Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[FDH16]

It shows how hard it is to effect change from an individual perspective and how hooked in we are to fossil fuels.

Change is necessary (inevitable really), urgent and needs to happen at a corporate and government level. Individual level is not going to come close to being adequate

Woodside is one of Australia's biggest greenhouse gas emitters. They also promote (either directly or indirectly) misinformation aimed at disrupting genuine efforts to deal with climate change (which they've made billions from) effectively.

Sending a message to them ain't a bad thing.

They'll go on existing and thriving for a while yet...with fingers well and truly inserted into the political system. It's weighted in their favour.

This is the catch cry of the naive and delusional.

You need only look to the Northern hemisphere to the see the havoc bought on by this "urgent" & "Necessary" transition.

I sleep very well with the heater on, after I've cooked by steak to a medium consistency on my weber, pocketing those wonderful dividends and knowing, in my heart, that I've invested in a company that puts food on the table for 1000's of Western Australians, it really makes my balls tingle as I drift off.

 

[yakamoto]

Never argue with …….?

 

[arsesmart]

This is the catch cry of the naive and delusional.

You need only look to the Northern hemisphere to the see the havoc bought on by this "urgent" & "Necessary" transition.

I sleep very well with the heater on, after I've cooked by steak to a medium consistency on my weber, pocketing those wonderful dividends and knowing, in my heart, that I've invested in a company that puts food on the table for 1000's of Western Australians, it really makes my balls tingle as I drift off.

 

[imperial_oz]

Pity we can't get sponsored by a lithium mining junior that's owned by a Woodside subsidiary... It would kill the whole debate dead, we get all the brownie points for promoting clean energy, we would keep the sponsorship dollars, and nobody would care much that Woodside were the ultimate parent company.

Ummmm, no.

You won't hear this from the 'renewables at any cost' cost because they generally do not understand actual science.

The mining and refining of lithium needed for batteries to make renewables is immensely destructive and has led to populations being displaced because of pollution introduced in the water table. The refining process is carbon emission intensive, even more than ICE vehicles. To refine 1 ton of lithium needs 2.2 million litres of freshwater and fresh water is an increasingly scarce commodity. People are dying for lack of access to fresh water.

The one question that science cannot answer at this point is which is more harmful to our environment - higher average temperatures or the destruction of habitats through destruction of soil and water.

 

[arsesmart]

Think globally, act locally unless its inconvenient ...

Think globally, act locally unless its inconvenient ...

Given about 100 companies are estimated to be responsible for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions since the late '80s, to hold individuals to account slows change and misplacing the responsibility.

Particularly as those companies have massive resources (from emissions profits) to effect more change.

 

[Square Peg]

Given about 100 companies are estimated to be responsible for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions since the late '80s, to hold individuals to account slows change and misplacing the responsibility.

Particularly as those companies have massive resources (from emissions profits) to effect more change.

By responsible for it, do you mean they are extracting and refining fossil fuels that are then used for energy production, transportation etc? I don't see that makes them responsible, they're supplying an insatiable market for energy to drive human development. 80 % of the world's energy needs are currently supplied from fossil fuels . So yes, your energy consumption as an individual matters, you're feeding the beast.
The carbon tax had some merit as an idea for a related reason, but was buggered by inept politics

 

[The Round House Drunk]

Can’t we go back to Hard Yakka?

Freo fans froth at retro gear. We’ll make up in merch sales what we lose in sponsorship. Lol.

 

[arsesmart]

By responsible for it, do you mean they are extracting and refining fossil fuels that are then used for energy production, transportation etc? I don't see that makes them responsible, they're supplying an insatiable market for energy to drive human development. 80 % of the world's energy needs are currently supplied from fossil fuels . So yes, your energy consumption as an individual matters, you're feeding the beast.
The carbon tax had some merit as an idea for a related reason, but was buggered by inept politics

At this stage most important is that's where they gained a massive profit.

If what you've been profiting from had been found to be causing significant harm, probably fair enough you take the majority of responsibility for remedying that harm.

 

[poshman]

At this stage most important is that's where they gained a massive profit.

If what you've been profiting from had been found to be causing significant harm, probably fair enough you take the majority of responsibility for remedying that harm.

I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that the 4 degree thing is made up and has been used for propaganda to create and extreme response... An extreme resp

Climate change is an important issue. Should be funded heavily. Australia should lead the world or be a world leader in the supply of different fossil fuels as we do it as clean or cleaner than middle east, eastern european, african, south american and asian counterparts.

The search is on for a replacement. We had a great one which has been politicked away and is still not mentioned by the far left as an alternative.

