On Monday, almost a hundred cultural figures, politicians and academics published a letter calling on the new director of the British Museum to end its sponsorship deal with BP.

They argued that to receive sponsorship from BP is to condone its business plan – one that is incompatible with a stable climate.

Since then, cynics have tried to discredit the signatories – but yesterday they were stopped in their tracks.

After a 34-year partnership with BP, Edinburgh International Festival (EIF) launched its new programme – but this time without BP’s cash.

BP blamed the end of the deal on a “challenging business environment” – oddly enough, exactly the same excuse it gave just weeks ago when the end of its sponsorship deal with Tate was announced.

It’s clearly not true. The amount of money the company provides to Tate – and to the British Museum – represents just a couple of hours’ worth of the £2 billion profit they made last year. In reality, public pressure and protest had become too great for these deals to continue.

The truth – ‘big oil’ provides small potatoes

Writing in the Telegraph on Monday, Tom Harris claimed to be concerned about the “shed-loads of cash” the British Museum would lose if it decided to drop BP. I’m also concerned about cuts to arts funding but BP’s so-called ‘donations’ make up just 0.8% of the British Museum’s budget. And with the EIF launching a blockbuster programme without BP sponsorship, it’s clear that these institutions are far from reliant on oil money.

But what would happen if the British Museum did take a stand? Cutting out BP would not put the museum’s core work at risk, and it’s likely that the majority of staff would welcome such a move.

A survey by the PCS union last month found that 66% of British Museum workers are supportive of the anti-BP protests. And in a poll commissioned by the campaign group Platform, 49.6% of Londoners agreed that the British Museum should drop BP as a sponsor.

Tom Harris rightly points out that “expecting the public to dig even deeper at this time of austerity is a non-starter.” So maybe he should consider the vast amounts taxpayers are currently giving to fossil fuel companies, including BP, in the form of misguided tax breaks and subsidies that run into billions of pounds.

Redirecting a tiny fraction of this to the arts would provide far more money than BP’s current contribution. It could also be shared around theatres, museums and galleries across the UK in desperate need of the cash (and in which BP has no interest at all).

Right wing media condoning corporate criminality

Writing in The Times, Stephen Pollard scoffed at the idea that “BP is beyond the pale as it produces not arms or cigarettes, but oil.” But like with cigarettes, we know the risks of not quitting. For BP to continue extracting new sources of oil – when we must leave around 80% of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to avoid catastrophic climate change – marks it out as a company on the wrong side of history.

And did he miss the announcement this week of BP’s historic $20 billion settlement over its Gulf of Mexico spill? Or the record-breaking fines that made BP the world’s biggest corporate criminal?

In an attempt to sound more balanced, Michael Skapinker argued in the FT that refusing oil sponsorship would not advance the fight against climate change. But he’s wrong. BP has been relentlessly lobbying against crucial climate change legislation for decades – it knows that its profits depend on keeping society hooked on fossil fuels.

And BP’s ability to influence policy-makers is only possible with the crucial social legitimacy that comes from, amongst other things, sponsoring respected cultural institutions.

It is vital to delegitimise the fossil fuel industry, by divesting and denying it the PR-benefits of sponsorship, in order to reduce its power over policy-makers. With that obstacle to progress removed, we might actually have a chance of tackling dangerous climate change.

‘They are sponsoring death in our communities’

The irony for the British Museum though is that while it preserves the past, BP is putting the future at risk, and not just through its contribution to climate change. Many communities have had their rights trampled by BP, from Indigenous communities opposing the Canadian tar sands extraction to its partnerships with repressive regimes, such as in West Papua, Egypt and Azerbaijan.

BP’s values are fundamentally at odds with those claimed by the British Museum and if the museum does decide to renew its BP sponsorship this year, it will have firmly placed BP’s tainted money above the public’s trust in it.

We believe the people we should really listen to are those living with the realities of BP’s operations. US Gulf Coast residents contributed some genuine crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill to A History of BP in 10 Objects, our recent unsanctioned exhibition in the British Museum’s Great Court.

Cherri Foytlin, from that community, puts it starkly: “Since 2010, there are a lot more graves in the Gulf of Mexico than there were before, and that’s just the truth. So any time we see arts organisations take on BP as a sponsor, we want to make sure those institutions understand that they are sponsoring death.

“They are sponsoring death in our communities.”

Chris Garrard is a composer and member of the campaign group, BP or not BP? which is part of the Art Not Oil coalition.

The post war drive for food security through industrial farming and ever-cheaper food has, ironically, put both our health and the future of farming at risk.

Food prices have been kept artificially low, while the true costs of food production have been obscured – and are increasingly unaffordable. A conference taking place next week in San Francisco aims to put this right: The True Cost of American Food.

