Shell is using Fortnite and social media to promote fossil fuels among younger people

midian182

Posts: 9,567   +120
Staff member
WTF?! Our planet is getting warmer, the ice is melting, and young people are worried about what sort of future they face. How can big oil help placate these problems? By using Fortnite and social media to promote the use of fossil fuels, of course.

Media Matters reports that Shell has been trying to reach a younger demographic by partnering with Fortnite creators and sponsoring popular gamers to create and promote the Shell Ultimate Road Trips map.

The map requires gamers to refuel their in-game vehicles with V-Power NiTRO+ Premium gas at a station hub located in the center of six different areas. It also encourages them to post screenshots with the hashtag #Shellroadtrips.

Media Matters writes that Shell sponsored at least six streamers, including Punisher, NateHill, Chica, and brookeab, with a combined Twitch following of over 5.5 million subscribers to help promote the map. In August, each held a sponsored stream where they tested it out.

Some of the streamers promoted their sponsored streams on social media platforms. This is in addition to at least three other content creators posting promo videos for the map on Shell's YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram accounts. The report notes that the influencers have a combined 1.5 million Instagram followers, 8.5 million TikTok followers, and 11.6 million YouTube subscribers.

"Shell's marketing to young people is another example of how big oil puts profit over people and the planet, even though it has known for decades that the product that it sells is driving the climate crisis," said Allison Fisher, director of Media Matters' climate and energy program.

The response to the partnerships has been pretty much as expected on social media, much like the Shell-sponsored IGN article and the publication's website dedicated to the map.

There's been a slew of worrying news related to the environment this year. July 2023 was the world's hottest month on record as more regions started feeling the effects of global warming. We heard in September that Earth is now outside most of the "planetary boundaries" under which human civilization emerged. And there was the recent revelation that Swiss glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. This comes after Antarctica experienced the sharpest heatwave ever seen on Earth last year.

Shell doesn't seem overly concerned by all this. In July, the month it reported quarterly profits of more than $5 billion, chief executive Wael Sawan said it would be "dangerous and irresponsible" to cut the production of fossil fuel.

Permalink to story.

 
Scientists have long known that alcohol is as good an internal combustion fuel as any other. Still, no money has been invested in its application. A renewable fuel that doesn't damage the environment. I guess as long as those in power are satisfied with the status quo, things don't change. The hardest thing for humans to do is change something if is is satisfactory to them at the moment, even though they might know that someday it might be necessary. Oil is a finite resource and when it is gone, it's gone forever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too in the material universe. And here I am sitting here pecking away at a keyboard doing nothing. But then again, I don't possess the capital resources to do anything. So I guess I'll just go get me a bottle of Wild Turkey and get drunk.
 
Tesla could do the same but then again I don't think they want to race who can charge their fuel/vehicle faster. Also in a simulation anything is possible like instant charging and growing flowers, trees as you drive your ev like a super power turning everything green as you do a drive by.
 
Last edited:
Scientists have long known that alcohol is as good an internal combustion fuel as any other. Still, no money has been invested in its application. A renewable fuel that doesn't damage the environment. I guess as long as those in power are satisfied with the status quo, things don't change. The hardest thing for humans to do is change something if is is satisfactory to them at the moment, even though they might know that someday it might be necessary. Oil is a finite resource and when it is gone, it's gone forever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too in the material universe. And here I am sitting here pecking away at a keyboard doing nothing. But then again, I don't possess the capital resources to do anything. So I guess I'll just go get me a bottle of Wild Turkey and get drunk.
Ethanol, while it doesn't produce as much carbon and nitrogen pollution as gasoline it does produce other harmful substances.
Also in some countries, Brazil in particular uses a lot of ethanol, even gasoline you buy from gas stations includes up to 25% of ethanol in the mix besides the somewhat frequent use of ethanol directly, as cars with flex-fuel engines are pretty popular there.
The US has also been increasing the production and use of ethanol quite a bit in the last few decades.
 
Though we should not judge a book by its cover, I think the look on the guy's face in the picture above exemplifies the level of his intelligence.

