Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

feature

Is cycling's 'sportswashing' debate too big to ignore? World Championships protest shines spotlight on less-than-green sponsors

Backing from petrochemicals giants and oil-rich states highlights gap between cycling as sport and riding as transport when it comes to environmental credentials

Yesterday’s protest that held up the men’s elite road race at the UCI Cycling World Championships in Scotland is not the first time that environmental campaigners have disrupted a major sporting event in the UK this summer. But unlike recent interventions by Just Stop Oil, yesterday’s direct action by a group called This Is Rigged, specifically referenced team sponsorship by the petrochemical industry as the reason it targeted the event, raising the question of whether what campaign groups term as ‘greenwashing,’ itself part of the wider issue of so-called ‘sportswashing,’ is now too big for the sport to ignore.

2023 world road race championships stopped following protest (Pauline Ballet/SWpix.com)

2023 world road race championships stopped following protest (Pauline Ballet/SWpix.com)

The incident, which delayed the race for an hour while police removed protesters who had cemented themselves to the road, comes after a protest from the same group last month when activists blocked the gates to the Ineos refinery in Grangemouth on the Firth of Forth, just a few miles away from yesterday’s disruption.

Ineos Grangemouth petrochemical plant (licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 on Wikimedia Commons by Paul McIlroy)

Ineos Grangemouth petrochemical plant (licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 on Wikimedia Commons by Paul McIlroy)

Named as Scotland’s biggest polluter shortly after it entered the sport following its takeover of Team Sky in May 2019, Ineos was targeted by anti-fracking protesters at that month’s Tour de Yorkshire, with the campaign group Friends of the Earth accusing it of greenwashing and calling for a ban on the sponsorship of sport by petrochemical firms.

Despite strong denials of greenwashing by Ineos owner Sir James Ratcliffe and the team’s then principal, Sir Dave Brailsford, who now heads up its entire sporting portfolio including its interests in Formula 1 motorsport, football and sailing, its efforts to establish some form of environmental credentials have hardly been helped by the cycling team being renamed the Ineos Grenadiers in 2020 to publicise the 4x4 vehicle it was developing at the time and which has recently hit the market.

Team Ineos launch (picture credit SWPix.com (34)

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Chris Froome and Sir Dave Brailsford at Team Ineos launch in 2019 (copyright SWpix.com)

Sportswashing and greenwashing defined

Ineos of course is far from the only sponsor from the industry that is involved in the sport, and beyond companies operating within the petrochemicals sector, there is also the presence of oil-rich states with highly-criticised human rights records, which takes us beyond greenwashing and into what is termed ‘sportswashing’ – respectively defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as:

Greenwashing: behaviour or activities that make people believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is.

Sportswashing: the practice of an organization, a government, a country, etc. supporting sport or organizing sports events as a way to improve its reputation.

Sport becomes focus of investment

The Saudia Arabia-backed takeover of Newcastle United FC, the country’s financing of the breakaway LIV Golf Tour and Qatar’s hosting of the men’s FIFA World Cup at the end of last year are just three recent examples from the wider world of sport that have attracted widespread public and media criticism both on environmental grounds and because of human rights abuses.

Within cycling, accusations of sportswashing and/or greenwashing have increasingly been made in recent years as a result of partnerships between certain businesses or sovereign states and governing bodies, race organisers and teams, in some cases even overlapping more than one of those.

It may be other sports that attract most of the headlines in the mainstream press, when it comes to sportswashing, but cycling’s financial model regularly puts teams (and national governing bodies for that matter) in a precarious position financially due to their being starved of a share of broadcast income.

The consequent reliance on sponsorship for funding at a time when many businesses are looking to cut costs means there is a limited pool of potential major backers, and with campaigners having succeeded in getting sectors such as the arts to end their ties with the petrochemicals industry, sports including cycling have become willing recipients of that cash – possibly in some cases out of desperation, with perhaps 100 or so people facing losing their jobs if a sponsor departs and no replacement behind.

No cigarettes, hard liquor or porn – but oil and gas pass sponsorship test

While UCI regulations place restrictions on sponsorship by betting companies and lottery operators and also stipulate that “no brand of tobacco, spirits, pornographic products or any other products that might damage the image of the UCI or the sport of cycling in general” can directly or indirectly sponsor a team or event, companies undertaking activities that are harmful to the environment are not excluded.

