When renewable energy has to become the majority force… in about 40/50 years, these same companies will indeed be reaping the profits – and no one should begrudge them these profits – when the energy is green. But these companies should be doing more right now… selfishly bleeding the Earth dry before introducing readily available and economically viable alternatives is a shameful way to operate. While Shell and BP are intent upon ripping up an area the size of England in the Canadian Tar Sands instead of bringing in renewable alternatives, they don’t really have a moral leg to stand on.

I agree that they are both the cause and solution of the problems – but they should stop being the cause and start being the solution now, rather than at their own convenience – and that of their bank balance.

Yes, it is impossible to criticise with total integrity. Yes, we all depend on oil based products every second of every day. But is it so wrong to bite the hand that feeds if it’s for the common good of the planet?

Firstly, I doubt the humble nature of anyone prepared to string up dead fish to prove a point, lol. Passive aggression is still aggression.

However, my main point of contention shifts to address your final question:

These monstrous companies are indeed putting millions into developing renewable energy. Probably more money than anyone else; and it’s more than just money, it’s knowledge. They employ a vast chunk of the world leading talent needed to tackle renewable energy demands.
If/when renewable energy becomes the majority source, these same companies will be reaping the profits. It makes sense considering their amassed knowledge and investment into the industry as a whole. Even more so when one considers that, with shifting public demand, there will be more money to be made from supplying ‘cleaner’ energy – especially for whoever provides it first…

Therefore the situation as I see it is that we depend on these unscrupulous oil companies on a scale so large it is silly to quibble over who is their friend or not. They are both the cause and solution to the problems they’ve lumped on the environment. It is impossible (in the Western world) to criticise them with integrity. Not when we suckle from their breast so lovingly. What were those ballons made from? What is in the very paint that is sought to be protected?

“By partnering itself with national institutions, people will associate Shell with being ‘cultured’, with being ‘arty’, with being decent and accepted and civilised…” ???

“We’ll buy your products, paint with them, put them up for all to see, but don’t tell anyone we’re associated with you”???

Silly.

The strength of Shell/BP’s position globally is and never will be in doubt – as the 3rd and 4th richest companies in the world, we all know our entire society is based on their products, and I and every one of us in the western world use oil-based products almost every minute of every day. Their funding of the arts doesn’t affect their ‘success’ by any means – this success is already guaranteed and completely untouchable.

What the funding does is create a subtle smokescreen, a diversion. It operates on the subconscious. By partnering itself with national institutions, people will associate Shell with being ‘cultured’, with being ‘arty’, with being decent and accepted and civilised…. and this is all the campaign has a problem with.

Campaigns such as this aren’t designed to deal with companies in terms of shutting them down or pointing out their flaws – that’s for Greenpeace and FOE etc… No-one’s pretending that ending arts sponsorship would address the dark sides of oil companies, yet as this is not the aim of the campaign, I’d argue that the effort would certainly not be futile.

In effect, this is a rather trivial and small-scale campaign over a moral objection and little more. It will realistically never achieve its goals – they are in essence aiming for nothing more that to humbly ‘make sure that nobody wants to be Shell’s friend’, yet this is definitely nothing to be belittled. It would be a very tiny step on the road to educating people about the negative sides of oil companies.

I guess in an ideal world, the likes of Greenpeace would sponsor the arts, but we’d all agree that their money could be put to use in a better way – and this should be no different in the case of oil companies. Why not invest the millions that they put into the art world into developing renewable energy instead?
x

‘The financial support that the companies provide strengthens their position as a part of Britain’s cultural and social elite, and creates a perception of making a positive contribution to our society…’

I think our global dependence on their highly functional product is what strengthens their position globally. I posit that whether they massively funded art galleries or not would not dent their contribution to society nor success. Again, tobacco is an entirely different story because the dependence on tobacco products is largely down to public perception since they form a tertiary in day to day life for a select few.

I agree there have been numerous crimes/mishaps/etc of energy companies, but this is not an effective campaign to deal with them. Furthermore, the way in which those issues should be dealt with is not made clear. Is the overall aim to close down BP and Shell and other energy companies? Or to merely make sure that nobody wants to be their friend? Either way, the real issues are not being addressed properly: how can the crimes be stopped and prevented? Ending the funding seems futile. imho of course

More than just art – try going through a day without using a product of oil. It’s not a like-for-like comparison to the tobacco industry.

Interesting that people dedicate so much time to it though!