Quite literally last week I was randomly watching The Today Show (mainstream Australian breakfast television) and I couldn't believe what I just saw within the space of 5 minutes.
It was the build up to the AFL grand final and there was a presenter on a football field with kids kicking footballs in the background.
Anyway, he introduces the segment and it turns out it's a paid promotion for Shell. The show then cuts to a 2 minute promotional video for Shell fuel.
Once the promo ends, he tells the kids that whoever kicks a goal gets a $1000 petrol voucher, as he waves a stack of these petrol vouchers in front of the camera.
I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life.
Fossil fuels are irreplaceable for what they offer at the price they ask.
Don’t ask the West. Ask India that had the choice to leapfrog fossil fuels and be energy independent, at higher cost.
People don’t care about our opinions. They want the cheapest options.
The only way to transition out of fossils for energy, is to make the alternatives cheaper and easily accessible. US transitioned from coal to gas within 10 years when the economics became favorable.
It really depends on how you calculate this, but fossil fuels are not cheap by any means. The IMF has some staggering numbers for direct and indirect subsidies of fossil fuels, https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...: “… explicit subsidies (undercharging for supply costs) more than doubled to $1.3 trillion.” If we just got rid of those subsidies, we’d see a faster shift.
Then there are all the externalities that are not part of the cost of fossil fuel costs today, start charging for the pollution and make the real costs explicit. The next thing, stop subsidizing road construction and maintenance for car drivers, and make only car owners pay the costs of all the roads, people would again see more explicitly how much more expensive cars are, which would get people to shift to other options (the vast majority of which are not EVs and won’t be for a long time). People might opt to bike for anything shorter than a 3 mile errand, deeming the car to be too expensive, or use the local bus or transit system…
Point being, these fossil fuels are supported directly by our governments and many of the primary users of those fuels are also supported by our governments (some more than others like here in the US).
I live in "the west" and I can contribute to change there. So I do. Try to change what you can change, instead of thinking about what you can't change and not doing anything.
India and China are both investing heavily in renewables, this is a tired trope.
Renewable energy is also cost effective compared to fossil fuels in many cases and has been for years. This also excludes the massive externalities of fossil fuels.
True, making it cheaper is the best way, which should involve not subsidising fossil fuels and subsidising renewables.
Alas, none of this has anything to do with fossil fuel companies advertising to children, not sure if your a contrarian or a shill but your take is totally off topic.
Right, let's just leave it to the free market to make the transition when economically viable. The invisible hand has been working great so far in preventing a global ecosystem catastrophe. /s
Note the gas station brand of vanilla Fortnite is “Spillx”. Cars and trucks have faster electric counterparts.
I guess having companies build out maps and use their assets was going to be a side effect of having user created content.
Company sponsored games aren’t new (80d had 7up-spot and cool-aid man). One of this years biggest movies is a doll brand. However I don’t think they’re fooling anyone.
I remember going to Disney World sometime in like 2003 or so. My dad decided he wa Ted to go to the Epcot center for some reason and their big feature presentation was on dinosaurs but really it was thinly veiled propaganda for the oil industry. It included a whole lot of repetition of the sentiment of “don’t worry. While we keep using more and more oil, we are always finding more.” It was pretty gross and in your face.
The kicker at the end of the presentation: Sponsored by Exxon Mobile.
Tinfoil moment, there is genuine discussion and protest from Gen Z grassroots to hit them where it hurts, i.e. stop subsidies and tax breaks for Oil & Gas.
Both BP and Shell are likely aware of this and are now trying to target public transport advertisement and online communities, where they think they will probably win over Gen Z.
This has been the case for a hundred years already.
It is why Santa is dressed in red. Why people buy diamond engagement rings. Why cigarettes were readily available for literally decades after they were already known to be harmful. And why American gun control laws have never matured despite all the evidence that proves the status quo isn’t viable.
In 2015, I worked for a youth-focused and progressive news/“content” organization that posted their videos exclusively on social media. Let’s call them “Know That Event.” It made/makes its money by doing the occasional advertorial video on behalf of a company and mixing it in with its typical content.
They announced to the staff one day that they landed a deal with Shell to produce videos about their science investment initiatives. I was disturbed by this and had chats with various decision makers. I was told that it would have a positive impact and celebrate the good investments, which would encourage Shell to do more good things! I wish I wrote down details, it was ridiculous. But they went ahead and did it. Shell never exerted any control over other content and all the news/editorial people were smart and committed, but this left a bad taste in my mouth about the company for the rest of my time there.