With the UCI, as well as major race owners, keen to open up the sport to new markets, we have a situation where much of the money coming into cycling nowadays, and several high-profile races, comes from petrol-rich Middle Eastern states, which also have shocking human rights records (the organisation Human Rights Watch has compiled profiles of individual countries in that regard).

As far as hosting events is concerned, six years before Qatar hosted the most recent men’s FIFA World Cup, it welcomed the 2016 UCI Road World Championships. Elsewhere in the region, the Tour of Qatar may no longer exist, but other races in the region do – including the UAE Tour, the Tour of Oman, and the Saudi Tour.

Meanwhile, in the UCI WorldTour, besides Ineos, sponsors include UAE Team Emirates and Bahrain Victorious – both backed by state funding – as well as Jayco-AlUla (Al-Ula being a city in northwestern Saudi Arabia looking to push its credentials as a tourist destination).

Beyond those, French team Total Energies’ main sponsor is the third largest of the so-called ‘Big Oil’ supermajor companies in the sector, while Astana-Qazaqstan’s main backer is the holding company of Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund, which owns the state oil and gas company KazMunayGas.

The three highest profile current commercial deals within cycling in Great Britain, all struck within the past four years, have each attracted criticism and protests over alleged sportswashing, or greenwashing – Ineos taking over ownership and sponsorship of Team Sky in 2019, Big Oil member Shell becoming lead partner of British Cycling last year, reportedly prompting many to cancel their memberships of the organisation, and Ford backing RideLondon.

Great Britain's Sophie Capewell at 2022 UCI Track Worlds (copyright Alex Broadway, SWpix.com).JPG

Great Britain's Sophie Capewell at 2022 UCI Track Worlds (copyright Alex Broadway, SWpix.com).JPG

The dichotomy of cycling as a sport – and a way of getting around

There is of course a huge dichotomy within cycling, in the widest sense, between using bicycles as a method of transport as governments around the world encourage people to swap cars for bikes for daily journeys to help reduce carbon emissions, and the environmental impact of the sport itself.

At its highest levels road cycling, in common with other cycling disciplines, involves athletes, support staff, officials and press criss-crossing continents by air.

On road events, there is also the cavalcade of vehicles (admittedly, increasingly electric-powered these days) that follows races, as well as helicopters capturing aerial footage and a plane circling high overhead to relay those pictures, as well as ones from cameras on motorbikes, back down to the host broadcaster for transmission.

Despite the ease of access to the roadside that has long made it a target for all kinds of protests, missing from the men’s Tour de France last month were those we have grown accustomed to major sporting events in the UK in recent months with activists throwing orange paint powder or confetti on the playing surface at venues including Wimbledon, Twickenham and Lord’s Cricket Ground.

The Tour was however targeted last year by activists from the French environmental campaign group, Dernière Rénovation, who briefly blocked Stage 13 of the race, saying afterwards that “Non-violent disruption is our last chance to be heard and avoid the worst consequences of global warming.”

Last month, Just Stop Oil’s lead funder, Dale Vince, said it is the high profile and media exposure of the sports it targets that make  them attractive for direct action since that gets the message across to a wider public, and that any steps organisers are themselves taking to reduce emissions and make their events carbon-neutral are immaterial.

But in social media posts following yesterday’s disruption at the World Championships a campaigner from This Is Rigged made it clear that the group had targeted the event specifically because of sponsorship issues, saying: “The fact that Ineos has been allowed to sponsor a team in the race around the Campsie Fells – which were engulfed in wildfires last month – is a disgrace and an insult to the both cycling community and the people of Scotland.

2023 world road race championships stopped following protest (Pauline Ballet/SWpix.com)

2023 world road race championships stopped following protest (Pauline Ballet/SWpix.com)

“We cannot continue with business as usual while our country burns and our futures are ruined. Time is of the essence and we need to act like it,” the statement added. “The Scottish government must stand up to Westminster and oppose all new oil and gas, and implement a fair transition now,” the campaigner added.

As a side note, with the event raced by national rather than trade teams, Ineos Grenadiers did not itself participate – although its branding was carried on the kit of one of its riders, Michal Kwiatkowski, the sole Polish representative in the race, and sponsorship from the oil and gas industry was visible elsewhere, such as the logos of Shell on the Great Britain kits, or Esso on the jerseys sported by the riders representing Belgium.

