British Cycling partners with Shell

[mjr]

Worst sponsoring since climate conference COP27 accepted sponsorship from the world's biggest plastic polluter.

[Mike Sales]

Yes, well put bohrs. (Any discussion of fossil fuels and clim*te change does seem to bring out some bizarre rhetoric from some people ... )

Surely the only honest way to oppose fossil fuel burning is to live in a cave on rainwater, roots and berries, and walk to demonstrations clad in only a few strategically placed leaves.

Except no one has ever opposed the use of fossil fuels.
There's no hypocrisy in campaigning against there inappropriate and wasteful use, or the unnecessary reliance our society has on them, while at the same time appreciating the benefits gained.
Shell are wedded to their exploitation and their profits derive from that overconsumption. They have a history of greenwashing and presenting a dishonest image of their activities. I'd expect BC were well aware of this, taken it into consideration and decided the benefits to BC outweigh any bad publicity. BC having more money to spend may even be a good thing for cyclists in general. I'm doubtful, OTOH is anyone likely to start burning more oil because of it? Even if the publicity for Shell was hugely successful, any increased sales for them would just be decreased elsewhere.

Of course. Just lampooning certain posters.

[slowster]

What I find amusing is that both brands are tarnished, and the benefit to Shell of association with BC is not great given the negative publicity and criticism BC seems to attract regularly, e.g. Wiggins' jiffy bag, Dr Richard Freeman, Jess Varnish/Shane Sutton etc.

The criticism in the press and on social media is already such that the deal appears to have brought no positive benefit to Shell, just more public attention and bad publicity for its past and current poor response to climate change.

If instead Shell had simply made a very large, 'no-strings attached' donation to CUK, with a public statement that it acknowledged that it itself was a major part of the problem of climate change and that it was donating to CUK because it recognised that promoting cycling as a means of transport is important for cutting emissions, it would have garnered some good publicity, which would probably benefit Shell more than having its logo on BC team clothing.

[awavey]

I find the "well you use petrol and oil so whats the big deal with" just an odd take, I know Im a user of petrol and oil, I try to minimise my impact on the environment as best I can, an aspect of that is cycling for me instead of driving where I can, but just because I have plastic in my house, a house thats heated by gas, doesnt mean I have to offer unconditional support for a particular petrochemical company, especially one with a track record like Shell's in countries like Nigeria.

Im not going to cut up my BC membership card, or burn my british cycling jersey out of some angsty protest, but I can absolutely be unhappy that BC have picked such an sponsor to be associated with which I think is entirely inappropriate for a national federation whose own aims still claim to promote inspiring people to ride bikes across Britain.

plus it seems fairly obvious Shell arent even paying a whole heap anyway given BCs latest news email that suggests they are looking for additional sponsors to come on alongside Shell whose focus is just the sustainable net-zero and disability projects.

[pga]

I joined British Cycling Federation in 1959 when the NCU amalgamated with the BLRC. I was a BLRC member - up the League. I was a club coach and organised road races at all levels from professionals to women, 3td cats and juniors. I am still a member.

I am both appalled at the Shell sponsorship itself and the way is was done - no membership vote. Greenwashing is growing in all sports and the countries and firms with the most unacceptable human rights and environmental records are in it full time. Luck at the top pro teams and the Newcastle United's in football.

As the years go by we see sport devoted more and more to the top performers and less to the non competitors. Cycling UK helps the latter and BC does as well. But I do want to be associated with an outfit taking cash from a major polluter claiming that they are the solution to Climate Change and not the problem.

I am tearing my BC membership card in half and sending it back to them. I would urge all BC members to do the same.

[Tangled Metal]

Was HSBC any better than Shell as a sponsor?I don't recall this forum making as much fuss about HSBC. I think there's enough reason to treat both former and new sponsors equally but they haven't been. I think many people join in with the promotion of certain businesses as bête noir according to a kind of fashion or trend. I just wish someone could explain why people are so selective this way.

[Redvee]

The BC/Shell partnership got a mention at tonight's Q&A session during Ned Boulting's Bristol gig and it didn't go down at all well, like many others I have cancelled my membership and asked for a refund as well as stopping the DD.

[irc]

Maybe I'll join BC. I heat my home with gas. My elextricity is largely gas generated. I use petrol in my car. My food is delivered to the shops in diesel powered HGVs etc. Someone has to find and extract the oil and gas. Why not Shell?

We have just seen what happens when we become dependent on the likes of Russia for energy.

[Tangled Metal]

Well I wasn't a member of BC when HSBC became their sponsor and I will stay a non-member as long as they have Shell as a sponsor. Feel my anger and disgust BC!

Disclaimer:
I've never felt the need to join a national cycling organisation to enjoy cycling. But if I did in sure I'll be quite happy making a pointless gesture like that, while totally ignoring the positive reasons for joining. I'm certain I'll not see the benefits of trying to change it from within neither. Not least because you don't personally get to vote on anything unless you're a committee member of your club, that gets chosen to represent on your regional committee and who then gets chosen to represent the region higher up the food chain of course.

