severely doubt that this government even wants to reduce fossil fuel use when there's undisclosed meetings with Saudi oil firms going on: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/11/kwasi-kwarteng-secret-meetings-with-saudi-oil-firms-revealed-by-foi

I can imagine people in 2050 making the same argument as to why 2080 is a sensible target.

Look at the laws already passed and the projects already approved and funded.

New ICE cars banned 2030.
Gas boilers banned in new builds from 2025.
Massive expansion in offshore wind.
Gas grid upgraded to accept gas/hydrogen blend from 2023.

Those four steps alone will drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and there are myriad other schemes in place.

Rich_cb wrote:

Look at the laws already passed and the projects already approved and funded. New ICE cars banned 2030. Gas boilers banned in new builds from 2025. Massive expansion in offshore wind. Gas grid upgraded to accept gas/hydrogen blend from 2023. Those four steps alone will drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and there are myriad other schemes in place.

All of those are at least 10-20 years too late. We most definitely are not moving as quickly as possible.

Just seen this example of how our government is clearly acting in bad faith towards moving away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/10/ministers-hope-to-ban-solar-projects-from-most-english-farms

Truss has already made her intentions known when she described green campaigners as part of the anti-growth enemies.

We already import nearly half of all the food we eat.

Is it a good idea to increase that percentage even further? What is the carbon cost of importing food?

Let's cover every warehouse roof in solar before we decrease our food security even further.

EVs and offshore wind were in their infancy 20 years ago. I don't think it's reasonable to say we should have expanded them further then.

Regardless we can't change the past. Where we are now I think 2050 is the earliest we can realistically hit net zero. Unless you have seen an achievable plan to get there sooner?

Rich_cb wrote:

We already import nearly half of all the food we eat. Is it a good idea to increase that percentage even further? What is the carbon cost of importing food? Let's cover every warehouse roof in solar before we decrease our food security even further. EVs and offshore wind were in their infancy 20 years ago. I don't think it's reasonable to say we should have expanded them further then. Regardless we can't change the past. Where we are now I think 2050 is the earliest we can realistically hit net zero. Unless you have seen an achievable plan to get there sooner?

The proposed ban on UK solar panels is not just for the quality agricultural farmland, but also farmland that isn't suitable for growing crops. EVs are a distraction from our problems and until the batteries can be successfully recycled, they're going to cause even more poisonous waste.

"We can't change the past", but the environmental concerns have been well known and publicised during all the bad decisions of the past and we're still following the same path with just token gestures of maybe phasing out gas boilers (but only in new builds and only in a couple of years time).

The UK is merely re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic at this stage, and you seem to think that's going to help us against the very visible iceberg of climate catastrophes.

Just because you can't grow crops doesn't mean you can't grow any food.

An EV produces between 12 and 20 tonnes less CO2 over its life than an ICE alternative. Still not ideal but a very good piece of transitional technology.

If we're going too slowly then what is a credible plan to go faster?

You can't really criticise the current plan without having an alternative.

Rich_cb wrote:

Just because you can't grow crops doesn't mean you can't grow any food. An EV produces between 12 and 20 tonnes less CO2 over its life than an ICE alternative. Still not ideal but a very good piece of transitional technology. If we're going too slowly then what is a credible plan to go faster? You can't really criticise the current plan without having an alternative.

First off, we should have nationalised the energy companies and public transport companies. Drastically reduce the amount of polluting car journeys by providing a cost effective alternative using public transport and ACTUALLY build decent infrastructure to encourage active travel. Stop the fuel duty freeze on fossil fuels and begin taxing companies to penalise them for the external costs that they push onto everyone (e.g. Shell sells lots of petrol and don't end up having to pay for healthcare for those affected by that type of air pollution). Implement the ICE bans and gas boilers for new builds immediately and instead heavily subsidise home insulation, solar panels and heat pumps. Also, mandate solar panels on all new builds. Encourage firms with tax incentives to allow employees to work from home where possible and also bring in heavy tax penalties for providing company car parking spaces whether used by employees or customers.

On top of all that, it goes without saying that it is sheer lunacy (profit driven) to continue searching for yet more oil to pump out of the ground and burn, so an immediate ban on any UK involvement in fracking or oil exploration.

Besides which, it is entirely reasonable to criticise any plan without needing to have a complete ready-to-go solution. It's like saying that you can't criticise a car driver for hitting you until all cyclists obey all the rules.

Also, moving over to proportional representation would make it easier to implement unpopular greening: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/why-countries-run-or-walk-toward-a-fossil-free-world/

That's all very commendable but there simply aren't economical alternatives to ICE cars and gas boilers for the vast majority of people right now.

A party proposing immediate bans would never get elected.

Pragmatism is the only way to achieve net zero. If it becomes a partisan issue we'll never get there. Imposing hardship on huge swathes of the population is a sure fire way to bake in opposition to net zero and render it unachievable over any timescale.

Part of that pragmatism is realising that, as long as we are continuing to use fossil fuels, which we would even under your plan, it makes no sense to import it (especially from unfriendly regimes) when the profit and tax could instead flow to the UK and enable us to fund all those nationalisations you have planned.

Rich_cb wrote:

That's all very commendable but there simply aren't economical alternatives to ICE cars and gas boilers for the vast majority of people right now. A party proposing immediate bans would never get elected. Pragmatism is the only way to achieve net zero. If it becomes a partisan issue we'll never get there. Imposing hardship on huge swathes of the population is a sure fire way to bake in opposition to net zero and render it unachievable over any timescale. Part of that pragmatism is realising that, as long as we are continuing to use fossil fuels, which we would even under your plan, it makes no sense to import it (especially from unfriendly regimes) when the profit and tax could instead flow to the UK and enable us to fund all those nationalisations you have planned.