Climate change increasingly affecting races

Another issue is the setting itself that road cycling takes place in – outdoors, and often in areas possessing spectacular scenery but that can be subject to sharp changes in weather, whether that be along the coast or in the high mountains.

Such environments are also highly exposed to the effects of climate change, and we’ve seen a number of races affected in recent years by events such as flooding or wild fires as well as what once might have been thought of as freak weather – the recent record-breaking temperatures in southern Europe, for example – but which are now becoming more commonplace, as we highlighted in this article in May.

2020 Tour Down Under peloton rides through bushfire-affected area (Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

2020 Tour Down Under peloton rides through bushfire-affected area (Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

> The Giro just avoids Italy’s deadly floods – but cycling is now feeling impact of climate change

The past few weeks alone have seen a succession of reports in news bulletins relating to extreme weather incidents and natural disasters in recent weeks, such as storms, flooding or wildfires in western Europe as well as North America, the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia, and it seems clear that the issue of man-made climate change – and the role of the petrochemical industry in creating the situation – means that sponsorship from the sector will continue to attract not just criticism, but also direct action.

As we highlighted above, that contrasts with the public image of cycling for everyday reasons, whether that be travelling to work or to the shops, or going out to meet friends or take a ride in the park or along the river at weekends – the very thing that some sponsors from within the energy or automotive sectors, among others, will sometimes look to harness in partnership with their sponsorship of the sport itself.

Petrol Station copyright Simon MacMichael .jpg

Petrol Station copyright Simon MacMichael .jpg

The human element

While this article has focused on ‘sponsors’ and ‘teams’ mainly in the abstract, it’s worth considering the human element, too; at WorldTour level, besides 30 or so riders, each team will have dozens of support staff, and that’s without considering the thousands of others who depend upon the sport for at least part of their livelihood, spanning everything from the media to the crews who set up start and finish areas before a race and take them down afterwards.

We spoke earlier of the impact that potential loss of sponsorship can have on a team’s decision in taking on a new partner, and given human nature, it’s understandable that some of those affected may have to set to one side qualms about the business undertaken by the incoming backer against their need to earn an income.

Within the ranks of professional riders themselves – the elite of the sport, who will have made sacrifices for years to reach the top level, and whose skills by their nature cannot be transferred elsewhere – that perhaps creates even more of a dilemma, and a couple of individual instances are worth highlighting.

Last year, Gino Mäder, who died in a crash at the Tour de Suisse in June, raised more than €4,000 for a reforestation charity by pledging one Swiss franc for every rider finishing behind him on each stage of the Vuelta.

True, he rode for the Bahrain Victorious team, whose jerseys bear the logo of the state-owned petroleum company Bapco, but the initiative clearly underlined his concern for the environment.

Following Mäder’s death, his team mate Pello Bilbao made a similar pledge ahead of last month’s Tour de France, promising €1 to the same charity for each competitor finishing a stage below him, and double that if he won a stage – which indeed he did, taking an emotional victory on Stage 10 into Issoire.

Tour de France 2023, 10th stage, Pello Bilbao, Bahrain – Victorious – photo Dion Kerckhoffs-Cor Vos-SprintCyclingAgency©2023 - 1

Tour de France 2023, 10th stage, Pello Bilbao, Bahrain – Victorious – photo Dion Kerckhoffs-Cor Vos-SprintCyclingAgency © 2023

During the race, it also emerged that under-23 world time trial champion Søren Wærenskjold’s insistence had turned down a lucrative offer to join UAE Team Emirates, saying that he had made “morally and ethically [the] right choice.”

In reportedly deciding to stay with his existing Uno-X Pro Cycling team until 2026, the 23-year-old Norwegian, whose signature is also said to have been sought by several other major WorldTour teams, said he did not want to “put the salary above everything else.”

The case of Uno-X Mobility, owner and sponsor of Wærenskjold’s existing team, which operates discount petrol stations with more than 300 outlets in Denmark and Norway is itself interesting.

Unlike other sponsors from the energy industry mentioned above, neither Uno-X nor its sister businesses are involved in oil production, and the business is pursuing a strategy of phasing out retailing of petrol in favour of greener energy such as hydrogen.

