Writing for
the Financial Times, King's College London Professor and former BP Group
Vice-President for Strategy Nick Butler said the British Museum's move to
remove oil company BP from sponsoring their institution is a wrong move on the
part of the cultural institution.
Butler's
argument is that cultural institutions will benefit not just from the oil
company's money, but also its upkeep.
Aside from
looking like he's scaremongering, I have to agree he raises lots of valid
points in these three things.
Cultural Institution Loses
The British
Museum would be the one to lose. By turning away BP, the museum will likely
find a suitable replacement for a lead sponsor.
However, BP
has injected more than its replacement could provide for museums. Campaigners
are not offering to cover the funding gap. Instead, they would suggest cuts
with the museum's itinerary.
This would devalue the institution instead of
improving it.
Climate Change Negativity
Mr Butler continues
to add that the British Museum's move is wholly negative and impractical.
Instead of
concentrating on constructiveness, campaigners are calling for removal of
greenhouse-causing companies and introducing climate change.
But the
move of removing BP for climate change awareness is one that is worthless and
only accounts for a small result against a bigger, more positive result in the
form of a prestigious display of British history.
Hypocrisy
Mr Butler
believes that those who signed for British Petroleum's removal in the sponsor
list are also individuals, groups and institutions working with oil and gas
companies. It reveals a major case of hypocrisy according to the former BP
vice-president.
He had
likened the situation to someone who claims to be vegan but inserts bacon
inside the sandwich.
