British Cycling has been accused on social media today of facilitating ‘greenwashing’ with hundreds of comments from members slamming its announcement of the UK subsidiary of multinational oil and gas giant Shell as its new sponsor through an eight-year deal that the national governing body claims will help accelerate its “path to net zero.”
It also says that the partnership, which begins this month and runs until the end of 2030 “will see a shared commitment to supporting Great Britain’s cyclists and para-cyclists through the sharing of world-class innovation and expertise,” as well as “helping more – and wider groups of – people to ride, including ways to make cycling more accessible for disabled people,” the latter through a new programme called ‘Limitless’.
Shell UK, which operates the country’s largest public network of electric vehicle (EV) charging points, says it will also support British Cycling’s aim to move towards a fleet made up entirely of EVs.
At global level, last month the company – which changed its name from Royal Dutch Shell – said that it planned to move into e-bikes and e-scooters, explaining that “our customers want our brand to move into micromobility even if we don’t have market share yet.”
But as road.cc’s sister website eBikeTips pointed out, a recent report claimed that Shell, which insists it is committed to achieving net zero by 2050, had told employees in an internal communication from 2020 to never “imply, suggest, or leave it open for possible misinterpretation that (net zero) is a Shell goal or target.”
> Oil giant Shell to make e-bikes as well as e-scooters – or at least their name will be on them
Speaking about the new partnership, British Cycling’s CEO, Brian Facer, said: “We’re looking forward to working alongside Shell UK over the rest of this decade to widen access to the sport, support our elite riders and help our organisation and sport take important steps towards net zero – things we know our members are incredibly passionate about.
“Within our new commercial programme, this partnership with Shell UK brings powerful support for cycling, will help us to improve and will make more people consider cycling and cyclists.”
David Bunch, Shell UK Country Chair, added: “We’re very proud to become an Official Partner to British Cycling. The partnership reflects the shared ambitions of Shell UK and British Cycling to get to net zero in the UK as well as encouraging low and zero-carbon forms of transport such as cycling and electric vehicles.
“Working together we can deliver real change for people right across the country, from different walks of life, and also apply Shell’s world-leading lubricant technology to support the Great Britain Cycling Team in their quest for gold at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.”
Like many other major energy companies, Shell has been diversifying its portfolio to include renewables, as well as working on improving the UK’s energy security, and it also says it is committed to helping the country achieve net zero.
But like most of its rivals, Shell plc has posted record profits since Russia invaded Ukraine in February – the figure of $11.5bn (£9.4bn) it announced for the second quarter of 2022 being more than double the $5.5bn (£4.5bn) it made in the comparable period last year.
What it terms “Renewables and energy solutions” made up just 6.3 per cent of its earnings for the quarter, with oil and gas accounting for the vast majority of its profits, resulting in the company, like its rivals, being accused of looking to cash in on the cost-of-living crisis as consumers face huge increases in their fuel bills.
Speaking in London last week at the Energy Intelligence Forum, the group’s chief executive, said that vulnerable consumers in Europe needed to be protected from rising prices, but added that in his view the answer lay in taxing energy companies’ profits rather than capping prices.
Referring to the current volatility in oil and gas prices, he said: “You cannot have a market that behaves in such a way … that is going to damage a significant part of society.
“One way or another there needs to be government intervention that somehow results in protecting the poorest.”
He added: “That probably may then mean that governments need to tax people in this room to pay for it.”
Following the announcement of the partnership at lunchtime today, a number of Twitter users expressed shock at the news, including the reference to net zero, such as this tweet.
Guys! Do you know what Shell does? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not net zero
— Bobby Bancroft (@bobby_bancroft) October 10, 2022
Some said that it would result in them cancelling their membership of British Cycling, with others adding that it vindicated them already having done that.
I’ve been meaning to cancel my membership for a while given recent bizarre decisions and luckily this Tweet reminded me to actually cancel. Membership cancellation request sent?
— ?♂️?Carlton??????♂️ (@carlton1512) October 10, 2022
Oh! That’s entirely validated my decision to cancel my membership and join @WeAreCyclingUK.
— Steve Precious (@StevePresh) October 10, 2022
One British Cycling member, a trained ride leader for the organisation’s Breeze women-only rides, said that the energy company “stand for everything we everyday cyclists don’t,” while another who has belonged to the organisation for more than a quarter of a century said that the sponsorship was “green washing for them [Shell UK], plain and simple.”