Reflecting that dichotomy between cycling as a sport and as a form of transport that we mentioned earlier, on the team website – Uno-X operates squads in both the men’s UCI ProTour and the UCI Women’s WorldTour – the company states its mission as being “to develop and promote solutions for sustainable mobility.”

It adds: “Our primary aim is to advocate for cycling as a vital measure for reducing emissions from road transport.

“Cycling represents one of humanity's greatest opportunities for a shift towards a zero-carbon future.

“Our team riders serve as cycling ambassadors, and their most important task is to generate greater attention and enthusiasm for cycling.”

Marketing copy it may be, but in setting out that agenda, are we looking at a sponsor from the energy sector that should be given more leeway than others we have mentioned and embraced for its vision – or is there no place for any firm associated with oil and gas in the sport? Let us know your views in the comments.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

70 comments

Avatar
cmedred | 8 months ago
5 likes

Easy to protest. Hard to make substantive changes in societies where people want to drive everywhere. EVs are a bandaid. Ebikes are way better, but they all have energy production costs.

And one has to face the reality that, Russia and China don't give a shit about climate change no matter what lip service they give to it because Russia sees global warming as its first real opportunity to develop Siberia, a national dream for centuries, and China thinks it can turn deserts into farms and forests. It's actually had some success in doing so.

As whacked as China is, they might even see global warming as a soft-power opportunity for expanding their influence. Thus, against the size of the problem, "sportswashing" would appear a pretty silly issue. If you don't like the companies supporting pro cycling, just don't do business with them. 

Meanwhile, sad to say, it might be time to start thinking seriously about adaptation. None of which is meant to imply we shouldn't all do all we can on our own. I walk or ride my bike (bikes) almost everywhere, including to the bike park to which many of my climate-change fretting neighbors and friends drive to ride their MTBs or eMTBs because the hills are big here.  

 

Avatar
Patrick9-32 | 8 months ago
6 likes

Fossil fuel company executives are directly and personally responsible for millions of deaths already and many more millions over the coming decades through the downplaying of climate change and lobbying to avoid any action. 

Anything less than lifetime prison sentences for all of them is a scandal. Arguing over whether its appropriate for normal people to be angry about it is a distraction they welcome. 

Avatar
levestane replied to Patrick9-32 | 8 months ago
4 likes

Fossil fuel companies actively covered up climate change science. 

Avatar
Left_is_for_Losers replied to Patrick9-32 | 8 months ago
3 likes

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Anything less than lifetime prison sentences for all of them is a scandal. Arguing over whether its appropriate for normal people to be angry about it is a distraction they welcome. 

Really? If it wasn't for fossil fuels, then you wouldn't have half the products and equipment in your house or that you own today. Do you have any idea how many products are derived from oil? You wouldn't be riding a bike with rubber tyres, or carbon if it wasnt for oil. Or even using whatever device you are to comment on this thread. 

A lifetime prison sentence for the crime of making money is nothing short of fanatical extremism. If there is demand, there will be someone there to fill it. Rightly or wrongly.

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to Left_is_for_Losers | 8 months ago
0 likes

Good - even if despite yourself - criticism of capitalism there.
👍

Avatar
sullyvsn | 8 months ago
2 likes

STOP giving the protesters press coverage.  That encourages them to do more of it. 

Rather than have debate in the proper spot: the legislature or the ballot box.

Avatar
peted76 replied to sullyvsn | 8 months ago
13 likes

sullyvsn wrote:

STOP giving the protesters press coverage.  That encourages them to do more of it. 

Rather than have debate in the proper spot: the legislature or the ballot box.

NO QUITE THE OPPOSITE PLEASE.

A blind man can see the (current) ballot box and system is a utterly toothless tool for change. 

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to peted76 | 8 months ago
2 likes

YES. With the protesters ALL the way!

Avatar
IanMK | 8 months ago
5 likes

I think those within the sport criticising protests that stop a race, as happened on the weekend should also think about extreme weather events that have also affected and indeed stopped races. These extreme weather events are going to become more common and I suspect that the same voices will not speak out against companies and governments that continue to contribute to these events through climate change. In my opinion that is the problem with greenwashing.

