British Cycling Faces Criticism of New Partnership with Shell

Oct 13, 2022
by Ed Spratt  

British Cycling announced this week that it has formed an eight-year partnership with the oil and gas company Shell. The cycling organisation that forms the British governing body for cycling was previously partnered with HSBC, but has now formed an agreement to receive support and investment from Shell UK. British Cycling says the new partnership will see a shared response to support Great Britain’s cyclists and para-cyclists with "the sharing of world-class innovation and expertise; accelerating British Cycling’s path to net zero; and helping more – and wider groups of – people to ride, including ways to make cycling more accessible for disabled people."

bigquotesWe’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.
Brian Facer, CEO of British Cycling

bigquotesWe’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.
David Bunch, Shell UK Country Chair

bigquotesAt British Cycling we have a strong track record of working with our partners to enhance our work, have a real impact in communities and elevate the role that cycling plays in the thinking and actions of UK businesses.

The partnership also shows our fresh commercial approach at British Cycling, as we look to work alongside a broader range and number of partners to help us to deliver our strategy and support the long-term growth of cycling and the sport across Britain.
Darren Henry, British Cycling Commercial Director

The news that British Cycling has decided to partner with Shell has prompted criticism, with the decision to partner with an oil and gas company seemingly at odds with the British cycling organisation's goal of reaching climate net-zero targets. British Cycling CEO Brian Facer states the deal will "help our organisation and sport take important steps towards net zero," but a report in the Guardian suggests that while Shell's ambition is to be a net-zero emissions company by 2050 or sooner, there is no immediate goal to actually start moving to net-zero in the next 10 to 20 years.

Climate activists have weighed in, with Greenpeace UK policy director Dr. Doug Parr stating: "The idea of Shell helping British Cycling reach net zero is as absurd as beef farmers advising lettuce farmers on how to go vegan. After being booted out of museums and other cultural institutions, Big Oil are looking at sports as the next frontier for their brazen greenwash. But their aim hasn't changed - to distract from the inconvenient fact that the fossil fuel industry is making our planet uninhabitable. British Cycling missed an opportunity to tell the oil giant the one thing they needed to hear: on your bike, Shell."

bigquotesThe idea of Shell helping British Cycling reach net zero is as absurd as beef farmers advising lettuce farmers on how to go vegan.Dr. Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK policy director

Environmental charity Friends of the Earth said: "Tobacco firms are rightly banned from sports sponsorship due to the damaging health effects. The same should apply to oil and gas companies which are devastating the health of our planet. Shell should have been told to get on its bike."

Protect Our Winters UK has sent a letter to British Cycling CEO Brian Facer offering a right to reply by the end of the week before it "will then escalate and will be reaching out to our network to participate in a range of tactics."

Lauren MacCallum, the general manager at Protect Our Winters UK told Pinkbike: "The decision for British Cycling to partner with Shell is disastrous basically, especially in the middle of the climate crisis and we think that Shell's values do not align with that of British cyclists. (...) When there's extreme heat events we cant run races. You can kind of list the impacts in various ways in which it will impact our community which is bad for business and bad for our community and health. So we are calling on British Cycling to reverse their decision to partner with Shell and look for another appropriate sponsor which matches the values and ethos of the British Cycling community.

At Protect Our Winters UK we can sympathise with the decision to accept the sponsorship from Shell because when you are only applying a high-performance sporting excellence lens to this, of course taking the biggest cheque or the most investment seems like the right thing to do. I think now we are at a point in society and as a community where sport and cycling don't exist in a vacuum and we need to see better ethical excellence and ethical performance from leaders at British Cycling. What is the relevance of gold medals in a crisis?

Our next step is to engage with the stakeholders, so that is with members, coaches, sponsors, athletes and our network to engage in a range of tactics. What tactics will be I'm not going to say just now because it's kind of the whole point but we will basically look to engage with the cycling community and industry to participate in a range of actions which will add to some of the pressure that British Cycling will be feeling right now."

bigquotes[W]e can sympathise with the decision to accept the sponsorship from Shell because when you are only applying a high-performance sporting excellence lens to this, of course taking the biggest cheque or the most investment seems like the right thing to do.Lauren MacCallum, Protect Our Winters UK general manager

After the announcement on October 10, a large number of users on Twitter took to the post from British Cycling to express frustration at the news, with widespread implication that some riders will be cancelling their memberships with the organisation. One Twitter user who says they are a ride leader for British Cycling's Breeze women-only rides says that the news is "ridiculous" and they are "never wearing anything branded Shell."



It goes without saying that high performance sport costs a significant amount of money. And many of the people upset with British Cycling for this decision are similarly frustrated at a lack of funding for athletes and venues. Furthermore, British Cycling isn't the first big name in cycling to partner with fossil fuel companies, or other industries that appear at odds with cycling's interests.

British Cycling's former partner HSBC has a long history of controversies—from money laundering to sanctions breaches to fraud. Similarly, the Ineos Grenadiers team that features Tom Pidcock and recently signed Pauline Ferrand Prevot is partly named after one of the largest chemical companies in the world. Ineos produced 22,300 tons of chemicals and over 3.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2019, making the company the largest source of emissions in Scotland. When the Ineos partnership was announced there was similar backlash, without any results.

It remains to be seen how British Cycling will respond, and if the response will lead to any changes.

We reached out to British Cycling for its response but they had nothing further to add at the time of publishing.

Regions in Article
United Kingdom

Author Info:
edspratt avatar

Member since Mar 16, 2017
3,041 articles

  • 541 246
 This is BS. Cycling cannot exist without fossil fuel, from carbon fiber production, rubber for tires, aluminum/steel processing, to distribution and shipping. Many cyclists also drive out to many riding spots on their trucks and cars which opens up so many riding opportunities. It seems to me that the cycling association is just virtue signaling, tbh.
  • 164 80
 To add to this, how many plastics and other synthetic fibers do we use on our bike components, clothing, protective gear, etc.? Zero oil/petroleum and our entire sport/hobby changes fundamentally.
  • 125 91
 @BikeTrials. Agreed. Andy Powers with his "cycling is part of the solution". Yeah ok buddy. You are trying to greenwash everybody by thinking that riding a bike is saving the environment. Stop pretending. I'm at peace with both riding a bike and driving my car. I need both Shell to provide the gas and the bike industry to build bikes and supply parts.
  • 108 130
flag TheOriginalTwoTone (Oct 13, 2022 at 12:22) (Below Threshold)
 @bman33: That's the part all these eco idoits fail to take into account.
  • 112 30
 Add to this the introduction of ebikes to the cycle industry is the exact opposite of a green ethos.
  • 94 37
 People are dumb lol, and of course twitter will be angry about this. They're angry about everything. I'm far more upset at the partnership between the UCI and Discovery.
  • 89 89
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: I drive my car more because of cycling. How else am I going to get to Moab, Winter Park...etc to shred the brown pow? Go Shell.
  • 343 75
 This argument makes zero sense.
"Cycling isn't ecologically perfect, so let's go all in on promoting fossil fuels".
Its the definition of ostrich head-in-the sand thinking.

No, it should be,
"Cycling isn't perfect ecologically perfect, so let's go all in on reducing our impact, including cutting links with fossil fuel companies who are destroying the planet.
  • 82 73
 @mattg95: our hobby or sport of cycling doesn't exist in its current form without oil or petroleum.
  • 196 15
 Let's add some context to this. Trek did a study recently, and found that the average CO2 footprint of one of their bicycles was 174 kg CO2 equivalent. Their e-bikes were the worst at around 320 kg (Source:

To put that into perspective, one barrel of conventional light oil has a CO2 footprint of 475 kg (Source: A bicycle is a durable good that should last many many years. The same cannot be said of oil :-)

Shell alone produced over 600 MILLION barrels of oil in 2021.
  • 45 81
flag BikeTrials (Oct 13, 2022 at 12:50) (Below Threshold)
 @mattg95: Cycling is not only ecologically "imperfect" but it does more damage to the environment with pollution caused in production and waste products made afterwards. You understand why these people complaining about complaining of Shell sponsorship while riding on carbon fiber frames, synthetic rubber tires, and wearing lycra, pointing fingers at other people for virtue signaling but while not doing anything themselves are hypocrites right? The point of the people complaining here is not to make any meaningful difference but to make themselves feel good. If you want to complain, at least make your entire bike out of wood, no sealed bearings, and wooden wheels with no tires, while riding it naked like a true flint stone
  • 33 46
flag railbender (Oct 13, 2022 at 12:56) (Below Threshold)
 @gth802s: @gth802s: I won't argue with your facts. However, since when does cycling help the environment by removing emissions, C02 footprint, mining...etc? Does anybody have the facts on how many cars cycling actually removes from the road? What is the net positive impact of cycling? I'll wager that almost no cars/planes are removed while more bikes added to the equation.
  • 126 58
 @mattg95: Exactly. I can't believe how boneheaded these pro oil arguments are. The logic of a 12 year old on these arguments. Its as if everyone watches so much fox news that this baby food argument structure is as far as they can go down the rabbit hole.

Who runs the marketing at British cycling ? are they totally inept when it comes to optics ?
  • 114 31
 I would love to see how smug everyone is when they cant fuckin breathe the air or drink the water lol. No one is saying stop all production of everything. Having less CO2 in the atmosphere is unquestionably good. Nuclear, wind, hydro, and solar are not perfect but are much better than oil. Y'all acting like fuckin five year olds. Find me a eco minded serious person who advocates for letting people die from not having energy and I will show you a straw man.
  • 48 26
 @gth802s: Shell is a large investor in so-called 'green energy'. It's almost like they know all the oil is going to be consumed (due to reasons stated above) but the climate industrial complex is a great way to make billions in an industry that didn't exists a decade or two ago. Lovely lithium mines, 50,000 kids mining cobalt in the DRC, solar panels and wind turbines that only last a couple of decades before they're buried in the ground, all built in China with coal powered energy.

Saving the planet....
  • 67 4
 @railbender: I can't speak for others. I ride my e-bike for commuting / errands / going out around town etc. to the tune of approximately 2,000 miles per year. By my calculations, I was net positive after about the first 500 miles, since these are trips that I would have otherwise taken with a car.
  • 20 10
 @jclnv: ya f*ck it do nothing lol
  • 8 3
 @gth802s: That is awesome.
  • 59 3
 @railbender: There are literally millions of people who commute on bikes everyday and avoid driving a vehicle. I don’t own a car. I bike. There ya go.
  • 40 12
 @jclnv: It follows the principle of harm reduction. Getting power from solar panels made in China using coal power is indeed better than simply continuing to burn fossil fuels to generate the same power.
  • 6 3
 @Chondog94: I don't think it's about the number of people that are already using bikes to commute. It think its a great thing, by the way. The question is, will more bike production lead to even more reduction in cars (electric or gas)? Can we deduce that recreational cycling is not good but commuting is virtuous?
  • 44 10
 @Chondog94: I doubt @railbender has left his suburb in anything other than a car. My partner and I are a one-vehicle household and do everything we can to avoid taking motor-powered trips to the gym, grocery stores, or other errands. I chose live where I do because the trail access means I never need to drive to the trailhead, and if I do drive, it's always in a carpool situation.

