Greenpeace target Shell with Belgian GP protest

2013 Belgian Grand Prix

http://vimeo.com/73215350

Greenpeace disrupted activities at the Belgian Grand Prix as they sought to draw attention to race sponsor Shell’s drilling practices.

Protesters unrolled a large banner in the main grandstand opposite the pits in the build-up to the race. Others were deployed by remote control during the podium ceremony, as shown in the video above.

According to the environmental organisation, two members of their 35-strong team were arrested after “subverting” a Shell advertising board at the Radillon corner. Other banners were displayed by paragliders before the start of the race.

Julia Ritschard of Swiss group savethearctic.org said: “Shell has spent millions on this event, hoping to ride on the glory of the drivers and pretend it’s a company worthy of a spot on the podium.”

“But Shell has proven time and again that it will cut the most dangerous corners in the race to drill for oil as the Arctic ice melts away. So I?m here to let Formula One fans know what this company is really up to and make sure the truth of what Shell is doing in the Arctic is part of today?s race.”

2013 Belgian Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Belgian Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Greenpeace

Advert | Go Ad-free

162 comments on Greenpeace target Shell with Belgian GP protest

1 2 3
  1. zippyone (@zippyone) said on 25th August 2013, 16:05

    A worthy cause but don’t think this will have gained them any supporters, it was a bit silly and potentially dangerous, but they have brought the issue to peoples attention.

    • Hairs (@hairs) said on 25th August 2013, 16:54

      How is fiddling with an advertising hoarding dangerous?

      The drivers don’t slow down around the track to see if any of the sponsors have any money saving offers on…

    • Maarten (@) said on 25th August 2013, 21:15

      I feel you don’t necessarily need to support Greenpeace on this. Shell is on one side of the spectrum, and Greenpeace definitely on the other side. But what they did do was raise public awareness. Shell has been doing a very good job of keeping this out of the media, and FOM has been doing a good job keeping this Greenpeace action out of the media. But if they can reach only 1% of the people who follow Formula 1, it might make a difference.

      I was reading the intro of Grand Prix Plus, and I couldn’t disagree more. They bash Greenpeace for using a sporting event to convey a political message. But they completely ignore the fact that all those sponsors also use the sport to convey their message (albeit not a political one). Everyone will want to use an event like this for something due to the media coverage, whether it be political or to get customers.

      @keithcollantine thank you for spending some attention to this instead of pretending it never happened.

      • Nigelstash (@nigelstash) said on 25th August 2013, 21:25

        +1
        But I disagree that Shell’s message isn’t political. The advertising at an f1 event may be straightforward but taken as a whole, Shell are like all big companies – they claim to be environmentally aware when it suits them but their actions suggest profit is their only motive.

      • Matt Clark (@mattc888) said on 26th August 2013, 3:27

        @mowgli Well said. Good job @keithcollantine, as always keeping us informed.

      • Pandaslap (@pandaslap) said on 26th August 2013, 3:30

        @mowgli +1 – Well said. I also appreciate that @keithcollantine reported this.

        Also, @nigelstash has the right idea. You cannot differentiate between political messages and those which seek to raise awareness or advertise. All public discourse is inherently political and I have absolutely no problem with Greenpeace’s actions. In fact, I think that such organizations should do more to peacefully confront companies such as Shell at events like these.

      • Bazza Spock (@bazza-spock) said on 26th August 2013, 11:31

        +1 I’m glad this site sees fit to tell us all the news. I never would’ve found out about this otherwise.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 26th August 2013, 11:59

        @mowgli

        I was reading the intro of Grand Prix Plus, and I couldn’t disagree more. They bash Greenpeace for using a sporting event to convey a political message.

        I can’t fathom such a naive point of view. From government-funded driver sponsorship programmes to races paid for with public money, you’d be hard pressed to find a more political sport than Formula One.

        Whenever someone trots out the “sport shouldn’t be used for politics” line we should recognise it for what it really is: the author is actually saying “sport shouldn’t be used for the kind of politics I disagree with“.

        For the record, I’m somewhat ambivalent and uninformed about the issue of Arctic drilling, though less now than I was 24 hours ago!

        Anyway, thanks for the positive feedback everyone.