Avatar
IanMK replied to IanMK | 8 months ago
7 likes

Just seen this, TBF, I think George Monbiot got there before me 😞

Avatar
gb901 | 8 months ago
1 like

Personally, I couldn't give a monkeys!

Avatar
peted76 | 8 months ago
6 likes

Agree with the comments re: expecting end user consumers to make small changes, to the benefit of capitalism, is not the path to a solution. 

Strongly disagree that bringing 'party politics' into the conversation is relevant in any meaningful form, it's not certainly not with Labour/Conservative/ScottishNP/LibDems etc..etc..blah blah..  swap one for another and we're left with, ah yes.. no change.

Very much agree that our electoral voting system needs changing, it's the only lever we could have which could give us some meaningful change. However with any meaningful climate change, it would upset a lot of people, companies would likely invest in other countries, jobs would be lost and our lives get worse. Lets say tomorrow we stopped buying cars and we lost the car industry. That's an estimated 780,000 jobs lost and goodness knows how it'd effect the UK bank balance and our own cost of living.

The global capitalism model is out of control and ultimatley is at the root of our issues. It's easy to blame the richest elite as they have faces, it's the faceless investment consortiums who demand profits and take 'humanity' away from business decisions which I worry about the most.. these are our pensions etc. and there are too many people involved for anything other than legislation to affect change. If we villified Shell and had the board members removed, nothing changes, they are simply expensive puppets to the shareholders, of which are made up of 'retail consortiums' (investment firms).

Does anyone here honestly think the board at Shell would care if British Cycling refuse their offer of money.. no, they'd simply find another sport to invest in and probably save them paying some taxes in football or moto-gp etc.. In this respect and rather selfishly, I'd rather see my sport take the money, every time, better us than a form of motorsport.

I'm pleased to see people forcing the conversation to happen whether that's gluing them selves to roads, draping politicians houses in black cloth or chucking orange paint about, I don't always think it's intelligent but each action is at least some action rather than no action, the more people speaking about the issues the more momentum gathers and who knows where that will lead to. 

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 8 months ago
9 likes

Every time I cycle anywhere (which is every day) I see car after empty SUV after taxi after car after car - always with just 1 person in it - sat in traffic, blocking the pavements and roads and cycle lanes,  engines idling. How are people's habits ever going to change? 

Avatar
Left_is_for_Losers replied to BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 8 months ago
0 likes

BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:

Every time I cycle anywhere (which is every day) I see car after empty SUV after taxi after car after car - always with just 1 person in it - sat in traffic, blocking the pavements and roads and cycle lanes,  engines idling. How are people's habits ever going to change? 

They're not going to change by sitting in a hi-vis and glueing yourself to the road.

People broadly accept that electric or non-fossil fuel vehicles are the future. Not maybe what people believe is the right choice, but what is being forced upon us. People will start accepting and using "green" cars when they become cost effective, and practical - something they are not at the moment. And to get there, we need the government to invest in tech companies, and manufacturing to get us there. Not pathetic subsidies and ULEZ tax. 

Avatar
levestane replied to Left_is_for_Losers | 8 months ago
6 likes

Combustion of any sort is unhelpful to the urban environment. EVs will help greatly in reducing urban atmospheric pollution (hence ULEZ etc). Provided electricity is generated by genuinely renewable means then EVs are also helpful in reduction of carbon footprint. The more important ecological footprint of EVs remains to be clarified. It will be different to ICE vehicles but not necessarily smaller.

Avatar
mctrials23 replied to Left_is_for_Losers | 8 months ago
10 likes

This is the problem. The average person has almost no power to do anything beyond try to make good choices where possible. Most of us work long hours, have children and try to have a small amount of time to do other things outside of that. Governments should be sorting this crap out from the top level. 

The fact that companies can just make packaging that isn't recycled still is ridiculous. The fact that companies can make whatever wasteful size of packaging is disgraceful. 

They keep trying to push the burden of responsibility onto the individual (shock shock horror) to try and suggest that its not the massive companies that are the root of all these issues. Give me an electric car that meets my needs and I will happily use it. Tell me its going to cost me £30k and I will struggle to charge it conveniently and I won't. 

I'm also not going to fork out the £50k or more it would cost to get solar panels, a battery, turn my edwardian house into something that could actually use an ASHP or GSHP and then buy one.

Unfortunately we are basically placing all our eggs in the basket of "we will come up with a magical technology once shit gets bad enough". 

