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."
 | We’re looking forward to working alongside Shell UK over the rest of this decade to widen access to the sport, support our elite riders and help our organisation and sport take important steps towards net zero – things we know our members are incredibly passionate about.
Within our new commercial programme, this partnership with Shell UK brings powerful support for cycling, will help us to improve and will make more people consider cycling and cyclists.— Brian Facer, CEO of British Cycling |
 | We’re very proud to become an Official Partner to British Cycling. The partnership reflects the shared ambitions of Shell UK and British Cycling to get to net zero in the UK as well as encouraging low and zero-carbon forms of transport such as cycling and electric vehicles.
Working together we can deliver real change for people right across the country, from different walks of life, and also apply Shell’s world-leading lubricant technology to support the Great Britain Cycling Team in their quest for gold at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.— David Bunch, Shell UK Country Chair |
 | At 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."
 | The 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."
 | [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.
404 Comments
"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.
To put that into perspective, one barrel of conventional light oil has a CO2 footprint of 475 kg (Source: carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/breaking-down-barrel-tracing-ghg-emissions-through-oil-supply-chain-pub-62722). 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.
Who runs the marketing at British cycling ? are they totally inept when it comes to optics ?
Saving the planet....
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.
Greens are the old reds.
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.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219302258
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 (www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html)
- Audrey Gaughran
Vote with your petrodollar.
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.
The Exxon-Mobil My First Book on Atmospheric Science?
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.
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.
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...
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.
This - www.amazon.ca/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691/ref=asc_df_0063001691/?tag=googleshopc0c-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=438541116168&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11072631594273802080&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1001890&hvtargid=pla-919059650281&psc=1
And this - www.amazon.ca/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647475/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_w=Gq803&content-id=amzn1.sym.bc8b374c-8130-4c45-bf24-4fcc0d96f4d6&pf_rd_p=bc8b374c-8130-4c45-bf24-4fcc0d96f4d6&pf_rd_r=PVT3AK6QNY06X684YENJ&pd_rd_wg=ms6ty&pd_rd_r=d635f1ef-d7c7-4d0c-813a-e85a9a50860f&pd_rd_i=1541647475&psc=1
And this - www.amazon.ca/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=pd_lpo_3?pd_rd_w=3orM6&content-id=amzn1.sym.bc8b374c-8130-4c45-bf24-4fcc0d96f4d6&pf_rd_p=bc8b374c-8130-4c45-bf24-4fcc0d96f4d6&pf_rd_r=YAC81MS6WB37MPZAWFCY&pd_rd_wg=YgfXC&pd_rd_r=98c8f573-92d2-408d-9dd2-6e7e7c5a9771&pd_rd_i=1950665798&psc=1
Start with those and you’ll see that the movement has little to do with science, and everything to do with money. Oh and perversely, also control.
But no one is anti-bike commuting, on this topic. Your rant is off-the-mark.
The world's not perfect, but such actions are great steps in the right direction.
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.
And 1000 ppm? Is that what atmospheric co2 levels are?
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:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg#mw-jump-to-license
Regarding CO2 levels, there's a significant change around mid 18th to beginning of the 19th century
www.co2levels.org
Weird.
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.
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.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers
Edit: sorry, can't seem to get the link to work.
As for other petroleum based products, they pale really compared to oils used for transportation.
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php
"Whatabouttism" gets us nowhere.
Me: "I'd like to stop bank robberies"
You: "What a Hypocrit! Cuz what about MURDER?"
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.
Have being making some bio plastic, made some from Comfrey root that feels like rubber?
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.
"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. www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/home/klima/klimawandel-schweiz/temperatur-und-niederschlagsentwicklung.html
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!
www.ipcc.ch
As a percentage of atmospheric Co2, that's a 0.014% increase.
Here's a study on atmospheric temp - link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00382-022-06493-w.pdf
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.
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.
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 - www.amazon.ca/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=pd_lpo_3?pd_rd_w=3orM6&content-id=amzn1.sym.bc8b374c-8130-4c45-bf24-4fcc0d96f4d6&pf_rd_p=bc8b374c-8130-4c45-bf24-4fcc0d96f4d6&pf_rd_r=YAC81MS6WB37MPZAWFCY&pd_rd_wg=YgfXC&pd_rd_r=98c8f573-92d2-408d-9dd2-6e7e7c5a9771&pd_rd_i=1950665798&psc=1
CO2 levels, have, apparently, gone up at various points in human history, and before industrialization. So make of that what you will.
www.amazon.ca/Inconvenient-Facts-Science-That-Doesnt/dp/1545614105
Climate change scare is going to go down as the biggest scam in human history.
