Scrutable

Channel 4 have revealed that the contract between the Science Museum and Shell for sponsorship of their climate change exhibition includes a clause preventing the museum from saying anything that could damage Shell's reputation.

The segment has an interview with Dame Mary Archer, Chair of the Board of Trustees, who claims that,

It's we as consumers who have to change, as well as the energy companies; if there was no demand for fossil fuels, they wouldn't produce them. [timestamped link]

This argument infuriates me so much. Consumers often have no choice but to use products created with fossil fuels. This individualistic approach does nothing to create solutions and everything to shift blame. She's essentially defending companies who have strategically and deliberately lied to the public and governments for decades about the reality of climate change and their part in exacerbating it, and blaming consumers for not seeing through those lies sooner. It actually angered me more than the news that the Science Museum agreed to a gagging clause, because it sounds like what I'd imagine to be a fairly standard clause for a contract of this nature. The Science Museum really needs to reconsider who it gets sponsorship from.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:07 pm

Channel 4 have revealed that the contract between the Science Museum and Shell for sponsorship of their climate change exhibition includes a clause preventing the museum from saying anything that could damage Shell's reputation.

The segment has an interview with Dame Mary Archer, Chair of the Board of Trustees, who claims that,

It's we as consumers who have to change, as well as the energy companies; if there was no demand for fossil fuels, they wouldn't produce them. [timestamped link]

This argument infuriates me so much. Consumers often have no choice but to use products created with fossil fuels. This individualistic approach does nothing to create solutions and everything to shift blame. She's essentially defending companies who have strategically and deliberately lied to the public and governments for decades about the reality of climate change and their part in exacerbating it, and blaming consumers for not seeing through those lies sooner. It actually angered me more than the news that the Science Museum agreed to a gagging clause, because it sounds like what I'd imagine to be a fairly standard clause for a contract of this nature. The Science Museum really needs to reconsider who it gets sponsorship from.

It's a tactic that has success in the past, look at litter campaigns for example - clicky. In short, packaging producers found it was cheaper to make disposable stuff, then in order to stave off legislation that would force them to change, they funded anti-litter campaigns, which shifted the problem to the individual consumer.

DAG has a brief blogpost pointing out how it was unwise for either party to agree to the gagging clause. The TL:DR is that the reputational harm from the clause being found out - something highly likely given the Science Museum is a highly-scrutinised public body - is significantly higher than the reputational harm from the Science Museum saying something negative about Shell and no-one should have agreed to it.

The Science Museum has a long and inglorious history with oil companies, including a particularly sleazy relationship with Shell but also taking money from BP and Equinor.

(Royal Dutch) Shell has a long history of ham-fisted public relations, even their advertising has often been tone deaf and clumsy at times. This is just such a case.

I have to declare an interest, my Father worked at Shell from the end of WW2 til his retirement and they were very generous with their bursaries to employees' children going through college and university. I benefitted and there were no strings attached.

Shell also managed in the 60s and 70s a well regarded educational publishing house and film unit famed for their "Shell Guides to..." So sponsorship of the "Science" Museum is a good fit for the company. And then they let a lowly corporate lawyer screw it up. FFS it's not difficult, give them the money. That's it, just give the money, plus bit of low key publicity and Bob's your uncle, Shell can slightly polish their slipped halo.

Mind you I can think of better more worthy establishments to receive Big Oil largess than the "Science" Museum. And I can think of lots of reasons for the Science Museum not to get into bed with Big Oil in the current political climate.

I can remember my late Headmaster LK Turner refusing a large amount of money from the (former?) pornographer and old boy, David Sullivan on account of the money being "tainted".

Post edited by a mod at the request of the author.