What? I know you need money but this is ridiculous. I am a trained BC #Breeze ride leader and I am never wearing anything branded Shell. They stand for everything we everyday cyclists don’t. They are the worlds 4th largest polluter. Shame on you. https://t.co/qjRH71BRrU
— Melanie Mack ???? ??♀️? ???????? (@melaniemackuk) October 10, 2022
As a long standing member of over 25 years, can I just say how disappointed I am in this decision. We face a climate crisis and @Shell_UKLtd are part of the problem, whilst cycling is part of the solution. This is green washing for them, plain and simple.
— Andy Powers (@andypowers) October 10, 2022
117 thoughts on ““Greenwashing, pure and simple” – fury as Shell UK sponsors British Cycling”
Give me a break. Do you want
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.
Christ on a bike, what do
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.
mike the bike wrote:
And so we continue as we were despite knowing for decades the harm we’re doing to ourselves
The UK’s net zero plan
The UK’s net zero plan involves the gradual reduction in the use of fossil fuels over the next 30+ years.
By 2050 we’ll (hopefully) be using a fraction of the fossil fuels we are now but we’ll still be using some.
Taking some of the profits from those fossil fuels and using them to support cycling doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.
We can’t simply stop using fossil fuels. Our society would entirely collapse.
Rich_cb wrote:
You repeat this so often I’m beginning to think that you must have significant amounts of money investmented in oil and gas exploration.
Anybody with half a brain knows we can’t just turn it all off today but you seem to be forever argueing against taking any steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Phrases like “We’re hopelessly dependent” isn’t going to help get anything done.
Citing 2050 as a target for so-called “net zero” (a disingenuous term itself) is not just too late, it’s not simply kicking the can down the street, it’s deliberately refusing to do anything and therefore inviting disasters far worse than are happening right now.
If I recall previous posts I
If I recall previous posts I suspect rich_cb is personally abstemious / virtuous – although maybe ideologically permissive? Or rather – optimistic that new technology will fix the problems with the previous techology. It is true we’ve managed to keep switching our way out of the current problems for some millenia. Unfortunately each time we iterate we have more people using more resources – we just switch our primary resource.
So it’s always been kicking the can down the road: apart from the occasional Malthus, Cobbet or Rachel Carson we haven’t been too troubled by thinking further ahead before.
I’ve never once argued
I’ve never once argued against reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
2050 is as early as it can possibly be done.
To get to net zero we need to decarbonise every car/lorry/train and plane.
We need to replace every single gas and oil central heating system.
We need to build multiple new nuclear reactors.
We need to build about 20x the renewable capacity we have now.
We need to devise and build from scratch a method of storing enough renewable energy to power the entire country for days at a time.
How long do you think that will realistically take?
I think 30 years is actually incredibly ambitious.
People who used to be deniers
People who used to be deniers are now delayers.
Why don’t you explain to the 33 million people affected by floods in Pakistan that it’s just not reasonable to act any faster?
Can you provide a link to a
Can you provide a link to a realistic plan for net zero in the UK significantly earlier than 2050?
My point is that you are
My point is that you are acting as a delayer – emphasising all the difficulties and delays not the urgency of the goal.
Global heating is happening faster than expected by models, not more slowly. 2050 is likely to be too late to avoid catastrophic consequences, and the UK govt is not even on track for 2050.
On the topic of Shell, their plans and budgets will not result in them reaching net zero by 2050, and they are obliged to include a caveat in their greenwashing materials to say that.
Oil companies will be delighted by members of the public emphasising just how difficult all this is, and how slowly we must go. They can keep making pots of cash, with the external costs falling on all of us.
My point is that 2050 is the
My point is that 2050 is the earliest we can realistically hit net zero in the UK.
I’m backing the fastest possible timeframe.
Unless you have a realistic plan to get to net zero sooner how can I possibly be ‘a delayer’?
Have you got a link to any plan to get the UK to net zero substantially before 2050?
It’s not my job to do your
It’s not my job to do your research for you – go and find your own links and plans.
We need to act with urgency and drive, reaching net zero as soon as possible. Both the UK govt and Shell have set 2050 as their target, but neither is on track to achieve the target.