To avoid a big partisan backlash, proportional representation can dilute the effects against single parties: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/why-countries-run-or-walk-toward-a-fossil-free-world/

I really don't see how it's pragmatic to keep looking for oil when it's clearly going to result in a lot of people dying and loss of habitats in the long run. The reason that we dont have economical alternatives is that we've been heading in totally the wrong direction and are refusing to turn around and in some instances not even reduce speed.

Were going to keep using oil and gas for the next 30 years.

All UK exploration does is increase UK employment and UK tax revenue.

It will also be marginally better from a CO2 point of view as we won't be importing from Australia or other such far flung places with all the associated transport and storage costs.

An apt analogy for the UK's trajectory is an oil tanker. We can change course but we can't do it quickly.

If we try to change course too quickly the outcome will be much worse than accepting the timescale of 2050.

Rich_cb wrote:

Were going to keep using oil and gas for the next 30 years. All UK exploration does is increase UK employment and UK tax revenue. It will also be marginally better from a CO2 point of view as we won't be importing from Australia or other such far flung places with all the associated transport and storage costs. An apt analogy for the UK's trajectory is an oil tanker. We can change course but we can't do it quickly. If we try to change course too quickly the outcome will be much worse than accepting the timescale of 2050.

The politicians are deliberately dragging their feet and we're not even going to make that 2050 target. There's always excuses used to avoid doing the right thing.

The UK's trajectory is an oil tanker, but although there's some talk of maybe turning it a couple of degrees, we're still heading in the wrong direction. What's needed it to jettison as many lifeboats as possible to head in the right direction so that when the oil tanker inevitably crashes, there'll be less people on it to rescue.

We may not hit the 2050 target, tis ever this with targets but we're making the changes that need to be made.

I've not seen a realistic timescale that gets us to net zero much before 2050.

Harrogate Spa's is entirely unachievable as it relies on quantities of green hydrogen being available that absolutely nobody is predicting as possible.

All major organisations have set out 2050 as the target, we're (just about) on course for that but it will take astute politicians to get us there. I fear Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and the like are actually making the political process harder and, ironically, reducing our chances of meeting that 2050 deadline.

Rich_cb wrote:

it will take astute politicians to get us there

We're so screwed

Oh yes. Time to buy up beach front property in Greenland I think.

If we continue operate in the same ways we inherited we won't get to any of the worlds we aspire to (exemption for the middle-aged and over; we may well die before credit runs short).

Anyway I'm not hugely troubled by this, not being a cycle racing fan.  As others have said cycle racing doesn't seem hugely cleaner than motor racing, although probably better than football simply for being a smaller niche.  It seems like the biggest issue here is bad PR, but maybe the money will fix that?  As others have said cycling as a sport is a pretty wasteful affair.  Can't think of many international sports that wouldn't be though.  Maybe e-gaming has a low relative harm - after all even chess players have computers now?

mike the bike wrote:

Christ on a bike, what do these moaners want?  We need companies like Shell to keep the fires burning and the factories rolling and we shall need them for years as we wind down the production of nasties.  The alternative - a complete halt to fossil fuels - would lead to unimaginable hardship, millions of deaths and financial ruin for most countries.

Let's deal with the world we inherited, not the one we aspire to.

Week what I want is to see some evidence of winding down the exploration of fossil fuels, rather than keeping the "fires burning" when you're boys it's on fire, you don't bring more coal in and throw it in the fireplace.

'a complete halt to fossil fuels' is a straw man argument.

People want to see fossil fuels phased out as a matter of urgency, in line with the best climate science.

What we get from Shell is a lot of greenwashing while continuing to find search for new oil and gas fields that we know we can't open up if we want to retain a habitable planet.

There's something to be said for engaging with oil companies & the like - you can't expect to influence or effect change if you simply ignore them. Of course they have to be engaged in it too & not just using it as a cynical greenwashing opportunity.  Jury's out (I have my suspicions & hope to be proved wrong).  

It's a, shall we say, "brave" move optically from BC though & you'd hope that they gave it some real thought rather than just sticking their head in the sand.  Then again, there's form with Ineos.  HSBC were hardly pure as the driven snow either (drug money you say? this way sir....).   It's hardly anything new.

out of all the oil companies to pick though, Shell  are probably the worst for all kinds of reasons, as I say I think its tone deaf by BC,  you could have released this news on April 1st and everyone would have thought it a complete joke, thats how out of synch it is.

I think the backlash will grow bigger

Clem Fandango wrote:

There's something to be said for engaging with oil companies & the like - you can't expect to influence or effect change if you simply ignore them.

Isn't this the opposite though? Shell will have a lot of influence over British Cycling (e.g. "change that or we pull our sponsorship") and it's not as though oil companies haven't used their influence nefariously in the past.

I suspect that's exactly what it is, yes. Like I say, it's not like BC hasn't got form.

alexuk wrote:

Give me a break. Do you want the money or not, really? would you rather Shell gave NOTHING to the cause? ...these things are always a step in the right direction, you can't expect massive change so rapidly. Kudos for finding a sponsor, I'm glad Shell will be involved. I've been impressed with their new electric charge points at garages, and that they are making an effort, more than can be said for other petro-chemical companies. 

What cause? British Cycling's only cause is winning bike races. They are not motivated to improve the lot of regular cyclists.

From 2010-18, Shell spent 1.3% of its capital budget on low-carbon investments.

Shell is obliged to add a cautionary note to its PR materials: 'It is important to note that...Shell's operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell's Net Zero Emissions target.'

That tells you that the PR is just greenwash.