I think the sentiment being spoken in the parent comment is ridiculous and highly dismissive of the actual issue. Just because bikes have a carbon impact, doesn't mean they aren't also a better alternative. Buses have a large carbon impact too, but they're ~50x more efficient while only being 2-4x larger than personal vehicles during peak transport hours. A bike is 1000x smaller than a personal vehicle, while only needing a little bit of will and muscle-power to run, and does the same job 90% of the time (getting us from A-B in an efficient manner). The higher the gas prices the better, I say.
  • 12 7
  • 15 29
flag jrocksdh (Oct 13, 2022 at 13:37) (Below Threshold)
 Idiots dont realize shell and other big players have the means and $ and have been working with f1 on syn fuels.
Greens are the old reds.
  • 28 44
flag jclnv (Oct 13, 2022 at 13:39) (Below Threshold)
 @gth802s: Even if, in the end, China burns all the coal? In that case aren't we just providing China with an economy while destroying ours with net zero etc policies?

Not to mention the question if you think average global temp is actually increasing, or that anthropogenic Co2 output would cause that increase? If you look at the historical record, we're in a Co2 drought. Remarkably species didn't go extinct with 2000ppm and in many cases, life exploded with vastly higher atmospheric Co2 concentrations than today.
  • 45 51
flag carters75 (Oct 13, 2022 at 13:43) (Below Threshold)
 The woke don't live in reality. It's all rainbows and unicorns to them.
  • 3 2
 they are doing well, talk good or bad but is what they want, just people talk a lot about Shell, this is a good marketing
  • 36 13
 @jclnv: Even if China burns all the coal to make wind turbines and solar panels for the world (which they won't; they are already at 30% renewables for their own generation), it is still a net positive for the environment. As for the economy, I (among many other scientists and economists) do not share your concern that transitioning to renewable energy will destroy it; in fact it is likely to be better for the economy in the long-term, but the benefits diminish the longer we wait thanks to discount rates. Here is some light reading when you have some time:

As for CO2 concentrations, I am not sure which life exploded (organisms that engage in photosynthesis, I suppose) but it probably wasn't humans :-) According to ASHRAE, levels exceeding 1000 ppm cause general drowsiness in humans (
  • 14 3
 I don't know much about British Cycling but if they primarily focus on competitive cycling then they've got nothing to do with the environment. Nothing in competition is sustainable, racers don't care about trail erosion (or at least don't ride like they care), equipment is built to give a competitive edge at the expense of durability and environmental impact... the list goes on and the Olympics is the worst of all events. It is a perfect fit for Shell. Sustainable actions would be to hand (unassisted) bikes and the basic tools to kids who otherwise can't afford it, so that they too can develop the basic habit of going places fuel-free. And to actually invest in a decent infrastructure so that everyone (kids and elderly alike) can confidently ride their bikes to where they need to go. If they'd do that too then yes, there is something sustainable in what BC does and the match with Shell may be odd. But if their focus is solely on competitive (or even recreational) cycling, there is nothing environmental friendly about any of this and they should wear the Shell batch proudly.
  • 70 5
 The second someone mentions "woke" "nazi" "boomer" "millennial" or any basic black-and-white entrenchment one can immediately ignore what they have to say. It's a perfect filter.
  • 33 0
 "The evidence we have reviewed shows that Shell repeatedly encouraged the Nigerian military to deal with community protests, even when it knew the horrors this would lead to – unlawful killings, rape, torture, the burning of villages"
- Audrey Gaughran

Vote with your petrodollar.
  • 10 4
 @kokofosho: I would like to preface this with that nuclear energy is most definitely the future. If you remove the money that is a big reward for cutting corners, then nuclear is a great option. The other forms of energy will take years to pay off and are not worth the lack of efficiency.
Oil getting removed would completely change the sport. Tires, carbon frames, derailleurs, grips, shifters, and more all require non-renewable resources to manufacture and need them as critical ingredients. Even though I run tire pressures that are basically as hard as wood, I would prefer to keep my rubber and plastic parts. The environment is important but we need to start with countries like China and India that are basically offset if the work that the western countries are doing.
  • 42 6
 @jclnv: Jesus Christ, what have you been reading?

The Exxon-Mobil My First Book on Atmospheric Science?
  • 5 6
 @gth802s: good on ya, but riding a non-ebike would probably make that math work but looking into environmental concerns with batteries and Ebikes makes it a much harder calculation TBH.
  • 3 1
 @L0rdTom: very true. Unfortunately, it seems the amount of content caught by this filter is increasing every day...
  • 2 0
 @carters75: That’s a very astute and data driven statement you’ve made, thank you.
  • 10 2
 @RadBartTaylor: The calculation is not any harder; it just meant that I had to offset a few more car trips with bike trips which is easily doable with an e-bike.

Everything has pros and cons. I personally try to operate on the principle of harm reduction. Sure, a normal bike would be better but then I wouldn't be able to ride it to as many places. I live in a very hilly area, and would just be a sweaty mess if I rode without some assistance.
  • 5 2
 Oh, go to Shell
  • 26 9
 I think what these comments are demonstrating is that some of us walk the walk when it comes to reducing our dependence fossil fuels and have therefore earned the right to complain about British Cycling's decision. If that makes us woke, then so be it. It is better than being sleepy :-)
  • 33 1
 I find it very interesting, that those guys who started this discussion with pro-car/pro-oil arguments are from countries that in large parts haven't the basic public transport infrastructure.

For everybody that likes to drive a car, it is better if there are more people walking, riding bikes or using public transport. You know why? Less people on the streets mean less traffic jams.
The solution to traffic jams never was and will never be, building more lanes for cars to "jam on" (not in a music sense). Its much more efficient to reduce from 4 lanes to 3, but give that one lane to buses, so they can be on time. Also the bus network, or better a train network, should be planned in a way that people actually use it because it brings them where they need to go. From suburbs to the shops and to work. If facilities like bikeparks, skiing areas, hiking etc. are close, public transport should go there too. There need to be walking path and safe road crossings. Bikes should not need to ride on multiple lane main roads, especially not in a country where drivers don't know that they should look for bikes.

If the only safe way to go from your home to the next cafe or to a trail is by car, no one will use public transport. But if public transport is cheaper than a car and is actually where people need it (walking / biking distance from their homes / work / shops etc.), much more people would use it.
And yes, it's possible, also in more rural areas.
One easy thing to do in north american suburbs would be to connect all those "cul de sac" to their neighbouring "cul de sac" with a walk/bike only path. Suddenly the distances to bike somewhere drop massively and more people would think about using their car to get a coffee or a something that went missing on the last shopping.

I can highly recommend the youtube channel "Not Just Bikes" when it comes to such topics. It's made by a north american btw: a Canadian.
  • 5 0
 @Phipu: I've noticed those combined bike/walk paths in Germany and they look scary to me. I wouldn't dare to ride my bike there at a decent speed out of fear of hitting someone. Just make proper separate bike lines like we have here in The Netherlands. In many cases it takes you only one car lane to make a bike lane for two directions. If it is more busy (or there is a bigger difference in speeds between people on bikes), one car lane should become one bike lane per direction. Get a proper infrastructure, get dedicated traffic lights for bicycles that already switch to green when they see an approaching cyclist (especially when it rains). The technology is there and it is commonly in use. Just buy it and use it. (
  • 6 0
 @vinay: here in Switzerland we have mostly painted bicycle gutters. Also here in the "cycling capital of Switzerland". It only works because people learn to look for cyclists from the beginning when they make their drivers license and people on bikes usually look more for each other because there's not protective metal shoe box aroubd them. But now with 25 km/h, 45 km/h e-bikes and people who barely ride faster than i walk etc. it needs some re-arangement.
The reason i put this in the comment before wasn't because it's the "best" solution, but it's an easy and cheap way to make it much more appealing to go somewhere by bike instead of a car. If you have to cycle 10 km along the exact same route as you would drive with a car, you'll never use a bike. This way the route by bike probably gets much shorter and might even be faster than using the car. In other words: i guess north american countries just need to start somewhere...
  • 23 0
 It is possible to reduce reliance on fossil fuel enough that it doesnt harm the planet and still have fossil fuel things. The black and white logic of either going all in on fossil fuel or cutting it out completely is braindead. Is that how people treat their diets? Cheeseburgers every meal or salad? The environment can handle a little bit of fossil fuel just like your body can handle a cheeseburger, but there is such a thing as being overwhelmed and right now it is being overwhelmed and can't remove the CO2 fast enough.

Theres nothing wrong with using fossil fuel to reduce overall reliance on it, whats stupid is thinking that if youre going to use it then might as well use a shitload.
  • 3 6
 bicycles existed long before fossil fuels
  • 11 1
 @jclnv: that's true. But these dominant species were large cold blooded reptiles (dinosaurs) which required roughly 140 degree temperatures to be that large. The oceans were also very warm which provided conditions for fish creatures to be very large, same with insects. That was a different era unsuitable for human existence. When the planet cooled large mammals took over. We are living in a remarkablely stable environment now but it is sensitive to change at a pace that most species cannot keep up with. We need to do what we can to minimize our impacts on our environment.
  • 7 7
 @jclnv: why is your comment so down-voted? It's about as accurate an assessment as can be.
  • 7 7
 @gth802s: you seem not to know how utterly dependent your lifestyle is on fossil fuel use every second of your existence
  • 2 4
 @Phipu: it's a good channel
But no one is anti-bike commuting, on this topic. Your rant is off-the-mark.
  • 4 2
 @slowmoe: not even close
  • 4 0
 @slowmoe: you should probably google "how long have humans been burning fossil fuels" before making a statement like that
  • 4 3
 @gth802s: you recharge your ebike with solar and wind power only or you plug it into the wall outlet?
  • 15 0
 @gth802s: We have a bike shop in Switzerland and I can confirm what you are saying is true for us and a lot of our customers. Many people have even sold their cars and are relying on bikes, e-bikes and public transportation for all their commuting, shopping and traveling in general.
The world's not perfect, but such actions are great steps in the right direction.
  • 5 1
 @gth802s: Unfortunately Trek does not publish how much fossil byproducts consitute to this 174kg CO2 equivalent. Because it may occure that you need e.g. one barrel of oil to make and distribute 10 bikes, and now what? You cannot compare a ready product with something that is required to make it. Shell does not produce oil for fun or just for the evil joy of polluting the planet, it does so because human civilasation needs lots of energy and oil byproducts.
  • 7 1
 @slowmoe: dude you really need to read some books, i thing you will find fossil fuels beat out bicycles by a few million years.
  • 12 4
 It’s not about “modern society can’t exist without fossil fuels” (which it could BTW). It’s about having a sponsor that has profited for decades while destroying the planet and lying about the dangers of its actions.
  • 5 3
 Spot onnnn brah. I'm hoping one day we can re engineer our bodies and we'll just need to top up at the gas station once a week on some sweet dinosaur juice. At that point we can get rid of all these god damn fields growing fruits and vegetables and turn it all into one big Shell billboard, that's my dream anyway. Although at that point we might have to turn it into affordable housing for polar bears, oh and the millions of people displaced by climate change. Sucks for them but I've always said if I can't reduce my fossil fuel use to zero then I may as well maximise it, picked up a new ford 150 or whatever the f*ck they're called last week but I keep ramming into trees and electric vehicles cause apparently after too much co2 or some shit we get woozy?
  • 2 2
 @bman33: why is this comment below threshold. Anyone here riding a glass bike in glass houses?
  • 1 2
 @gth802s: which was all consumed by people…
  • 8 1
 people in North America will never change - it's not even your fault. You were given this broken system/countries where you can do shit without a car
  • 3 7
flag betsie (Oct 14, 2022 at 1:42) (Below Threshold)
 ^^^ this ^^^

There is an irony of people outside of oil and gas talking about oil and gas!