National power supply is at once a climate issue, health and community issue and a security issue. All facets should be treated equally seriously. Heavy investment needs to made in Nuclear while there is heavy investment made in RE options and research. That should include the building and construction industry, and many others.

Shutting down fossil fuels in the next decade as the Greens want is both not feasible and irresponsible. The number of people put at risk due to power instability and financial ruin would be catastrophic.

Is that not a sensible approach?

 

[Darcy 2 Fyfe]

As soon as I heard the ungrateful woke brigade were trying this I emailed the club to hold off on deduting money for my 4 memberships.

Got an email back saying the club will continue the sponsorship as per the terms of the agreement so we're still members for 2023, yay!

 

[poshman]

As soon as I heard the ungrateful woke brigade were trying this I emailed the club to hold off on deduting money for my 4 memberships.

Got an email back saying the club will continue the sponsorship as per the terms of the agreement so we're still members for 2023, yay!
View attachment 1540137

I will do the same with our corporate and personal memberships.

 

[BanjoRules]

As soon as I heard the ungrateful woke brigade were trying this I emailed the club to hold off on deduting money for my 4 memberships.

Got an email back saying the club will continue the sponsorship as per the terms of the agreement so we're still members for 2023, yay!
View attachment 1540137

Nice work!

Did the same thing, similar wording.

$1,600 membership was on the line if they capitulated to this small noisy deluded minority.

Positive response received this afternoon.

Well done Dockers.

 

[Square Peg]

At this stage most important is that's where they gained a massive profit.

If what you've been profiting from had been found to be causing significant harm, probably fair enough you take the majority of responsibility for remedying that harm.

It's not all harm, there's massive societal benefit from the energy produced by fossil fuel consumption. The only question is whether we want to find a less harmful way to produce the same energy, or have less energy and a poorer society.
They are not the bad guys

 

[Darcy 2 Fyfe]

Nice work!

Did the same thing, similar wording.

$1,600 membership was on the line if they capitulated to this small noisy deluded minority.

Positive response received this afternoon.

Well done Dockers.

Well done. These people who use the benefit of great Australian companies like Woodside, Rio, Santos BHP et al then show up to protests in the 6 cylinder Landcruisers need to put there money where there mouth is and live from the land. Build a mud hut in the bush and leave their priveliged life.

We'd all be happy then!

 

[Big Animal]

Tim Winton must have a fair bit of cash, and he certainly doesn't seem to waste it on consumer goods. Maybe he could stump up the 2 mill per year to replace Woodside and the players can have miniature Winton book covers on their jerseys. I know that if I could make that kind of $$ sitting at my desk writing a novel every year or two, I would put my money into a vital cause like the Freo Dockers, or Freo Bluebacks as we'd be now called.

 

[arsesmart]

It's not all harm, there's massive societal benefit from the energy produced by fossil fuel consumption. The only question is whether we want to find a less harmful way to produce the same energy, or have less energy and a poorer society.
They are not the bad guys

"Bad guys"/"good guys" isn't really useful ways of framing it. It's more accurate and useful to examine behaviour.

These companies are profit driven. Despite all the scientific evidence showing the climate crisis and where is at (that they've been aware of at the very top levels for years), Woodside ain't backing out of the market.

On the one hand it's a big ship to try to turn around...and that's why you need big hands to do it.

On the other sending a message to them that might have them worried about their profits is probably on the money.

 

[muckypup]

If Freo can replace some of their existing sponsors with better ones then I don't see what the problem is? If nobody complains then there won't be any motivation to seek improvement.

Pressuring the AFL about their betting sponsors can and should happen simultaneously.

Anyone expecting there will be universal agreement on ditching/keeping Woodside/etc, or similarly the AFL with betting agencies is nuts. It is healthy to have differences of opinions in society. People should be entitled to their opinions and not have qualifiers as to why their opinion should have any value or not.

Similarly this idea that if you have ever used electricity in your life then you are a hypocrite for speaking out against oil and gas is moronic. People can want companies to try harder. Like Freo, if they don't get any pressure, then why would they be motivated to change for the better?

Sure, if you can replace the sponsors. But who decides who is a "good" sponsor? What is the criteria. Wouldnt want to sign up a company that is on the blacklist. Everything and every one could be cancelled at a moments notice these days at social medias absolute discretion. Further, if its just about fossil fuels then why do we fly every other week? Put our foot down .. NO TRAVEL. Oh wait. That means no comp. I guess some fossil fuels are okay and some arent.

 

[Dockers v Channel7West]

Never argue with …….?

RW whackos

 

[Gekko71]

Ummmm, no.

You won't hear this from the 'renewables at any cost' cost because they generally do not understand actual science.

