In response to your article (Shell tried to alter museum climate show, 1 June), I wish to endorse the rebuttal posted by Ian Blatchford, the current Science Museum director. I was director of the museum at the time the Atmosphere gallery was designed and created, and can confirm that neither the Shell sponsorship nor David Hone’s membership of an advisory team – drawn from a wide range of experts and interests – compromised editorial decisions on the gallery vision or content, which remained with the museum.
Ian makes it clear that this policy has been maintained with the subsequent Climate Changing programme. I assume the Guardian operates a similar policy in relation to its advertisers. David Hone’s acceptance of the reality of climate change and of the pressing need to decarbonise the global energy system are well documented in his blog and book. Given this, to describe him as a “former oil trader” is disingenuous.
Shell’s sponsorship of the Atmosphere gallery led to additional substantial donations, which made the project possible. The gallery is unique in the world and has been visited by more than 3 million people. A central message is the need to curb carbon emissions in order to avoid climate disruption, a reality acknowledged by the Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden in a recent Guardian article (We cannot keep on burning carbon, says Shell boss, 23 May).
Prof Chris Rapley
Professor of climate science, University College London
• Ian Blatchford declares that the Science Museum “has a longstanding relationship with Shell”. Indeed – as any observant visitor will spot on the Energy landing, where Shell’s sponsorship ensures that hydrogen (our only possible large-scale future fuel) is damned with the faintest of praise. In the Atmosphere gallery there is no honest assessment of the real and immediate need to cut carbon completely out of the energy equation, nor of the parallel need to retrieve, as a matter of urgency, the excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. The gallery is filled with interesting and sometimes important titbits, but there is little acknowledgment of climate change’s “evil twin”, ocean acidification, nor of the millions of human respiratory casualties caused each year by the combustion of all fossil fuels, nor of the urgent need to couple cessation of carbon extraction with the establishment of clean feasible alternatives, notably, but not exclusively, sun, wind and hydrogen.
Mike Koefman
Outreach worker, Planet Hydrogen
• We’ve been repeatedly assured by cultural institutions like the Tate and the British Museum that money they receive from oil companies in no way impacts upon the content of their exhibitions or programming. The revelation that Shell has used its sponsorship deal to try to influence the Science Museum’s climate change exhibit shows that this is clearly not the case. Our failure to meaningfully address the threat of climate change is directly linked to the power and influence that the fossil industry has over the political and financial sectors. By seeking to impose parameters on debate around energy transition in a publicly funded centre of learning, Shell has demonstrated the impact that oil companies have over the cultural sector and our imaginations.
Kevin Smith
London
• The revelations about the Shell sponsorship of the Science Museum are almost beyond belief. How could a respected institution allow its name to be compromised by a deal with such a company? Then I turned to the back page and saw the advert from your subscriptions department offering a free Amazon voucher as an incentive. Who on Earth chose it as a suitable partner organisation, or were the Russian tourist board, Fifa and Starbucks the only other options?
Mike Beavis
Belper, Derbyshire
• Lottery funding for the arts is at last to be redistributed more fairly across England (Lottery arts funding to be increased outside London, 28 May). That’s one giant leap for the Arts Council but still only one small step towards devolution. The government estimates that a total of £9bn lottery funding will be available over this parliament. As the UK’s nations, “powerhouses” and combined authorities increasingly press for retention of their taxes, why not also press for retention of their lottery contributions – not only for the arts, but for all the “good causes”?
If, as the culture select committee recently suggested, lottery players could be assured that their contributions would fund arts, sport, heritage and charitable activities “within reach of where they live”, would that not only renew public confidence in the lottery, but immediately create a place for culture and care at the heart of the regeneration of all of our nations and regions?
Cllr Steve Trow
Labour, Sandwell council, West Midlands