Maybe its going to be a good thing in the long run and people can be more educated in what they are talking about and that just because you are Shell does not make you the enemy of the environment.

Larger companies are held more to account for their impact on the environment, the likes of Shell will be being more proactive than most (although they arguably had further to go than most), the more that Shell do for the environment, the more that smaller companies will be doing in some part of their supply chain, products used and their end to end environmental impact.
  • 2 4
 @gth802s: The problem is a majority shift to renewable energy being affordable is never going to happen, or at least not as long as there are a select number of individuals standing to gain extraordinary amounts of personal wealth from preventing it.

And 1000 ppm? Is that what atmospheric co2 levels are?
  • 11 0
 @sonuvagun: i don't know where you have the 1000 ppm from.
If we had a CO2 level of 1000ppm, something would be even more off than it is already.
Just for some basic information regarding the composition of the air, this image gives a short and easy overview:

Regarding CO2 levels, there's a significant change around mid 18th to beginning of the 19th century
Could that have something to do with human history? Did they eat more beans? - Don't think so...
...There was something i heard back in school. Indu-... Industri... Industrialisation i think.
What a coincident!
One could think that beginning with the industrialisation the human demand and use of energy basically exploded and therefor CO2 level changed because the main energy sources consists of bound carbon in form of cole and oil.
It's not that there were no other energy sources, they were easy ebough to get and were pushed by the right people with enough influence and money.
Now it's time to change the energy source and use an alternative where possible.
  • 2 0
 @DGWW: mate. Our entire government, monarchy and the establishment are a live action never ending spitting image show.
  • 3 4
 @DGWW: nah, but you know who has money to donate? Energy companies. You know who doesn’t have an extra cent? Anything in the eco sphere. Like it would be cool if cycling didn’t entirely rely upon corporate donations, it would be cool if paper straw manufacturers made any money and could use it to promote things like cycling.

Optics be damned. There’s actual money to fund actual development, to fund more athletes and to fund a program.

Inneos has been a dominate pro-tour team and nobody cares about that. This outrage is nonsensical and it won’t last and it will fade.

Next you’ll be telling me sugary energy drinks should pull their dollars from the sport. They have precisely zero upside to society. They don’t actually give you wings.
  • 3 2
 @jclnv: some sanity in your response.
  • 1 0
 @gth802s: I do that on my bike.
  • 1 1
 @gth802s: exactly, like comparing a pea shooter to a nuclear warhead
  • 6 4
 @mattg95: more then 6000 products that are part of daily life require petroleum. It may not be essential to produce using petroleum but we're not seeing any one really trying to replace it with a better option at this point. People have such bad tunnel vision when it comes to this topic. How many of you are actually thinking of "real" ways to reduce or reuse any of these oil based products? Stopping the use isn't good enough, we now have a close to endless supply of waste plastics that everyone thinks gets recycled by putting in a bin. Most of that is you the consumer doing trash sorting for a landfill cause most is never recycled. I personally have been trying to develop useful products that can be produced with 100% recycled plastics that can be kept in service for 100years or more, it's a better solution then "oil is bad, f*ck Shell"
  • 1 1
 Meanwhile, this just happened:

Edit: sorry, can't seem to get the link to work.
  • 4 0
 @MikeGruhler: of course Shell doesn't exist in a vacuum and they are producing to meet a demand. But that doesn't mean we can't point out hypocrisy and green-washing when it is there.

As for other petroleum based products, they pale really compared to oils used for transportation.
  • 1 1
 2nd edit, link does work after all.
  • 2 0
 @TyBronder: we can replace crude derived synthetic fibres with sequestered CO2 and green hydrogen via Fischer-Tropsch but that’s a long way off from reaching a scale of production and it’s massively energy intensive. Green hydrogen itself is the stuff of science friction at the scale that’s required to displace oil. If the energy comes from nukes then we’re getting somewhere but solar and wind isn’t going to solve anyone’s problems. It’s great for your home to reduce your venerated bill but the installation still don’t pay for itself before it dies. Like it or not energy companies like shell are going to be part of the transition journey and there’s a very high likelihood gasoline electric hybrids will be more prevalent in 20years then full EVs
  • 1 3
 Plus She’ll looks to make as much money off Green Energy as anyone. The great lie that everyone believes is that Green Energy is somehow removed from fossil fuels. Number one it takes fossil fuels to build all their green solutions and number two the fossil fuel industry builds all that stuff. Wake up people
  • 10 3
 It's about systemic issues. If companies like Shell weren't actively fighting climate legislation, and weren't siphoning gov't subsidies away from sustainable infrastructure, we have much better choices as consumers such as more affordable electric trucks to drive to trailheads already, for example.

"Whatabouttism" gets us nowhere.
Me: "I'd like to stop bank robberies"
You: "What a Hypocrit! Cuz what about MURDER?"
  • 5 0
 No man. Yes, tires will require oil for their making (as of today), but my bike tires aren't what makes this world go to shit.
I couldn't be happier, sided with a pinch of pride, to be cycling to work every single day, come hell or high water (or rain or snow).
And I'll think twice if I drive to a bike park with my car for biking, or just do a lap in the neighborhood. I bike, and do as much as I can to not be wasteful.
  • 1 0
 Need more environmental products in Cycling, but just more bs
Have being making some bio plastic, made some from Comfrey root that feels like rubber?
  • 2 0
 Agree actually. Good point.
  • 2 0
 @DGWW: “logic of a 12 year old” you just described pinkbike commenters in general.
  • 1 1
 @slowmoe: No they didn't. Bicycles have been around for 200 years. Coal has been burned for millennia. How do you think they made the steel for the first bicycles?
  • 1 0
 100 percent correct...all those FOX and TLD clothes made from fossil fuels too...
  • 4 2
 @Phipu: Yes, a relatively small increase in atmospheric Co2 from a period of drought. Okay, but has it caused an average temperature increase independent from what was already occurring since the last ice age?
  • 9 4
 Exactly. A lot of really ungrateful people seem to forget that they only live in the relative luxury and comfort that they do because of fossil fuels. Bashing energy companies is just the new trendy thing to do. More BS brought to you by social media.
  • 6 2
 Full disclosure, I’m an Albertan who works in the oil and gas industry.

I have first hand seen the effects of two approaches to oil and gas companies.

The federal approach which has punished oil and gas companies with the carbon tax system which has just raised costs for consumers and caused companies to be more greedy and invest in stock by backs rather then future development.

The extremely successful provincial carbon credit system which gives companies a tax break incentive to invest in ways to lower methane emissions. This has lead to innovations in products that run of solar such as electric pumps, air compressors, and valve actuator. All the while supplying many jobs for people who install the new parts to factory workers who build them.

We can continue to vilify these companies or we can encourage them to do better. I know people will say they should just do the right thing and we should not give them more breaks. But the reality is it works better then just punishing them. They have tons of money and power to effect change for the better or they can just keep it for themselves and not worry about the future.
  • 4 2
 @jclnv: if a change from 280 ppm to 420 ppm (50% increase) is low to you, i don't want to know how you do it in daily life. "Oh, my car runs on 135°C now instead of 90°C... No worries, just a small change."
"Im weighing 120 kg now, after i was 80 kg a couple weeks ago - no worries, just a small change."
"My average living costs went from 3000$ a month to 4500$ a month - who cares, just a small change."

The yearly rainfall, as an example i found the data of Switzerland, did not change since 1864.
So, explain to me how you get ideas like a drought!?
The average temperature on the otger hand increased by 2 °C since 1864, just since 1980 it increased by 1.5°C (same source as above).
I don't have measurements back to the last ice age. But i can tell you that all expected changes along pre-industrialisation trajectories never even would have gotten close to where we are now.

If you need more information, here you can find a very interesting and easy read. Highly recommended!
  • 6 3

As a percentage of atmospheric Co2, that's a 0.014% increase.

Here's a study on atmospheric temp -

Drought? Could human consumption have something to do with it?

I did read most of an IPCC report a few years ago. It's quite interesting as it's very different from the alarmism the media push. There's a lot less confidence in the dire predictions than people have been led to believe. That said, I struggle to accept anything from the branch of the UN.
  • 3 1
 @Skaiwawker: It is possible to acknowledge the contribution of fossil fuels to the advancement of humans while advocating for limiting their future use as much as possible given the damage they cause, especially since we now know more about those negative externalities and are much richer to be able to address it. Why do those two have to be mutually exclusive?
  • 3 1
 @gth802s: Yes it is but I simply cannot understand what Shell sponsoring cycling has to do with limiting fossil fuel usage. You are implying that seeing Shell logo on cyclists' jerseys will somehow negatively influence it? How exactly?
  • 4 0
 Only clarification is, it is petroleum not fossil, otherwise spot on. The fossil story is fake news. Your downvotes are from people that have no idea how things are manufactured, which is an astonishing amount of people and/or unable to think rationally.
  • 3 2
 @jclnv: In my opinion, when talking about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual difference gets diminished if one says "As a percentage of atmospheric Co2, that's a 0.014% increase."
While mathematically correct, it just doesn't do it justice that it is 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Regarding the study: i looked at chapters 1, 5 and 6. It does not surprise me that the so far expected temperatures are high. Most of the cited studies are relatively new, therefor i suspect that the scientists who worked on the IPCC reports (mainly the physical science synthesis report from 2021) at one point also just had to make a cut to be able to actually publish it. While 0.3°C does not sound like much in the lowest possible trajectory, it is already enough that we can't say what the impacts economicaly and ecologicly will be in the future.

In terms of drought, i guess that we don't have the same understanding of a drought. I don't know if there is an official definition or not.

For me, besides the climate on it's own, there are also other valuable points to get away from fossil fuels:
- political and economical dependence: In this case, the situation is different in Canada to central europe. Europe does not have much valuable goods (ore, oil, gas etc.) in the ground and therefore is highly dependent on other countries. Most prominently on Russia and the Arabian countries when it comes to oil and gas. But there is also the part, that production got moved to China by many big companies, just because it was cheaper. But this means, that for production of many different products, there is no practical know-how. There are enough people that theoretically know how to do it, but that's not someone who works in e.g. micro chip production.
- Biodiversity: There are many animals, most prominent sweet water fish like Thymallus Thymallus, who need cool spots and water to survive. The peak temperatures of rivers and lakes here in Switzerland are now regularly around 25°C and this year went for some lakes and rivers towards 28°C, so 3°C higher than peak before. This means that those animals have too warm and also the oxygen level in the water drops with increasing temperatures.