First question - is Fortnite even relevant anymore? The kids i know don't play it anymore been like 2 years. This shows how far behind O&G campaigns are. Unless they are trying out a marketing approach in a quiet space to hopefully build it out elswewhere.
I've just logged in to check - there is 300k people online playing across different modes. That's bananas for any game. Of course it's extremely relevant, because yes, kids you know might have stopped playing it already but there are always new kids who are trying it for the first time - and then people like me who still play it every week with friends even though we are 30+.
>One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring.
> One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring.
That's a single data point, that contributes less than environmental factors, skyrocketing populace, low instances of vaccination and healthcare.
> The top three leading causes of death in Niger in 2017 were malaria, diarrheal diseases and lower respiratory infections. Comparatively, in the United States, the leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer and accidents.
I think the best part of this whole article is the quote from streamer GHOST WHOH (@WHOH on Twitter/X) starting "All road trips start with @shellstationsus .."
Shell Stations US
or
Shell Station Sus
Yep, pretty sus alright. I'm sure a lot of the target audience is laughing about this.
I see a positive side: It's a sign that change is happening right now.
Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel, people just bought it. This slowly starts to change. And oil companies are crapping their pants, because in some countries a significant amount of cars on the roads will be EVs within a few years.
In Europe some corporations already switched to a 100% EV company car policy. All new leases need to be electric only, and within 3 years they will have >90% EVs in their passenger car fleet.
> Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel
Have I got news for you... Check out the latest ClimateTown video https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4 for just a few examples, but there's lots more and it's been happening for decades.
Does anyone really think this will work? This isn’t cigarette advertising, which raises the profile of a directly harmful activity. Like what’s the best case for Shell here?
If you’re going to get upset about anything in games, get upset about loot boxes. Promoting gambling to children should be illegal. That’s psychologically damaging.
For people who don't hate fossil fuels and are sick of how invasive, disruptive and insanely hyperbolic the push for renewables has been...it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.
On a topic not directly related to the article, there's a book written by a former CEO of Shell called "Why We Hate the Oil Companies" that's rather interesting. In summary, his points are that oil is not necessarily good or bad, but that the lack of effective energy policies and the inherent challenges of the field incentivize bad practices by oil companies, while simultaneously these companies fail to communicate their positive role in civilization as the media routinely use them as a punching bag. I'm not excusing what Shell is doing or has done in the past, but the book provides a nuanced take for anyone interested in the topic.
Energy and energy availability certainly have saved many lives and made many others much better than they would've been, but that's not really due to energy companies.
Give the ownership of oil rights to other people / companies and they'd have done the same stuff, specially after the first waves of development. Attributing all the positives of cheap energy on humanity to oil companies and their employees seems like attributing the joy of music to the record labels.
> I'm not excusing what Shell is doing or has done in the past, but the book provides a nuanced take for anyone interested in the topic.
I don't think you can write a comment that says the book is a nuanced take and in the same breath say you're not apologising for them.
Of course the CEO of shell's nuanced take is "they let us do it", when they spent an absolute fortune ensuring that they would be allowed to continue.
I've read the book, and it's not a nuanced take, at all. It sells a picture of "well you said you wanted it, so we just gave you what you want", and sweeps under the rug all of the other parts. For example, the research that these companies did almost 50 years ago that they made absolutely no effort to avoid the consequences of, instead burying them.
There was nothing stopping the CEO of shell divesting in the early 2000's other than greed and growth, and the only reason he wrote a book about it is because it sells.
Well, the reason for the hate could be that OR things like oil companies sponsoring climate change deniers and exxon hiding results of their own study which shown that continued burning of fossil fuels will have catastrophic consequences.
This is a corporation heavily investing in messaging and lobbying that makes sure they get subsidies rather than fines and regulation. Yes, that kind of comment about nuance is totally excusing them.
People have the right to know from where their quality of life comes from.
So if you think quality of life = cool ,
then it's true that fossil fuels = cool.
Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis.
Keep that foot on the pedal, they have much more to lose than we have, for once that's an advantage, if they are really so scared of climate change they'd move to Tibet or the Rockies.
I'm not listening to them I'm listening to science, the discipline that has given us pretty much all our quality of life improvements.