The mining and refining of lithium needed for batteries to make renewables is immensely destructive and has led to populations being displaced because of pollution introduced in the water table. The refining process is carbon emission intensive, even more than ICE vehicles. To refine 1 ton of lithium needs 2.2 million litres of freshwater and fresh water is an increasingly scarce commodity. People are dying for lack of access to fresh water.

The one question that science cannot answer at this point is which is more harmful to our environment - higher average temperatures or the destruction of habitats through destruction of soil and water.

You're referring there specifically to lithium precipitated from lithium-rich salt beds and/or ground water brines, as occurred in the early noughties at South American lithium processing operations in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile.

Australian lithium processing however - like that currently happening in Kwinana - occurs via sulphuric acid leaching of spodumene ore, which is a totally different manufacturing process, and which - as I understand it at least - does not require anywhere NEAR as much ground water, simply because the mineral you're seeking isn't dissolved in millions of liters of the stuff in the form of lithium salts.

Your point is still valid in that neither process is exactly a walk in the park in terms of total environmental impact or inherent levels of production risk... but to argue via omission that these two hugely different processes are entirely equivalent and that all future lithium mining is/will be just as polluting / environmentally unfriendly as that which occurred in Chile from the turn of the century onwards, is frankly a little bit of a stretch.

 

[Kwality]

Given about 100 companies are estimated to be responsible for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions since the late '80s, to hold individuals to account slows change and misplacing the responsibility.

Particularly as those companies have massive resources (from emissions profits) to effect more change.

& you'll see the likes of Pat Cummins using his sponsored income to buy carbon credits to offset his fossil fueled travel for NO difference to emissions.
Just like China not buying Aus coal & buying it elsewhere for no difference to emissions.

 

[Darcy 2 Fyfe]

When the batteries die in electric vehicles they are too expensive to repair. See the French govt-

 

[Kram]

 

[Square Peg]

"Bad guys"/"good guys" isn't really useful ways of framing it

Lol do you have to work hard at condescension, or does it just come naturally to you?

 

[Gekko71]

When the batteries die in electric vehicles they are too expensive to repair. See the French govt-

View attachment 1540172

...Isn't lithium 100% recyclable though?

EDIT: Scratch that - it looks like Tesla lithium batteries internals are recyclable ...but with many current Li/ion battery recycling processes, the lithium itself either isn't recycled, or can't be easily recycled.

 

[myfreodom]

Sure, if you can replace the sponsors. But who decides who is a "good" sponsor? What is the criteria. Wouldnt want to sign up a company that is on the blacklist. Everything and every one could be cancelled at a moments notice these days at social medias absolute discretion. Further, if its just about fossil fuels then why do we fly every other week? Put our foot down .. NO TRAVEL. Oh wait. That means no comp. I guess some fossil fuels are okay and some arent.

Like I said a couple of days ago... can you eat meat and simultaneously want meat producers to consider animal welfare?

I'm sick to death of the extreme povs on both sides of debates like these. You get the extreme greenies saying we should just abolish anything and everything that can be seen as bad for the environment which obviously isn't realistic. And then you get the RWs thinking they are oh so clever with zingers like "well if you wear glasses then you can't have a negative opinion on the oil and gas industry because glasses are made using oil". It's ****ing immature and moronic on both sides.

I can simultaneously get on a plane to get somewhere and want the aviation industry to not **** up our planet as much as they currently do. I also shouldn't have to create my own aviation company that only flies solar powered planes to have a legitimate opinion on the matter. Just like I don't have to have set up my own football club to have an opinion on the Freo Dockers.

I don't have a huge problem with a group of members/fans wanting Freo to reconsider the Woodside sponsorship. I personally think there are far better potential sponsors that could provide more and do so with less baggage (eg FFI).

The group's aim was only to create a conversation and we are almost to 10 pages already on a footy forum about it, despite most people not actually giving a shit. They've achieved their goal already. As someone who has been involved in political campaigns, the objective is often only to get the attention of media - Freo sticking with Woodside or not is secondary to the main objective of getting the public talking about the issue.

The group would be celebrating people on here threatening to stop their memberships if Freo stop their Woodside partnership. Because a bunch of people will read that and go "What the **** are these idiots thinking? I really need to learn more about Woodside and why people on both sides are so passionate about it all." When the public are talking about it, the pressure builds and I'm now expecting a bunch of new sponsors (that are less controversial) being announced over the coming months. This conversation certainly won't jeopardise sponsorships, it will only sell that there is an appetite for some new sponsors out there.

All people on this planet are entitled to have their own opinions. If you disagree with those opinions and give their opinions plenty of oxygen then you are are really only playing into their plan.