There are more things that play into it like the weather etc. But that would be too much for a PB comment to go into.
  • 1 0
 @mattg95: glad someone here saw some sense and appreciates some of the nuance.
  • 2 3
 @Phipu: I accept that there could be some seasonal, localized warming. Consider the amount of geoengineering that has taken place via us building vast cities and the cirrus clouds from aviation. According to a study I read, estimations of the later alone could amount to a 3 degree average temperature increase around heavy aviation traffic.

In short, the noise in the data is vast and including land based urban weather stations to record average temperature or using models that contradict observed data are laughable.

I suggest this book to anyone entrenched in the climate alarmism. The climate industrial complex makes the fossil fuel industry look like a bunch of amateurs -
  • 2 1
 @Phipu: 1000 ppm is a reference to the link the other dude shared (regarding co2 making people drowsy), I thought it a bit high myself, but what do I know?
CO2 levels, have, apparently, gone up at various points in human history, and before industrialization. So make of that what you will.
  • 4 2
 @jclnv: I also recommend a book called "Inconvinient facts, science that AL Gore doesn't want you to know".

Climate change scare is going to go down as the biggest scam in human history.
  • 5 0
 I couldn't agree more with @BikeTrials
  • 3 1
 Just looked at the books mentioned before...

...I'll stay with my current approach to get reliable information: Google Scholar and Sci-Hub.

Both books seem rather focused to just get publicity instead of getting proper information out.

When reading a single paper, one also has to distinguish between a single try at something (like the paper mentioned above is) or if it is a Meta-analysis that looks at a larger number of studies and compiles their results to draw a conclusion.
In the end, the biggest meta-analysis when it comes to climate science is the IPCC report.
I know, some don't like the UNO. But you just have to see, that those people who write the IPCC report, are not those who make UN resolutions. These are scientist that collect the data and compile it to write their part of a chapter for the report, but during the years between they are nothing else than "normal climate scientists". Just looking at the author list, you can see how many people per chapter are working on it.

In the end, the best source for actual climate science remains the IPCC reports and not some purely opinion driven (or even just strawmen) book.
  • 2 1
 100%. Google : "How is rubber made". No tires because they are ruining the planet. No more skids. Save your tires
  • 3 2
 @lkubica: it has to do with morals and principles. BC has been making environmental pledges for years, but then proceeds to take money from one of largest environmental polluters of all time. It is sports-washing at its finest. What else does Shell have to gain from sponsoring cycling anyways?
  • 1 2
 @sonuvagun: I used the 1000 ppm number after someone else said some species thrived between 1000 and 2000 ppm, not because that is where we are now and also to point out that the species that thrived at those levels weren't humans.
  • 4 1
 For those citing the Wrightstone book to support their position... For anyone that has scientific training and has actually read the book, it becomes apparent quickly that he twists the data he cites to fit his narrative, whereas the correct interpretation of that data in fact does not support his theories. If it did, he would have published them in peer-reviewed articles. A quick glance at Google Scholar shows no such publications.
  • 4 1
 @jclnv: most of the uk wind turbines are made in Europe, but yeah solar panels are Chinese. But the core thing that matters here is that they produce waaay more energy than us used to make them. Oil use is just burning captured energy. 38,000 times more energy hits the planet every day than we consume every day, we just need to learn to capture it! Batteries are nasty things tho..
  • 3 3

Co2 is pumped into commercial greenhouses to 800-1000ppm to increase plant growth. The workers seem to tolerate it okay.

Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet

10,000 ppm (1.0%) Typically no effects, possible drowsiness
15,000 ppm (1.5%) Mild respiratory stimulation for some people
30,000 ppm (3.0%) Moderate respiratory stimulation, increased heart rate and blood pressure, ACGIH TLV-Sh
  • 3 1
 @jclnv: for short periods, sure. OSHA specifies an 8-hour exposure limit of 5,000 ppm for occupational safety. But that doesn't mean it is safe to live 24/7 in those conditions.

You guys shouldn't volunteer to live in an elevated CO2 environment for a long period and report the results, if you don't believe it will have an adverse impact.
  • 3 2
 With that, I am done here. I will continue living my life doing my best to minimize my impact and others are welcome to live their life as they see fit. Debating over the internet has never changed anyone's mind anyway :-) Cheers and happy trails to all!
  • 2 1
 @gth802s: Don’t worry, Earths atmospheric Co2 concentration won’t reach 5000ppm (or anywhere close) no matter how much fossil fuel is burned.
  • 4 1
 @BikeTrials this line of thinking is such a face-palming logical fallacy, it really makes me cringe. You can continue this self blaming ad absordum and justify ANYTHING.
"Heck, our sport cannot exist without lives being lost in the process. people oocassionally get killed in factories, mining materials, transporting goods etc... That makes us all complicit, so I might as well murder my neighbor!"
You don't have to completely detach yourself from a phenomena to be against it. Oil based products are not going away soon, and if they ever do, there will be a transition period. The fact that you cant solve your dependency in one swoop doesnt mean you should give up, and it certainly doesn't mean a bike organization should directly affeliate itself with that industry!!!!
  • 2 2
 @foxinsocks: Quite a stretch to compare the use of fossil fuel to murdering of your neighbor, don't you think? Humanity has advanced more in the last 100 years than thousands before it, along with population, quality of life, and the advancement of technology, all thanks to fossil fuel. There is a direct correlation between use of fossil fuel and the quality of life. Look it up, it is all a fact. I would tell you back that your line of thinking is exactly the "face-palming logical fallacy".
There is such a face-palming logical fallacy that people on here complaining of Shell sponsorship or the use of fossil fuel also complain of increased cost of food, electricity, and bike parts due to increased cost of gas, while calling for further reduction in fossil fuel use, worsening exactly what they complain of, while believing that the world is going to end in 12 years. Now that is delusional.
  • 1 1
 @gth802s: The problem is that we all benefit from this pollution, we are all the reason why this pollution exists, every car you own, every plastic thing you own. So what's exactly the moral problem here? What I can see is just loads of hipocrisy. It's not them polluting the planet, it us.
  • 3 1
 It is stunning that there are 227 people who read pink bike that think that @Bike Trails has made a post deserving of a negative review. Don't get me wrong, that there are more than twice as many who get the point. But still... one third of those who took the time vote on a commented, and who have the leisure and affluence to read about mountain bikes on line, apparently think that petroleum companies are so evil that they should not engage in cycling?
  • 2 2
 @pelopidas: People escape leftist eutopia thinking in the order of intelligence.
  • 3 2
 @gth802s: Fair enough, it was a bit out of context, and tbh, I really didn't investigate the full parameters and methodology of the study. A part of me wonders what the entire chemical makeup of the atmosphere was and how the different proportionate compositions affect life (in addition to the earth's temperature and whatever the sun is up to).
To be frank, I'm not a climate change denier, but there's no way in hell something that has allowed governments to just keep taxing people on, without actually having any effect on the stated goal, is anything but a load of horseshit. The climate is changing, and we're not responsible.
That said, I am really strict with not being wasteful e.g. router is off at night, everything gets unplugged except for the fridge and freezer, my showers are 3 minutes of running water, and I don't use plastic grocery bags (except for when buying fruit demands it and it pisses me off just because it's stupidly wasteful). I live in a place where I can get away with driving 50 km/week, so that makes me way less wasteful than most of the proponents of co2 is the devil, please tax me harder advocates.
Anyhow, rock on.
  • 1 0
 @sonuvagun: Do you have reusable bags for fruit and vegetables? Most supermarkets here sell them. You can wash them if you need to. Obviously they're much stronger than the plastic and paper bags from the supermarket.
  • 2 0
 @gth802s: So oil is good as long as it's not for transportation? How about all the products you consume who's ingredients are derived from oil? Those are ok? I think the most interesting thing from your link is transportation industry includes things like asphalt, lubricants, bio-fuels, waxes and many others that most normal people would not consider to be transportation but transportation related. Gasoline is 44% where transportation sector is in the 60's. What's interesting is they included some bio-fuels. Other interesting info is the oil companies are some of the few companies that are working on alternative fuels and energy sources cause there in the energy business not the oil business. Like I said so much tunnel vision in this area that most can't see past there own nose.
  • 1 0
 @gth802s: Thx, you put me down a fun rabbit hole..found this interesting bit of information and wondering how it applies to the formulas that your link was referring to..

"A U.S 42-gallon barrel of crude oil yields about 45 gallons of petroleum products in U.S. refineries because of refinery processing gain"
I can't help but wonder where/what that extra 3 gallons is for/from, a new rabbit hole I guess..