Delayers emphasise all the difficulties in order to deflect from the responsibility of govts and oil companies, and prevent change – and that’s what you are doing.
I’m not asking you to do my
I’m not asking you to do my research, I’m asking you to do your own.
I’ve read up extensively on the 2050 plan, I’m aware of the challenges to overcome and I’ve pointed them out on this forum many times. That doesn’t diminish my commitment to hit net zero in the shortest possible timeframe. Which is, IMO, 2050.
If advocating for net zero by 2050 makes me ‘a delayer’ then what’s the alternative target? Where’s the plan to hit the alternative target?
Without either of those your objections are rather facile.
(1) No, you were asking me to
(1) No, you were asking me to do your research for you and I am not your researcher.
I highly doubt you are the expert on decarbonisation timetables you claim to be.
(2) You are in any event pursuing a straw man argument by putting words into my mouth and arguing against them. Your original comment included 8 [EIGHT] separate lines emphasising the difficulties and delays – from which I correctly concluded that you are a delayer.
(3) I’ll help you out by linking to the York & North Yorkshire region’s Routemap to Carbon Negative. The target is:
If York & N Yorkshire can do it, then so can other regions.
(4) Most of the steps to decarbonisation don’t need new technologies, it’s a case of using existing technologies. Then it just depends how fast you go, which is a question of ambition and drive.
Your objections that it is completely impossible to do any of this before 2050 are rather facile, because it is simply not true.
(5) You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
Instead of bemoaning the difficulties involved decarbonisation, focus on the benefits.
Instead of focusing on how hard it might be, take a look at the consequences of failing to decarbonise. Cutting Emissions Will Hit Growth, But Costs Of Inaction Much Higher, Says IMF.
On the other hand, I am
On the other hand, I am willing to help you with your research to the extent of providing a link to my report on York & North Yorkshire’s Routemap to Carbon Negative.
The goals are:
HarrogateSpa wrote:
That sounds like a better timeframe.
What really concerns me is that we get short-term thinking politicians putting in plans that they know they’ll never be held accountable for, but as long as they get their cut of the fossil fuel pie, they really don’t care.
That is an interesting report
That is an interesting report.
Thank you for the link.
It seems to rely on, amongst other things, the successful deployment of large scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Which AFAIK has never been deployed economically at that scale. It proposes to install this at Drax’s biomass plant which already produces some of the most expensive electricity in the country. Adding CCS would increase the cost even further rendering the plant non viable.
It also depends on adding a “first of its kind” hydrogen turbine as well as tens of thousands of domestic hydrogen boilers (no commercially available models AFAIK).
Given that the UK grid won’t be decarbonised until 2035 where will all the hydrogen come from?
As for reducing car use by nearly half in 7 years, has such a reduction ever been achieved in a similar setting over that timescale?
It’s a commendable target to set but it relies extensively on technology that doesn’t exist yet and behavioural changes that appear completely unrealistic so I don’t think there’s any chance of achieving it by 2034.
2050 on the other hand…
Drax’s involvement will have
Drax’s involvement will have to be stripped out of the Routemap because:
Reducing car use is not impossible at all, as we saw in the pandemic. It *does* require City of York and N Yorkshire County Council to tell people about it – which so far they have not done – explain why it is necessary, and start putting a plan in place to achieve it.
So this is about political will and implementing a plan, not technological fixes.
2050 is your preference, it’s not that earlier is impossible.
And you’re still looking through the wrong end of the telescope: how hard is it to decarbonise vs what are the consequences of not decarbonising quickly.
I don’t think you’re really grasped what a pickle we are in and how far global heating has gone already.
If you’re eliminating Drax
If you’re eliminating Drax from the equation (I happen to agree that it is not sustainable or carbon neutral) then you’ll still be using fossil fuels for electricity at that point so your target has already slipped before we’ve even started.
You didn’t answer the questions about hydrogen. Where is it going to come from?
We produce virtually no green hydrogen now. In 12 years we’ll have enough to heat a huge number of homes and run power plants?
That seems fanciful at best.
In order to actually achieve net zero it has to be acceptable to the population. If you try to force change too quickly then all you’ll do is ossify opposition to it and never achieve your aims.
