British Cycling and Shell

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Dark-Cloud 12 Oct 2022

Well, after the debacle of the Queens funeral and the hash of a communication over not cycling BC have gone one step further in alienating their membership and decided to partner with Shell, helping to accelerate BC's step to net zero apparently?

That's my membership cancelled, been a racing member for 10 years and a non competitive member for another 10 purely for insurance. Cycling UK (CTC) are going to be welcoming a lot of members over the next few weeks i think.

11
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

Sport, whether at an elite level or grass routes level, needs investment.

Society, whether we like it or not, requires fossil fuels.

Personally as a cyclists I don’t see the issue. I imagine Shell have been relatively generous and have far deeper pockets than most.

36
 Neil Williams 12 Oct 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

I originally thought this was the CTC* and was going to criticise it, but isn't it wholly in kilter with what "sport cyclists" will mostly do?  That is, put their bike in/on their car and go for a ride for that purpose?  Whereas the CTC are more aligned with wider cycling including where it avoids, rather than causing, the use of a motor vehicle?

(I know that's not the reason)

* They were VERY stupid to rename themselves as they did - it is far too easy to confuse the two now.  Sure, CTC was an old fashioned and not wholly inclusive name, but they could surely have done better to differentiate it, e.g. "Cyclists UK" or something.

Post edited at 09:38
4
In reply to Neil Williams:

Well let’s put it this way..

My brand new Ribble Ultra SL R is arriving this week (timings to be confirmed) which was manufactured in the Far East and shipped over to the UK (I could have chosen to buy a second hand bike, but decided to get a new one).

If it arrives on time, I’ll pull on my Lycra (derived from oil) and put it though it’s paces this weekend. I’ll probably stop for a coffee during the ride (imported from South America? and brewed using non renewable electricity).

To be able to afford the bike I have a job which involves driving around the UK (in my petrol powered car) for a company that isn’t carbon neutral.

I’m also typing this from my home which is heated with gas (although I don’t have it on at the moment) and the electricity powering my phone and internet will be partially derived from gas.

You get the idea…

If you only use a bike to replace journeys that would be otherwise taken by car then there’s a valid objection to be made.

If you live a relatively normal western consumer lifestyle and cycle as a hobby, it’s a bit hypocritical to object to Shell’s sponsorship when you so willingly consume their products - especially when cycling could do with more investment.

12
 Neil Williams 12 Oct 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Plus I think Shell etc genuinely are investing in more environmentally friendly technologies and not just oil.  Not because they are being nice, to be fair, but because they have to to survive as a company.  They aren't like tobacco companies where the whole basis of the product is bad - they're energy companies presently focused on hydrocarbons but slowly shifting that focus to other products.

5
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

I hope I can do this justice in the few minutes I have...

There are valid criticisms that many of the oil giants have caused untold harm to the climate and environment, and many still do.  They should be held to account if they do not change their ways along with the latest environmental requirements - but (except for when companies actively blocked research or funded counter-research / lobbying) - I don't think retrospective judgement is all that beneficial.

With this in mind, I think the best approach today is to judge companies on what their current and planned actions are. The "stop the oil" lobby is well meaning, but misses the fundamental issue that even if EVERY country decided tomorrow to transition to 100% renewable energy, a lot of oil and gas will need to be produced to get there.  (short of basically throttling all industry and rationing resources for the next 150-200 year - it is an option, but not one many are actively exploring).

Further to that, there are not enough experienced engineers, planners, project managers, environmental consultants, technicians etc. to achieve the scale of the renewables development already in the pipeline without pulling in loads of traditional development, engineering, & operations companies - this is where the Statoils (Equinor), Dongs (Orsted), BPs, Shells etc. come in.  The pace at which those companies are investing their own cash and resources into offshore wind blows the smaller old wind developers out of the water. They're not doing it for greenwashing, they're doing it because it's a profitable, sustainable (in both environmental and business terms) and just the sensible thing to do.

They're not perfect - and all companies should be held to account for any environmental issues, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

1
 SFM 12 Oct 2022
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

If I'm reading your post correctly, the business plan of the forward thinking oil companies is to still have a footprint in the new energy landscape eg fuel stations with electricity or hydrogen generated via their renewable sources? If that's the case then it sounds like there will need to be a level of pragmatism and co-operation on both sides. 

