British Cycling's New Sponsor

[matticus]

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

Just so we're clear: are you interested in making cycle-sport (or in fact any other activity) greener, or will you always find some killer gotcha! line to justify doing nothing?

* like "but whatabout all those bidons? Or the team cars? Or the phone you're posting from?!? "

 

[figbat]

Just so we're clear: are you interested in making cycle-sport (or in fact any other activity) greener, or will you always find some killer gotcha! line to justify doing nothing?

* like "but whatabout all those bidons? Or the team cars? Or the phone you're posting from?!? "

I'm not specifically interested in making any specific sport greener beyond a general hope that everything gets better.

And it's a big reach from pointing out the sometimes unseen or ignored elements of current environmental problems to "justify doing nothing". A decent portion of my job and much of my career has been in the pursuit of improving efficiency and enabling decarbonisation.

 

[freiston]

People in this thread keep banging on about the use of fossil "fuels" as a material to make plastics, synthetic clothes etc. - but that's not fossil fuel - fossil fuel is burnt and releases carbon into the atmosphere. Stuff made out of fossil material keeps the carbon fixed and not in the atmosphere. Fossil products will likely be important to the human race even if fossil fuel becomes effectively obsolete.

Shell, like other energy companies, spend a lot of money not only on public image but also on political lobbying and political funding. I strongly suspect that their actions are not altruistic, charitable or for the common good but are all to do with self-interest and profit - and I judge what they do with that in mind.

To those in this thread who have indicated insight into the industry and Shell's business, what proportion of their business is with fossil fuels and are they pursuing further extraction or winding it down?

 

[matticus]

I'm not specifically interested in making any specific sport greener beyond a general hope that everything gets better.

So why jump in and argue with folks who'd like to make something better?

And it's a big reach from pointing out the sometimes unseen or ignored elements of current environmental problems to "justify doing nothing". A decent portion of my job and much of my career has been in the pursuit of improving efficiency and enabling decarbonisation.

If you just make flippant banal posts about everyone needing food [do we REALLY need shell's oil to eat? I don't think so ... ], then don't be surprised if someone questions just what the heck you are trying to say.

What is perhaps unseen/ignored by you is that millions of people are trying to eat/travel/clothe their children with less environmental impact. And that is consistent with wanting to avoid association with companies like Shell

 

[Fab Foodie]

Just throwing this in here... everyone has to play their part as every little helps....
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ssions-cuts-behaviour-changes-lords-committee

I actually believe that sport at its best has the potential to be transformative on a global scale. We should be looking at how all sports can be greener, engage people and be a vehicle (sic) for change.
Fossil fuelled sports would be a good start, as should all the fossil-fuelled vehicles involved in cycle-racing. It's a subject in it's own right which I think should be able to be debated on this site, or is the environment too NACA?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Just throwing this in here... everyone has to play their part as every little helps....
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ssions-cuts-behaviour-changes-lords-committee

I actually believe that sport at its best has the potential to be transformative on a global scale. We should be looking at how all sports can be greener, engage people and be a vehicle (sic) for change.
Fossil fuelled sports would be a good start, as should all the fossil-fuelled vehicles involved in cycle-racing. It's a subject in it's own right which I think should be able to be debated on this site, or is the environment too NACA?

I find pro cycling really depressing to look at seriously: Dodgy sponsors, involvement with dodgy regimes, gender inequality, pollution and littering carbon footprint and carbon rims... and so on.

That's why I don't look at it seriously, and just watch it for the entertainment and sporting soap opera. Sometimes being serious is not so good.

 

[freiston]

I have next to zero interest in sport, including cycling. For me, professional cycle racing has about as much to do with my cycling as sprinting and marathon running have to do with my walking. The Ramblers are more relevant to me than the AAA.

I can't level that irrelevance of the AAA to my walking with the irrelevancy of BC to my cycling because my experience with BC has been significant - in respect of city centre fun rides and locally organised pleasure rides (Let's Ride). I usually tag along on low mileage rides pitched at beginners because I find them enjoyable and I like the diversity of riders and bikes.

I think that's the jarring thing about this new sponsorship deal: as @Dogtrousers has pointed out more than once above - BC's activities are far more than as a regulatory body for cycle racing and I would think that most people's interaction with them is as a promoter of cycling as active transport/non-competitive leisure riding. Shell, despite all their PR and rebranding noise, have a vested interest in promoting private motor transport (whether that be ICE or EV) and have a dubious track record vis-a-vis environmental/climate issues - for example:
https://www.shellwatch.nl/en/analysis/shells-devious-lobbying-methods
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...bying-fossil-fuels_n_602d4530c5b66dfc101baac1
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-change-policies-infographic/?sh=273955337c4f

And now BC, a cycling organisation promoting all aspects of cycling in the UK, including cycling as active travel, has jumped into a relationship of financial dependency with them. This sponsorship is Shell's way of validating all their other activities - to use a hyperbolic* analogy, it's like a wife abuser being condoned because he buys his wife nice clothes.

*EDIT: maybe not so hyperbolic

 

[figbat]

So why jump in and argue with folks who'd like to make something better?