I don’t think it’s politically achievable to reduce car use in half over 7 years. The pandemic isn’t a proof of concept. In order to achieve that drop in traffic half the economy was shut down and people were legally confined to their homes. That’s obviously not sustainable for a long term plan.
I’ll ask again, has any comparable area ever achieved a similar drop in car traffic over the timeframe in question?
I’m well aware of the problems associated with climate change. That’s why I’m so keen for net zero to be achieved. In order to achieve it we need plans that are both technically and politically achievable.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong but I think your preferred plan fails both those tests.
Carbon capture – I’m kind of
Carbon capture – I’m kind of with you there. In my imperfect understanding currently we’re burning fossil fuels for energy and releasing CO2 then trying to catch that CO2 again – in an endothermic process. Obviously we can get some of the power required from other sources but looked at energetically it does seem rather batty.
A bit like addicts, the really obvious solution of “just stop using” (or rather “start using less”) seems to be humanly / socially / politically impossible. All we can do is choose a different drug?
Yes.
Yes.
Not really an option unless there are no alternatives.
Rich_cb wrote:
If obviously we change nothing in our lifestyles, if we replace everything one to one, than of course it takes ages. But that is actually totally impossible because everything will come crashing down around us long before. Take your nuclear reactors for instance, where do you put them when rivers run dry like this year and get far too hot to cool them down. (And please don’t come out with any new, not existing technology, or even fusion or whatever)
You argue against reducing our dependence on energy. That equals arguing for fossil fuels, for a long time to come.
I’m not arguing against
I’m not arguing against reducing energy use either.
The UK roadmap to net zero involves an enormous reduction in energy use.
It has a target date of 2050.
Is that ‘rapid’ enough for you?
If not, please provide links to alternative feasible plans.
I know nothing about the siting of nuclear power plants. Sizewell B and Wyllfa Newydd are both approved sites AFAIK so I’d probably go with them to begin with using the same technology as Hinckley C. Maybe an SMR or two at Trawsfynydd but that might break your new technology ban.
From just a quick search, I
From just a quick search, I found GreenPeace’s plan for achieving Net Zero before 2050: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/0861_GP_ClimateEmergency_Report_Pages.pdf
Their target is 2045 and they
Their target is 2045 and they fudge over how to decarbonise heavy industry, which will be the hardest part and the last thing to do.
Much of that report is already being implemented but they seem to ignore nuclear which is a bit short sighted IMO.
If 2050 is ‘kicking the can down the road’ what is 2045?
If even Greenpeace are setting targets 20+ years in the future maybe it’s not as easy to achieve quickly as many on this thread are making out?
Rich_cb wrote:
My favoured method would involve a certain amount of eating the rich and abandoning capitalism, but I can see how that might not be popular in some circles. It would get the job done, though.
“We can’t simply stop using
“We can’t simply stop using fossil fuels. Our society would entirely collapse.”
You and @mike the bike might have had a point 50 years ago. But since then nothing has happened and so we are now in a situation where we have to “simply stop using fossil fuels”, one way or the other. Either through rapid actions now, or because civilisation will collapse around us in a pretty short while.
It always beats me how people like you are apparently willing to loose everything that’s good about civilisation rather than give up the nasty stuff now…
The ‘nasty stuff’ currently
The ‘nasty stuff’ currently provides 80% of our energy needs.
How exactly do you propose maintaining what’s ‘good about civilisation’ without that?
Rapid transition is completely impossible.
Reducing fossil fuel use by 90% or so over the next three decades is probably just about possible.
I’m always in favour of the pragmatic and possible over the idealistic and impossible.
“Rapid transition is
“Rapid transition is completely impossible.”
As I said before, this would have washed fifty years ago. Now it doesn’t.
If it’s possible then please
If it’s possible then please provide some links that explain how it is possible.
80% of all our energy needs are met by fossil fuels.
What are the rapidly available alternatives?
https://negawatt.org/IMG/pdf
You argue from our current lifestyles, which determine our energy “needs” Obviously they’re not sustainable. So we have to change them. That could happen very fast. Tomorrow, 75% of car trips could be done by other means. Other stuff would take a little longer, but in a few years it could be done.
But you’d have to take your blinkers off to see that very little of the stuff we think indispensable really is so.
There’s a difference between
There’s a difference between what is possible and what is politically achievable.
If it’s not politically achievable then it’s not actually going to happen.