[mattheus]

Was HSBC any better than Shell as a sponsor?I don't recall this forum making as much fuss about HSBC. I think there's enough reason to treat both former and new sponsors equally but they haven't been. I think many people join in with the promotion of certain businesses as bête noir according to a kind of fashion or trend. I just wish someone could explain why people are so selective this way.

Why shouldn't they?

Unless you were complaining about HSBC sponsorship, and the same people told you to pipe down, it's none of your beeswax what people choose to be angry about. Tell me someone who has upset you or made you angry, and I'll give you my judgement on whether it's justified - I'm listening!

[mattheus]

I joined British Cycling Federation in 1959 when the NCU amalgamated with the BLRC. I was a BLRC member - up the League. I was a club coach and organised road races at all levels from professionals to women, 3td cats and juniors. I am still a member.

I am both appalled at the Shell sponsorship itself and the way is was done - no membership vote. Greenwashing is growing in all sports and the countries and firms with the most unacceptable human rights and environmental records are in it full time. Luck at the top pro teams and the Newcastle United's in football.

As the years go by we see sport devoted more and more to the top performers and less to the non competitors. Cycling UK helps the latter and BC does as well. But I do want to be associated with an outfit taking cash from a major polluter claiming that they are the solution to Climate Change and not the problem.

I am tearing my BC membership card in half and sending it back to them. I would urge all BC members to do the same.

Good for you!

(p.s. I think you've made a small typo, which I've put in bold.)

I've never willingly joined BC - in theory I need to join to race Cyclocross, but this year I'm only joining a day at a time (so 3 Sundays so far). Not a deliberate protest, but it's kind of a timely accident.

[Philip Benstead]

Fyi

Family Friendly Demo

On yer bike, Shell!

Demo against Shell's Greenwashing Sponsorship of British Cycling

Saturday, 15 October 2022, 12.00pm

Shell Centre, Waterloo, London SE1 7PE (Next to the London Eye)

Optional: Bring you bicycle or hire a bike, as we may do some angry cycling around the Shell HQ. (There's a big Boris Bike stand right next to it.)

British Cycling announced a major 8-year partnership with fossil fuel giant Shell. It has already faced widespread condemnation from cycling and environmental groups. Join us for our demo to tell Shell that we see through their shameful Greenwashing attempt and to pull out from the sponsorship.

Action Network: https://actionnetwork.org/events/on-yer ... sh-cycling

[Tangled Metal]

Was HSBC any better than Shell as a sponsor?I don't recall this forum making as much fuss about HSBC. I think there's enough reason to treat both former and new sponsors equally but they haven't been. I think many people join in with the promotion of certain businesses as bête noir according to a kind of fashion or trend. I just wish someone could explain why people are so selective this way.

Why shouldn't they?

Unless you were complaining about HSBC sponsorship, and the same people told you to pipe down, it's none of your beeswax what people choose to be angry about. Tell me someone who has upset you or made you angry, and I'll give you my judgement on whether it's justified - I'm listening!

That's a simple question, what makes people choose one company as being unsuitable to sponsor a body like BC but another that's possibly as much involved in polluting industries and worse is not worthy of the same response? If you don't want to answer or can't doesn't mean I can't leave the question out there for others.

It's not interfering in your right to make your statement over it as you please. It's simply asking about why there's a distinction in people's minds? What is necessary for ppl to take action?

There's some very knowledgeable, ethical, socially aware and logical people on here that I think have made the distinction. Others haven't. Don't you find that even a little bit interesting? A sociological enquiry if you like. Don't you want to understand people better?

[Mike Sales]

[mattheus]

Was HSBC any better than Shell as a sponsor?I don't recall this forum making as much fuss about HSBC. I think there's enough reason to treat both former and new sponsors equally but they haven't been. I think many people join in with the promotion of certain businesses as bête noir according to a kind of fashion or trend. I just wish someone could explain why people are so selective this way.

Why shouldn't they?

Unless you were complaining about HSBC sponsorship, and the same people told you to pipe down, it's none of your beeswax what people choose to be angry about. Tell me someone who has upset you or made you angry, and I'll give you my judgement on whether it's justified - I'm listening!

That's a simple question, what makes people choose one company as being unsuitable to sponsor a body like BC but another that's possibly as much involved in polluting industries and worse is not worthy of the same response? If you don't want to answer or can't doesn't mean I can't leave the question out there for others.

It's not interfering in your right to make your statement over it as you please. It's simply asking about why there's a distinction in people's minds? What is necessary for ppl to take action?

There's some very knowledgeable, ethical, socially aware and logical people on here that I think have made the distinction. Others haven't. Don't you find that even a little bit interesting? A sociological enquiry if you like. Don't you want to understand people better?

Of course it's interesting! But I have some experience of the sociology of the internet; I find it puzzling that you can't see the obvious differences.
I don't see any need to dig deeper, nor to answer your question (which is most likely rhetorical anyway, despite your protestations otherwise). I see it as reasonable to dislike this sponsorship arrangement.

I'm more interested in actual problems: why don't some people want to protect our environment? Why do some people on cycling forums not see the harms that motorists do? Those sort of questions!