What's wrong with using oil?

First off, congratulations for such a stunning, dignified, beautiful action, brilliantly caught on film by Felix from youandi films.

If you want to share your thoughts on this with Tate Britain boss Penelope Curtis, write to  penelope.curtis@tate.org.uk, and cc. to info-at-artnotoil.org.uk

Here's a bit of background:
This action coincided with Tate Britain's Summer Party, celebrating 20 years of BP sponsorship.

This from  http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=381&parent=39

'Apart from catastrophic spills like the Deepwater Horizon, there are a whole host of adverse impacts that are associated with the production of oil. On the local level, it often involves extreme forms of pollution for local communities, while regionally oil is frequently associated with greater militarisation and conflict. Globally, carbon emissions, oil companies, and our collective dependence on the product they push, are taking us ever closer to the edge of climate catastrophe.

In order for an oil company to produce oil and transport it to the global market, it needs either the support or the silence of the population in those areas of the world in which this takes place. Where the necessary support - or ‘social licence to operate’ - is not forthcoming, the ability of that company to carry out its business becomes seriously impaired.

The building of this social licence takes place to some extent in the countries of the distant oilfields, but to a far greater degree in the cities of the global North, such as London, one of the companies’ key centres of operation. Here, Shell and BP have between them sponsored almost all of London’s most prestigious museums and cultural institutions over the course of the last decade.

The financial support that the companies provide strengthens their position as a part of Britain’s cultural and social elite, and creates a perception of making a positive contribution to our society. This in turn not only provides them with an important profile with ordinary fuel customers, but far more importantly strengthens connections between the corporations and vital bodies such as government departments. The support of institutions such as the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, or the Department of International Development, are far more important to the global operations of Shell and BP than that of the populations near the oilfields or on the pipeline routes. These relationships are made at the gala openings and concerts, where the audiences made up of civil servants and decision makers rub shoulders with the oil executives.

Over a decade ago, tobacco companies were seen as respectable partners for public institutions to gain support from – the current BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery was previously sponsored by Imperial Tobacco. Now it is socially unacceptable for tobacco to play this public role, and it is our hope that oil and gas will soon be seen in the same light, as the public comes to recognise that the sponsorship programmes of BP and Shell are means by which attention is distracted from their impacts on human rights, the environment and the global climate.'

And here's a letter sent yesterday to the Guardian, which has been featuring this issue prominently over the last few days:

'We (Art Not Oil) have been campaigning for the arts to break free of oil
sponsorship for 7 years now, so it's good to see these issues out in the
mainstream, even though Deepwater Horizon is such a heartbreakingly high
price to pay.

Some argue that there is a greater need than ever to rely on possibly
tainted corporate money, since government arts funding is currently
hovering under the knife. But in the same way that the wider 'swingeing
cuts' debate is mostly missing the Trident elephant in the room, arts
institutions and their supporters don't seem to want to agitate for a
rethink of the way state funds are distributed.

How would it be if instead of declaring their ongoing allegiance to BP,
big hitters like Tate, National Portrait Gallery, British Museum and Royal
Opera House issued a joint statement launching a campaign for government
to scrap Trident and funnel the freed-up funds into essential services and
the arts? I could foresee a torrent of public support for that. But is it
likely to happen when those institutions and many others have Boards of
Trustees made up of those who are establishment (and often oil-soaked) to
the core. (The most extreme example of this is ex-BP chief Lord Browne,
once a British Museum Trustee and now Chair of Tate's Board )

It seems that deep change is needed to deal with the ecological and social
crises that we all face. That means people like us agitating from the
outside, engaging in civil disobedience and supporting strong, 'conscious'
art. But it also means courageous individuals within the art world
standing up and making their voices heard, perhaps through their art, or
making statements of support for this campaign, or perhaps by making
representations as employees of sponsored institutions. Now, after the
Gulf of Mexico, they will be far from alone.'