You have still refused to provide any evidence for your ‘rapid’ transition which makes me think your objections to the 2050 target are slightly fanciful.
“what is politically
“what is politically achievable” Against the bankrolling of governments, parliaments etc. first and foremost by the fossil fuel majors, you mean? Quite right, very little. Which is why I’m very much in favour of movements such as Insulate Britain, XR and the like.
You’ve still failed to
You’ve still failed to provide anything that even resembles a plan to achieve net zero.
You just seem to think it should be done ‘rapidly’.
To be politically achievable a plan has to actually exist.
In a democracy you need to deliver change in a way that’s acceptable to the majority of the electorate or the change will never happen.
IB, XR etc alienate huge swathes of the electorate making that majority harder to achieve.
In case you’re genuinely
In case you’re genuinely interested in these questions, I suggest you do some reading on climate change, capitalism and democracy.
George Monbiot is a good start: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/imprisoned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state
Still avoiding the question.
Still avoiding the question.
I think I’m done with this discussion.
Good luck with your ‘rapid’ transition.
Rich_cb wrote:
2050 is definitely kicking the can down the road. I’m not conviced that the tories will even keep to that after seeing their attitude towards fracking and increasing oil drilling. We desperately need to stop poisoning the air with our reliance on fossil fuels, so society is likely to collapse if we continue kicking the can down the road and parts of the planet become inhabitable. The thing is that oil companies are making their profits and don’t care if crops fail due to “unusual” weather events. Without effective leadership, modern civilisation is going to experience major upheaval.
Fracking and drilling for oil
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.
You: ‘Fracking and drilling
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
If it doesn’t increase the amount of fossil fuel used then how can it worsen climate change?
That is exactly the point –
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:
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
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:
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
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:
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
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:
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
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
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:
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
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:
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
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:
We’re so screwed
Oh yes. Time to buy up beach
Oh yes. Time to buy up beach front property in Greenland I think.
There’s the reality, yes …
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:
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
‘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
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
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:
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
I suspect that’s exactly what it is, yes. Like I say, it’s not like BC hasn’t got form.
alexuk wrote:
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
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.
With decisions this good, I’m
With decisions this good, I’m wondering if BC is being run by Thick Lizzie and Kamikaze Kwarteng. This is right up there with removing the cap on bankers bonuses, reducing taxes on rich people, increasing interest rates and cutting social services and benefits. Oh, and crashing the pound.
Staggeringly awful and so out of touch with what cyclists want. I am so glad I’m a member of Cycling UK that remains independent of such grubby money.
You can be sure of Shell..
You can be sure of Shell…sponsorship causing a backlash, surprised no ones used that ad line yet 🙂 . It strikes me as particularly tone deaf on the part of BC, but lets not pretend HSBC were exactly squeeky clean themselves, I assume Shell are the replacement but Ive not actually seen that stated anywhere.
Also the timing, just before the track WCs, this thing must have been planned for months and yet it all feels a bit rushed, and not a single counter attempt at the bad publicity to immediately publish, not even a selected quote from BC riders saying how wonderful it is.
and well I suppose Team Belgium are sponsored by Esso.
I’m curious how it is even
I’m curious how it is even feasible to spend the petroleum profits to achieve “net zero”. For every petrol-pound spent towards the target, you’d need to spend another green-pound just to carbon-offset the petrol-pound, plus one more to actually move forward.
Sriracha wrote:
If the petroleum profits were being spent on building renewable generation, that would be ideal. But even now, more profits are being didn’t on expiration/ exploration of more oil. So there is no evidence of that.
Do British competition
Do British competition cyclists have to be members (or members of an affiliated club) to race?
In simple terms, yes. I
In simple terms, yes. I myself have to have a UCI affiliated license to work in cycling as a DS and mechanic, because I hold a UK passport and am resident in the UK, my only option currently is British Cycling and there are no others who will get UCI status while BC are there.
Some of the bigger “stars” of the sport may have resident status elsewhere and benefit from that, but they are the few. If you want to race in the UK, you pretty much are forced to have a BC license.
Yes, and by the way will you
Yes, and by the way will you be cycling to those races or using oil based products to get there?
Edison worked on light bulbs
Edison worked on light bulbs by oil lamp. It is reasonable and important to want to change the world you are forced to participate in. If there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels for journeys that is not the fault of the person making the journey but the infrastructure forcing that choice.
