THE divorce has been finalised between Fringe World Festival and their former fossil fuel funder Woodside. It follows a years-long campaign by artists and climate activists who pressured Fringe org…
What does this mean for the financial viability of the festival?
Haha! Thats some robust polling you’ve conducted there, with some key qualitative insights from the participants i bet!! :)
It’s a bit like the no advertising and promotion on kids shows, why is that accepted, but playgrounds can be sponsored? When i heard about the water park my thoughts were similar to yours.
I don’t really know what the problem with mining companies sponsoring stuff is. But it is maybe more nuanced with fossil fuel companies.
If we go back to cigarettes, they were heavy advertisers and sponsors in our country a few decades ago. But it slowly turned as the community realised the significant impact on people’s health of their product. Gas is now on a similar trajectory to the cigarette industry.
Gases social capital is being undermined by the damage caused by the product and the communities increasing understanding and knowledge of these damages.
‘Damage’ includes for example, in peoples homes (gas stoves), local areas mined (local environment), up to global warming (methane leaks, and burned gas still releases carbon dioxide albeit a lot less than other fossil fuels).
This, like the cigarrette industry before, has put a time horizon on the product of ‘gas’ as socially acceptable in parts of public life it was easily accepted before.
By ‘time horizon’ i mean the industry is no longer sustainable in it’s current form and size over the long term. It will survive, not least because, like cigarettes, Australia is only one of their markets.
Haha! Thats some robust polling you’ve conducted there, with some key qualitative insights from the participants i bet!! :)
It’s a bit like the no advertising and promotion on kids shows, why is that accepted, but playgrounds can be sponsored? When i heard about the water park my thoughts were similar to yours.
I don’t really know what the problem with mining companies sponsoring stuff is. But it is maybe more nuanced with fossil fuel companies.
If we go back to cigarettes, they were heavy advertisers and sponsors in our country a few decades ago. But it slowly turned as the community realised the significant impact on people’s health of their product. Gas is now on a similar trajectory to the cigarette industry.
Gases social capital is being undermined by the damage caused by the product and the communities increasing understanding and knowledge of these damages.
‘Damage’ includes for example, in peoples homes (gas stoves), local areas mined (local environment), up to global warming (methane leaks, and burned gas still releases carbon dioxide albeit a lot less than other fossil fuels).
This, like the cigarrette industry before, has put a time horizon on the product of ‘gas’ as socially acceptable in parts of public life it was easily accepted before.
By ‘time horizon’ i mean the industry is no longer sustainable in it’s current form and size over the long term. It will survive, not least because, like cigarettes, Australia is only one of their markets.