Also have to wonder how they calculated all the plastics and synthetic materials used in actual vehicles? Because if there counting asphalt as transportation related then they should also include the petroleum based vegan leather seats and plastic everything that's in or on the car. Even the insulation on your wiring.
I just wish people could be more open to all aspects of these type of discussions. I believe we can do without oil but it's going to take longer to move away from then we have been using it. I think as a fuel it's pretty hard to beat but everything else we make can be produced with other technology like plant based plastics....or is that just like oil that we have kept from becoming oil in a 1000yrs? Because oil is just plant based when it comes down to it. Maybe that's where there "bio-fuel" portion comes from in the transportation sector. Lol, not serious but I'm definitely going to look into what bio-fuels there referring to that are not ethanol related in that and many other articles.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: oh I do, but I find ways to forget them most of the time.
  • 1 0
 @gth802s: Heres is a link from the same organization about how much oil is used in plastics..tldr is they don't know. Much like deaths from the flu(look into how they "Don't" record flu deaths) they make an educated guess based on incomplete data from multiple sources. Easier to control the narrative when they(oil companies,pharmaceutical companies, FDA, EPA etc.) control the flow of data and analysis.
  • 2 0
 @sonuvagun: Yeah, I have this crate which clicks to my bike using the MIK system and I just throw all my empty bags and shopping bags in there. So when I go out for groceries, I just click the crate on my bike and I've got everything I need. I have mounted the two rails underneath so I can still attach my Ortlieb backback underneath which I use for work. So I can go shopping after work and ever since I've got that crate, I never forget my vegetable bags Smile .
  • 1 0
 @slowmoe: I didn’t realise Jesus rode a bicycle around d Bethlehem but he did use pitch and tar for lighting and waterproofing
  • 1 0
 @sonuvagun: internal combustion engine was invented in around 1860, the bicycle was invented in around 1817. I'm not mathlete but I'm pretty sure 1817 comes before 1860
  • 1 0
 @roguecheddar: no duh. Obviously the context here is in terms of transportation. The internal combustion engine was invented around 1860. The first scaled commercial drilling for oil was in 1859. Care to guess when the bicycle was invented? Commercial oil drilling was inititally to produce kerosene. Our current method to produce gasoline from crude was invented in 1937. The first car to burn gasoline was invented around 1875. So tell me again how wrong I am. (The bicycle was invented in 1817, if you look at a calendar, that date comes before all of transportation related gasoline)
  • 2 0
 @b45her: Actually it's called Naptha when naturally occurring. Bicycles were invented before cars. The first cars burned kerosene, not gasoline. The word gasoline didn't exist in 1817 when the bicycle was invented. Dude you really need to read some books.
  • 2 0
 @calebscott: the first bicycles were made of wood, not steel. Naturally occurring "gasoline" is actually called Naptha, it basically had next to zero uses in our society before the invention of the car, which was also after the bicycle. Our technology to refine crude into gasoline did not exist before 1937. You guys need to educate yourselves, and not take absolutely everything on pinkbike so seriously.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: I have now downgraded myself to lazyass. But I walk to the supermarket, it's a 5-7 minute shuffle- the convenience of lucking into the right location.
  • 3 1
 @tuboy95: it’s far more integrated than that. Governments , pension funds , banks , stock markets erc are all heavily invested in oil and gas simply because it is the stiff that makes the world go round. Renewables has a seat at the table and any oil and gas company has to diversify in that direction because there is a return to shareholders in doing so. Instead social media would rather you shoot the dick off your pension fund and retire poor because their virtue signalling has gathered a following of scared ignorant people who can’t be bothered to do the research through proper channels. The scale of energy from renewables that is needed to displace oil and gas means many many people will be without energy. The big problem is CO2 not oil or gas. Stop cutting down trees and focus on CO2 sequestration technology. Solar panels , EVs require a lot of raw material that is not obtained in an environmentally friendly manner. Strip mining is not clean and is a bigger blight on the planet than an oil well.
  • 1 1
 @golefty: indeed. And obviously this entire thread is in the context of fossil fuels used in transportation, so please don't be intentionally obtuse, and don't take pinkbike comment so seriously. Also, every technology that we have for drilling, extracting, refining, distributing, transporting, using fossil fuels etc etc was invented after the bicycle. Context is important.
  • 5 1
 @kipvr: This is one of the main issues with climate alarmism. We only think about Co2, (which is in many scientists opinion, a storm in a teacup) while ignoring environmental impacts of green energy.
  • 5 0
 Reminds me of the story of North Face denying an oil company from buying North Face jackets for their yearly Christmas gift for their employees because they did not want to have any association with oil companies. The oil company pointed out that North Face has built their company from making their products from fossil fuels. The hypocrisy is off the charts. Lol.
  • 5 0
 @gth802s: Of course it is but your teenage-twitter-grade cliché is not relevant to what I'm saying. The point is there are people who only shit on oil companies in public while taking full advantage of every comfort oil has brought to them because they're looking for likes on the Internet. It's a little pathetic.
  • 3 0
 @slowmoe: Coal is a fossil fuel and has been used by us humans for thousands upon thousands of years.
  • 4 2
 @jclnv: "Shell is a large investor in so-called 'green energy'" they patent everything to slow the adoption of 'green' energy as much as possible.
  • 2 1
  • 1 0
 Just came across this and made me think of this very discussion:
  • 1 1
 @railbender: I know it is an older post but I still would like to comment. I was actually able to convince my neighbor to buy an EV bike instead of a second car to bring her baby to daycare and go to work. She ended up buying a used radwagon. She is saving on parking (she works at the local hospital) and gas. So in this case, this was a no brainer, bike will be paid for in 8months and she bought it used, reducing the carbon footprint. So I would say it does happen. And I don't think she is an isolated example (at least for people living downtown).
  • 1 2
 @fabsic: Don't you think it is endangering the baby more if she is carrying the baby on her bike?
  • 1 0
 @zoobab2: yes , your pension fund doesn’t like surprises ….
  • 2 0
 @fabsic: the electric bike isn’t eco friendly at all. It probably uses fossil fuel to recharge. The battery is as damaging to the earth as you an get.
  • 3 0
 @slowmoe: we’ll that’s not true since the VOC Maarschapij was trading oil out of Indonesia and Philippines in the 1600’s. The first bicycles were made of wood, metal bikes followed after oil was invented since they need very hot flames to join the metal pipes. Gas welding is a relatively recent invention and again it is oil and gas that allowed that to haopen. So the improvement in bulk cycle manufacture was enabled by oom and gas, funny enough almost all industries improved in efficiency when this fossil based energy became available and was cheaper and less restrictive to handle than whale oil or other vegetable oils that were difficult to work with in winter.
  • 205 29
 Pinkbikers only see in black and white. This comment section "bIKes Are IMposSSIBle wiTHout FoSill indusTRy" is exactly what that industry wants you do to... justify its existence. It is same as making you average Joe calculate CO2 footprint and transfer the blame on a consumer.
  • 21 7
 B-I-N-G-O , applause to you sir.
  • 52 5
 Hatred of Shell goes beyond their resource-harvesting model and all of their historical misdeeds. Recently they were exposed supporting rape and torture in Nigeria:


Investigate Shell for complicity in murder, rape and torture

Massive cache of internal documents and other evidence points to Shell’s complicity in horrific crimes committed by the Nigerian military in the 1990s
New Amnesty International report calls for a criminal investigation

Amnesty International is calling on Nigeria, the UK and the Netherlands to launch investigations into Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell, over its role in a swathe of horrific crimes committed by the Nigerian military government in the oil-producing Ogoniland region in the 1990s.

The organization has released a ground-breaking review of thousands of pages of internal company documents and witness statements, as well as Amnesty International’s own archive from the period. Some of the key Shell documents are available here.
  • 12 16
flag someguy101 (Oct 13, 2022 at 14:38) (Below Threshold)
 I for one agree wholeheartedly. I mean, what stops us riding bicycles made out of wood and bamboo? We don't need any fossil industry to manufacture and transport alloy or carbon frames and the rest of the components that go on them. Why can't we sacrifice comfort, fun and safety for mother earth. Especially when these pieces of equipment are subject to various forces & load cycles. Fight the corporatocracy and sacrifice your well being for mother earth.
  • 27 2
 What is also interesting, is a small "side fact" that another "big oil" company, namely British Petroleum, were the ones who first introduced the term "personal carbon footprint".

"British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe."
  • 10 4
 @someguy101: There is no being, let alone well being without mother earth. You are free to go and live with Elon on mars though.
  • 7 13
flag someguy101 (Oct 13, 2022 at 15:52) (Below Threshold)
 @DGWW: wise words. Also your profile is full pics of bike stuff but no wooden bikes. How come?
  • 3 5
 Clearly we need a lot more complaining on twitter. That'll make Shell think twice about advertising on bikes!
  • 2 1
 @DylanH93: This is actually true - to an extent...
  • 5 0
 @DylanH93: Shell don't give a shit about this, or cycling. Pro level cycling is but a gust in the hurricane of their green washing.

British cycling however are no doubt feeling the heat for taking the shill-money.
  • 7 0
 @pbuser27288: That's not quite true. The concept actually originated as part of the ecological footprint developed by Mathis Wackernagel and Bill Reese at UBC. The carbon footprint concept was used widely in academia in the 90's and early 2000's.

What actually happened is that BP used Oglivy and Mather to hijack the term, amplify it and turn it from a useful idea that does have some merit, into a way to distract from their own responsibilities. It worked.

They owe way, way, way more than us, but we can't and shouldn't shirk our own efforts despite being locked into a system that is very hard to break free from.

In my perfect world we wouldn't accept energy drink money, or fossil fuel money despite the undoubted benefits they have brought to sport. Life isn't that straight forward, but this is tone deaf from BC.

There is no doubting we need to move away from oil very, very quickly though; we need to look far wider than net zero and look at adaptation, now, as well. Some unpredictable things are coming whether we hit net zero by 2030, let alone 2050 or not.
  • 2 0
 @TommyWilkinson: Very interesting, thanks for that insight!
  • 2 1
 Right on @valrock!!! Well said!
  • 1 0
 @someguy101: and the glue that binds the bamboo…?
Or do you use frog spit?
  • 1 0
 @golefty: Lots of sustainable options for resin. Also sustainable fibres like basalt.
  • 2 0
 @DGWW: lots is disingenuous with the the truth. There are a few resins and fibres but precious few are structural on their own. Keep trying
  • 1 0
 @golefty: What do you mean by "precious few are structural on their own" ? the fibres used on bikes aren't structural on their own either. Basalt is stronger in some ways than carbon fibre. Keep sounding condescending, it's a great attribute. ^
  • 2 0
 @DGWW: well you’re talking shyte so maybe that’s why you perceive condescension. Where is basalt fibre used in the bike industry? It’s used more in some low cost applications like reinforced concrete rebar and some pressure vessels . It’s heavier than glass fibre and only stronger than the weakest glass fibres, before even starting to compare to carbon and Kevlar. To manufacture the fibre you heat the rock (quarried so not so environmentally friendly hey) to between 1400 and 1500 degrees C. That takes quite a lot of energy which comes from where?
But is it going displace Carbon fibres anytime soon ? No so why keep mentioning it ?
  • 1 0
 @golefty: You still haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "precious few are structural on their own" ? Afaik carbon isn't structural on its own either. I stand by statement about basalt being stronger than carbon fibre in some ways. Afaik it doesn't end up heavier than glass fibre , but rather somewhere between glass and carbon. To my knowledge , basalt is recyclable, which is a big advantage over polymer based carbon fibres. I perceive condescension because you sound condescending, have a friend read your post.
  • 2 0
 @DGWW: alternative fobres are not as strong as Carbon so they need to be combined with synthetic fibres to achieve similar structural strength. Basalt comes in different varieties but the strongest is only barely stronger than Glass fibres but heavier. So glass is a better choice there. AS for being recycleable maybe basalt is fully recoverable from the resin but generally a thermosetting plastic composite isn't fully recycleable no matter what it is. We can only make weaker structures from the recycled materials (when its worth recovering). So no, its just not a viable alternative at this time
  • 2 0
 @suspended-flesh: and shells atrocities pale into insignificance when compared to the atrocities committed by the British government or any other colonial government. The problem is wokeness is the cherry picking
  • 1 0
 @TommyWilkinson: nett zero so t gonna happen unless you plan on finding another moon we can grow trees and sugar cane on
  • 91 10
 The childish binary strawman of "no fossil fuel no bikes" is so f*cking disappointing. Surely we are better than this.

Filling your car doesn't mean you support the Saudi royals bombing Yemen and heating your house doesn't mean you support the war in Ukraine. Our global society has ugly sides, but partaking whilst minimising your impact doesn't make you the enemy. You can strive for better whilst having enough subsistence to do so.
  • 4 0
  • 9 0
 Divide and conquer.

If we are so busy bickering between ourselves, we have no ability to take down those responsible. There is a reason why "liberals" and "conservatives" hate each other, and it isn't because we want to hate each other.
  • 4 0
 @JSTootell: Exactly. It's all about distraction and misdirection.
  • 4 2
 @suspended-flesh: Yep , we just lurch from one thing to be scared about to the next. The way that covid disappeared as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine is a perfect example.
  • 5 0
 @commental: Exactly, and drones lap it up. It’s the new religion. A mass psychosis of never ending disasters to be scared or outraged about. In the meantime, governments, institutions, and wealthy individuals erode democracy.
  • 4 4
 @jclnv: ...And you are again positioning yourself as a PB Preacher. Seems you've moved on from your debunked YouTube-wanker-backed Covid conspiracy rants to 'Skeptical Environmentalism'? Super.
  • 6 2
 @suspended-flesh: It’s rather transformative when you realise it’s ALL bullshit.