If we want change we
If we want change we certainly need to make alternatives much easier / more salient at the same time as we make the choice we want to discourage harder, yes.
Isn’t part of the issue here that making a journey is a choice governed by a whole series of “imperatives”? Those range from “Tyrannosaurus / Tidal wave – run!” / “My child is bleeding – get us to the hospital” via “The nearest shop is 7 miles away” to “There isn’t a decent school in this town” / “I had to get away somewhere sunny this autumn” / “It’s raining, I’ll take the car”.
The apparent problem is that the power of even individual human to affect the world now vastly outstrips our circles of concern, attention spans or indeed design life. We’ve moved outside many of our species’ previous regulatory feedback loops. So we can quickly make our present (or our neighbours’) very difficult – and more so with our more distant future. And we have more humans than ever before.
I think the problem is both that we have innate biases towards “more, better, quicker” and cultural patterns around “the march of progess”. Given we mostly measure “better” in material terms (we’ve still to standardise our hedonometers) changes from “more consumption” are “bad” (cf. Liz Truss recently). Also it’s more difficult because it’s not just us – we’re also biased to keep up with the Joneses. Maybe they’ve got a warmer house / are still driving on rainy days? Add in the fact that our (Western) political cycles are very short and we have an issue.
Big companies like Shell have
Big companies like Shell have the resources to change the structures within which individuals live their lives. They should be held to account for pretending to do so but not doing so.
Individuals should do their best, but ultimately we have to live in the world as it is now.
The idea that we’ll be net
The idea that we’ll be net zero by 2050 is itself ludicrous. By 2050 we’ll need to have solved this as fossils will be in very short supply and the sea will be around our ears. We shouldn’t be aspiring to achieve what will happen if we do nothing.
Between Ineos and Shell British cycling has made itself an effective front for greenwashing and it makes them look like every other grubby little “official body” and little more than reputation launderers.
What role does Ineos play in
What role does Ineos play in British cycling?
Given the lower case ‘c’ on
Given the lower case ‘c’ on cycling, I am assuming it was a reference to cycling in Britain rather than the organisation called British Cycling. In which case, Britains most successful and famous UCI World Tour Team being owned and operated by Ineos would fit into that category.
I am not aware of Ineos having direct involvement with British Cycling.
Confused? You will be.
Yep it’s just ive been seeing
Yep it’s just ive been seeing alot of people cite Ineos as being involved in upper case C British Cycling and that Shell are just a continuation of BCs poor involvement in petro chemicals, and I’m thinking wow Skys/BC branding sure borrowed itself deep in peoples consciousness , that 6 years of HSBC hasnt broken.
So I cancelled my BC direct
So I cancelled my BC direct debit after their “guidance” that I shouldn’t go for a bike ride during somebody’s funeral. If I hadn’t I would be doing over this.
I joined BC for the insurance, but also because at the time Chris Boardman was still there and involved in campaigning for better safety/ infrastructure for recreational cyclists.
Now they do no campaigning I am aware of and seem to be hell bent on tarnishing the reputation of cyclists with every announcment.
Cycling UK membership offers similar insurance benefits and will save me £40 a year for my family.
My renewal is coming up in a
My renewal is coming up in a month or so. So I’ve taken out a Cycling UK membership now, for pretty much the same reasons. The Shell link up just looks awful, even if they think they’re doing it for positive reasons (*cough cough money cough*) their PR Dept seem to be hell bent on driving them into the ground. I can only assume that they’re actually owned by Rees-Mogg’s Hedge Fund or something….
This has just strengthened
This has just strengthened what I was already feeling, that continuing my BC membership wasn’t for me. Not being a competitive racer at the moment, the only worthwhile benefit I felt I received was the insurance cover and to be honest I can get that significantly cheaper elsewhere. Decision made – I won’t be renewing when it falls due this month.
How hard up must they be?
How hard up must they be? Quite a lot if they need to accept sponsorship from Shell……
They must have thought it through – and still decided to accept…..
I’m sure Cycling UK will see an increase in memberships.
Well BC have just announced
Well BC have just announced the AGM for next month, bound to be a more exciting event now than they anticipated, and in so doing have published the accounts as part of the document pack to go with it.
