Britain's South West Trains is using its adverts to troll a rival train company

Delayed again. Image: Getty.

One of the big arguments used to justify the privatisation of public services  was always that competition is A Good Thing For Users.

When British Rail ran everything, there wasn't much in the way of pressure to improve the quality of its stations/trains/sandwiches. Replacing it with a system of rival, privately-owned rail franchises was meant to give everything a kick up the proverbial.

How well this has worked is a matter of some debate (no, it really is), but there was always one pretty hefty theoretical problem – the fact that most of the franchises aren't in competition at all. If you want to travel from, say, Dover to London, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference how good Virgin Trains are: it's Southeastern for you, and you can like it or lump it.

So that's just great.

In a few places, though, two or more franchises do come into genuine competition – and it’s having some odd effects.

Here's the map of places served by the Stagecoach-owned South West Trains:

Image: Nilfanion/ Wikimedia Commons, based on Ordnance Survey OpenData.

And this one's FirstGroup's Great Western Railway:

Image: Nilfanion/ Wikimedia Commons, based on Ordnance Survey OpenData.

The two are competing for passengers in a whole series of places in south central England – Southampton, Salisbury, Reading and Bristol to name but four.

This, we suspect, goes some way to explaining this:

As Buzzfeed's Paul Curry asked:

At first glance this is one of those points that's factual, but also kind of WTF. I mean, yes, extra parking spaces are probably a good thing. But what do those pantone colours have to do with anything? Who mentioned painting trains? Just, what?

That ad makes a lot more sense once you've read this story from the BBC, published last September:

First Great Western unveils rebranded Great Western Railway trains

Rebranded Great Western Railway (GWR) trains have been unveiled by the firm formerly known as First Great Western.

By re-adopting the historical name, the company hopes to "rediscover the pioneering spirit" of the service that first ran on the line.


It is estimated it will take until 2018 to repaint all of the company's trains.

The same month, incidentally, the Independent published this story, about the franchise's plans to tackle its reputational problems:

In other words, that South West Trains ad is a weird form of commuter-specific dog whistle. It may sound like nothing to you or me. But if you're a Salisbury-based commuter who likes to drive to the station, and you’re currently fuming about the fact that First Group seems to be more worried about branding than customers service, then, well, you're going to have a damn good think about which is the right rail franchise for you.

This says nothing about the relative quality of the two companies' services, of course. But kudos to South West Trains for its marketing strategy. Top trolling.

If, on the other hand, you live in Dover... well, it's still South Eastern for you. Bad luck.

Like this sort of thing, do you? Why not like us on Facebook, too. 


Seven climate change myths put about by big oil companies

Oil is good for you! Image: Getty.

Since the start of this year, major players within the fossil fuel industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its $1-$2bn green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.

But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it

Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice.

Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.

But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100 per cent environmentally sustainable is an illusion.

A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.

Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry

According to a recent report, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.

Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change

Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.

Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3 per cent of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1 per cent in 2015, 0.1 per cent in 2014, and so on.

Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option

One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.

There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop

Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked: “Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.

As the World Bank has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The UN concurs, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.

Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making

Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the wallpaper at international environmental conferences. This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.

Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.

Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change

If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate, natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when disrupted.

Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for Earth’s inhabitants.

The ConversationFossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas such as the Arctic. The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

George Ferns, Lecturer in Management, Employment and Organisation, Cardiff University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.