London Rising Tide target the Tate re. BP sponsorship
Barry Halting | 04.10.2003 01:39 | Ecology
London Rising Tide visit Tate Britain to draw attention to the way BP (and other corporate sponsors) use such deals to greenwash their way out of troublesome questions about their actual record. This is also part of
LRT's ongoing actions against the planned Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
Climbers hung the 'No Public Money for Baku-Ceyhan pipeline' banner across the road while a few of us wandered in, distributing 'How much do you know about BP, sponsor of Tate Britain?' leaflets to staff and public alike. Many staff muttered their agreement with the anti-BP sentiments but were nervous to be seen associating with us. The public were pretty receptive, especially some initially bemused but soon on-side students from Chester, one of whom now has a picture of us outside holding the 'BP sponsors climate chaos' banner as part of her 'my trip to London' film.
Original article:
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/278320.html
LRT's ongoing actions against the planned Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
Climbers hung the 'No Public Money for Baku-Ceyhan pipeline' banner across the road while a few of us wandered in, distributing 'How much do you know about BP, sponsor of Tate Britain?' leaflets to staff and public alike. Many staff muttered their agreement with the anti-BP sentiments but were nervous to be seen associating with us. The public were pretty receptive, especially some initially bemused but soon on-side students from Chester, one of whom now has a picture of us outside holding the 'BP sponsors climate chaos' banner as part of her 'my trip to London' film.
Original article:
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/278320.html
Inside, several big 'BP destroys...' stickers found their way onto green
BP logos, and many leaflets found their way into leaflet racks, notice
boards and books in the shop. Eventually - after at least 20 minutes of
hearty subversion - we were apprehended by security. I was escorted out
through the main central gallery, which had such an invitingly resounding
acoustic that I couldn't resist having a bit of a shout about BP. Every
time I raised my voice, though, my captor raised his to almost the same
level so as to drown me out. Frightened primary schoolchildren probably
didn't take in much more than 'scary loud suited man in very quiet very
big room', so I appealed to their teacher to explain to them later on,
though I've no idea if that will have happened.
Back outside, we unfurled said 'BP sponsors' banner which we nestled under
the BP logo'd Tate flag, as well as leafletting and chatting with
intrigued visitors. (In fact, they were probably most intrigued by the
arbitrary invisible line marking the end of the Tate's private property
and the beginning of the public pavement, since the stroppy Community
Support Officer was enforcing our exclusion from the private property with
great zeal.) The Tate employees who were making sure we didn't stray onto
their territory wouldn't send down any Tate corporate sponsorship
apologist to debate with us, by the way.
It was a bit quiet, unfortunately, so we cleared off fairly soon after
that. In a way I'm most interested in the reverberations amongst the
workforce, which may pay off in unexpected ways. I also overheard them
saying they'd informed BP, which is good news.
Text of leaflet given out at Tate Brit, inc. 'what you can do' section at end
02.10.2003 12:20
How much do you know about BP, sponsor of Tate Britain?
If most of your knowledge has come from BP itself, or from the
institutions it sponsors, it might be worth digging a bit deeper before
giving the company a clean bill of health. Many people believe that BP
(not to mention the entire oil industry) causes human rights violations,
ecological devastation and the growing destabilisation of the
world’s climate, (also known as global warming).
“We want to simply say that BP is a bad company; when BP is based in West
Papua, Indonesia can send more military to “protect” BP and then kill us.
BP is creating pollution in West Papua. BP will kill our forest and our
sea. BP must get out of West Papua. BP are coming and offering
“development”. They are bringing more schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
pollution, money and western goods. We do not want these. They will cause
us more problems. We are just fine how we are. We are not asking for
development. We are not asking for BP. What we are asking for is Freedom.”
>From a statement made by DeMMaK (Koteka Tribal Assembly) Spokespeople on
BP’s Tangguh natural gas project in West Papua, March 2003
A more accurate Picture?
8 facts BP would rather you didn’t know:
* BP bankrolls Colombian paramilitary death squads in exchange for the
‘protection’ of its oilfields;
* BP’s planned Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil & gas pipelines, if built, would be
a human rights disaster and produce over 150 million tonnes of CO2 every
year for 40 years, causing untold damage to the world’s climate.
(More info: www.baku.org.uk)
* BP invests less than 1% of its annual budget on solar and other
renewable energy sources, a great deal less than what they spend on
advertising and public relations.
