If you care about the environment and climate change, it is easy to be negative about the oil and gas industry and its component companies. We need to transition to renewable energy as quickly as possible, and carbon emissions are rising again, with potentially horrible consequences for the planet and its people. Firms that extract and produce oil and gas are deeply embedded in the whole process of producing emissions.
On the other hand, life as we know it, right now, could not go on without oil, gas and oil derivatives, which range from plastics to cosmetics, clothing to tyres. The war in Ukraine has also highlighted the dangers of Europe’s reliance on Russian energy sources. Western oil and gas firms have played a key role in countering that dependence.
So given all that, it does seem somewhat hypocritical that a number of major arts institutions are walking away from oil company sponsorship. The most recent example is the UK’s Royal Opera House (ROH), which has terminated its sponsorship from BP. The contract ended in December 2022and both organisations agreed the sponsorship would not continue thereafter. ROH thanked BP for its support which first started in 1988, including supporting its “drive towards net zero”.
Back in 2019, the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon scrapped its BP sponsorship deal, which had provided 80,000 subsidised tickets, allowing young people to see Shakespeare plays for just £5. That seems to have been replaced in part at least by a deal with TikTokk. That raises an interesting ethical conundrum, given stories about TikTok’s links with the Chinese government as well as the platform’s impact on young people’s mental health and self-esteem! But somehow that is more acceptable than an oil company supporting the programme.
Our museums, galleries and arts companies also don’t seem to apply consistent standards. They are generally happy to take money from large financial services businesses, even though they finance oil firms (as well as funding gambling companies, weapons manufacturers etc.) One might argue that Goldman Sachs and their like are also contributing massively to growing inequality in the developed world. Museums and galleries have accepted money from a wide range of decidedly dodgy individuals too over the years, the Sackler family being a prime example.
Maybe the arts organisations are worried about the direct action taken by Extinction Rebellion and other groups, which focuses largely on the oil industry. But particularly when it is a firm such as BP, which is doing more than most in their sector to invest in new technologies and renewables, these actions by the organisations seem “performative” and will achieve little, other than reducing the money going into the Arts.
There is another potential issue for the oil industry, however. A recent piece of academic research looked at the internal models, analysis and reports produced by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. This showed that “in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully”.
The scientists working for the oil firms dismissed the chances of a “new ice age”, which older readers may remember was something suggested back in those days! Instead, they predicted, “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming”.
The original analysis was not publicised – for obvious reasons perhaps – and has only recently come to light. Comparisons are being drawn with the tobacco industry, which knew about the terrible effects of smoking on health for years before they owned up to the outcomes. Now, various cities and states are suing oil and gas companies, claiming that they knew of the causes and consequences of climate change and did nothing about it – in fact, in some cases, they deliberately deceived the public (so it is claimed).
I am not sure the causation is quite as direct as in the case of cigarettes, and the Exxon work for example did only produce predictions, rather than clear evidence of harm (as in the case of smoking). But it doesn’t look good for the industry, and it will be interesting to see whether the legal action gains traction in the coming years.
In the meantime, the drive towards reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy sources continues. We can all play a role in that, and personally I believe that taking real action ourselves, however small, is more genuinely useful than some of the “makes us feel good and gets the activists off our backs” moves we see from arts organisations.