Patrick Holden – dairy farmer, sustainable food campaigner and organiser of the conference – believes that sustainable farming is being held back by the way that food prices are kept artificially low through mechanisms which hide the real cost of foods and place those costs elsewhere – on communities, our health, and the environment.

“When we unravel the hidden costs of food and farming, we find that our food systems are generating diets which we pay for many times over in hidden ways”, he says. “They are making us sick and degrading the environment, which is vital to the future of our food security and health.

“Everyone has a right to good food that is affordable and nutritious, but the belief that making food cheap was the most important goal, facilitated damage to our natural environment and public health. This was made possible by cheap oil and technological innovation. It was hard for consumers to see the changes to the food we eat, as companies increasingly obscured the story of how our food is produced.

“If you told the real story of farming, what goes on behind closed doors would be upsetting. It’s covered up by brands with images of outdoor mixed farms, with cows in meadows and hedgerow-lined hay fields blooming with wild flowers.”

Milk cheaper than bottled water

Patrick had an urban childhood, like millions of other people who live in cities now, but his family moved back to the land in the 1970s to live on a farm. His deep understanding of agricultural practice developed from farming his mixed dairy farm in Wales, where he still farms as sustainably as possible.

This produces food that appears cheap on the supermarket shelves. Seems more affordable and cheap for many people, more so now than ever before in history, as we  But Patrick is involved in research with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that traces the true costs of food.

That means he knows from personal experience the plight faced by many farmers: “Dairy farmers are now slaves to the commodity market. To survive economically, they need more and more cows, kept more and more intensively. Milk is sold for much less than the cost of its production – it costs less than a bottle of water now. How on earth can this be? Milk is a vital source of nutrition and farmers should be paid for the true cost of its production.”

Of course for many families it’s great that we spend less now than ever before on food: most of us spend less than 10% of our disposable income on food – and this is seen as a good thing. But that cheap food comes at a high price:

“The apparent cheapness of food is an illusion, because behind the price tag lie a series of hidden costs, none of which are reflected in the price of food. These hidden costs are paid in damage to the environment, depletion of the Earth’s resources, and public health.”

Adding up the impacts

Patrick is involved in research with the UN’s The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative that traces the true costs of food. But to make all those statistics real, he says, take a carton of milk, and consider the costs of its that we have to pay for without realizing it – on top of the suffering that’s routinely inflicted on animals under industrial farming systems.

“You’ve got damage to the environment from the pollution of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, degradation of the soil and declining biodiversity, along with the contribution that agriculture makes to climate change.

“Then there’s a high cost in human health, especially, at the moment, in the rise of untreatable infectious diseases from the over-use of antibiotics in humans and farm animals. But this also includes the costs of the obesity epidemic caused by industrialised diets.

“And there are significant social costs – agricultural workers suffer unduly from labour abuses across the world which sometimes extend to the condition of slavery. These costs are not currently paid in the price of our food and this is not being recognized by politicians nor properly addressed by the people who should be addressing them.”

The True Cost of American Food

What is needed, he says, is a ‘True Cost’ account of our food system. That’s one of the core missions of the Sustainable Food Trust, which Patrick launched in 2013 at a major conference on the topic in London, bringing together the world’s leading experts on True Cost Accounting.

“For obvious reasons all farmers have to follow the best business case”, says Patrick. “But right now if you farm intensively and cause damage to the environment and public health, you will make more money than if you switch to sustainable methods. The aim of the San Francisco conference is to do something about that – we want to create the conditions where producing food in a sustainable way is the most profitable option for producers and the most affordable for consumers.

“We believe there are many opportunities to intervene and shift the dial in this direction. For instance, we can redirect Farm Bill subsidies to favour sustainable practices, we can tax farming which causes damage to the environment or public health, we can harness the power of the financial community to preferentially invest in sustainable agriculture and food companies.

“It’s all about carrots and sticks, we want to encourage the right kind of farming which benefits the environment and public health and discourages food systems which lead to climate change, pollution and disease.”

Next week’s ‘The True Cost of American Food’ conference will bring together leading experts on the environmental, human health, and cultural impacts and costs of American food systems with a clear objective in mind: to fulfil the right of every citizen to affordable, healthy, sustainable food.

Conference: The True Cost of American Food conference will begin with a reception on Thursday 14th April, and will feature keynote addresses, local and artisan food, and a cultural program.

This will be followed by a full two days of plenary and two sets of 8 parallel sessions on Friday 15th and Saturday 16th April at the Fort Mason Center, San Francisco. The Sunday offers a variety of field trips to local food businesses and farms.

World class speakers will discuss the reasons why food from the most damaging production systems appears cheap, when its real cost to the environment and public health is very high. They will also explore ways in which the food and agricultural economics can be made more honest, thus creating the conditions for a major global transition to more sustainable food production and consumption.

Register for the conference online.

Find out more about the Sustainable Food Trust.