“When is Shell going to get out of its shell and realize that appeasement only heightens the expectations and anger of the irrational foes of oil and gas? Trying to square Net Zero with a company premised on oil and gas positives is futile–and wasteful.”
The eco-extremists are busy on all fronts, not only disrupting traffic and vandalizing works of art. And it is hurting their cause. I was reminded of this when Andrew Griffiths (Director of Community & Partnerships; Director of Community & Partnerships at PlanetMark) wrote:
I emailed British Cycling as a member to challenge their decision to accept sponsorship from Shell …. Apparently, Shell for some curious reason has a long-term commitment to cycling and it’s going to bring really great benefits to cyclists and help move the sport to net zero. I’m honestly lost for words – beyond a range of expletives that I’ll spare LinkedIn from.
This was in response to me sharing with them Shell’s OWN financial disclaimer in which they expressly said: “Shell’s operating plans, outlooks, budgets and pricing assumptions do not reflect our net zero emissions target.” And… “The use of the term “Net Carbon Footprint” is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell or its subsidiaries.” In other words, everything you see in Shell’s marketing – including sponsoring British Cycling – is utter bollocks….
I have responded to ask for the immediate cancellation of my membership, but will be very happy to rejoin when they come to their senses and cancel the sponsorship much like we saw with Coca Cola pulling out from sponsoring #COP27.
If anyone else in my network is a member of British Cycling, I would thoroughly encourage you to email them and cancel your membership too. Tagging in British Cycling’s leadership team in the hope that they can provide some answers / accountability…
I responded in a comment:
If Shell is providing energy for the masses that each consumer voluntarily accepts, what is your point?
No answer from Griffiths, but he inspired these like comments:
Paul Randal commented:
I had a pretty vocal LinkedIN argument with their Director of Partnerships over it. He was/is still proud of it! Apparently the strategic ‘rationale’ for the partnership is that 85% of BC members drive cars! I kid you not! The lack of comprehension of what the partnership means for any cyclist is staggering. More worryingly senior cyclists like Chris Hoy haven’t directly come out against it. I think they fear BC will simply disappear without the funding.
I’ve also had some insight into the internal conflict it has caused. The CEO has now gone, members are tearing their cards and race volunteers are refusing to work. It’s almost like BC wanted to out do COP27 and their CocaCola sponsorship!
Other supportive comments from behind enemy lines:
I … genuinely thought it was a spoof. I’m actually lost for words… It’s like a tobacco company sponsoring an oxygen chamber.
Madness! So much greenwashing! Thanks for sharing Andrew and well done for calling them out on it and encouraging others to do the same.
When is Shell going to get out of its shell and realize that appeasement only heightens the expectations and anger of the irrational foes of oil and gas? Trying to square Net Zero with a company premised on oil and gas positives is futile–and wasteful.