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.
London Rising Tide and friends met at Tate Britain on Tuesday 30th September, heavily fortified as it is by BP 'helios' logos. 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.
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.
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.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Text of leaflet given out at Tate Brit, inc. 'what you can do' section at end
02.10.2003 11:20
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:
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:
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:
Colombia Solidarity Campaign: www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/
sherrille