* BP has been investigated by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for
serious and widespread safety breaches at its UK refineries. In 2002, the
HSE fined it £1m for these breaches.
* ‘BP and Shell have discussed with the government the prospect of
claiming a stake in Iraq's oil reserves in the aftermath of war.’
Financial Times, 11.3.03
* ‘$319m US lawsuit accuses BP of pollution offences and lying’, FT 14.3.03
* ‘Alaska cites and fines BP over death of worker’, FT, 28.5.03
* ‘BP has been warned by a panel of experts…that it could trigger human
rights abuses if it proceeds with a $2bn gas scheme in Indonesia.'
Guardian on Tangguh, West Papua, 12.3.03.
Should a company like BP be associated with Tate Britain, (or the National
Portrait Gallery, Natural History Museum or British Museum for that
matter)?
Should a company like BP exist at all?
We don’t believe that it’s possible for an oil company to be a force for
good in the world, regardless of how many cultural events in sponsors in
the hope of sanitising its domestic reputation. If you’re an artist, or
connected in any way to tate britain, we ask you to consider BP’s record,
as well as the existence of corporate sponsorship of the arts in general,
and to try to raise whatever concerns you may have in any way that you
feel comfortable.
This leaflet is just a snapshot of a company
where profit is the only real bottom line,
and where public relations tricks conceal a far
more destructive reality. BP, like all
companies, exists to generate maximum
profits. Currently a ‘green’ image is required
to increase those profits. That’s it. Capitalism
itself relies on our unquestioning acceptance
of its air-brushed, greenwashed version of the
truth. As environmental crises loom larger,
ending this profit-and-exploitation system is
central to our survival. Replacing capitalism
with other goals in society, such as food,
health and freedom for all, is the only long-
term solution for a socially just and ecological
future.
Don’t be fooled by oil company public relations that the only people
opposing their destructive agenda are privileged western
environmentalists. In fact, resistance to Big Oil’s constant need to find
new oil-rich frontiers is most determined amongst some of the world’s
poorest people. People in places as far-flung as Colombia, West Papua,
Angola, Azerbaijan and Alaska have come together to say no to BP. After
all, the wealth from their lands flows straight into the pockets of
western investors. Perhaps they should be the ones to control their own
resources, instead of being displaced, polluted or even murdered?
What can you do? Possibilities include discussing the issue with friends
and colleagues, distributing critical material, or taking action against
the companies involved.
Specifically, here in autumn 2003, voicing your opposition to the public
funding of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline could make a real difference. Start by
emailing the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development:
caspianoilandgasprojects@ebrd.com, cc to KerbyJ@ebrd.com
Having said that, it’s not really the job of this leaflet to tell you what
action to take, except to say that contrary to popular opinion, we can
make a difference.
Contacts and further information
This leaflet was written and distributed by London Rising Tide (LRT). LRT
is part of the Rising Tide UK and international networks, and takes direct
action to confront the root causes of climate change, and to promote
local, community-run solutions to our energy needs. At the moment we are
focussing on stopping BP’s planned Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, and raising
awareness about the real price of oil.
Email: london@risingtide.org.uk
Address: 62 Fieldgate Street, London E1 1ES
www.burningplanet.net
Rising Tide UK: www.risingtide.org.uk
(for info about combating climate chaos with local action)
See also:
Baku-ceyhan campaign: www.baku.org.uk
www.bpamoco.org.uk (not the official BP site!)
On resistance to BP in West Papua: http://www.eco-action/opm/
Colombia Solidarity Campaign: www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/
BP logos, and many leaflets found their way into leaflet racks, notice
boards and books in the shop. Eventually - after at least 20 minutes of
hearty subversion - we were apprehended by security. I was escorted out
through the main central gallery, which had such an invitingly resounding
acoustic that I couldn't resist having a bit of a shout about BP. Every
time I raised my voice, though, my captor raised his to almost the same
level so as to drown me out. Frightened primary schoolchildren probably
didn't take in much more than 'scary loud suited man in very quiet very
big room', so I appealed to their teacher to explain to them later on,
though I've no idea if that will have happened.
Back outside, we unfurled said 'BP sponsors' banner which we nestled under
the BP logo'd Tate flag, as well as leafletting and chatting with
intrigued visitors. (In fact, they were probably most intrigued by the
arbitrary invisible line marking the end of the Tate's private property
and the beginning of the public pavement, since the stroppy Community
Support Officer was enforcing our exclusion from the private property with
great zeal.) The Tate employees who were making sure we didn't stray onto
their territory wouldn't send down any Tate corporate sponsorship
apologist to debate with us, by the way.