Hope you’re still getting your boosters. If not, what changed? Government guidance is still recommending them.
  • 2 0
 @jclnv: and get wealthier trading off both sides
  • 84 13
 While I sympathize with the position that it makes sense to take big oil’s money to improve cycling, it still seems wrong to act as a part of Shell’s advertising apparatus.

Cycling, like much of our daily lives, could not exist without petroleum products, but this is a damaging reality that we should be doing everything in our power to move away from.
  • 16 9
 I drive a half ton truck so I am going to reserve judgement. I get my gas at Costco though.
  • 10 10
 why is the vehicle you drive currently any part of this ?
  • 16 1
 @DGWW: Big vehicles use big gas
  • 1 1
 And go to what?
  • 17 6
 @HB208: A half ton, what is that in imperial? In the metric system I know a ton as 1000kg. A half ton would then be 500kg. What is that, an old school Fiat 500?
  • 6 2
 @vinay: It's the smallest of the Standard 'Full Size' US pickup trucks, so at least he isn't 'compensating' for any perceived shortcomings.
  • 12 1
 @HB208: The amount of gas you burn personally has nothing to do with this, owning a truck and being opposed to the fossil fuel industry aren't mutually exclusive. You aren't responsible for creating a future where we don't rely on fossil fuels, but for Royal Dutch Shell thats a very different question.
  • 5 1
 @HB208: Ah I see. Wasn't aware of a classification like that. My current car (a Renault Clio) weights about 900 or 1000kg and according to the boardcomputer consumes about 4.7l per 100km. My previous car (a Peugeot 107) weights about 800 or 900kg. (Not sure about these numbers). I think the Clio should be able to drag that 450kg weight and or probably would still drive with five 90kg people in there. But the description assumes a pickup truck, which this is not indeed. Confusing stuff.
  • 11 1
 @suspended-flesh: Standard US pickup trucks are huge compared to anything in europe.
  • 4 4
 @HB208: Yes, I know, and I am a 100% supporter of the freedom to manufacture, purchase and drive them. Most of my friends drive trucks.
  • 1 0
 @suspended-flesh: 'half ton' trucks are now absolutely monstrous so i dunno about that
  • 1 0
 @HB208: Used to drive a half ton, carried a half ton of hay just fine. Wouldn't want to load in more though.

I drive a Wrangler and a retired ambulance. So my fuel consumption is a little on the high side. But I also bike commute 4 days a week (one day I drive and MTB after work).
  • 2 0
 @ryan77777: True, but a lot of dudes can't seem to live without a 6.7L Cummins or Powerstroke under the hood of a 1T dually in the suburban driveway.
  • 2 0
 @JSTootell: I work from home so I really only use my truck when I am taking my dogs and my wife around (we have a shell and rotomolded kennels). If I am driving around town I prefer my crosstrek since its easier to get in and out of parking lots.
  • 1 0
 @HB208: how big is your wife and dogs? Can't Corsstreck handle them? Big Grin
  • 1 0
 @valrock: No, not really. Not once the car is loaded up with gear. I also do not like having them roam around the car, so having them in kennels really helps. Going down the freeway at 80 mph (speed limit in Idaho) with lose dogs does not make me have warm fuzzies... I did it for a bit.
  • 1 0
 Why should we doing everything in our power to move away from it? An entire civilisation has been built on it. To displace it requires some revolution and a lot of evolution. Even if we replace all fossil power generation units with nuclear we still need fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, chemicals for polymers , processes etc . We are the problem , there is simply too many humans on the planet. We have. It had a proper war or plague to wipe us out for quite a long time and we have multiplied geometrically in that time.
  • 1 0
 @DGWW: did you know Oil companies saved the whales?
  • 1 0
 @golefty: Nuclear is fossil fuel too.
  • 3 0
 Everything is space dust.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: uranium
Was once alive and made up of protein fats and carbs???’ Wow is never have drawn that conclusion
  • 1 0
 @golefty: Yeah, I'm probably the only one (as I'm wrong indeed). I merely thought fossil implied extracted from the earth, but I missed the "alive" and organic chemistry bit indeed. With "fossil" at one end and "sustainable" at the other, nuclear is in a lonely place apparently. What is sustainable is up for debate anyway.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: no worries, sustainable is a swear word. Wind and solar are not sustainable either because the wind doesn’t blow everyday and the sun light hours and intensity is not the same everyday. The narrative of nett zero is alarmist and unrealistic. It’s just another Ponzi scheme to attract investment
  • 59 7
 The I.Q of PB commenters is absolutely hitting a new low point in this comment thread lol. Pb should release an article explaining critical thinking and strawman arguments.
  • 13 0
 It wouldn't get as many clicks.
  • 3 0
 Saul about the cliques.
  • 4 0
 You thought the IQ of PB commenters was ever not at this low point? You must've been on PB longer than me...
  • 2 0
 @Benjamin97 One of the fee comments i found where i agree 100%. Thx
  • 2 1
 @Phipu: Fee? how much does one need to pay to insert buzzwords?
  • 1 0
  • 62 22
 I understand the concerns, but might as well take their money and put it to good use. Ultimately having a robust cycling program will do more to inspire cycling than not having one.
  • 21 1
 But since the money will go almost completely to high performance teams and making custom equipment that poor nations can only dream of, can we really claim that is "good use" and a robust cycling program?
  • 5 0
 @neoides: There can't really be feeder systems if there is nothing to feed them to.
  • 23 0
 Thing is, British cycling doing well in competitions has done little to encourage everyday use of bikes for short urban journeys, which is the main issue with car usage. We’ve been leading track cycling for decades now, yet our cycling infrastructure is still piss poor and levels of everyday cycling remain pretty stagnant. People don’t look at Geraint Thomas or Laura Kenny decked out in Lycra and feel inspired to commute to work, in some ways it’s off putting for them.
  • 4 2
 @oatkinso: sadly I think recreational road cyclists do more harm than good for both the environment and cycling infrastructure. Cycling as a sport and cycling as transportation are two largely distinct worlds, yet there are constant calls for cyclists to be banned from shared use paths because the local wiggins-du-jour is treating them like his personal TT track.
  • 3 0
 @L0rdTom: Yup, I have a 40 mile pedestrian path next to me but it really shouldn't be used for any serious training. Going 20 mph on a road bike next to people walking dogs and children is lame.
  • 32 1
 British Cycling is getting Shelled in the comments.
  • 13 1
 Shell is getting cycled in the British comments
  • 11 0
 @DizzyNinja: Shittish bicycling is getting Bellended
  • 1 0
 @browner: appropriate user name is appropriate
  • 28 2
 The issue is that every segment of our lives is currently controlled by our relationship to oil-based products, and a company such as Shell continuously generates profits from this dependence and would like things to continue to be that way. Nobody is expecting society to immediately resolve this by giving up your primary mode of transportation, the clothes you currently wear or how your housing is heated. Perhaps on the more extreme end of the movement this is being communicated, but I would like to believe that the majority of people who acknowledge that our changing climate is an issue realizes the current system we live in is extremely oil dependent and know change isn't going to just happen overnight nor expects people to give up living in a modern society for the sake of being green. Having Shell as a partner because you need the funding is understandable, saying by having Shell as a partner will help you achieve net-zero goals is disingenuous. Partnerships being painted in this psudo-green light only enables oil companies such as Shell to continue misleading the public and shift anger and frustration away from themselves.
  • 4 2
 You are right, but I cannot understand how getting money from Shell is delaying ecological transformation. I also do not get why would Shell want to be advertised by cycling. I mean, you don't see the Shell name on plastic sh*t you buy, you will not consume more or less oil no matter how many Shell adverts you will or will not see. In Poland there is the same gas on every gas station no matter how it is branded, and even if thanks to such advertisement all people started to buy gas on Shell stations then what? People buy gas because they need it, not because they want it. Also decisions regarding buying into EVs are purely financial based. No one is also dumb enough to think that his car will produce less polution because he saw people riding bikes with Shell logos ...
  • 44 17
 I have just cancelled my British Cycling membership, on the basis that I don't want to support Shell's "green washing"
  • 14 30
flag caiocrz (Oct 13, 2022 at 13:45) (Below Threshold)
 Think about this next time you turn your car on then take a good look in the mirror.
  • 5 0
 Fight the Power, bro.
  • 19 8
 The virtue signals are lit, Gondor calls for aid!
  • 7 3
 @caiocrz: What car? I ride a bike everywhere.
  • 6 2
 @caiocrz: Speak for yourself, I bike everywhere and take a train to my local bike park.
  • 3 1
 @FloydTShark: what train and what bike park??? You ride a train to north star?
  • 3 2
 @FloydTShark: While thats cool and all, not nearly enough places have that type of infrastructure in the US. Nor can many people to afford to live in those places assuming you're in the bay.

I am fortunate enough to ride from my front door/ garage, but it unrealistic for me to chastise those who don't. By the way, you still have rubber on your wheels, and fossil fuels were used to make your bike.
  • 1 0
 @caiocrz: cell phone
Wipe your arse
Read a book
Buy food and eat it
Drink a glass of water or buy a bottle of mineral
Sing the national anthem
  • 21 3
 I am cancelling my membership of British Cycling. Largely because I think this sponsorship move proves once and for all that they have a narrow focus on medals in the velodrome. How can anybody take them seriously as advocates of everyday cycling when they are sponsored by an outfit that makes huge sums of money from people choosing not to cycle and use a car? It's an obvious conflict of interest

Add to that the fact their contributions to UK mountain biking seem to be fairly minimal, and it's clear that I've spent 10 years paying into an organisation that does not represent my interests.

This is a cynical move on their part. They know they will severe ties with a lot of longer term members and advocates, and are basically choosing to be a professional sports team
  • 15 0
 It's a f**king disgrace for a ton of reasons outside this climate argument and I personally hate these governing bodies of sports who masquerade as ambassadors and elected representatives of our sports when really they are no different than corporate groups or bankers mishandling millions and making sweet deals which align with there agendas and not the members of the organisation.
  • 15 1
 Let's sum up both sides of the argument and find an obvious conclusion:


* BIKES CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT FOSSIL FUEL (materials for bike/gear, manufacturing, shipping, travel etc)
NOTE: Average CO2 footprint of a bike is 174 kg CO2. (e-bikes 320 kg CO2)


* SINGLE USE. (One barrel of conventional light oil has a CO2 footprint of 475 kg often burnt in motor vehicles)
* PARTNERSHIP IS A OBVIOUS MARKETING PLOY. (oil companies losing market share due to public awareness of climate change)

Yes, the bike industry does CURRENTLY require fossil fuels. However, burning fossil fuels is not sustainable long-term for our planet and the human race. While someone who rides a bike still has a CO2 footprint, it is much less than someone who drives a motor vehicle continually burning fuel. So it seems relatively hypocritical for an Oil company like Shell to promote cycling.

You can look at it in two ways.1. Be happy an oil company is putting back into the cycling industry, or 2. be wary of a big oil company like shell pulling a marketing ploy to gain public favour.
  • 2 0
 Is that footprint less if someone is driving their bike to a location to ride? Its not a very well discussed impact of biking. Id like to see Pinkbike do a survey on how many people do this. Biking is only an environmental good if it is replacing something more damaging. If it is generating more impact then it isnt.
  • 3 1
 That's exactly it - many ways to look at this pros and cons for all arguements.

