Comments on: The ethics of accepting BP’s money http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: drewbie http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18813 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:05:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18813 I don’t think it’s a problem to take their money with two stipulations:

First, there shouldn’t be any stipulations about what kind of art is presented. I don’t see any reason to think there are.

Second, people who receive or benefit from it don’t use it as an excuse for bad behavior. The curators getting the donations aren’t arguing against heavy consequences for spills ( if they even had power to do so), as far as I’ve seen.

Better to make their donations to non-profits than to politicians.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18730 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:34:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18730 DanHess, he gives some hints about his strategy in his other comments. When somebody wants to, “reduce our demand for energy, especially oil-consumption based demand such as aviation, right now.”, he is advocating a massive and immediate shift in our CONSUMPTION. Slash business travel, slash vacation travel, and stop “wasting oil” on air-freight including rapid-response shipping and international produce delivery (for out-of-season fruits and vegetables). In essence, turn back the clock eighty years.

And he’s right. That would solve the energy problem. It would also CREATE a host of other problems, but he hasn’t thought that through.

]]>
By: DanHess http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18710 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:10:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18710 @banjolele —

I hope you an engineer and not some psychology or English or poli-sci major with no actual idea or interest in what our energy infrastructure actually looks like. Such as the giant combine tractors that feel us all, even the vegetarians.

I agree that we need sustainable energy, but do you even know what that means? It means massive development of, investment in and transition to electricity-based machines of all types, and enormous investment in hundreds of power plants, either nuclear or coal, pick your poison. The grid would need to be massively enhanced to handle much greater loads as well. And I for one don’t expect to see an electric airplane any time soon.

]]>
By: banjolele http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18657 Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:38:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18657 ‘We must have oil, and lots of it’. Er, no. We already have the technology to massively reduce our oil consumption and a)increase our output of renewable and sustainable energy and b) reduce our demand for energy, especially oil-consumption based demand such as aviation, right now. The only thing that’s stopping us is political will, which means OUR will. That’s you and me. To say ‘we must have oil’ is like saying ‘we must have corruption’ or ‘we must have strawberry shoelaces’. We make these choices. We have got the option to do it a better way.

I and many others protest against arts institutions who are funded by fossil fuel companies as just one of our tatics. Why? Because as another poster points out, sponsoring ‘nice’ things like the arts makes them look like nice, cuddly philanthropists. We think if the ‘necessary’ arms trade started sponsoring exhibitions of Turner watercolours, there might be a bit of a fuss. So let’s just point out here that fossil fuel extraction is directly responsible for thousands of deaths a year: from the tar sands project in Alberta to the Niger Delta. That the burning of fossil fuels (for which yes, we are all culpable) is already killing thousands a year – through unpredictable weather, food insecurity and disease. We protest against fossil fuel sponsorship of arts institutions to remind people of this. We think art should be part of building something better. At the moment it’s stained in blood and oil.

]]>
By: PDKinder http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18614 Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:39:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18614 Always good to remember why Texaco sponsored the Metropolitan Opera for 50+ years: their bash celebrating Germany’s defeat of France in 1940. Also good to remember Texaco’s major role — at the same time — in Louisiana politics immortalized by Robert Penn Warren in ‘All the King’s Men’.

]]>
By: DanHess http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18613 Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:34:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18613 The BP spill was horrible and worldwide disgrace. That said, we must have oil and lots of it, or we are finished as a race (hopefully that won’t be true a generation from now). And finding oil is really, really tough. Thank you, oil majors.

Where should we get our oil? Exxon, who had a huge spill some years back? Shell, which blackens the waters of equatorial Africa? Iran?

I have a feeling BP will be a much better corporate citizen in the future, having been baptized by fire. Bill Gates was the most hated CEO in America and now he is considered a saint. BP may not attain sainthood, but they will be better…

]]>
By: IanAndEgg http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18605 Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:29:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18605 He who pays the piper calls the tune. Remember the recent PBS Koch-sponsored Nova propaganda that boiled down to “human beings thrive on change, so Global Warming is a Good Thing”? How about Pharma-sponsored academics failed to disclose conflict of interest? I repeat: He who pays the piper calls the tune.

]]>
By: BarryKelly http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18599 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:55:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18599 You’re basically arguing that the ends justify the means. So long as it creates good art, it’s OK to pollute, etc.

I suggest you follow your ends a little further, and not look at art as the end, but as a means in itself (which is what it is to BP). Rehabilitated image following laundering means the perpetrators are more free to commit more harm, because they’ve bought themselves into a more favourable aspect.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18592 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:02:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18592 If BP is a criminal syndicate, then they (or their ADRs) need to be delisted from the NYSE, their US assets should be confiscated, and they should be banned from any dealings within our borders.

If they are merely a poorly run corporation that made a REALLY BIG MISTAKE, then none of the above applies, nor is there any reason for charitable organizations to feel badly about accepting contributions.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/20/the-ethics-of-accepting-bps-money/comment-page-1/#comment-18591 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:02:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5435#comment-18591 If BP is a criminal syndicate, then they (or their ADRs) need to be delisted from the NYSE, their US assets should be confiscated, and they should be banned from any dealings within our borders.

If they are merely a poorly run corporation that made a REALLY BIG MISTAKE, then none of the above applies, nor is there any reason for charitable organizations to feel badly about accepting contributions.

]]>