Chris Hoy: British Cycling deal can ‘put cycling on Shell’s agenda’

Reynolds531 wrote:

Do you like tarmac? How about synthetic fabric skinsuits? Butyl rubber? I could go on.

Be thankfut for petrochemical companies who do the dangerous dirty work to bring wonderful materials for us to use.

All hail the mighty petrochemical companies! We can accept that there are certain uses of petroleum products that we can't do without in our modern lifestyle (whilst continuing to search for more sustainable alternatives); that doesn't mean a blanket acceptance of the use of petroleum, particularly for transport, and it certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't challenge companies like Shell, which has a quite appalling environmental and human rights record, particularly in its operations in the Niger Delta.

Reynolds531 wrote:

Do you like tarmac? How about synthetic fabric skinsuits? Butyl rubber? I could go on.

Be thankfut for petrochemical companies who do the dangerous dirty work to bring wonderful materials for us to use.

There will be useful materials, with no practical alternatives that are less damaging, for some time to come. But could you list a few petrochemical companies that only deal with essential materials and make all reasonable efforts to produce them with the minimum emissions? Hint: not those that sell fossil fuels for burning, nor those that flare waste gases.

wolf dog wrote:

shell isnt just big oil anymore.  

Shell invests around $25 billion in oil and gas development each year, including such ecocidal practices as deep ocean extraction, tar sands extraction and fracking. It invests around $300 million in alternative energies, i.e. about 1% of its development budget. That demonstrates how deeply committed the company is to continued petroleum and gas exploitation; up to 2030, it is forecast that Shell's operations will account for 1.2% of all global warming emissions, a staggering figure from a single company. A little green window dressing, including sponsoring a cycling organisation, can't cover that up.

wolf dog wrote:

shell isnt just big oil anymore.  shell has a higher esg rating than tesla. shell has more ev charging points than any other busness on the planet, and invests alot of money in new low carbon energy transition businesses. of course they are huge in providing lng to many countries, reducing coal burning.

I hope you're enjoying your internship in Shell's marketing team.

Like many other oil companies, Shell is desperately trying to tell us that they've changed. To an extent, they have - realising that oil has peaked, they are trying to diversify. But the core activity is still extraction of fossil fuels for themselves and others to burn, with attendant issues around their relationships with some very unsavoury regimes. If they were serious about climate change rather than profits, the change would be far more dramatic.

And if you think ESG ratings tell the whole story, I'm afraid you need to do a bit more of your own thinking.

No... but ones here are likely riding (more than the general populace).  I guess you'd want proof that the naysayers are photosynthesing and not breathing out CO2 (to show they're part of the solution) or they're hypocrites?

Zjtm231 wrote:

All those complaining I guess are riding bamboo bikes that they made themselves with rubber tyres that they sustainably tapped from trees after walking to a rubber plantation?

Comments like this are just wanky shite.

By your reckoning I suppose everyone who has ever tasted sugar must therefore support slavery.

Hoy is trying to put a positive spin on a 'deal with the devil' situation but it's just wishful thinking. I think Boofus has summed it up concisely - "You don't change the devil, the devil changes you ".

If the bigwigs at Shell thought the future was in active travel and green technologies they would be doing something more useful than sponsoring BC, who have no real interest in promoting active travel or the environment.

Wanky Shite - how eloquent. Would you be happier if Shell sponsored F1? Would that be better?

Zjtm231 wrote:

Would you be happier if Shell sponsored F1? Would that be better?

Yes, because it would be honest. Everybody knows that F1 is tremendously wasteful and environmentally damaging, so they would not be able to use such a sponsorship to try to burnish their environmental credentials in the way that they are by sponsoring cycling.

Also, they do sponsor F1 through their connection with Ferrari.

Zjtm231 wrote:

All those complaining I guess are riding bamboo bikes that they made themselves with rubber tyres that they sustainably tapped from trees after walking to a rubber plantation?

The carbon footprint of making a bicycle is approximately 98 kg CO2 (European Cyclists' Federation estimate), so once a bike has been ridden as a replacement for 695km of car journeys (under three weeks of commuting for me) it is into the black as far as CO2 emissions are concerned, so no, you don't need a bamboo bike legitimately to express concern. 

.

I dont disagree with your calculations. So no you don't need a banboo bike but if you really felt stongly enough about it then perhaps those that moan about Shell should take their own advice....

I agree. I won't be sponsoring BC to the tune of millions. I'll just keep riding my bike, not owning a car and doing the odd half-assed bit for other people on bikes.

Unfortunately I have never driven so the wonderful steel framed Marin Pine Mountain (91/2) that I sourced 2nd hand in 97 as my Getting to Work bike, and got me to work for over twenty years was just a massive carbon producer.

Grrr...

Hoy is a big petrol-head now, in his post-cycling career, isn't he?

the obvious reaction to Phil Lowes outburst, and he's a press officer ffs maybe working with Patrick Lefevere dulls those senses after a while, is ok so why arent Quick Step Alpha Vinyl sponsoring British Cycling then as an alternative ?

Agreed.

Cycling and professional sport cycling are not the same thing.
Raising money for an international race does nothing for me the commuter cyclist.
Maintaining the bike manufacturing's razor focus on recreational cycling reduces the options available to me the commuter cyclist.

It's not Hoy's strenght of character, but his dependence of his income that's doing the talking here.

His reasoning is the same as for example every time the Olympics or the Soccer WC etc. choose a host country with a terrible regime. 'Yes the regime has its problems, but we are sure that our presence there, with the eyes of the world upon it, will bring change from within'. And every time that turns out to be utter bull crap.
The regime just takes a piss out of them, again and again. Putin had a field day when the Olympics were in Russia.

Hoy is Shell's puppet, his reasoning is flawed, and the excuses are weak.

I dont think he's anyones puppet, but he is in that awkward position in the sports commentating business, where his current and future earnings rely on him not being too controversial or upsetting the apple cart alot. So he wont openly criticise his former employers at BC, or a company like Shell and instead reflect the positive spin & shield the teams riders from direct criticism.

and theres a reason why the saying it takes a long time to turn an oil tanker around exists.

but there we go at least they dodged signing up with Aramco, like the ICC have just done, who knew the game of cricket needed to be more sustainable.