British Cycling's New Sponsor

[matticus]

I didn't mention clothes?

But since you asked so nicely, two thirds of all clothing is manufactured from fossil fuels. Not to mention the use of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process, transportation and distribution of them. Or the fossil fuels used to produce the packaging, or to produce the clothes hangers, or to power the warehouses they're stored in, or to power the shops they're sold from. I could go on and on, but like I said, probably best you educate yourself.

Do you not read your own posts? https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/british-cyclings-new-sponsor.288189/post-6831196

what's the point of your main paragraph? Sure, you and most people get most of your clothes that way: but people DO wear clothes without the use of fossil fuels. They always have done!

Clothes were around long before petroleum oil was in common use. A quick slice from Wiki:
Fossil fuels have been important to human development because they can be readily burned in the open atmosphere to produce heat. The use of peat as a domestic fuel predates recorded history. Coal was burned in some early furnaces for the smelting of metal ore, while semi-solid hydrocarbons from oil seeps were also burned in ancient times,[26] they were mostly used for waterproofing and embalming.[27]

Commercial exploitation of petroleum began in the 19th century

So: I've done my homework, Sir. Ready for my ejucation now Sir!

 

[Tom...]

That was @figbat 's post, so I'll let him waste his time talking to a brick wall.

 

[figbat]

Do you not read your own posts? https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/british-cyclings-new-sponsor.288189/post-6831196

what's the point of your main paragraph? Sure, you and most people get most of your clothes that way: but people DO wear clothes without the use of fossil fuels. They always have done!

Clothes were around long before petroleum oil was in common use. A quick slice from Wiki:
Fossil fuels have been important to human development because they can be readily burned in the open atmosphere to produce heat. The use of peat as a domestic fuel predates recorded history. Coal was burned in some early furnaces for the smelting of metal ore, while semi-solid hydrocarbons from oil seeps were also burned in ancient times,[26] they were mostly used for waterproofing and embalming.[27]

Commercial exploitation of petroleum began in the 19th century

So: I've done my homework, Sir. Ready for my ejucation now Sir!

You carry on hunting, skinning and tanning your own clothes then. I hear that a genuine chamois pad is lovely to wear.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Of course they want to "greenwash" and make themselves look better by sponsoring greener transport and initiatives, but what's the alternative?

It makes perfect sense for Shell.

BC are just the unwitting dupes in all of this. "Ooooh shiny, shiny".

What's at issue here is not whether Shell is evil or anything like that. Or even whether @matticus can knit his own underpants out of reeds. That's not the news. The news is that BC have aligned themselves with Shell by adopting them as a sponsor.

It's the question of whether it was a wise choice of sponsor by BC. On the plus side, they get some money, with which they can do BC-type things. On the negative side it makes them look a teeny bit like cretins.

 

[vickster]

It would be interesting to know which other companies engage with BC about sponsorship after the HSBC deal ended (and if they were ‘green’ companies why did BC go with Shell, other than £££)

Global Pro cycling appears incredibly unenvironmental to me given the entourages, vehicle usage, helicopters following the race (oh and all that Lycra probably being used a handful of times if that and then disposed of)!

 

[figbat]

It makes perfect sense for Shell.

BC are just the unwitting dupes in all of this. "Ooooh shiny, shiny".

What's at issue here is not whether Shell is evil or anything like that. Or even whether @matticus can knit his own underpants out of reeds. That's not the news. The news is that BC have aligned themselves with Shell by adopting them as a sponsor.

It's the question of whether it was a wise choice of sponsor by BC. On the plus side, they get some money, with which they can do BC-type things. On the negative side it makes them look a teeny bit like cretins.

Agreed. As I said above, not great optics and somewhat tone deaf (to mix sensory metaphors).

 

[matticus]

That was @figbat 's post, so I'll let him waste his time talking to a brick wall.

But you agreed with it. Or don't you read the posts you're replying to?

Anyway, I've answered YOUR post about clothes; have I not earned my lesson now? Or have I passed the course?

 

[figbat]

It would be interesting to know which other companies engage with BC about sponsorship after the HSBC deal ended (and if they were ‘green’ companies why did BC go with Shell, other than £££)

Global Pro cycling appears incredibly unenvironmental to me given the entourages, vehicle usage, helicopters following the race (oh and all that Lycra probably being used a handful of times if that and then disposed of)!

Not to mention the jettisoned bidons.

 

[matticus]

What's at issue here is not whether Shell is evil or anything like that. Or even whether @matticus can knit his own underpants out of reeds.

LET US BE VERY CLEAR HERE - I do not use those pants for cycling. That would be daft

The news is that BC have aligned themselves with Shell by adopting them as a sponsor.

It's the question of whether it was a wise choice of sponsor by BC. On the plus side, they get some money, with which they can do BC-type things. On the negative side it makes them look a teeny bit like cretins.

Indeed (although I'm not massively convinced that "BC-type things" are all that great. But I guess they're better than road-building, or oil-field development, or whatever else Shell spend their pennies on ... )

 

[Tom...]

Let's all just let @matticus have the last word, he really really wants it.

 

[Tom...]

It would be interesting to know which other companies engage with BC about sponsorship after the HSBC deal ended (and if they were ‘green’ companies why did BC go with Shell, other than £££)

Global Pro cycling appears incredibly unenvironmental to me given the entourages, vehicle usage, helicopters following the race (oh and all that Lycra probably being used a handful of times if that and then disposed of)!

Let's also not forget about how unethical HSBC are/were.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Indeed (although I'm not massively convinced that "BC-type things" are all that great. But I guess they're better than road-building, or oil-field development, or whatever else Shell spend their pennies on ... )

Underneath it all I think this is probably what it's all about, for me at least. Not Shell, not even your underpants. I don't have a fat lot of time for BC, they get on my wick a bit and I think they should stick to being a sport governing body and leave the campaigning to those who actually believe in what they are saying. So I'd probably criticise them whatever they did.

 

[vickster]

Not to mention the jettisoned bidons.

I expect those might get reused? Or at least kept as a souvenir and not (immediately) to landfill

 

[figbat]

I expect those might get reused? Or at least kept as a souvenir and not (immediately) to landfill

Perhaps, but I'd assume that each team uses fresh new ones for each stage, so they are still being produced out of plastic.

 

[vickster]

Perhaps, but I'd assume that each team uses fresh new ones for each stage, so they are still being produced out of plastic.

Indeed, I don’t think any global professional sport is good for the environment broadly