As I see it, the only reason any of these "sponsored by Shell" dolts are doing this is the free $$$$$$ from Shell.

Its about the equivalent of the paid report from a shill years ago when the Prius hit the US by storm which was titled something like "A Hummer is more environmentally friendly over its lifetime than a Prius" that was resoundingly debunked by real experts at the time. In other words, this is pure and utter BS.

Shell is a chicken-sh!t corporation that refuses to see an opportunity in the drive for change, IMO.
 
Ethanol, while it doesn't produce as much carbon and nitrogen pollution as gasoline it does produce other harmful substances.
Also in some countries, Brazil in particular uses a lot of ethanol, even gasoline you buy from gas stations includes up to 25% of ethanol in the mix besides the somewhat frequent use of ethanol directly, as cars with flex-fuel engines are pretty popular there.
The US has also been increasing the production and use of ethanol quite a bit in the last few decades.
I realize that Brazil has been successful for quite a while. But what I am saying is that American Manufacturers have been dragging their wheels for quite a while being satisfied with the way things are. All this knowing that petroleum supplies are surely dwindling, not to mention the problem of climate change, which is what I think started this discussion.
 
Let me further state. In the history of human civilization, major problems have always gone uncorrected even when people knew about them in advance and what to do to correct them. Usually all the way until it was too late. You know the rumors about the fall of Rome, Greece, Babylon, and all the rest. And these are not the only problems, inflation, illegal aliens, crime, political corruption and a whole laundry list more of them that I don't have the time or energy to expound upon. The computer was one to the greatest tools ever invented to solve these problems, but instead it has been used quite extensively to do the opposite.

Where have all the graveyards gone,
When will they ever learn.

Peter, Paul and Mary
 
Last edited:
Scientists have long known that alcohol is as good an internal combustion fuel as any other. Still, no money has been invested in its application. A renewable fuel that doesn't damage the environment. I guess as long as those in power are satisfied with the status quo, things don't change. The hardest thing for humans to do is change something if is is satisfactory to them at the moment, even though they might know that someday it might be necessary. Oil is a finite resource and when it is gone, it's gone forever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too in the material universe. And here I am sitting here pecking away at a keyboard doing nothing. But then again, I don't possess the capital resources to do anything. So I guess I'll just go get me a bottle of Wild Turkey and get drunk.
The only problem I have with "alcohol" as a fuel is using a food product that is used it about everything, corn, to produce it.
 
The only problem I have with "alcohol" as a fuel is using a food product that is used it about everything, corn, to produce it.
Corn is not the only way to produce alcohol. Brazil, which has been successful uses sugarcane, As far as being a food product I don't really see what you mean when you object or what difference that would make. In times past the US has produced so much surplus corn and other grains that it stored them in old Navy surplus warships and even dumped some of it in the ocean to get rid of it.
 
SNIP

The computer was one to the greatest tools ever invented to solve these problems, but instead it has been used quite extensively to do the opposite.

SNIP

Not to mention the cell phones, tablets, watches and other "computer" devices that are in use today Want to save the planet, quit playing Fortnite, turn off your computer and go enjoy the outdoors.
 
Scientists have long known that alcohol is as good an internal combustion fuel as any other. Still, no money has been invested in its application. A renewable fuel that doesn't damage the environment. I guess as long as those in power are satisfied with the status quo, things don't change. The hardest thing for humans to do is change something if is is satisfactory to them at the moment, even though they might know that someday it might be necessary. Oil is a finite resource and when it is gone, it's gone forever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too in the material universe. And here I am sitting here pecking away at a keyboard doing nothing. But then again, I don't possess the capital resources to do anything. So I guess I'll just go get me a bottle of Wild Turkey and get drunk.

I agree, the problem is that everyone enjoys and uses these fossil products, because they are cheap and easy to use. Currently, renewable energy usually requires high costs and not everyone can get it.
 
I agree, the problem is that everyone enjoys and uses these fossil products, because they are cheap and easy to use. Currently, renewable energy usually requires high costs and not everyone can get it.
Brazil has been successful and the bottom line is that it can be done regardless of cost. Push comes to shove, it will be done rather than people freeze to death.
 
I realize that Brazil has been successful for quite a while. But what I am saying is that American Manufacturers have been dragging their wheels for quite a while being satisfied with the way things are. All this knowing that petroleum supplies are surely dwindling, not to mention the problem of climate change, which is what I think started this discussion.
That is ignorant of the many of the problems of Ethanol production. For one thing, brazil uses sugarcane, which infamously does not grow in the US. Here we use corn, but the process is much less energy efficient and some argue its actually a net negative in energy output maintained only by massive lobbying to keep corn prices low for animal feed and processed food.

For another, Ethanol is a royal PITA to maintain. Ask any classic car guy what they think of the stuff. It eats old plastics and rubbers, strips coatings off of fuel pumps, and it attracts water. untreated ethanol, in as little as a month of sitting, can attract enough water to cause issues with combustion. "stale gas" was not an issue before ethanol came around. This can cause major issues in storage
tanks...like the ones used at gas stations.

Finally, there is the issue of scale. Brazil is a best case scenario, and 25% of their fuel is ethanol. In 2008, this required 55% of TOTAL sugarcane production in the country. You do understand why scaling this to 100%, to eliminate oil thus creating this alcohol fuel you are suggesting, is utterly unsustainable, right? Not to mention the VAST ecological damage done to rain-forests to grow all this stuff.

Were it so open and shut, oil companies would have pounced on it to provide sustainable bio fuel decades ago, to cement their control over the fuel supply.
I personally don't consider myself a left winger, being a very religious person whose father was a preacher. And I don't know what is left wing about the facts of science.
I'm pretty sure, as one who is religious, you can see the religious cult that has grown around climate science, almost resembling that of a full on death cult that demands worship to avoid societal damnation. Not quite unlike those preachers whom predicted the rapture.

Also: facts. There are many facts. Some, like that the predictions from the 1980s (water would run out by 1995), 1990s (florida underwater by 2010), 2000s (Florida underwater by 2020), and 2010s (globe boiling, mass deletion of human life, blah blah blah), have not come true despite the worse case scenario (that being rising CO2 levels, which have doubled globally in the last 20 years) occurring speaks WONDERS, yet these facts are quite often ignored, as the present a rather inconvenient truth. Indeed, it seems some "alternative facts" are pushed among a certian political leaning as justification for their destruction of our cities and political climate to suit an agenda being pushed in many countries, seemingly to de rail their economies for the benefit of the few.

I'm not sure how you missed such simple observations, but hopefully this has answered your question. After so many failed predictions, and the same excuses begin used (we have new tools and data, ece), it is understandable that a growing population are taking the demands of the climate crazies with a whole morton factory worth of salt. We've had 10 years left for 20 years, and I've been hearing "12 years left" for at least the last 5. Mysteriously, that number keeps getting bumped when funding is running low. Funny how that works.....
 
If we humans cannot differentiate between a game and reality then we are truly F***'ed up as a civilization. Does everything have to be politically correct? And where's the fun nowadays.
 
Last edited:
That is ignorant of the many of the problems of Ethanol production. For one thing, brazil uses sugarcane, which infamously does not grow in the US. Here we use corn, but the process is much less energy efficient and some argue its actually a net negative in energy output maintained only by massive lobbying to keep corn prices low for animal feed and processed food.
FFS

Finally someone that has a clue. I’ll call the rest, well meaning idiofactiodmissers to be nice.

Ethanol has its place. But to mass convert a country to replace oil based products would cause unimaginable problems. Lack of food growing areas for one is the biggest for most countries.

Australia has a fuel at some pumps named E85, being 85% ethanol . This stuff is awesome, particularly for performance engines. But you have to build the car for it. But the fuel is expensive, hard to get, goes off very quickly and provides substantially less range then the same volume of petrol (gas)
 
Until there is a viable alternative what exactly is wrong with promoting better efficiency fuel?
EVs are a long way off reducing CO2 emissions or pollution, in fact they have a higher lifetime carbon/pollution footprint than a diesel truck.
 
Back