      • Matt F said on 26th August 2013, 12:01

        One might argue that if Greenpeace wished to use the grand prix as a means to get their message across similar to Shell and other big multinats, then they can pay for the banner advertising like everyone else.

        • craig said on 27th August 2013, 10:39

          Why would you do that. Nobody would have given a ****. Look how much people are talking about this! this would a very successful campaign to make people look at Shell and recognise what an irresponsible operator they are, in an irresponsible industry.

      • Girts (@girts) said on 26th August 2013, 13:40

        @mowgli @keithcollantine Moreover, politicians often present trophies on the podium and use the races to promote themselves, not only their countries. And no one is preventing drivers from issuing political statements, just look at Maldonado’s active support for Venezuela’s governing party.

      • Steven said on 26th August 2013, 16:28

        @keithcollantine, thank you for the facilitating this thread. This is why I come back to F1 Fanatic because I can always count on a reasonable perspective and thoughtful discussion from you and other readers. My view of the whole affair is that Greenpeace made a peaceful demonstration that did not put anyone in danger. They got their message out in front of a wide audience and did not have to run onto the track with a placard to do so. Sure, it was censored on TV, but these days fans follow the Internet as well so I’m sure it got plenty of attention.

        As an aside, I’ve been wanting to support Grand Prix Plus because I hear it’s high quality and insightful, but it’s their positions on such matters that keeps me from subscribing.

    • Mark (@marlarkey) said on 26th August 2013, 11:51

      I was worried that they were going to try to disrupt the race itself – which would have been extremely dangerous – but in the end their protest consisted of banners which highlighted their cause, made their point and put nobody in any harm. Not that I agree with them but they made their point and drew huge attention to their cause.

      A pretty effective protest in my view….

      The only worrying point was the lack of security. Apparently they ‘planted’ these devices weeks ago and were able to microlight over the circuit, and it seemed to take the police the entire race to get them down. What if, rather than simple protesters, they had been people intent on causing disruption, violence and terrorism ??? The lack of security was very very worrying.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 26th August 2013, 11:55

        @marlarkey

        The only worrying point was the lack of security. Apparently they ‘planted’ these devices weeks ago and were able to microlight over the circuit, and it seemed to take the police the entire race to get them down. What if, rather than simple protesters, they had been people intent on causing disruption, violence and terrorism ??? The lack of security was very very worrying.

        Very true, especially in the context of Bahrain.

        • Mike (@mike) said on 26th August 2013, 17:07

          if Greenpeace can get banners on the podium, F1 is not safe in Bahrain. Even the drivers.

          • Mark (@marlarkey) said on 26th August 2013, 17:56

            Agreed… or in many other venues… however I imagine that security in many of the ‘dodgier’ venues is more secure than at Spa…

            This was a major security failure in my view

    • Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 27th August 2013, 21:49

      Not sure I agree about the dangerous part (beyond the inherent danger in paragliding and stomping about on a grandstand roof) but certainly agree with silly.

      I’ll refrain from commenting on the worthiness or righteousness of the cause, but personally stunts like this will never change my mind over anything. What does it prove? That they can come up with a clever logo of a polar bear and Shell logo.

      Wow.

      But wait! The little devil horn! Shell are clearly evil!

      Pfft, if you want to convince me of your stand point, give me the relevant information, point out facts that might not be immediately obvious, then leave me to make my own mind up.

      What will not work for me is a PR stunt like this. It just lowers what is otherwise a serious debate to the level of attention seeking children.

      I am aware that I don’t speak for everyone who views that and that these views won’t be shared by everyone (or, indeed, perhaps anyone) but if an organisation wants to be taken seriously by me, then they need to treat me like an adult.

      • GongTong (@gongtong) said on 28th August 2013, 0:54

        “Pfft, if you want to convince me of your stand point, give me the relevant information, point out facts that might not be immediately obvious, then leave me to make my own mind up.”

        They gave you a link: http://www.savethearctic.org/

        I haven’t read much from it, but it looks quite informative to me. Many people had no idea about what’s going on up there whatsoever. I guess now a lot more do… Get reading brother.

        • Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 28th August 2013, 1:14

          And that link is on my reading list. But for me the rest of the stunt looks childish and will only serve to put me off their message.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 28th August 2013, 2:25

            Would you even be aware of their message otherwise?