It was a bit quiet, unfortunately, so we cleared off fairly soon after
that. In a way I'm most interested in the reverberations amongst the
workforce, which may pay off in unexpected ways. I also overheard them
saying they'd informed BP, which is good news.
Text of leaflet given out at Tate Brit, inc. 'what you can do' section at end
02.10.2003 12:20
How much do you know about BP, sponsor of Tate Britain?
If most of your knowledge has come from BP itself, or from the
institutions it sponsors, it might be worth digging a bit deeper before
giving the company a clean bill of health. Many people believe that BP
(not to mention the entire oil industry) causes human rights violations,
ecological devastation and the growing destabilisation of the
world’s climate, (also known as global warming).
“We want to simply say that BP is a bad company; when BP is based in West
Papua, Indonesia can send more military to “protect” BP and then kill us.
BP is creating pollution in West Papua. BP will kill our forest and our
sea. BP must get out of West Papua. BP are coming and offering
“development”. They are bringing more schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
pollution, money and western goods. We do not want these. They will cause
us more problems. We are just fine how we are. We are not asking for
development. We are not asking for BP. What we are asking for is Freedom.”
>From a statement made by DeMMaK (Koteka Tribal Assembly) Spokespeople on
BP’s Tangguh natural gas project in West Papua, March 2003
A more accurate Picture?
8 facts BP would rather you didn’t know:
* BP bankrolls Colombian paramilitary death squads in exchange for the
‘protection’ of its oilfields;
* BP’s planned Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil & gas pipelines, if built, would be
a human rights disaster and produce over 150 million tonnes of CO2 every
year for 40 years, causing untold damage to the world’s climate.
(More info: www.baku.org.uk)
* BP invests less than 1% of its annual budget on solar and other
renewable energy sources, a great deal less than what they spend on
advertising and public relations.
* BP has been investigated by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for
serious and widespread safety breaches at its UK refineries. In 2002, the
HSE fined it £1m for these breaches.
* ‘BP and Shell have discussed with the government the prospect of
claiming a stake in Iraq's oil reserves in the aftermath of war.’
Financial Times, 11.3.03
* ‘$319m US lawsuit accuses BP of pollution offences and lying’, FT 14.3.03
* ‘Alaska cites and fines BP over death of worker’, FT, 28.5.03
* ‘BP has been warned by a panel of experts…that it could trigger human
rights abuses if it proceeds with a $2bn gas scheme in Indonesia.'
Guardian on Tangguh, West Papua, 12.3.03.
Should a company like BP be associated with Tate Britain, (or the National
Portrait Gallery, Natural History Museum or British Museum for that
matter)?
Should a company like BP exist at all?
We don’t believe that it’s possible for an oil company to be a force for
good in the world, regardless of how many cultural events in sponsors in
the hope of sanitising its domestic reputation. If you’re an artist, or
connected in any way to tate britain, we ask you to consider BP’s record,
as well as the existence of corporate sponsorship of the arts in general,
and to try to raise whatever concerns you may have in any way that you
feel comfortable.
This leaflet is just a snapshot of a company
where profit is the only real bottom line,
and where public relations tricks conceal a far
more destructive reality. BP, like all
companies, exists to generate maximum
profits. Currently a ‘green’ image is required
to increase those profits. That’s it. Capitalism
itself relies on our unquestioning acceptance
of its air-brushed, greenwashed version of the
truth. As environmental crises loom larger,
ending this profit-and-exploitation system is
central to our survival. Replacing capitalism
with other goals in society, such as food,
health and freedom for all, is the only long-
term solution for a socially just and ecological
future.
Don’t be fooled by oil company public relations that the only people
opposing their destructive agenda are privileged western
environmentalists. In fact, resistance to Big Oil’s constant need to find
new oil-rich frontiers is most determined amongst some of the world’s
poorest people. People in places as far-flung as Colombia, West Papua,
Angola, Azerbaijan and Alaska have come together to say no to BP. After
all, the wealth from their lands flows straight into the pockets of
western investors. Perhaps they should be the ones to control their own
resources, instead of being displaced, polluted or even murdered?
What can you do? Possibilities include discussing the issue with friends
and colleagues, distributing critical material, or taking action against
the companies involved.
