British Cycling's New Sponsor

[Time Waster]

Those who have an interesting cycling as a pastime or a sport have some good reasons for wanting the pace to be quicker and an end to cheap fossil fuels. These include fewer journeys taken by car, better air quality, preservation of the natural environment, and a more predictable and less extreme climate.

This is why this partnership makes little sense to me from British Cycling's perspective.

Those who have an interesting cycling as a pastime or a sport have some good reasons for wanting the pace to be quicker and an end to cheap fossil fuels. These include fewer journeys taken by car, better air quality, preservation of the natural environment, and a more predictable and less extreme climate.

This is why this partnership makes little sense to me from British Cycling's perspective.

Ending use of the internal combustion engine probably won't mean fewer journeys by cars. People will simply use electric vehicles I reckon. Better air quality due to no ICEs but there's still woodburners, particulates from brakes and other particulate sources. I read a report that said woodburners in domestic properties was a big source of PM10s and PM2.5s which are not good for you.

Then again there's plastics from petroleum sources. Plus others. The modem world is not n good for environment.

 

[Alex321]

You don't have to be anti-meat to notice that the vegetarian society taking sponsorship from Dewhursts would be a bit inconsistent and worthy of mockery. If that happened it might lead you to believe that the vegetarian society were a bunch of clueless idiots.

But that is a very different thing.

Most cyclists aren't actually anti-car, in fact most of us also drive ourselves. And cycling is certainly not necessarily anti-oil.

In fact, as pointed out above, many bike components (including the frame if Carbon) use oil products in their manufacture.

 

[Alex321]

It's perfectly possible to get dresssed, use medicines, eat a healthy diet and even light a house at night without oil.
(and have rideable roads).

It is just about possible, with a lot of effort. That IMO is not "perfectly" possible.

And certainly not reasonable for most of us.

I suggest you and @Tom... see this as an opportunity to educate yourselves! No need to thank us. x

I can't see any thanks being due.

 

[Alex321]

So what?

So it means that Shell are not necessarily a sponsor whose interests are against those of most cyclists. (Beyond the fact that like almost any commercial entity, their interests are mostly making profit)

Does that somehow make BC less of a bunch of clowns?

Has anybody suggested they might not be?

 

[EasyPeez]

Most cyclists aren't actually anti-car

True enough.

It would be nice to think that most cyclists were anti-rape, anti-murder and anti-wilful environmental destruction though.

It’s on that basis that I’ll be cancelling my BC membership in the morning (just as I avoid Shell fuel stations), rather than because I’m anti-car.

If that makes me “holier than thou”, to quote a phrase used by someone else upthread, then I guess I’ll have to live with that.

And yes, I realise I probably unwittingly give business to numerous other companies with disgraceful practices in the course of keeping my family clothed, fed and entertained. Modern life is a b*stard for that kind of thing, isn’t it? That surely shouldn’t mean we’re accepting or apathetic when we become aware though?

 

[Jameshow]

Perhaps BC should have been sponsored by Drax power now that really is clean energy!!! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[matticus]

It is just about possible, with a lot of effort. That IMO is not "perfectly" possible.

Oh my, quibbling about the meaning of well-established phrases. That tells us something

 

[matticus]

If you look at the 2022 reports from InfluenceMap (the source of the 2019 reports used in the Forbes article), it does seem that BP, Shell etc are moving towards complying with climate goals and changing the landscape of their business.

Oh excellent. They're "moving towards" them you say?

Well Hallelujah, it looks like Shell ARE going to save the planet. I take it all back!

 

[Alex321]

Oh my, quibbling about the meaning of well-established phrases. That tells us something

Yep. It tells us you were wrong.

To me "perfectly possible" has always meant it is something anybody can do, without having to completely change their lifestyle. If drastic changes in lifestyle are needed, then it is not "perfectly possible" for most of us.

I suspect most people would take a similar meaning from that we'll established phrase.

 

[matticus]

Yep. It tells us you were wrong.

To me "perfectly possible" has always meant it is something anybody can do

It's something neanderthals could do.

 

[Alex321]

It's something neanderthals could do.

Of course.

And if we wanted a neanderthal society, with none of what we take for granted now, so could we.

Which rather makes my point. We could certainly do it, if willing to make massive changes to our lifestyles.

I don't think even Saint Greta is suggesting we should completely eliminate use of hydrocarbons.

And BTW, selective quoting to significantly change the meaning is both fundamentally dishonest and easily seen through.

