did you know that shell is also a 'diamond level' corporate member of the nhm?
there are a dozen other controversial companies that can be found on lists available from museum websites, but i want to talk about bp and shell (big surprise there, then). i'm singling out the natural history and science museums just because i happened to visit yesterday with a housemate and we visited two exhibitions that just didn't sit well with us. of course, they were loosely themed around climate change, energy, and the environment.
the natural history museum's display is entitled 'earth today and tomorrow'. it was advertised as being 'sobering food for thought', but it was so far from this. with the global film premiere of the age of stupid in a few weeks, i was (naively!) expecting something more like that film, with more (ahem) dramatic imagery of how global warming has affected the world so far. what i found was a confused exhibition. there were a few great things there, such as the information on how co-operative, community work can be an effective solution, but a few clangers were dropped, such as a screen with information on car oil's impact on the environment stating that: 'carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are believed to be responsible for changes to the global climate that could lead to a significant rises in temperature' co2 and other gases might contribute to something called climate change? what age are we even living in? absolutely ridiculous. this just confused the message of the exhibition: reduce the amount of rubbish you use, rethink your choices, but not about car oil, because suddenly when we talk about oil climate change might not be real! oh, did i mention that the bp were mentioned at the end of the exhibition as having contributed? additionally, the website states clearly that co2 and other greenhouse gases cause global warming, and encourages individuals to walk or take public transport. bizarre!
moving on: the science museum. oh, the science museum. this shell-sponsored exhibition nearly had me in tears. i couldn't believe what i was seeing. i'd heard about it, but not until i was there experiencing it myself could i really understand. the object of my incredulity was the energy game - 'world energy - you're in charge!'. this game simulates the role of an energy minister, in a fictional country. with a growing population and the need for energy increasing at a phenomenal rate, you must decide which energy source is best, and implement it. i was genuinely shocked to see my ratings drop instantly when i installed a wind power farm in the sea, and nearly lost the game because the population revolted against my decision. similar problems arose when using other, greener, sources of energy to replace coal and nuclear power.
now, you could accuse me of presuming that this game would be accurate and that everyone holds the same views as me, so that is how it should be represented. there are a plethora of sources on the internet that suggest that wind farms are becoming more popular (seriously, google it), but the idea that green sources of energy are still optional and not mandatory really surprises me. the game was quite clearly trying to suggest that implementing greener sources of energy are a nice idea, but not feasible. such outdated opinions have no place in an educational place such as a museum, but companies such as shell are clearly using these places as an opportunity to spread propaganda, which contravenes the purpose of a museum. stating such beliefs as facts to be learnt is nothing short of dangerous, and damaging to future education.
having worked in a (much smaller) museum briefly, i do understand that benefactors of the museum have some sort of input into what goes into the museum, but i wasn't aware of how much they can affect the content of the information put on display for the public. if there is anything debatable, say that there is room for debate. provide resources, links, encouragement for further research, but bp and shell's involvement takes away any sort of impartiality, and legitimate educational authority that museums (certainly for me, anyway!) once held.
as we left the science museum, we had all agreed that the exhibitions were fundamentally misguided. not to educate to the public the changing environment around us, but instead the sort of greenwash that you'd expect to hear from top politicians (and not museums that, as a child, were definitely a top educational source). climate change may or may not be occurring (SERIOUSLY, ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS?), but it's okay, because bp and shell are on it with their new (aggressive, controversial) biofuels. so relax kids, don't worry! everything will be fine.
post script - amongst all of this moaning, the dinosaurs were really great to see again. the tuojiangosaurus (phonetically: two-wang-oh-sore-us) became a new favourite. and love was rekindled for the good old deinocheirus, better known as terrible hand.
terrible hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment