“A step in the right direction or a nice bit of greenwashing?” Shell-backed British Cycling aiming to halve carbon emissions in six years and achieve net zero by 2035 – as governing body says partnership with oil giant is key to “positive progress”

alexuk wrote:

You just can't please some people. If I were Shell, I'd be so depressed. Would people really prefer they do absolutley nothing, and not sponsor British Cycling?. I think the masses are all just so brainwashed to hate these companies, that they don't want to even consider they might not be as bad as certain groups like to make out. I for one am glad that they're handing over some money to support cycling. Thank you Shell.

I'd like to thank the stazi for polishing their boots before they kick me with them. It's nice to not get dog shit in my wounds

ROOTminus1 wrote:

alexuk wrote:

... they might not be as bad as certain groups like to make out. I for one am glad that they're handing over some money to support cycling. Thank you Shell.

I'd like to thank the stazi for polishing their boots before they kick me with them. It's nice to not get dog shit in my wounds

I think you missed about not enjoying the taste of dogshit after have been given a good kicking.

Sad.

It's worth watching the documentary still on iPlayer "Big Oil vs The World" to see just how manipulative and pernicious the oil companies are. Some aren't as bad as others, and until we make massive changes to society we're all reliant on them, so a certain amount of accommodation is required. 

BUT the British Cycling sponsorship seems to be supporting their greenwashing rather than an effort to transition away from our dependence on fossil fuels. I've seen nothing from Shell that makes me think they are serious about anything other than trying to cling to fossil fuels for as long as possible.

The article mentions 'sustainable aviation fuels', but there's no such thing.  The reality is we need to fly less, and claims about sustainable fuels is at best a deflection tactic. 

FionaJJ wrote:

The article mentions 'sustainable aviation fuels', but there's no such thing.  The reality is we need to fly less, and claims about sustainable fuels is at best a deflection tactic. 

I don't know if it's possible to use biofuels, but the land use required for biofuels for the entire aviation industry would be mind boggling

Virgin have already flown the Atlantic with 100% sustainable av fuel. I think most airlines use a 50% bio fuel mix as a minimum now.

I think what wycombewheeler means is that at the scale required for aviation, plant-based fuel cannot be sustainable, it's just less unsustainable than crude sourced fuel.

Well 50% isn't exactly a bad number that's clearly of some sustainability because they're doing it now. It's not some lofty goal a decade away.

And I don't believe it's all plant based either, they can use animal fat, solid waste, food scraps as well.

stonojnr wrote:

Well 50% isn't exactly a bad number that's clearly of some sustainability because they're doing it now. It's not some lofty goal a decade away. And I don't believe it's all plant based either, they can use animal fat, solid waste, food scraps as well.

Indeed, but (pedantry) "doing it now" doesn't necessarily mean "sustainable" (like "sustainable zero emission motor transport!" doesn't actually mean those things).  It's just overall financially / reputationally good for the next 5 minutes / until the next bonus / choose your short-to-medium-term horizon.

Burning all the above-mentioned waste - while something we currently do some of - isn't entirely a win for the climate either.  (And our food wastage and increasing animal consumption is also an issue, albeit a separate one).

Unfortunately it's not even remotely 50%. SAF represents less than 0.1% of global jet fuel volumes and fuel standards allow for a MAXIMUM 50% SAF blend in commercial jet engines

stonojnr wrote:

Virgin have already flown the Atlantic with 100% sustainable av fuel. I think most airlines use a 50% bio fuel mix as a minimum now.

one plane? or their entire fleet for a year? Yes a 50% mix is possible in planes used by most airlines, but that is a far cry from 50% of all aviation fuel

From wiki

In 2019 the International Energy Agency forecast SAF production should grow from 18 to 75 billion litres between 2025 and 2040, representing a 5% to 19% share of aviation fuel

ROOTminus1 wrote:

I think what wycombewheeler means is that at the scale required for aviation, plant-based fuel cannot be sustainable, it's just less unsustainable than crude sourced fuel.

Yes, coupled with pressure on food production as the global population tops out at 11bn, additional land use for fuel purposes for 350bn litres a year will not be easy.

Although, this is more positive than biofuels

Sustainable fuels can be created with renewable energy without biomaterial. Carbon can be sourced from CO
2 to make kerosene, etc. Hydrogen can be combusted or used in a fuel cell.

As of 2022, some 450,000 flights had used sustainable fuels as part of the fuel mix, although such fuels were ~3x more expensive than the traditional fossil jet fuel or kerosene

Of course this use of renewable energy is competing against the rest of the electricty demand

Go and educate yourself about Shell and their activities around the world, especially in Nigeria.

They have blood on their hands.

I'd prefer Shell spent their outrageous profits on actually cutting down their fossil fuels /emissions and switching to renewables, and not spending millions on lobbying governments against action (of which this type of sponsorship helps give them reach)... and spending more on marketing than on renewables (fact). Lots of good information out there on fossil fuel sportwashing issues to read explaining more

That would all be nice, but ... I thought British Cycling is a (national level) sporting organisation? Pretty sure that those are - at best* - orthogonal to concerns like sustainability and resource utilisation?

* Setting aside the long history of association of sport with warfare (not generally associated with treading more lightly on the earth) isn't the first point of sport - especially at higher levels - a laser-focus on the objectives of the sport itself rather than stuff like how many plastic wrappers get thrown in the bin?

Exactly that, British Cycling are the sports governing body, it's not their mo to get people out of cars at all.

Fewer people in cars -> More people on bikes -> Larger membership base -> Better funded sport

I think everyone in the UK could be members and it still wouldn't fund the sport, it's how they end up with sponsors like Shell.

And there's a long history and needle between various cycling organisations in the UK about who should do what, most do agree though British Cycling are the least able & least effective whenever they step away from the sport side into move people out of cars campaigning. Remember the no ride on the Queen's funeral instruction?

Leave British Cycling to what they're best at, sport, leave the get people out of cars stuff to other organisations who do a better job at it

Agreed! The Queen's funeral instruction demonstrates the attitudes at BC.

Oh, for sure, I support Cycling UK's efforts for changing perception towards cycling over BC's any day. (Less baggage and dubious history of PEDs for one)

I wasn't suggesting BC should have to change it's core directive, just that if sustainability is actually a concern of theirs, there are more suitable avenues to be explored which are within their supposed field of expertise of cycling.

It'd be great if they could somehow find something more closely aligned to the sport.  Or at least less malignant.

Unfortunately I think it's kinda fitting given that the "pro peleton" at some of the big events is basically a giant motor vehicle caravan, the bikes are carbon fibre and AFAIK they're not racing in merino woolens.  And (also not their fault) a large number of us "drive to the ride".

Plus as mentioned I don't think "sport" (at more than "kickabout" level) and "sustainability" are natural partners anyway.