 

[matticus]

I don't think even Saint Greta is suggesting we should completely eliminate use of hydrocarbons.

Has anyone suggested she was?

 

[Time Waster]

Time to make yourself aware of a bit more. Shell isn't the only company but the only one people have problems with supporting a cycling organisation. HSBC was not an issue despite no doubt being involved in pretty much every industry that could possibly be considered harmful through handing their money.

People have mentioned carbon bikes and petroleum based materials used in them, but what about "steel is reall" bikes. Ever been to a see a blast furnace in operation, or a steel furnace? Or Aluminium drinks can or tinned food cans. Mining is devastating areas of pristine wilderness and cultures/indigenous tribes around the world. That's the modern world screwed for your indignation then. Best head to the Good Life and self sufficiency then or not. Hypocrisy is OK you know. It's great to make these little pointless gestures and OK to continue with your polluting modern life too. Those are just choices everyone makes in life based on what matters to them.

Personally I've not banked with HSBC since the days of the Midlands Bank. Although I have no doubt whatsoever that my current bank is no better. Whether with the bank or the petroleum company I've never joined the BC so perhaps my self righteousness can trump yours on this matter!

Jeez! Why am I finding people's righteous indignation over the shell sponsorship so funny? Is it the pointless gesture? The fact that the previous sponsor was probably worse? Or how about the way they're taking their small bit of the BC pot away from potentially being used on good causes. I think BC probably have more influence on cycling matters than CUK. Or is it the spluttering hypocrisy of it all.

Hint your state takes tax money from all these companies and even an extra windfall tax from oil companies but BC can't! Better not visit a library, use the roads partly funded by oil revenues and so on. Just how can you separate all these things. Isn't there a type of bias to describe this?

 

[matticus]

Do these guys actually have a point? Why are they here?

Anyone? 🤷‍♂️

 

[freiston]

Time to make yourself aware of a bit more. Shell isn't the only company but the only one people have problems with supporting a cycling organisation. HSBC was not an issue despite no doubt being involved in pretty much every industry that could possibly be considered harmful through handing their money.

People have mentioned carbon bikes and petroleum based materials used in them, but what about "steel is reall" bikes. Ever been to a see a blast furnace in operation, or a steel furnace? Or Aluminium drinks can or tinned food cans. Mining is devastating areas of pristine wilderness and cultures/indigenous tribes around the world. That's the modern world screwed for your indignation then. Best head to the Good Life and self sufficiency then or not. Hypocrisy is OK you know. It's great to make these little pointless gestures and OK to continue with your polluting modern life too. Those are just choices everyone makes in life based on what matters to them.

Personally I've not banked with HSBC since the days of the Midlands Bank. Although I have no doubt whatsoever that my current bank is no better. Whether with the bank or the petroleum company I've never joined the BC so perhaps my self righteousness can trump yours on this matter!

Jeez! Why am I finding people's righteous indignation over the shell sponsorship so funny? Is it the pointless gesture? The fact that the previous sponsor was probably worse? Or how about the way they're taking their small bit of the BC pot away from potentially being used on good causes. I think BC probably have more influence on cycling matters than CUK. Or is it the spluttering hypocrisy of it all.

Hint your state takes tax money from all these companies and even an extra windfall tax from oil companies but BC can't! Better not visit a library, use the roads partly funded by oil revenues and so on. Just how can you separate all these things. Isn't there a type of bias to describe this?

The HSBC sponsorship was an issue for some and they demonstrated/leafleted City Rides because of it.

We can't escape the world we live in and exploitation of both environment and people is what our human world is based on. Opting out is not really an option.

We can, however, let our voices be heard and hope that if enough people hear our voices and agree, then things stand a better chance of being changed. This is not "pointless gesturing" and it is condescending to dismiss voicing those opinions as "righteous indignation". Such criticisms of voiced dissent has been going on for years. It is not necessarily hypocritical to voice an opinion or even to act on one's disapproval of something just because other injustices happen. I dare say that voiced opinions and actions based on those opinions had a good part to play in the making of equality laws vis-a-vis sexuality, race and disability.

By your argument, if tobacco advertising were still legal and BC accepted sponsorship from a tobacco company, any of us voicing an issue with that would equally be guilty of hypocrisy, pointless gesturing and righteous indignation - after all, we're happy to ride steel bikes and drink from cans, so until we're not part of any problem, how dare we speak of having issues with tobacco companies that pay taxes to build roads! (how much large corporations avoid paying tax is another issue).