Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[cactuscall]

Personally I think they have been a good sponsor.
As an example I'm really proud of dockers strong indigenous history and Woodside helped to establish and implement their reconciliation plan.

They even light up their bloody tower purple for us!

 

[kuhni]

If you want to be woke - get Twiggy to sponsor the club..
Oh, hang about he digs up the earth and sends it all to China - even though he is moving to a ‘carbon neutral’ mining????
No win situation

He's made the commitment and is putting his money where his mouth is.
Perception of Woodside can definitely change, we're just waiting to see the commitment.

 

[Purple Jesus]

No. Even climate scientists have that prediction more in line with 2100.

'even climate scientists' that can't agree amongst themselves? like I said, no one knows.

 

[King Huskii]

What about when the vegans stop us using leather balls and boots? What about fertilisers?
I guess we won’t be playing under lights again, or enjoying the special lighting show..

That is wearni draw the line and would ban vegans from breathing our oxygen because it takes oxygen away from cows

 

[kuhni]

Actually I'm sick to death of people saying things like you've just said. The main reason why so many issues are unresolved in society is because of the very view that it's ok for people to advocate for a change while doing nothing themselves to actually help create the changes they are advocating for.

Its a fact. The world desperately needs more energy to transition and currently the world needs oil and gas companies or that transition won't happen.

Meanwhile I know of two people who have committed suicide as a result of gambling but go get outraged at a company that if it did fold currently would in reality result in slowing down the transition towards higher use of RE.

and I'm sick of people thinking that they're okay doing nothing because they don't care and others need to do everything themselves because they do.

It actually isn't as simple as that. The question is how much energy, what type and for how long. If you ask Woodside the answer will be just some justification that maximises profit and ensures they don't have stranded assets. That's because that's what a company is built to do, make profit, not act in the best interest of the country.

Your second point is a whole different argument and one noone is making. Who said we are only allowed to disapprove of O&G sponsorship. Who said the same people don't also want betting agencies to be dropped. It's just Fremantle doesn't have any betting agency sponsors.

 

[King Huskii]

They even light up their bloody tower purple for us!View attachment 1539574

They have been bloody loyal sponsors

Freo council couldn't even accommodate Freo FC. They can go get ****ed

 

[Purple Jesus]

Actually I'm sick to death of people saying things like you've just said. The main reason why so many issues are unresolved in society is because of the very view that it's ok for people to advocate for a change while doing nothing themselves to actually help create the changes they are advocating for.

Its a fact. The world desperately needs more energy to transition and currently the world needs oil and gas companies or that transition won't happen.

Meanwhile I know of two people who have committed suicide as a result of gambling but go get outraged at a company that if it did fold currently would in reality result in slowing down the transition towards higher use of RE.

Energy only accounts for about 26% of the global carbon emissions though. Oil and gas companies are a small factor. It's the buyers of said oil and gas that are more at fault. If they used alternative energy sources, Woodside/Shell/BP etc wouldn't have a market to sell to.

 

[sherrif]

and I'm sick of people thinking that they're okay doing nothing because they don't care and others need to do everything themselves because they do.

It actually isn't as simple as that. The question is how much energy, what type and for how long. If you ask Woodside the answer will be just some justification that maximises profit and ensures they don't have stranded assets. That's because that's what a company is built to do, make profit, not act in the best interest of the country.

Your second point is a whole different argument and one noone is making. Who said we are only allowed to disapprove of O&G sponsorship. Who said the same people don't also want betting agencies to be dropped. It's just Fremantle doesn't have any betting agency sponsors.

Rubbish. You don't care or you'd actually have some basic knowledge on the current state of the energy market in the world and what's actually required to transition to RE in the coming years. The world NEEDS way more fossil fuels to transition currently and without more gas being made available more brown coal power stations will be brought back online just like what's happened in Germany and Great Britain. Projects all over Europe have been stopped or delayed due to RE not meeting their energy needs to supply energy for the RE infrastructure.

So you want to halt a sponsorship at a time that in reality the world needs more fossil fuels than ever before to actually get RE online and decrease emissions as soon as possible. So why not get angry at a cause where people can make a difference is my point.