...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.
apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=35&p
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.
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
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.
"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!!!!
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.
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.
"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.
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=34&t=6
www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/weekly-data-how-many-birds-are-really-killed-by-wind-turbines
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lWro0U-iRE&t=60s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn8XaZmAR-w
-SNIP-
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.
"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."
from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
British cycling however are no doubt feeling the heat for taking the shill-money.
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.
Or do you use frog spit?
But is it going displace Carbon fibres anytime soon ? No so why keep mentioning it ?
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.
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.
Hope you’re still getting your boosters. If not, what changed? Government guidance is still recommending them.
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.
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).
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.
Laptop
Kettle
Tv
Wifi
Underpants
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
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
---- PEOPLE FOR SHELL/BC-----
* 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)
---- PEOPLE AGAINST SHELL/BC-----
* 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)
CONCLUSION
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.
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?!!?
We need to recognize that they are the extreme minority and stop treating inconsequential Twitter posts like news.
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.
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.
m.pinkbike.com/news/more-downhill-bikes-and-bits-from-val-di-sole-world-champs.html
Calling it now, British Cycling to sign next sponsorship deal with Rothmans cigarettes.
"Yet you participate in cycling. Curios! I am very intellegent"
knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat
Its "social" media... i.e. gossip, rumor, opinion... and again from a very limited segment of the overall population.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
Shell isn't going anywhere.
Take their money before somebody else does!!!
#allyourheroesarejuiced
It's all 'bout the dum dum da da dum dum….
Have being making some bio plastic, made some from Comfrey root that feels like rubber?
Burn your bike mate, its made with for profit.
Send a better signal of your opposition.
Sorry, my organic grass fed chicken milk fermented a bit to long.
And I seriously doubt you have a buddy with a Prius. I don't, because there is a good chance I couldn't stand them.
Would you rather shell spend the money on some more drilling?
-Who then, is allowed, according to you, to complain about the destruction caused by fossil fuels?
I'm quite sure that there are (fossil free) indigenous tribes complaining about the situation, unfortunatly though they tend to get murdered for it...
time.com/5873137/record-number-killing-environmental-activists-2019
wind and solar simply do not work yet environ-mentalists still keep banging the same drum it's pathetic.
I find it peculiar all the down votes on the post point to the fact we cannot have bikes and most of the gear as we know them today without petroleum. It's not a pro/con nor an opinion. It is a fact.
Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet’s ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth’s best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
yall should pick up a book once in a while. might learn something and be able to articulate your views on such topics
But the reason I think climate change definitely is something to be alarmed about it is because of the mountains and mountains of evidence that demonstrate the catastrophic damage being done to the planet. Have you heard of feedback loops? When they kick in we're absolutely f*cked.
Did you happen to notice the rampant wildfires, droughts, record setting temperatures every year, mass coral die offs, ocean heat waves, and probably a trove of other things I'm not aware of?
If you have a genuine view on why it isn't something to be alarmed about, I'm open ears and willing to have a discussion.
1- humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.
2 - Greenlands ice sheet isn't shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.
3 - The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.
Also - Humans exert a growing, but physically small, warming influence on the climate. The deficiencies of climate data challenge our ability to untangle the response to human influences from poorly understood natural changes.
"The Alaska snow crab harvest has been canceled for the first time ever after billions of the crustaceans have disappeared from the cold, treacherous waters of the Bering Sea in recent years.
The Alaska Board of Fisheries and North Pacific Fishery Management Council announced last week that the population of snow crab in the Bering Sea fell below the regulatory threshold to open up the fishery.
But the actual numbers behind that decision are shocking: The snow crab population shrank from around 8 billion in 2018 to 1 billion in 2021, according to Benjamin Daly, a researcher with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game."
Uh, there is no such 'film'. It was a joke I made up and you have failed the Climate-Bot test, BOT.
Every single component of an "advanced society" requires the conversion of some raw material or element. And anything we convert in mass volume will do harm.
A truly advanced society may well be a simple society... the way every other inhabitant of this planet lives.
Join Pinkbike Login