It's suspicious how many in this thread are pointing out that fossil fuels are an essential component of society reaching the point it has. We know, that's not a revelation.
> Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis.
I think you're spending a bit too much time in the conspiracy rabbit hole. Kim Kardashian's carbon footprint is about equivalent of 50 americans. She also has almost 350 million followers on Instagram. If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year.
That doesn't mean they're not hypocrites, but have some context. What's actually needed is a change in consumption across the board, and a change in attitude towards impact. The only way that happens is through regulation and education.
[+] [-] dottjt|2 years ago|reply
It was the build up to the AFL grand final and there was a presenter on a football field with kids kicking footballs in the background.
Anyway, he introduces the segment and it turns out it's a paid promotion for Shell. The show then cuts to a 2 minute promotional video for Shell fuel.
Once the promo ends, he tells the kids that whoever kicks a goal gets a $1000 petrol voucher, as he waves a stack of these petrol vouchers in front of the camera.
I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life.
[+] [-] whatever1|2 years ago|reply
Don’t ask the West. Ask India that had the choice to leapfrog fossil fuels and be energy independent, at higher cost.
People don’t care about our opinions. They want the cheapest options.
The only way to transition out of fossils for energy, is to make the alternatives cheaper and easily accessible. US transitioned from coal to gas within 10 years when the economics became favorable.
[+] [-] bluejekyll|2 years ago|reply
Then there are all the externalities that are not part of the cost of fossil fuel costs today, start charging for the pollution and make the real costs explicit. The next thing, stop subsidizing road construction and maintenance for car drivers, and make only car owners pay the costs of all the roads, people would again see more explicitly how much more expensive cars are, which would get people to shift to other options (the vast majority of which are not EVs and won’t be for a long time). People might opt to bike for anything shorter than a 3 mile errand, deeming the car to be too expensive, or use the local bus or transit system…
Point being, these fossil fuels are supported directly by our governments and many of the primary users of those fuels are also supported by our governments (some more than others like here in the US).
[+] [-] paulryanrogers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andix|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jabradoodle|2 years ago|reply
Renewable energy is also cost effective compared to fossil fuels in many cases and has been for years. This also excludes the massive externalities of fossil fuels.
True, making it cheaper is the best way, which should involve not subsidising fossil fuels and subsidising renewables.
Alas, none of this has anything to do with fossil fuel companies advertising to children, not sure if your a contrarian or a shill but your take is totally off topic.
[+] [-] aaomidi|2 years ago|reply
We are subsidizing fossil fuels by deferring their actual real cost to the future. We can and should stop doing that.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] merdaverse|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acomjean|2 years ago|reply
I guess having companies build out maps and use their assets was going to be a side effect of having user created content.
Company sponsored games aren’t new (80d had 7up-spot and cool-aid man). One of this years biggest movies is a doll brand. However I don’t think they’re fooling anyone.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|2 years ago|reply
The kicker at the end of the presentation: Sponsored by Exxon Mobile.
[+] [-] UncleSlacky|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pentae|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HX5wsQVEA
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|2 years ago|reply
Both BP and Shell are likely aware of this and are now trying to target public transport advertisement and online communities, where they think they will probably win over Gen Z.
[+] [-] jdasdf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osigurdson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defrost|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UuXnHvsIQ
[+] [-] Alifatisk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnlmorg|2 years ago|reply
It is why Santa is dressed in red. Why people buy diamond engagement rings. Why cigarettes were readily available for literally decades after they were already known to be harmful. And why American gun control laws have never matured despite all the evidence that proves the status quo isn’t viable.
[+] [-] kibwen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NotGMan|2 years ago|reply
The only difference now is that people are more aware of it.
[+] [-] lowdownbutter|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tamaharbor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bud|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] diogenes4|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|2 years ago|reply
Green movement has spent the last 50 years opposing nuclear power, otherwise we would have decarbonised at least 90% already (like France has).
[+] [-] sickcodebruh|2 years ago|reply
They announced to the staff one day that they landed a deal with Shell to produce videos about their science investment initiatives. I was disturbed by this and had chats with various decision makers. I was told that it would have a positive impact and celebrate the good investments, which would encourage Shell to do more good things! I wish I wrote down details, it was ridiculous. But they went ahead and did it. Shell never exerted any control over other content and all the news/editorial people were smart and committed, but this left a bad taste in my mouth about the company for the rest of my time there.