 

[dropbear101]

pass from me. mostly because i think we could have solved the climate change question ages ago with better funding to nuclear research. some of the stuff they think they'll do soon is ridiculous ( literally makes melt downs impossible). however it literally hasn't been funded for half a century now.
therefore, i rather hate the greenies who continually demonize nuclear. which is well deserved but lacks the insight that it just means further invention is necessary.

as it stands without nuclear the necessary technology to transition to a world without fossil fuels doesn't exist without lowering living standards.

the energy desnity of thing like wind is too low (energy harvested per square kilometre of land used). basically as a planet we would need to cover half the planet in wind power to power our modern world. which wouldn't be good for the environment. plus thats a lot of copper and iron to make that happen.
solar has a much better energy density but it has severe environmental concerns due to the amount of power required to produce it. currently done in china which is powered by cheap coal, doing it in a more sustainable way will cause a massive spike in prices. solar is also subsidized a lot. battery tech further spikes up the cost. therefore solar isn't capable of powering the current world based on its current tech without lowering living standards.
geothermal has potential but the methods to bore down are also very expensive. however i do personally like one idea that may change all of that.
finally our vehicles transition relie upon battery technology. which atm isn't as good as fossil feuls. the energy per unit volume of those things is still pathetic as well.

how does this relate to woodside. basically if your going to put your protesting energies anywhere please do it at parliament demanding more research for battery technology and how to improve the resource use required for the green economy. seriously look up the resource impact of wind and solar and electric cars .
i also say this as a left leaning voter.

 

[purpleburple]

There's some absolute rubbish in here.

The usual "if you drive a car or a plastic bag you better not advocate against oil and gas". Its just gaslighting individuals and suggests a persons 5 ton per year impact is just as important as a companies 80 million tons per year impact . A person can advocate for change in society and government regulation without having to exclude themselves from society until its changed.

This is just about trying to make sure we form our opinion on woodside based on what it does as a business. Not because they've sponsored your social event, your football club or visited your kids school with Gary the gas molecule.

The rationale is that Woodside are a resource company, they don't burn the gas and oil they produce.. Consumers do.

If there is less demand then there will be less supply.

Woodside provide domestic gas that powers a lot of WA. If it was turned off without an alternative energy source a lot of businesses would close and there probably wouldn't be much food on the shelves at the supermarket.

 

[Purple Jesus]

pass from me. mostly because i think we could have solved the climate change question ages ago with better funding to nuclear research. some of the stuff they think they'll do soon is ridiculous ( literally makes melt downs impossible). however it literally hasn't been funded for half a century now.
therefore, i rather hate the greenies who continually demonize nuclear. which is well deserved but lacks the insight that it just means further invention is necessary.

as it stands without nuclear the necessary technology to transition to a world without fossil fuels doesn't exist without lowering living standards.

the energy desnity of thing like wind is too low (energy harvested per square kilometre of land used). basically as a planet we would need to cover half the planet in wind power to power our modern world. which wouldn't be good for the environment. plus thats a lot of copper and iron to make that happen.
solar has a much better energy density but it has severe environmental concerns due to the amount of power required to produce it. currently done in china which is powered by cheap coal, doing it in a more sustainable way will cause a massive spike in prices. solar is also subsidized a lot. battery tech further spikes up the cost. therefore solar isn't capable of powering the current world based on its current tech without lowering living standards.
geothermal has potential but the methods to bore down are also very expensive. however i do personally like one idea that may change all of that.
finally our vehicles transition relie upon battery technology. which atm isn't as good as fossil feuls. the energy per unit volume of those things is still pathetic as well.

how does this relate to woodside. basically if your going to put your protesting energies anywhere please do it at parliament demanding more research for battery technology and how to improve the resource use required for the green economy. seriously look up the resource impact of wind and solar and electric cars .
i also say this as a left leaning voter.

Nuclear fission and fusion tech absolutely are required. Hydro, geothermal etc also. We have massive, massive energy sources above and below us and burn dinosaur bits instead. It's mad.

 

[cactuscall]

What Woodside do environmentally is incidental at this point. If it's been good enough for the past 12 years without uproar, ranting and raving there is no issue imo. The time frame for rants and raves has well and truly expired.

 

[dropbear101]

Nuclear fission and fusion tech absolutely are required. Hydro, geothermal etc also. We have massive, massive energy sources above and below us and burn dinosaur bits instead. It's mad.

yeah i don't think fusion will work in time, if at all.
fission will though.

 

[Purple Jesus]

yeah i don't think fusion will work in time, if at all.
fission will though.

Fission will get us through, but fusion is the long term. It'll work.

