新香港六合彩开奖结果

The critics are unanimous: the British Museum鈥檚 new exhibition,听The World of Stonehenge, is a听triumph. As archaeologists, it鈥檚 wonderful for us to see the show achieve such plaudits. But the fact that the exhibition is once again sponsored by the oil and gas supermajor BP brings听inevitable disquiet. Hundreds of our colleagues in archaeology, museums and the heritage sector have recently听signed a letter听asking the museum to end its relationship with BP. The signatories include senior curators and academics from across the UK and beyond. This is a decisive moment for the British Museum: its agreement with BP is due for renewal this year and its future hangs in the balance.

BP has maintained a strategy of sponsoring cultural institutions for decades, as part of its heavy investment in public relations. It鈥檚 keen to convince the public 鈥� and our policymakers 鈥� that it can be trusted to manage the transition to net zero itself. But BP鈥檚 programme for 鈥�net zero by 2050鈥� relies on massive use of unproved carbon capture technologies and implausible offsetting. The company is continuing to look for new sources of oil and gas, which the International Energy Agency has said cannot be exploited if net zero is to be achieved. BP鈥檚 plans also ignore its 20% stake in the Russian听oil company Rosneft, which is launching a $134bn project to drill in the Arctic. BP鈥檚 activities jeopardise efforts to keep global heating within the 1.5C limit of the Paris climate agreement and avoid yet worse droughts, wildfires and sea level rise.

We don鈥檛 know exactly how much money BP provides to the听British Museum, although it鈥檚 almost certainly less than 1% of the museum鈥檚 income. With 2021 profits of 拢9.5bn, this is small change for BP. But at a time of continuing underinvestment by the government, it鈥檚 an amount that matters to the British Museum.

Through this relationship,听BP听associates its name with values of civilisation, curatorial care and scientific knowledge about the human past and present, even as it embraces policies and strategies that arguably conflict with all these ideals. But this is no relationship of equals. The British Museum has no power to influence BP鈥檚 decision-making or speak out against it. On the contrary, as a result of this arrangement, its senior personnel are often required to publicly defend BP鈥檚 track record.

We鈥檝e been here before, with debates during the 1980s and 1990s around tobacco and arms company sponsorship. Other potential sponsors exist. And we shouldn鈥檛 forget that BP benefits from UK tax breaks worth billions of pounds and听has not paid corporation tax on its activities in the North Sea for the past three years, while receiving tax relief of almost 拢400m, money that could have been spent on supporting renewables or, for that matter, on museums and culture.

Last year, with George Osborne鈥檚 appointment as the museum鈥檚听chair of trustees, these issues took a worrying new turn. In addition to his role as chair, Osborne is a partner at the boutique advisory firm听Robey Warshaw, which counts BP among its major clients. If he does not clearly recuse himself from any future decisions on the relationship with BP, it is hard to see how a potential conflict of interest can be avoided.

Recent investigations into decision-making processes at the British Museum by the campaign group Culture Unstained are worrying for all of us who care about the museum. They find that the chairman鈥檚 advisory group exists outside the regular governance structures of the museum, yet has high-level influence. We don鈥檛 know who its members are and its meetings are not minuted, but we do know that it enables ongoing contact between very senior corporate representatives, the chair and the director of the museum, Hartwig Fischer.

The British Museum is embarking on an ambitious and very expensive renovation plan. There is much at stake here. Any further deal with BP risks undermining the museum鈥檚 reputation for years to come. The generation now in its youth takes a dim view of the fossil fuel industry and those who enable it. BP undoubtedly has cash to spare 鈥� but it comes with a price.

The museum鈥檚 trustees have a legal duty to protect its reputation. We believe this includes a duty to ensure that any decision on sponsorship renewal is subject to oversight and due diligence, including an independent review of BP鈥檚 business practices and suitability as a patron. According to investigations by the group Art Not听Oil, when the BP deal was renewed in 2016, it was the director of the museum who made the decision. It now seems imperative for the trustees to take a more active role. They will no doubt be considering why it is that most other major cultural institutions in the UK, including the RSC, Tate and the National Theatre, have renounced fossil fuel sponsorship. They will also be aware that this issue is not going away. On the contrary, highly creative protests against BP鈥檚 presence in the museum will continue and public opinion is increasingly in favour of taking strong action on climate change. The open letter signed by our colleagues suggests that professional opinion in the heritage sector has moved firmly in the same direction.

Our understanding of humanity鈥檚 past matters for our future. The remains of our shared past, and how they are used, matter deeply for that future too. By continuing to accept fossil fuel sponsorship, the British Museum has become an outlier when it should be a leader within its sector. Its trustees now have a vital window of opportunity in which to defend the museum鈥檚 future and its reputation.

This article first appeared in on 20^th February 2022.

Links

• 新香港六合彩开奖结果Archaeology
• 新香港六合彩开奖结果Social & Historical Sciences