Specifically, here in autumn 2003, voicing your opposition to the public
funding of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline could make a real difference. Start by
emailing the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development:
caspianoilandgasprojects@ebrd.com, cc to KerbyJ@ebrd.com Having said that, it’s not really the job of this leaflet to tell you what
action to take, except to say that contrary to popular opinion, we can
make a difference.
Contacts and further information
This leaflet was written and distributed by London Rising Tide (LRT). LRT
is part of the Rising Tide UK and international networks, and takes direct
action to confront the root causes of climate change, and to promote
local, community-run solutions to our energy needs. At the moment we are
focussing on stopping BP’s planned Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, and raising
awareness about the real price of oil.
Email:
london@risingtide.org.uk Address: 62 Fieldgate Street, London E1 1ES
www.burningplanet.net
Rising Tide UK: www.risingtide.org.uk
(for info about combating climate chaos with local action)
See also:
Baku-ceyhan campaign: www.baku.org.uk
www.bpamoco.org.uk (not the official BP site!)
On resistance to BP in West Papua:
http://www.eco-action/opm/ Colombia Solidarity Campaign: www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/
Barry Halting
e-mail:
london@risingtide.org.uk
Homepage:
http://www.burningplanet.net, www.risingtide.org.uk
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Worth doing!
05.10.2003 16:31
Mike Bilbo
bp solar
07.10.2003 15:52
this is only really relevant because said friend went to a rather good bp sponsored event at tate and was telling me all this after.
jc
A worthwhile cause?
08.10.2003 12:05
- Pipeline would abuse human rights. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey may have human rights issues, but does the pipeline really change any of that? Azerbaijani oil is going to come out of the ground anyway. Isn't it better that a Western, broadly accountable company is involved rather than a more shadowy and probably more corrupt post Soviet entity? Georgia's always going to be involved in transhipment towards the West, as is Turkey (either overland to Ceyhan, or through the Bosphorous/Dardanelles by sea). Indeed, isn't it possible to argue that granting 'sovereignty' to an entity such as bp would enhance human rights as they are less likely to have historical drivers to repress Kurds or Armenians being driven instead by a profit motive.
- Pipeline would cause economic and physical disruption. Construction and maintenance would bring employment into the region. Okay, few locals would directly be involved but employment would be created in ancillary support functions. Perhaps not the most empowered jobs they could ever find, but certainly more than is there at the momemnt. The region will be energy poor as described anyway. The key to that delivering refined energy (electricity, gas, refined oil) to them, not providing them with crude oil. If anything, the presence of the pipeline would encourage construction of such links.
- Pipeline would deliver oil whose use would cause environmental damage. The pipeline won't change demand. The oil will come from somewhere, if it doesn't come from this pipeline then other ways of getting it out of the Caspian region will be found (with potentially even greater problems) or, more likely, oil in the short-medium term will be sourced elsewhere, such as Alaska, Western Siberia, etc). Either way, oil will be consumed and an environmental impact produced.
- The pipeline travels through an area of seismic activity and endangers Mediterranean coastline. True, but the other real alternative for bringing the oil out is shipping it through the Turkish Straits. The likelihood of an environmental catastrophe caused by a tanker accident in this congested waterway is far higher than that of an earthquake caused spill in Eastern Anatolia. If the oil is shipped out of Georgia you're limited to three ports, the largest of which (Poti) has one berth capable of handling a maximum 150,000 DWT ship, Batumi and Sukhumi are much much smaller. By contrast Ceyhan has four large berths capable of handling vessels up to 300,000 DWT. These bigger ships will (a) be newer, (b) be less likely to be owned / operated by companies with poor safety standards, and (c) fewer of them will be needed to tranship the oil, reducing the likelihood of an environmentally damaging accident.
All this smacks of protesting for the sake of protesting rather than seriously thinking through how to improve situations or doing anything constructive. Still, maybe you enjoyed shouting in a gallery. Maybe you could call yourself installation art?
Free Trader
e-mail:
free_trader2002@yahoo.co.uk
tell us more oh wise one
09.10.2003 12:32
It's a good job you set us straight. I mean, here we are imagining that we've actually looked into the background and developed contacts with the people affected in the place itself.. but no, how silly of us, obviously we're just ill-informed dilettantes! We'll all go home now, suitably ashamed. Bless you 'Free Trader'!
;-)