I don't get all the bollocks about sports washing and green washing. No one thinks "wow, Ineos sponsor a cycling team, they must be less scummy than I thought because riding a bike is green". No one thinks "wow, Qatar is such a wonderful country, I thought they were involved in horrible human rights abuses but that world cup has complete changed my mind". If anything, the focus on these countries/companies as part of their sponsorship probably makes more people dig into their behaviour. 

Fundamentally though people have enough on their plates and won't be going out into the streets to demand action when they can barely keep their heads above water as it is. 

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to mctrials23 | 8 months ago
6 likes

That sums it up just about perfectly for me, thank you.

I'd also add on the sportswashing... I've never sought out a Shell garage, or indeed thought 'ooh I must drive my car more'' because of the British Cycling connection. 

And yes, yes, yes, we are told that we are bastardo's for wanting to go on holiday (whilst big tour operators and cut price airlines advertise their services without control), we are told we are the devils for buying packaged products (when the supermarkets insist on covering everything in single use plastic to maximise their profits), told that we are earth destroying failures for not having the wealth to buy a £40k+ electric car and £1500 charging point, oh and a house with off-road parking (whilst the car manufactures insist on making bigger and heavier cars for no other reason than to massage ego's and maximise profits).

I can go on and on. If the governments want genuine change the pressure has to be placed further down the chain than the consumer. 

Avatar
Left_is_for_Losers replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 8 months ago
0 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

That sums it up just about perfectly for me, thank you.

I'd also add on the sportswashing... I've never sought out a Shell garage, or indeed thought 'ooh I must drive my car more'' because of the British Cycling connection. 

And yes, yes, yes, we are told that we are bastardo's for wanting to go on holiday (whilst big tour operators and cut price airlines advertise their services without control), we are told we are the devils for buying packaged products (when the supermarkets insist on covering everything in single use plastic to maximise their profits), told that we are earth destroying failures for not having the wealth to buy a £40k+ electric car and £1500 charging point, oh and a house with off-road parking (whilst the car manufactures insist on making bigger and heavier cars for no other reason than to massage ego's and maximise profits).

I can go on and on. If the governments want genuine change the pressure has to be placed further down the chain than the consumer. 

Completely agree with this and the above. The rot starts at the source - there is only so much the consumer or average joe can actually do. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Left_is_for_Losers | 8 months ago
3 likes

The_Tory wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

...

I can go on and on. If the governments want genuine change the pressure has to be placed further down the chain than the consumer. 

Completely agree with this and the above. The rot starts at the source - there is only so much the consumer or average joe can actually do. 

"]If the government wants genuine change..."

What makes them want anything?  Other than keeping their own jobs, looking out for their own and exercising their own bees in bonnets?

Feedback loops.  Governments let companies do what they lobby for and people buy what they're sold (which encourage more companies to sell more of those things) and eventually people vote for governments who facilitate the availability of these things.

Want change?  You probably need more than one place in the wheel to put a stick in the spokes!

Not easy.

Avatar
Clem Fandango replied to chrisonabike | 8 months ago
4 likes

None of them can think beyond the next election cycle (or probably the next headline). Long term issues just continually get kicked down the road. Career rather than actual tough (ie potentiality unpopular even in the short term) decision making every time.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 8 months ago
4 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

...told that we are earth destroying failures for not having the wealth to buy a £40k+ electric car and £1500 charging point, oh and a house with off-road parking...

The cheapest family-sized electric car is £26,000 (MG4) and there is the potential for councils to fit on-street charging points free of charge where off-road parking does not exist (there are already five in my street). If you have off-road parking you can charge an electric car from the mains supply, or if you want a faster charger it can cost as little as £300 and you can apply to the government's Electric Vehicle Homecharger Scheme to cover 75% of the cost (maximum grant £350). Still a pretty fair slice of change but nowhere near the figures you quote.

Avatar
mark1a replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 8 months ago
3 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

... for not having the wealth to buy a £40k+ electric car ...

Electric Vehicle Man channel on YouTube - just bought a 7 year old Renault Zoe for £4400 in a "buy EV for under £5k" challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hPkfn6FwE

Spoiler: it was fine, and he's going to keep it as a town car to replace the ICE Mini.