 

[sherrif]

pass from me. mostly because i think we could have solved the climate change question ages ago with better funding to nuclear research. some of the stuff they think they'll do soon is ridiculous ( literally makes melt downs impossible). however it literally hasn't been funded for half a century now.
therefore, i rather hate the greenies who continually demonize nuclear. which is well deserved but lacks the insight that it just means further invention is necessary.

as it stands without nuclear the necessary technology to transition to a world without fossil fuels doesn't exist without lowering living standards.

the energy desnity of thing like wind is too low (energy harvested per square kilometre of land used). basically as a planet we would need to cover half the planet in wind power to power our modern world. which wouldn't be good for the environment. plus thats a lot of copper and iron to make that happen.
solar has a much better energy density but it has severe environmental concerns due to the amount of power required to produce it. currently done in china which is powered by cheap coal, doing it in a more sustainable way will cause a massive spike in prices. solar is also subsidized a lot. battery tech further spikes up the cost. therefore solar isn't capable of powering the current world based on its current tech without lowering living standards.
geothermal has potential but the methods to bore down are also very expensive. however i do personally like one idea that may change all of that.
finally our vehicles transition relie upon battery technology. which atm isn't as good as fossil feuls. the energy per unit volume of those things is still pathetic as well.

how does this relate to woodside. basically if your going to put your protesting energies anywhere please do it at parliament demanding more research for battery technology and how to improve the resource use required for the green economy. seriously look up the resource impact of wind and solar and electric cars .
i also say this as a left leaning voter.

All good points I agree with. I was previously 100% in support of RE until the last 2 years due to having first hand accounts of the practical problems associated with energy grids failing across Europe in 2020-2021. CO2 emissions rose in 2020- 2021 for most European countries too

My point is exactly the same as yours in regard to the Woodside sponsorship. Basically there are plenty of ways to protest in a more beneficial manner than stopping a sponsorship which will achieve nothing.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

While I understand the argument, it's a no from me. Ultimately they've been a pretty loyal partner despite coming under considerable institutional pressure to move up the road in the lean years.

It's not our job to take the lead on this - if the supporter group really is keen, their energy would be better off spent using their clout to drum up/engage an alternate sponsor rather than just dropping a "you can't do this" on the table for the club to deal with.

And for all those saying "a mining company would be fine" - you only have to see the pressure being put on Netball, Swimming Australia etc re their Hancock sponsorship to show that's not the case.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

And honestly, piss off with the royal we bullshit. No one group of supporters should deign to speak for all of us.

 

[sherrif]

Energy only accounts for about 26% of the global carbon emissions though. Oil and gas companies are a small factor. It's the buyers of said oil and gas that are more at fault. If they used alternative energy sources, Woodside/Shell/BP etc wouldn't have a market to sell to.

It takes so much extra energy to get all RE projects online. The oil and gas market is expecting massive increases in profits due to the demand increase in coming years to power the transition. In the short term targeting Woodside achieves absolutely nothing in terms of improving environmental outcomes. So why not target causes where you can make a difference is my point.

 

[Purple Jesus]

It takes so much extra energy to get all RE projects online. The oil and gas market is expecting massive increases in profits due to the demand increase in coming years to power the transition. In the short term targeting Woodside achieves absolutely nothing in terms of improving environmental outcomes. So why not target causes where you can make a difference is my point.

Noone's disagreeing with you, yet you're arcing up anyway.

 

[sherrif]

While I understand the argument, it's a no from me. Ultimately they've been a pretty loyal partner despite coming under considerable institutional pressure to move up the road in the lean years.

It's not our job to take the lead on this - if the supporter group really is keen, their energy would be better off spent using their clout to drum up/engage an alternate sponsor rather than just dropping a "you can't do this" on the table for the club to deal with.

And for all those saying "a mining company would be fine" - you only have to see the pressure being put on Netball, Swimming Australia etc re their Hancock sponsorship to show that's not the case.

It depends what you mean by a mining company would be fine. They will be in terms of profits in the coming years.

 

[DockerDerek]

Climate change isn't political. It's not a left vs right thing.

That 3-4 degree increase isn't going to selectively not flood your house because you're a fascist now is it.

I don’t think what I posted justifies being called a fascist.

If the value of corporate sponsorship in sport declines it’s no issue for me. Footy, and sport in general, was just fine before the current level of corporatisation.

 

[Purple Jesus]

I don’t think what I posted justifies being called a fascist.

If the value of corporate sponsorship in sport declines it’s no issue for me. Footy, and sport in general, was just fine before the current level of corporatisation.

I wasn't calling you a fascist personally, it was rhetorical.

 

[sherrif]

Noone's disagreeing with you, yet you're arcing up anyway.

No. Im making a seperate point. I'm trying to get support for a different cause by pointing out that dropping Woodside will achieve nothing. I want to get as people angry at gambling advertising during sporting events and of major codes like Rugby League to make that a cause for as many Fremantle supporters as possible.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

It depends what you mean by a mining company would be fine. They will be in terms of profits in the coming years.

"Fine" in the sense that the same people kicking up a stink about Woodside would somehow be totally fine with us taking money from FMG, Rio or Northern Star.

This push is targeting extractive industries generally, not just oil and gas companies.

 

[bfff]

Come on people, they've been loyal? They signed contracts and these are for real, big-boy contracts. They renew those contracts because they are benefitting from the sponsorship.