[+] [-] boringg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heywire|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haunter|2 years ago|reply
Quite a statement tbh. I thought it’s all Minecraft and Roblox?
And even then “only care about” are very strong words
[+] [-] snthd|2 years ago|reply
https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/single-post/hell-i... (embeds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z64LV-BSwDs)
>One of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Niger Delta has a life expectancy of just 41 years due to decades of Shell oil spills & constant gas flaring.
[+] [-] imchillyb|2 years ago|reply
That's a single data point, that contributes less than environmental factors, skyrocketing populace, low instances of vaccination and healthcare.
> The top three leading causes of death in Niger in 2017 were malaria, diarrheal diseases and lower respiratory infections. Comparatively, in the United States, the leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer and accidents.
> https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-life-expectancy-in-...
There are /numerous/ reports that state what this project states with much more clarity and decades of numerical data gathering.
Spills and gas flaring don't even make it to the top 10 life expectancy issues of the Niger Delta.
[+] [-] ccvannorman|2 years ago|reply
Shell Stations US
or
Shell Station Sus
Yep, pretty sus alright. I'm sure a lot of the target audience is laughing about this.
[+] [-] andix|2 years ago|reply
Big oil never had to advertise the "benefits" of fuel, people just bought it. This slowly starts to change. And oil companies are crapping their pants, because in some countries a significant amount of cars on the roads will be EVs within a few years.
In Europe some corporations already switched to a 100% EV company car policy. All new leases need to be electric only, and within 3 years they will have >90% EVs in their passenger car fleet.
[+] [-] viraptor|2 years ago|reply
Have I got news for you... Check out the latest ClimateTown video https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4 for just a few examples, but there's lots more and it's been happening for decades.
[+] [-] jmyeet|2 years ago|reply
If you’re going to get upset about anything in games, get upset about loot boxes. Promoting gambling to children should be illegal. That’s psychologically damaging.
[+] [-] maccard|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monstertank|2 years ago|reply
All is fair in love and war.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notsound|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vasco|2 years ago|reply
Give the ownership of oil rights to other people / companies and they'd have done the same stuff, specially after the first waves of development. Attributing all the positives of cheap energy on humanity to oil companies and their employees seems like attributing the joy of music to the record labels.
[+] [-] maccard|2 years ago|reply
I don't think you can write a comment that says the book is a nuanced take and in the same breath say you're not apologising for them.
Of course the CEO of shell's nuanced take is "they let us do it", when they spent an absolute fortune ensuring that they would be allowed to continue.
I've read the book, and it's not a nuanced take, at all. It sells a picture of "well you said you wanted it, so we just gave you what you want", and sweeps under the rug all of the other parts. For example, the research that these companies did almost 50 years ago that they made absolutely no effort to avoid the consequences of, instead burying them.
There was nothing stopping the CEO of shell divesting in the early 2000's other than greed and growth, and the only reason he wrote a book about it is because it sells.
[+] [-] azan_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viraptor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] permo-w|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpinJack_Cash|2 years ago|reply
So if you think quality of life = cool ,
then it's true that fossil fuels = cool.
Don't let any private jet flying tech CEO or yacht enthusiast actor tell you otherwise. They want to brainwash you to have the exclusive on fossil fuels consumption much like they want to brainwash you to pay the maximum amount of taxes while they structure their affairs through trusts in Puerto Rico, Curacao or St. Kitts and Nevis.
Keep that foot on the pedal, they have much more to lose than we have, for once that's an advantage, if they are really so scared of climate change they'd move to Tibet or the Rockies.
[+] [-] jabradoodle|2 years ago|reply
It's suspicious how many in this thread are pointing out that fossil fuels are an essential component of society reaching the point it has. We know, that's not a revelation.
It is not the point.
[+] [-] maccard|2 years ago|reply
I think you're spending a bit too much time in the conspiracy rabbit hole. Kim Kardashian's carbon footprint is about equivalent of 50 americans. She also has almost 350 million followers on Instagram. If she manages to get 1% of her following to reduce their footprint by 1% for a year, she undoes more than she emits in a year.
That doesn't mean they're not hypocrites, but have some context. What's actually needed is a change in consumption across the board, and a change in attitude towards impact. The only way that happens is through regulation and education.