Personally I'd much rather get to a place were we/the world makes oil based products that can be recycled/reused rather than just burning the stuff we extract.

 crayefish 12 Oct 2022
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

There is a lot of hypocrisy in the media about this, however, I'm glad the UKC responses seem to be much more level headed with valid comments regarding the transition to renewables and everyone's own use of fossil fuels.

I actually work for Shell (I'm in charge of an offshore drilling rig) and, while I do have conflict in my conscience in contributing to climate change, I'm very proud of Shell's approach to making oil and gas less impactful to the environment.

We spend a lot of time/effort/money to prevent spills overboard, reduce emissions and ensure as clean an operation as practically possible... however, many other oil companies do not take 1/10th of the care.  The level of illegal dumping/polluting in the wider industry (especially outside of Europe) is depressingly shocking.  However, I am very happy with the effort we take to reduce our impact.

As with others here, I shall continue to heat my house with gas, fuel my car with petrol, use electricity from partially non-renewables and buy goods containing plastic from hydrocarbons.  I think its great that my company is sponsoring British Cycling and will be funneling money into the cycling industry.

3
 Bog ninja 12 Oct 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

I expect Shell are investing a sufficient amount of money to appear they are doing their part in terms of energy transition, whereas the bulk of their investment will continue to be in development of new oil fields. After all why fight climate change when melting ice is opening up new opportunities for development in the Arctic Ocean? I suspect their budget for renewable development is dwarfed by their marketing budget talking about how green they now are 

3
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I imagine Shell have been relatively generous and have far deeper pockets than most.

I think the term is 'greenwashing'.

2
 Bog ninja 12 Oct 2022
In reply to crayefish:

I think Shell probably operate to industry standards in this country, and from the sounds of it you run a professional operation on your rig but Shells track record elsewhere is not good

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/25/africa/shell-oil-spills-nigeria-intl-cmd...

 mondite 12 Oct 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I think the term is 'greenwashing'.

and tax deductible.

 Ian Carey 13 Oct 2022
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

Although I feel that British Cycling has made a poor decision in taking sponsorship from Shell, I am increasingly taking the view that I just don't care.

The scientific evidence is clear that our overuse of carbon has and will continue to cause catastrophic damage.

It is somewhat annoying that my summer Alpine and Scottish winter climbing is less likely to happen, but at least I have managed some good trips in the past.

Of course, it is mainly poor people who will suffer and fortunately I'm not poor (I'm rich in global terms).

I may suffer in 20 years time when the UK has long summers of 30+ degree temperatures, but I'll be in my 80s then and on my way out.

In the past I have campaigned for active travel as part of the effort to reduce our need for carbon fuels.

However, there just is not enough political leadership to make this happen, so I've given up.

Because I chose not to have children, I also won't be worrying about the future of young people.

Maybe the BMC could do a deal with BP to fund access negotiations.

Perhaps the Peak Park could get Amazon to sponsor the maintenance of Strange. 

When British cyclists are getting gold medals , few people will be concerned about Shell's doggy dealings in Nigeria.

After all, it's the winning that is important?

Post edited at 08:15
2
 rhudson 13 Oct 2022
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

This has bothered me for years because of the link with Shell. See the section ‘Family lawsuits against Royal Dutch Shell’.

1
 crayefish 13 Oct 2022
In reply to Bog ninja:

I actually don't work in the UK, but have been working in the Netherlands and Middle East.  Generally we operate at a standard quite some way above the industry standards.  It's somewhat of a joke among the contractors (and often a complaint) that we have such stringent safety and environmental standards.

Yes, they are note flawless; totally agreed.  But better than most of the other players by some margin (but do attract more coverage).  The Nigeria scandal is a bit more complex than might be shown in the media though... not really the place to discuss though.

2
 mondite 31 Oct 2022
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

The CEO Brian Facer  has just stepped down.

Some suspect it might just be related along with a few other recent clangers.

In reply to Ian Carey:Great reply!

Bits I agree with, and bits that made me chuckle. 

And as you say, the winning is all 'they' are concerned with  

Love the idea of Amazon sponsoring Stanage, imagine those prime chalk deliveries on hot days... 

 Phil1919 02 Nov 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

If society carries on using and developing fossil fuels, the science tells us that things will become very unpleasant, very quickly, whether we like it or not. We won't have a choice.  

 Phil1919 02 Nov 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

If you live a relatively normal western consumer lifestyle, you won't be able to for much longer.....the climate is changing fast. 

 Phil1919 02 Nov 2022
In reply to Ian Carey:

20 years? I don't think that's what the science is telling us.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...