It's like electric cars and ebikes - energy that comes from mainly Gas, Coal and biomass fuel plants which aren't great. Then you look at the manufacturing and mining for the raw materials for the batteries etc
It's the same for alot of solar/wind plants, the raw materials.
I believe we do need to phase out fossil fuels and find new ways of powering out civilisation but it seems not a huge amount is being done to move the human race forward to this goal - it seems governments and corps seem to be causing environmental alarmism taxing (gov) and profiting off us all instead of finding solutions.

Did you see shell now have an ebike? haha who on earth is going to buy one of those?!!?
  • 21 6
 Coming from the whitewater kayaking community the mtb community is so disappointing. Lots of entitled climate change denier types and status games
  • 1 1
 Maybe they’re just more informed? Although the kayakers I know aren’t too please with rivers diverted and dried up for hydroelectric dams.
  • 16 3
 Here's the problem... Reacting to Twitter extremist and giving them more weight than they actually carry. Less than 0.4% of the world use Twitter, and of that tiny percentage, another tiny percentage always have extreme reactions to virtually everything.

We need to recognize that they are the extreme minority and stop treating inconsequential Twitter posts like news.
  • 7 9
 Yes. The best response from British Cycling would be a simple, “F off. We got a business to run.” More people and corporations need to do that.
  • 7 1
 @TheR: not when it's a membership organisation - where their members have the right to steer direction of the organisation via governance and council voted-in by members at AGMs. Actually look at the comments when they announced this on facebook and you'll more than just the odd twitter commenter on there voicing their disapproval of this. The response from BC to my email questioning the decision making process was responded to with a bland copy paste statement which did nothing to reassure me about why they chose this partnership during a climate emergency, and as such I am also not renewing my membership. This is not corporate America, this is a governing body of UK cycling, and as such have a duty to their membership base with their decision making.
  • 3 2
 Listening to one of my podcasts "Revolutions", as he is winding down the series. He noted in his last episode how the VAST majority of any population is not for, or against change. They are just trying to live their lives.

Be willing to bet MOST people living in "shithole countries" are in the same position. They don't care, they are just trying to live their lives. So maybe that .4% getting into an uproar is what is needed for positive change.

Though, sometimes, they can get it wrong.
  • 1 0
 @JSTootell: great podcast! Check out Dan Carlin as well if you haven't already
  • 3 1
 @hambobet: They have a duty to their membership, but not Greenpeace or these other organizations calling them out on Twitter. If this was enough for you to cancel your membership, well then that's an issue they have to deal with, or not, depending on the type of backlash they get from their membership. But Greenpeace can go pack sand.
  • 3 1
 @TheR: It's Greenpeace's own mandate to call out what they feel is corporate greenwashing by the biggest producers of fossil fuels. Alerting BC members, potential future members, and press channels of these sorts of issues is totally what they should be doing.
  • 2 0
 @hambobet: Yeah, and Greenpeace is free to do what it wants, too. And British Cycling should pay them no mind. Only respond if heat comes from the membership.
  • 2 1
 This would be my flow chart for dealing with Greenpeace if I were president of British Cycling:

Is Greenpeace a member of British Cycling?>>>No.>>>Is Greenpeace a sponsor of British Cycling?>>>No.>>>Is Greenpeace supporting British Cycling in any way, shape or form financially?>>>No.>>>Well then I don’t give a rip about what Greenpeace has to say about our business model. I won’t even dignify these people with a response.

It should be the very model every corporation deals with extremist activism. Do it a couple time and watch how quickly they go away.
  • 18 1
 Car goes vroom
  • 6 1
 Ebike goes whirrrrr
  • 15 1
 ESG is a clever racket.
  • 1 2
 And huge for crypto.
  • 11 0
 British cycling were a bunch of tossers before this deal and will probably continue to be a bunch tossers, but just a bit richer.
  • 11 0
 Helping the Oil companies with there image? Why would you want to do that?
  • 18 8
 Green washing for an oil company must be lucrative.
  • 10 0
 British Cycling are awful. Endless shite decisions.
  • 6 1
 Old news. Bernard was on the Ferrari F40 Shell bike last year as part of the British Cycling worlds team.

Calling it now, British Cycling to sign next sponsorship deal with Rothmans cigarettes.
  • 8 3
 "We should improve cycling somewhat"
"Yet you participate in cycling. Curios! I am very intellegent"
  • 7 2
 This is the fuel company that’s actually requested to pay more tax but the uk government won’t let them, I suppose this can’t hurt
  • 10 6
 Stop reporting twitter and this nonsense goes away …. This is a nonstory except on twitter where you need to be a psychopath to prove your woke’r than the next bloke or you lose social credit.
  • 3 0
 Not only Twitter, but any social media. If you are using info from social media to form opinions or God forbid, consider social media "news", then you are already an unaware cog in that machine, and it may be too late for you.

Its "social" media... i.e. gossip, rumor, opinion... and again from a very limited segment of the overall population.
  • 5 2
 There is no way anything to do with fossil fuels will be net zero so they need to drop that nonsense but people need to understand the basic truth that without fossil fuels there would be no mountain bikes!
It seems everyone lives in this greenwashed fantasy land - as someone who actually does something to help the environment other than repost crap memes on social media I will remain neutral on this but saying that those money grabbing f*cks at shell need bring down the cost of fuel for the working people!

Hope everyone gets out and has a good ride this weekend - don't let this stuff get to you! Peace!
  • 6 2
 It's amazing how threads like this come around and suddenly dozens of you that do absolutely zilch to help the environment are suddenly pro-environment and know so much about reducing emissions.
  • 2 0
 It's great seeing a post that actually makes sense
  • 6 2
 Oil protesters

"Lets do something crazy"

"hmmm... What about tomato soup on a Van Gogh painting? That'll teach them!"

What a bunch of utter idiots. Get a grip and a job. Muppets.
  • 19 17
 So funny to me that people think that this actually means much. All this means is additional money going to a better cause than it would have. The cycling industry is fueled by fossil fuels regardless of what people think, and bashing for no reason just makes you look ignorant...
  • 5 1
 I think it tends to prove ignorance
  • 1 0
 Look or proving ignorance
  • 10 5
 Wonder how many greenpeace protesters have signed up to be volunteers at next years world championships in Glasgow?
  • 3 0
 Don't worry, someone will come out with a nice article to convince you of how good this deal is, just like when they told you about the 1000$ 12'' carbon balance bike and the 150$ chain oil.
  • 6 4
 People tweeting angrily about the partnership while driving their bikes to a bike park in a pickup consuming fuel, made of plastic and metal and then using bikes that have consumed plastic and metal to make while wearing a moulded helmet that cant be recycled etc. Its just hypocrisy. Bikes are only an environmental solution when they replace something less damaging, not when they create more carbon miles and consumption as they do for peoples leisure. The title of this should be 'people critecise the company they buy raw materials off to create the products they buy'. Actually partnership is an effective model for gaining change in the private sector, especially where there is leverage of brand. But that part was missed from this unbalanced article, instead opting for quotes only from the far left of the environmental debate to create click bait.
  • 4 2
 Anyone else more concerned about the many many tons of Roundup dumped on the planet each year, the forever chemicals produced, or warmongering idiots like Biden, Putin, Zalensky, the NATO, etc. than the gas we exhale and plants breath in?
  • 2 0
 You got it mate.
  • 3 1
 The planet is done for, as is humanity. Cant believe everybody still has hope. Look at how we behave in big groups... look how we choose and blame political leaders, how we buy from and then condemn businesses, its all a big joke. We climbed to the industrial revolution and we're just about at the top of the evolutionary cliff where we make the swan dive onto the dry riverbed below. Splat! Its the insects turn. I think the hive mentality has promise.
  • 3 1
 High performance sports are perfect for oil and gas sponsorship. Elite athletes flying/driving all over the world contributing nothing concrete to society. Don't get me wrong i love watching sports but not a group i hold to a high standard as they play games to placate the minions as rome burns so to speak. And on the Shell criticism, sure they are doing green washing but they are also spending billions on renewables energy development and deployment. They had a great run on oil and are diversifying, good for them. We aren't shaming bike companies for adding batteries and motors.
  • 3 1
 Honestly, Shell is one of the few massive oil majors that are trying to get into the business of ships burning bio-fuels, which I believe have very low emissions. Aside from that, they support and are greatly involved with safety practices aboard merchant ships, especially product and chemical tankers, which are currently burning very low-sulphur fuels. Most of the larger shipping companies are looking to make the switch to LNG and eventually 0.01% sulphur fuel. I honestly don't understand the outcry of this one.
  • 1 0
 Biofuels have similar direct emissions as fossil fuels but allegedly less well to wheels carbon intensity , which currently is utter bs.
Even green hydrogen is a thermodynamic fallacy. However Shell started in the shipping business over a century ago as Shell Reading and Transport company. It later earned a contract to transport oil from the Philippines for royal Dutch oil company. The two later merged. She’ll comes from a greenish history becssue they operated sailing ships till these were replaced by coal powers steamers and then fuel oil powered steam turbine tankers. This business of moving oil around the world made whale oil redundant and booom the whale population rebounded.
  • 5 0
 Editors saw this grenade, pulled the pin and tossed it high and far. Clicks incoming!
  • 2 0
 Where do people think the money comes from to invest in renewables like offshore wind? Governments certainly don't have the funds to live up to their promises of net zero or their announcement of large renewables targets. They also haven't invested in any infrastructure to support these large projects or promote local content.

Not exclusively, but a significant proportion of the capital that goes into funding renewables comes from large oil and gas companies, they are some of the only ones with the sort of money required and they have expertise with projects of that size. As an example, a 15MW turbine, just the blades and nacelle cost around 15-20 million Euros. Per turbine. A modern size wind farm costs billions.