Which is a very interesting read, the headline is I guess they made roughly a half million pound loss on revenue of 28.7million, half of that revenue income comes from grants from SportEngland/UK sport.
But I’ll let the journalists go to work on it and unpick the detail.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
— Velophaart_95And if you join today, you’ll get a decent light free! https://www.cyclinguk.org/billboard/join-cycling-uk-2?fbclid=IwAR23ZPnpkLNcA7mhzWHNLcrPG-G0cmZEbqwQOmfjOFJSqNwgxxTVwm4fSHA
Money talks!
Money talks!
I don’t really have a choice.
I don’t really have a choice. I am nearly finished with getting my full coaching certification and I do race, so I’ll stay with BC. Cycling UK isn’t an option for me. It’s disappointing in a way that BC feels the need to partner with Shell. But then you just need to look at who sponsors some of the big race teams for instance and ask yourself where the money usually comes from. The BC/Shell deal may be unpalatable, but it’s hardly a first for cycling.
But its incredibly
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.
They’re not mutually
They’re not mutually exclusive, as a coach you won’t pay for BC membership, put the money towards Cycling UK membership as well.
I’m not mad at BC for taking
I’m not mad at BC for taking on Shell as a sponsor, there aren’t many companies large enough to support the top heavy bloat of BC.
Morally, again I’m sort of okay with it, while I’m firmly against global capitalism, the world refuses to stop or even change these vampire like firms, so, I’ll take any scraps they deem to throw in our direction if it benefits us. Better Shell’s earth sucking money than none.
..And for all we know, there might well be people within Shell with good intentions to increase cycling within the UK.. Jaguar Land Rover sponsored Sky and while they make huge unncessercary fuel guzzling lumps of extravagance, they certainly did some positive promotion as sponsors and legacy, their factories also have active schemes to promote local cycling and cycling to work, showers etc.. It’d be better to be at the top of the mountain and make moral decisions, but frankly as cyclists in the UK.. we seem to be very far from that vista.
Shell-shocked?
Shell-shocked?
There has to be something in
There has to be something in it for both parties to the union. For BC not to be able to attract a better suitor implies that BC is not much of a catch, which says something about the image of cycling.
We dont know they couldnt
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:
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 . . . . . . . . .
Interesting the vitriol
Interesting the vitriol against Shell, but if you drive a car (even an EV), heat your home with anything other than wood, take a flight somewhere, or buy plastics then you are complicit in their guilt.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I’ve said much the same whenever Ineos are criticised in a similar manner.
for me its not so much that
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
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
It is very difficult indeed to not be complicit. This article gives some background.
I do drive a car occasionally
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
Oh I guess Shell aren’t so bad then..
Lots of mentions for 2050. I
Lots of mentions for 2050. I do not own a car; I do ride a bike. And, aged 62, I am more than happy to promise you whatever you want, wish or hope for come 2050.
Incredibly dumb decision by
Incredibly dumb decision by BC execs, totally out of touch, a worst choice of industry partner is hard to imagine. Whatever your views on the nuisance or necessity of oil, of all the companies to be associated with cycling, this one should have been laughed out of the secret board meeting. A more perfect demonstration of greed and group think is hard to imagine. FFS BC start running this CYCLING organisation with some empathy to your members. ASK THEM what they think, you could have/should have given members a simple poll online ‘we’re considering sponsorship from 1) a big cycling brand/retailer 2) a health food chain 3) a big health insurance company 4) King flipping rich Charles III or 5) An oil company with a stinking reputation. Of 165,000 members, would big oil have got 1000 votes???
It is insightful to look at
It is insightful to look at our ecological footprints as individuals
https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en
I’m scoring 2.1 Earths, i.e., twice the resource use (economic activity) of sustainability. BC being sponsored by Shell is not a good look, but Shell are only there because folk consume their wares. This said, Shell marketing has socially engineered us to ‘want’ their products.
levestane wrote:
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
Agreed, but it’s not at all clear that alternative technologies will get us very far either.
That’s not quite true.
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 demonstrates that government majority control (Danish govt. owns 50.1%) can be a force for good.
Not really.
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:
Spoilsport!
Shell supporting Cycling?
Shell supporting Cycling? They don’t really like bicycles though, nothing with less than 4 wheels is allowed into their London HQ loading bay, they hate bicycles and this is 100% green-washing.