          • BS (@bs) said on 28th August 2013, 10:54

            I totally agree with you that generally I am more open to a message when talked to rather than shouted at but the problem with companies such as shell is they spent insane amount of money keeping this information out of the mainstream press cycle. Even you pointing out why this type of message does not work for you intellectually benefits the message Greenpeace is trying to get across, which is merely awareness of this issue. Shock value is cheap, but when done properly is good value.

            Unless you look for this type of stuff, you’re not likely to come across it. I tend to wonder around slightly more ‘subversive’ sources for information rather than the pr mill we call news, but this hadn’t gotten to my attention. Had Greenpeace been handing out understated, informative pamphlets I doubt the message would have left the circuit.

            In any case, you have to give them credit for the remotely controlled rising banners on the podium. That was adorable.

    • The footage Bernie TV would not show:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLItXUC_nF8

  2. JP (@jp1987) said on 25th August 2013, 16:10

    I gotta admit that I kinda like that the angle is against Shell only and not Formula 1. Quite different compared to other places.

    • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 25th August 2013, 16:13

      I’m just happy they didn’t disrupt the race itself. Good on them!

    • xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag) said on 25th August 2013, 16:17

      I like the fact they’re protesting drilling for oil in what is essentially, a barren wasteland and not Formula 1 and the support paddock burning a shed load of fossil fuels and releasing a massive amount of CO2 etc into the atmosphere. @jp1987
      As long as they take reasonable precautions, there should be no oil spills and the disruption to the local wildlife should be minimal and have no lasting impact.
      The World runs on oil, and we need to get it from somewhere.

      • Traverse (@) said on 25th August 2013, 16:24

        And when the oil runs out we can design cars that run on the tears of Panda Bears!!

      • JP (@jp1987) said on 25th August 2013, 16:32

        @xjr15jaaag I see what you are saying. However, if they directed their protests to groups akin to them they would have no impact. As the old saying goes, they would be “preaching to the choir”.

        On the other hand, I am afraid we might have a more fundamental disagreement about the topic in hand today. You seem to be satisfied with the prospect of drilling for oil in the Arctic, or as you describe it “a barren wasteland”. I personally believe our efforts should not be directed at drilling on the last wilderness of the world but as to reduce our thirst for oil. In other words, ending the fact that “World runs on oil” :)

      • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 25th August 2013, 16:50

        @xjr15jaaag
        First of all, Formula 1 really isn’t “releasing a massive amount of CO2″ and is not the cause of global air pollution. Many human activities are, but F1 is not even a blip on the radar, although I’m glad that the sport starts to promote lower carbon emissions. It’s mostly a PR move, but it’s a good move.

        Oil companies on the other hand don’t take “reasonable precautions”. They take absolutely minimal precautions, necessary for running the business. That’s why every few years we have oil spills, or we hear about people dying on oil platforms. It’s cheaper to “lobby” (we should really say “bribe”) politicians and make them pass laws allowing for self-regulation and no external oversight.

        Also, the Arctic is far from a “barren wasteland”. It’s a rich and quite important ecosystem inhabited by many species of fish, marine mammals, birds, land animals and plants. Reckless destruction of the Arctic reminds me of reckless destruction of our Oceans. In 50 years we’ve lost more than 90 percent of the big fish, but hey, who cares. It’s just a big underwater wasteland and it doesn’t really concern us. Right?

        • JP (@jp1987) said on 25th August 2013, 16:58

          @maroonjack You sir, just won the internet

        • xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag) said on 25th August 2013, 17:44

          But it’s not like oil drilling can’t be done in a safe way though; who’s to say that Shell isn’t drilling in a safe way which doesn’t disrupt the surrounding wildlife already?

          • PMccarthy_is_a_legend (@pmccarthy_is_a_legend) said on 25th August 2013, 20:31

            @xjr15jaaag buddy maybe you should do a bit of research in order to understand the issue better. I am sure once you do, your opinion will change. There is no way to drill oil out of the ground without causing some form of disruption to the wildlife. These protestors are bringing to our attention the fact that Shell could be doing something to mitigate that disruption but have elected not to simply to save on costs and get more profits. While you or me will never see a penny of this profit, we (and our children) will feel the effects on the environment caused by them not taking the appropriate measures to protect the environment.