I agree that with Shell sponsoring British cycling, the optics to the masses aren't good, but come on people, with a bit less knee-jerk reaction and some reading/realism instead, Shell and similar companies are likely going to be the powers that make the energy transition possible.
  • 2 0
 Solar panels and solar power as such has been heavily developed and designed by Shell. The biggest stake in the green energy development have the oil companies regardless of the reasons why. The big oil companies realize that the market and the environment are changing so is their business is shifting. Going 100% renewable will require a lot of money and changed mindset of the people and who else have the big bucks than the big oil companies. Shell is very solid company and will be a solid financial sponsor for the British cycling. Next time when Melanie gets on her car or on the plane , or put on that Goretex jacket , or the plastic helmet tires , etc, etc, etc ..shall know that all that came from oil. So it is not black and white !
  • 2 0
 It is very cynical from Green peace and the other "green minded" critics to bitch about the oil industry while explore all the benefits and advantages of it . We shall simply accept it as a stage of development of the human kind. Oil industry has brought massive progress unfortunately for the sake of the environment cannot exist in this form much longer . Shell realize that better than anybody else . Shell was at the bottom of development and commercialization the modern photovoltaic cell... how about that? Sponsoring cycling means that Shell want to put more people on cycles !
  • 5 0
 Oh yay, BC gets some oil money to not put into developing MTB further.
  • 9 7
 Are these critics able to provide the perfect execution plan to switch from fossil fuels to clean energy or are they just mashing their keyboards to inflate their sense of higher self?
  • 6 1
 Are you going to acknowledge that things aren't binary when it comes to fossil fuels and harm reduction/moving away from dependency is what we need to strive for or are you just mashing your keyboard to inflate your sense of higher self?
  • 1 1
 @piotrek88: the latter.
  • 1 0
 To be fair the old sponsor HSBC has been no angel over the years judging by Wikipedia, including sanction busting, market manipulation, money laundering and fraud. If there is any clean money out there it won't be enough to fund all this performance cycling and general promotion of cycling. And if we all ride wooden bikes we would chop down too many trees.
  • 2 1
 Let's face it we are all fecked already, I'm a landscaper, the seasons have changed already, plants and grass is growing differently to 10 years ago. Doesn't matter what we do or say it's not going to change anytime soon. Just enjoy yourselves now as who knows what tomorrow brings.
  • 3 1
 Sounds like a lot of those twitters users don't even know what Shell does these days. It's not just an oil company anymore. Massive amounts of research and investment into renewables for the future.
  • 1 0
 It never was just an oil company. Royal Dutch Oil Company was an oil company. She’ll Trading and Transport Company was in the business of transporting Sea shells from Indonesia to Europe for manufacture of paint and dye. RD contracted ST&T to transport its oil and royal Dutch Shell was formed. They have always had their fingers in many pies. When gas was found in the Netherlands after WW2 they got into gas too. How many homes have centra heating in Europe and the USA?
  • 2 1
 "Carbon fibre is composed of carbon atoms bonded together to form a long chain. Ninety per cent of today’s carbon fibres are made from polyacrylonitrile, which in turn is manufactured from polymers and acrylonitrile – both among the 6,000 useful products that come from petroleum. The remaining 10 per cent of carbon fibres are made from rayon or petroleum pitch."
  • 4 3
 SO good to see.

The state of the current world is the US blows up pipelines in the seas north of Germany for its "friends" releasing ecological levels of methane environmental disaster, while lecturing and hectoring and prohibiting liberal democracies and adopting cow tax and methane reduction from livestock and large scale, high energy and protein food production.

Meanwhile a war is wages by the same protagonists while the side we are on wears nazi symbols by high-ranking brigade leaders and the poor and infirmed freeze because the EU self-annihilated its own energy security for fallacy and virtue.

Glue another hand to the Rembrandt, burn a green if you are feeling cold.

The Western Liberal Uni-global Order is gone, it's just a question of how quick it now occurs.
  • 2 2
 Probably the best comment. The leftist/woke hypocrisy is staggering.
  • 1 0
 Ridiculous that cyclists are objecting to the partnership with Shell. Try cycling without fossil fuels, you would not be cycling anymore. Whether you want to believe it or not, virtually every cycling product and component is made with fossil fuels. Cyclists who don't want any association with fossil fuels, should probably look for another sport like naked barefoot running or naked swimming because running shoes and running/swimming clothes made from fossil fuels. Wink
  • 15 12
 No oil no bikes. Give me a break. What do you think powers the tanker ships full of all those shiny Chinese made parts.
  • 1 0
 At the rate things are shipping, might as well go back to the sail
  • 2 2
 News flash - we are in the tail-end of what is believed to be the 5th ice age of the planet. Inside of each ice age there are long periods of cooling and warming. We are currently in a warming stage, or an “interglacial” period. The planet is nowhere near the elevated temperatures that have been reasonably estimated for prior ice age interglacials. There is no stopping global warming. Are we accelerating it by using fossil fuels? Probably, but the fact remains, it’s going to happen no matter what we do. Should we try to limit pollution and waste? For sure, but until the large developing nations do the same our efforts will have minimum impact while making us far less competitive in the global economy.
  • 2 0
  • 8 6
 Crikey can't anything just be simple and fun anymore?

Shell isn't going anywhere.

Take their money before somebody else does!!!
  • 1 1
 This is awesome, do you guys think you could do tall shorts, jerseys, etc? I'm 6'6"ish and only a 32 waist and would wear a large jersey if it wasn't for my height. I really struggle to find riding specific jerseys for people my size.
  • 3 1
 Heck I'll take a sponsorship any day from big oil and big tobacco. I'll even smoke Marlboro Reds on the podium to prove drinking Red Bull.
  • 5 0
 Greed s a motherfkr
  • 2 1
 Ecologist protesters on the web Web that works with servers that have an energy consumption similar to a big city Posted on social with smartphone produced in east world and shipped with shippercontainers.
  • 4 1
 I wasn’t aware that AOC created multiple PB accounts, and is active in this comment section. Interesting
  • 2 0
 AOC and Greta. How dare you!!
  • 2 1
 The thought of a having bike events acting as oil commercials, and bike racers promoting carbon based fuels on their jerseys, is so GROTESQUELY absurd, it makes me wanna punch something!
  • 1 0
 Yourself would be a good start…
  • 15 11
 Shame! Shame!
  • 1 0
 I get you, dog.
  • 2 0
 Ding ding!
  • 5 1
 Just ride yer bike
  • 1 0
 I can’t blame anyone for being angry with Shell after they shamelessly stole Banzai Predicament’s hit song, Orphaned Skies.
  • 6 3
 Pinkobike is back reporting things that 5 people complained about.
  • 2 0
 Like this is the first shady thing british cycling has done....
  • 3 2
 Disgraceful, Shell has been under investigation for the Murder of Climate Activists, how can a company like BC partner with them??
  • 3 0
 Eventually cyclists exhale more co2 while riding, than walkers…
  • 20 22
 This is so funny considering how much oil is apart of the biking industry. If you don't like it I guess you can go without you 10 thousand dollar bikes being shipped around the globe and all the components for it. Also means your options are a little limited when it comes to clothing too. At the end of the day the sponsorship is a good thing because it helps promote bikes and could potentially encourage people to ride more often and drive less. But I guess virtue signaling makes you more popular on Twitter.
  • 14 6
 Shell are the ones trying to signal their virtues, our sport has just become part of their green washing program.
  • 3 0
 @L0rdTom: The cycling industry is 100% dependent on fossil fuels to make their products. Either bike products are made with fossil fuels or fossil fuels are used in the manufacturing process. So, who is really green washing?
  • 1 0
 Meanwhile no one "BATs" an eye when McLaren partners with British American Tobacco...
  • 3 0
 Giulty fee, nothing new
  • 2 0
 That’s right money, your monies happiness is all that monies
  • 2 0
 Looking forward to seeing The North Sea Velodrome Platform.
  • 4 3
 yeah fossil fuels are really bad all we need is everyone on battery powered bikes thatll be great for the planet
  • 2 0
 It's all 'bout the money
It's all 'bout the dum dum da da dum dum….
  • 2 0
 systemic doping cover ups and a Team Ineos also powered by oil.....
  • 2 0
 Well HSBC wasn’t a much beter partnership than with Shell…
  • 1 0
 It's funny that the sponsor is not Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos, he's best buddy with Brailsford
  • 1 1
 Need more environmental products in Cycling, but just more bs
Have being making some bio plastic, made some from Comfrey root that feels like rubber?
  • 1 2
 Yes the Oil companies have some oil on their hands, but ultimate it is us the consumer that are responsible for fossil fuel burning and related global warming. You can’t just blame the oil companies.
  • 1 0
 Everyone has ill on their hands. It’s in your hand cream, shampoo, soap, disinfectants hand sanitisers. Fook man we even shit it out
  • 2 0
  • 7 7
 Without fossil fuels we would be pedalling around on bikes made of woven wood fibers with coconuts on our heads as helmets.
  • 9 9
 green new deal , watermelon communism - green on the outside, red on the inside
  • 3 2
 Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury
  • 1 0
 That's up there with Froomie joining Start Up Apartheid Israel.
  • 4 4
 I’m upset too, personably I’m more of a chevron guy. Better snack marts.
  • 1 0
 This isn’t great, but at least Hockey Canada isn’t in charge.
  • 2 2
 Speak for yourself, all my bikes are made of hemp and bamboo. It's so progressive!!
  • 2 2
 Are all of these people going to sell bikes and cars and house, and live in a mud hut and subsistence farm? No? Predictable
  • 2 1
 Don't choose to be a part of the problem, be part of the solution.
  • 3 1
 What is the solution to make cycling products with no fossil fuels? Not even close to possible at this point.
  • 3 0
 Nobody body can choose to not be a part of the problem. Your actually typing your comments on a product made with petroleum.
  • 2 0
 Get over it
  • 3 1
 Shut the woke up
  • 8 9
 Cancel Culture, Remember to get in Line or you will be Canceled! I hope they stop the road teams from ridiing on Asphalt.
  • 9 11
 China produces more emissions than the entire Western hemisphere, but let's self flagellate over trivialities, makes me feel good.
  • 3 0
 so now go and check emissions produced thanks to Shell for their entire digging and producing history. And check how much they made out of it.
  • 3 3
 @dj100procentenduro: @dj100procentenduro: Profits and Capitalism. It's not criminal, and without it the only barter is through Force.

Burn your bike mate, its made with for profit.

Send a better signal of your opposition.
  • 4 4
 Anyone know where to but organic grass fed tires?
  • 1 3

Sorry, my organic grass fed chicken milk fermented a bit to long.
  • 1 0
 Try I hear their tyres have a new additive called hypocritium. Apparently it improves adhesion of shit while allowing the release of grip on reality
  • 2 2
 Yeah like She’ll are any worse than the pricks at HSBC
  • 2 1
 boo hoo
  • 2 2
 Simple for me, if Brandon supports I am wholeheartedly against it!
  • 1 0
 Hsbc is much much worse
  • 2 4
 THis will be a great comment section. Also LOL at interviewing greenpeace.
  • 1 2
 When is the field test coming out?
  • 4 5
 Oh, right... No one uses gas cars... People are idiots.
  • 10 4
 We use cars with gas because oil companies like Shell do everything in their power to stop change.
  • 1 1
 @fiatpolski: agree with that. It's not 2001. Technology exists to be able to live life with zero compromise and without burning fossil fuels......the only thing stopping it is advertising from companies like shell and basic human nature of taking the easy option. Shame to see British Cycling aiding shell in general advertising. They could turn it around by only agreeing to advertise the large number of renewable projects shell are part of and openly showing that it's a step in the right direction, but not enough until they stop production of Fussel fuel for energy......but I doubt that will happen and they will grab the money. With it they will be seen for what they are and a complete sell out to green washing.
  • 1 0
 @fiatpolski: must be tough waking up in the morning and getting dressed to drive to work while the armed Shell salesperson holds a gun to your head. You must be special that they give you this individual attention
  • 1 0
 @dmck123: You are correct in stating the technologies exist to decarbonize, but you are WAY off when you state there would be zero compromise. The cost would be unaffordable for most people.
  • 1 1
 Hear, hear!
  • 2 5
 unless you are riding a bike everywhere instead of driving, its not good for the environment.
  • 2 5
 Must default to username on this one.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Copyright © 2000 - 2024. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.056280
Mobile Version of Website