 

Avatar
bikes replied to mctrials23 | 8 months ago
4 likes

I disagree regarding the sports green-washing (or simply, 'advertising'). You see positive things that you like (eg some sporting event or personality) always next to some brand (eg Shell) and you begin to feel more favourable or at least less unfavourable towards that brand. Sporting personalities are recommending the brand to you, even if they never explicitly say anything about it. It doesn't have to be a conscious belief for it to work. Presumably the companies spending their money on this have a lot of evidence that this tactic works. I believe there's power in association, even if the logical, conscious part of your mind knows otherwise.

Avatar
MattieKempy | 8 months ago
9 likes

Surely anything related to the intensifying climate crisis is too big to ignore? The way things appear to have accelerated this summer in comparison to scientists' predictions is really alarming and we need to do something collective before it really is too late.

It's telling that half of humanity seems to think that climate protesters are selfish when they cause disruption and delay when they're actually totally the opposite - they're putting our species' future first. Sadly, Big Oil and the world's politicians seem to want to line their pockets at our expense, so it's clearly time we stopped pretending that they will legislate to do something about climate change. It's something we need to do something about ourselves, and if people like Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace and This is Rigged make even one or two people do something positive then it's worth it.

Avatar
ubercurmudgeon replied to MattieKempy | 8 months ago
9 likes

MattieKempy wrote:

It's telling that half of humanity seems to think that climate protesters are selfish

Is it really half of humanity? Or a very noisy, highly amplified, and extremely entitled minority?

Avatar
Left_is_for_Losers replied to ubercurmudgeon | 8 months ago
2 likes

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

MattieKempy wrote:

It's telling that half of humanity seems to think that climate protesters are selfish

Is it really half of humanity? Or a very noisy, highly amplified, and extremely entitled minority?

Is it really a minority? Or a very disgruntled majority? It's the same people over and over who are protesting... and very much a minority if ever I have seen one. 

While people are sympathetic toward their views, the ways and means they protest is definitely not in line or acceptable to the majority of people.

Avatar
Cugel replied to Left_is_for_Losers | 8 months ago
8 likes

The_Tory wrote:

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

MattieKempy wrote:

It's telling that half of humanity seems to think that climate protesters are selfish

Is it really half of humanity? Or a very noisy, highly amplified, and extremely entitled minority?

Is it really a minority? Or a very disgruntled majority? It's the same people over and over who are protesting... and very much a minority if ever I have seen one. 

While people are sympathetic toward their views, the ways and means they protest is definitely not in line or acceptable to the majority of people.

Aye, many humans are stupid (defined as believing and acting against your own interests as well as those of everythingand everyone that supports them, despite numerous warnings from reality). Off they go flying to somewhere about to catch fire - a fire largely caused by not just their flying but numerous other highly damaging behaviours recommended to them by greedy hooligan capitalists.

Are they in the majority? That hardly matters.  What matters is whether there's enough of them to trash the the biosphere, including themselves and everyone else, as well as a vast range of other living entities besides stupid humans.

The latest local emblem of such stupidity is the Toryspiv and its supporters. For a few extra groats and the opportunity to sit up the class-ladder sneering at "the undeserving poor" they've created, Toryspiv will do the very opposite of any conservative.  They'll trash the lot for their 5 years of infamous dominance.

But humans have always found ways to toss themselves over a cliff whilst imagining themselves doing so for a righteous cause. We're all infested with toxic religions, ideologies and a vast range of other mental parasites that make us quite mad, let alone stupid.

Avatar
levestane replied to Cugel | 8 months ago
4 likes

Seems about right. History is littered with failed civilisations. The difference this time is it is at planetary scale (but the planet will be fine).

Avatar
Left_is_for_Losers replied to Cugel | 8 months ago
0 likes

Cugel wrote:

But humans have always found ways to toss themselves over a cliff whilst imagining themselves doing so for a righteous cause. We're all infested with toxic religions, ideologies and a vast range of other mental parasites that make us quite mad, let alone stupid.

I can see that the madness has certainly spread to a few. Perhaps the only point we might agree on. 

Avatar
perce replied to Left_is_for_Losers | 8 months ago
10 likes

Yes. They are not really protesting in the British way are they? What they should do is form an orderly queue at the post office and mutter quite loudly among themselves. Just as effective.

Pages

Latest Comments