          • Kanil (@kanil) said on 25th August 2013, 23:53

            Given that they ran their arctic drilling rig into the ground once already this year, I think it might be reasonable to conclude they could be drilling in a safer fashion than they currently are.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 26th August 2013, 7:22

            It can be done, but its more expensive that way @xjr15jaag, so oil companies try to avoid it.

            And the arctic is not only a very vital ecosystem, the fact its cold waters, also means its quite fragile.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 25th August 2013, 23:14

          @maroonjack – It’s also worth noting that Formula 1 has often been used to develop new technologies that find their way into road cars. And because it’s a competitive environment, those technologies get developed faster than they would if car manufacturers were trying to make them in their own. Next year’s engine regulations, with their emphasis on fuel efficiency and energy recovery systems, is a prime examp if this. I imagine that organisations like Greenpeace would know and hopefully appreciate this.

          They’re not radical environmentalists who want everyone to live in trees on a vegan diet – they’re just opposed to destructive drilling practices.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th August 2013, 5:15

            @prisoner-monkeys, may I quote you on this the next time we are discussing the lack of development allowed in F1 since the V10 became mandatory.
            Oh! and of course I agree entirely.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th August 2013, 10:49

            @hohum – Of course.

            People like to complain that the FIA likes to stamp out innovation and technical development. Now, I don’t know about you, but when I look at the technical regulations, I see the requirements for kinetic and thermal energy recovery systems, and the need for engines that last longer and use less fuel whilst still producing the same amount of power as the current engines, and I think that’s going to be pretty innovative. It’s going to require some pretty sophisticated engineering just to make it work. A screaming V12 might sound nice, but this is some pretty exciting stuff.

      • Right. The oli companies will make sure they do it right and not harm the environment. You are either VERY young, VERY unimformed, or don not understand that oil companies would love to see the artic melt completely away – easier drilling more profits, while sea levels rise, currents and jet streams change and WE and all animal life suffer. But we” still need their oil, eh? They know this.

      • craig said on 26th August 2013, 0:01

        Shell’s practises are not environmentally sound is controlled conditions, and that’s why they are even more questionable in the Arctic. Further, do you realise they are pumping hot water onto the ice sheets to speed up melt so they can access the drilling site. If the ice-caps aren’;t melting fast enough already, try turning on the hot water. If they have a spill (which is almost inevitable, given their previous record) clean-up and containment will be almost certainly a disaster, as they are pioneering in regions where no testing has ever been performed. SEE the risk that they are taking and assess it for yourself. Tell your local MP that you want it stopped.
        Drilling in the arctic by ANYONE is a disaster waiting to happen! It’s not worth it!
        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/15/shell-barred-drill-oil-arctic
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/27/uk-arctic-drilling
        http://www.nrdc.org/energy/shell-arctic-drilling.asp

        • Mopatop (@mopatop) said on 26th August 2013, 0:39

          Thank you for these links, because Greenpeace’s website (savetheartic.org) contains exactly zero information on what Shell’s dangerous drilling practices actually are.

      • craig said on 27th August 2013, 10:44

        Unfortunately, Shell have proven themselves to be quite IRRESPONSIBLE in the matter of where and how they drill for oil. Their technology is over 40 years old, they have lost control of a drilling rig off Kodiak Island and their method for getting to the spots they want to drill is to pump hot water onto the ice sheets.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 26th August 2013, 9:34

      Man, I’m yet to visit the web site but in one word: EPIC.

    • Yappy said on 26th August 2013, 10:37

      A few years ago a mining company wanted to build a port in Western Australia. They spent about AUD80,000,000 (about Vettels helmet budget) on a 3 month environmental study. They concluded that there was lots of common dolphins of various sizes and there would be little impact. A biologist read the report and thought that it was nice that a large mining company wanted to put the environment before profits. Actually he thought he should take a holiday to the area to see what 80million buys. Well he found a new pygmy dolphin which has never been documented that is only found in that small area.

  3. andae23 (@andae23) said on 25th August 2013, 16:14

    Massive applause for choosing to make this into an article and not ignoring it, Keith.