I'm not arguing with that, I am just offering additional information to the debate.

If you just make flippant banal posts about everyone needing food [do we REALLY need shell's oil to eat? I don't think so ... ], then don't be surprised if someone questions just what the heck you are trying to say.

I never said anything about everybody needing food (although now you mention it...), I merely added information that the activities of companies like Shell are deeply embedded in our everyday lives. It is easy to see the fuel and transport issues but other, potentially more fundamental, aspects are often overlooked or ignored. My response was to someone else's post about the anti-oil lobby - you'll see that I have openly admitted to playing devil's advocate and also to agreeing that the optics of the BC/Shell deal aren't great. And to the point "do we REALLY need Shell's oil to eat?" I'd argue that yes, we do. Not necessarily Shell's oil but somebody's oil, to eat the food we like to eat, at the price we like to pay, from the places we like to shop. Since Shell are contributing oil to the global pool that gets refined into fuels, petrochemicals, and gasses that are used in transport, agriculture, power generation, pharmaceuticals and so on then yes, I guess we need it. Is it not somewhat ironic to be using the products of this industry to argue against the very same one?

What is perhaps unseen/ignored by you is that millions of people are trying to eat/travel/clothe their children with less environmental impact. And that is consistent with wanting to avoid association with companies like Shell

Neither unseen nor ignored, in fact I count myself amongst those millions. But try as you might, there will still be a significant contribution from oil companies underlying any such efforts. We haven't even touched on the financial contributions such companies make, to the government coffers, to pensions and investments etc.

I can see how Shell, BP, ExxonMobil etc represent the figureheads of this maligned industry but who is best placed to drive towards a more sustainable alternative? Who has the funding, capability, scale and impetus to make these changes? Whether or not this funding should also go into advancing the cycling agenda seems to be the crux of the debate here. You're free to associate or dissociate with whomever you choose, but for the wider debate (that includes more than just you and me) I offer some context and additional insights to an industry that is, like it or not, essential to our current and future lives.

 

[Sharky]

A lot of interesting views expressed above, but we all embraced Sky sponsorship. They would probably preferred us all to become couch potatoes, watching Sky TV all day.

 

[freiston]

A lot of interesting views expressed above, but we all embraced Sky sponsorship. They would probably preferred us all to become couch potatoes, watching Sky TV all day.

1) I wasn't that aware of BC or their activities back in the Sky days and only consciously became aware of that sponsorship in retrospect - so I certainly didn't embrace that sponsorship. I can't speak for others but I'd be surprised if everyone bar me embraced it.
2) There's a big difference in a media company promoting/advertising a TV service and a fossil fuel company, that actively lobbies against measures to tackle climate change, validating themselves by being the logo on an organisation promoting active travel.

 

[Fab Foodie]

A lot of interesting views expressed above, but we all embraced Sky sponsorship. They would probably preferred us all to become couch potatoes, watching Sky TV all day.

No we didn't....

 

[Dogtrousers]

A lot of interesting views expressed above, but we all embraced Sky sponsorship. They would probably preferred us all to become couch potatoes, watching Sky TV all day.

That's different. Sky/Ineos Grenadiers are a pro racing team. They don't have any remit apart from to win races. So they can take their funding from all kinds of dodgy companies/regimes without having to square it with any message they may be spreading about active travel and so on. So they don't appear hypocritical, and can't be accused of being in the pocket of a competing interest. That's where BC have put themselves.

And anyway, we didn't all embrace it But I see what you mean. For instance I'm not particularly bothered by Intermarche Wanty Gobert being sponspored by Circus. But if IWG went on an anti-gambling crusade I'd think they were being hypocrites.

 

[matticus]

A lot of interesting views expressed above, but we all embraced Sky sponsorship.

There's always a but ...

No we jolly well didn't. A reminder for Mr Trousers et al: https://road.cc/content/news/155892-sky-end-eight-year-partnership-british-cycling [2015]
They funded the BC olympic medal factory, as well as our early major road successes (Wiggo and Cav).

Now: thanks to Murdoch, I've never liked the Sky corporation. It was difficult to support our cyclists wearing that logo, but I sometimes still did.
British Cycling had a huge surge in reputation and membership thanks to the Sky money. In the same period CTC/CUK went through some pain, and got a lot of criticism for lagging behind the BC membership numbers: but that was directly due to the huge marketing budget funded by SKY!

I'm sensing the boot moving slightly to the other foot this week ...

 

[Dogtrousers]

A reminder for Mr Trousers et al: https://road.cc/content/news/155892-sky-end-eight-year-partnership-british-cycling [2015]
They funded the BC olympic medal factory, as well as our early major road successes (Wiggo and Cav).

Yeah, I was kind of forgetting/ignoring the incestuous mess that Sky and BC became for a while. I think IGD are more separate these days?

 

[matticus]

I think IGD are more separate these days?

Yes: and as you said, that isn't a (notably) hypocritical relationship. But not being a fan of the sponsors in question, they won't get any support from me.

[Which Full TeamKit Wan*er gear should I buy next season?? #firstworldproblem ]