    I don’t like Greenpeace, because the causes they are fighting for are absolutely right, but the extreme means (like for instance Rainbow Warrior and Sea Shepherd) don’t justify that. If you really want to make a change, go into politics, don’t climb onto an F1 podium.

    In a way, I think there will be a big smirk on their faces after this, considering their protest was the only memorable thing from this race.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 25th August 2013, 23:19

      @andae23 – Sea Shepherd used to be a part if Greenpeace, but they are their own organisation now. I think they’re a little too extreme for Greenpeace’s liking, particularly in their methods. It’s a wonder they haven’t gotten anyone killed.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 26th August 2013, 7:55

        @prisoner-monkeys Didn’t know that, thanks

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th August 2013, 11:02

          @andae23 – Greenpeace have never liked any protest that could result in violence. In 1985, the French security services, the DGSE, blew up their flagship, the “Rainbow Warrior”, when it was anchored in Auckland harbour while Greenpeace were protesting French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. They’ve been careful to avoid violence or being associated with it ever since. So when the Sea Shepherd is ramming Japanese whaling vessels a thousand kilometres from anywhere and in the middle of some of the most dangerous seas on the planet, Greenpeace’s stance is understandable.

  4. Breno (@austus) said on 25th August 2013, 16:15

    Shell is drilling for oil in the artic?

  5. tmax (@tmax) said on 25th August 2013, 16:24

    Same Question here… Shell is drilling for oil in the artic ? IF so @Greenpeace has brought the subject to the word attention. I thought that the Alaska and the Canadian Oil Sands were the final frontiers on the north for Oil !!!

    @KeithCollantine thanks for bringing in the article on the topic. Atleast makes us fans understand the nuances a little better. Felt Sorry for Vettel and the others on podium as the Boos were creating a wrong perception !!!!! With Spa being so close to Germany, i was under the assumption that a lot of German fans would be coming in to watch the race. It was kind of Surprising to hear the boos in such a scenarios. This explains better !!!!!

    I think in the next Decade Formula 1 should Move into Formula Electric or Formula Solar !!!!!

  6. john ryan (@stuwhitey) said on 25th August 2013, 16:34

    Just to show those fools at Greenpeace what I think of them and their antics I went out and filled up my truck with 40 gallons of premium Shell gasoline!

  7. Kevin said on 25th August 2013, 16:34

    Shouldn’t of wasted your time giving these your ‘airtime’ ….

  8. Gillette said on 25th August 2013, 16:39

    Ah, the protesting of evil oil, all while wearing and using materials made from petroleum….the classics….

    • zippyone (@zippyone) said on 25th August 2013, 16:55

      It’s not just protesting oil, it’s specifically against drilling for oil in the Arctic, a pristine environment. Shell is a greedy, unethical company, one of the worst. I support them, I am glad they did not disrupt the race though or I may have had a different point of view!!

      • Mike (@mike) said on 26th August 2013, 3:02

        @zippyone

        I think if they were trying to win F1 fans over, they have done exactly the right thing. Lampoon the dignitaries and flout the restrictive nature of F1. But by god if you touch my race.

        Haha, actually, it might have spiced things up a bit if they had!

    • tmax (@tmax) said on 25th August 2013, 18:53

      @zippyone +1 I agree, it is neither oil or Oil companies which is the evil, it is the process of drilling in Artic and disrupting the polar ice caps creating wholesome global weather disruptions which is wrong that needs attention of public and the governments.

  9. “But Shell has proven time and again that it will cut the most dangerous corners in the race to drill for oil

    or is it world?

    Nice article.

  10. Bobby (@f1bobby) said on 25th August 2013, 17:07

    Thanks for posting this, I thought fans were booing Vettel. I liked it when Hammy and Vet poured champagne over Coulthard!

  11. Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 25th August 2013, 17:10

    I think the booing of the fans who were at the track (especially when the protesters were trying their antics on the podium) speaks volumes. And I agree with them.

  12. JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 25th August 2013, 17:25

    Uh oh… now that they’ve raised awareness about oil in the Arctic, no doubt Bernie will be pushing for a Grand Prix there!

    On a serious note, they do have a point, even though I think this protest will ultimately make no difference. It’s not going to make Shell think again about Arctic drilling, and so long as everyone still gets to drive a car whenever they like or fly to the other side of the planet, then very few people will care about the damage done to the Earth.

    • Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders) said on 25th August 2013, 18:53

      But hopefully this sort of thing will make Shell think twice before they cut corners on costs and risk oil spills etc

    • craig said on 26th August 2013, 1:32

      If everyone refused to buy at Shell outlets – for just one day – that would create a blip on the profit wheel. I have heard of this working once before over petrol prices, and we would be telling them what the world thinks and how we can make a difference to their profits with our global opinion.

  13. Fisha695 (@fisha695) said on 25th August 2013, 19:53

    Haven’t they been getting oil from the Arctic for the better part of 50 years now?

  14. Libellula (@ladyf1fanatic) said on 25th August 2013, 20:34

    Wow! Thanks for this great insight @keithcollantine, also for the way you behave when facing some rude comments from posters. F1 is my favorite sport and I’m glad they are doing anything possible to minimize pollution, wastes & promoting low carbon emissions.
    I love my planet Earth, when given the occasion I always try to promote it around me… Going ”green” is necessary nowadays because our standards of life are slowly ‘destroying’ our world!
    I came across a video on Youtube about sailors killing seals with stick, leaving them suffering and all these blood+ cry & you could feel the pain in their eyes. Damn God I was so outraged! I would have never thought it possible in my life. Now since January 2013 you have to be +18 years to watch it because these videos have been flame and reported… too much cruelty. I’m glad to hear about the oil drilling in the Arctic story and judging by some good answers round here it’s some serious issue.
    Citizens have the right to be informed. We need to know what’s happening.
    BUT there’s no way you should use ‘violence’ to raise awareness! What Greenpeace activists did today was really counterproductive & dangerous for themselves! I sometimes come across videos, banners and other stuff from the civil society, I wonder if the environmentalists and the NGO’s are using these not-so-much-’ debatable methods to get some proper reaction! Maybe they feel like doing that because people are ignorant or the I-dont-want-to-see attitude…

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 26th August 2013, 8:27

      @ladyf1fanatic Thanks but what did they do that was “violent”?

      • Libellula (@ladyf1fanatic) said on 26th August 2013, 21:39

        Nothing to do with Greenpeace the past Sunday. That part of my comment should have been in the last sentence. What I meant with ‘violence’ because I remembered there ‘some’ factions of the environmentalism threatening Corporate now, unfortunately doing illegal things (burn or destroy things like animal research equipment, bulldozers, facilities, etc.)

  15. sw280 (@sw280) said on 25th August 2013, 21:35

    Everyone to turns up to an F1 race enjoys watching high octane fuel be turned into speed, noise and tyre smoke. Can’t help but think they could have picked a better way to get their point across.

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 26th August 2013, 1:24

      A better time and a better place for sure. Not to mention, they’re trying to ‘embarrass’ Shell by using a lame pun.

      I was on the phone with my parents earlier, they don’t follow F1 as closely as I do, but watch the races. They had no idea Greenpeace was at the track; I’m willing to bet the casual majority and people on the track not near start/finish or a video screen didn’t have a clue either.

      • craig said on 26th August 2013, 1:40

        I dont think they are targeting F1 at all… GreenPeace respect motorsport and understand that cutting edge technologies, including safety, efficiency and even fuel types can be developed with such a sport. By raising attention to the practises and outcomes of Shells activity, as a major sponsor of the event, they are getting uss all talking and putting pressure on F1 to find better sponsors and develop fuel solutions.

        • Nick (@npf1) said on 26th August 2013, 8:47

          I think they’re aiming at us only to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic, really. Unlike some organizations, they did mention a specific issue rather than attacking Shell in its whole, the Belgian GP or Ferrari.

          We as fans don’t have that much impact on who’s sponsoring F1; an existing sponsor might drop out because they don’t see their sales rise as projected, but new companies enter F1 to gain more exposure. There weren’t a lot of people protesting GazProm on Minardi despite their shady business, much like there was a lack of international coverage of a loss-making car company buying an F1 team (Spyker).

          It’s also pretty hard for us as consumers and (I’d say) most F1 teams to find out where our oil actually came from. I’d love Ferrari to man up and refuse Shell to supply them with oil from sensitive areas, but considering their close connection in developing fuels; it’s pretty unlikely.

1 2 3

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.