Regarding your article (Authors threaten boycott of Edinburgh book festival over sponsors’ fossil fuel links, 11 August), collaboration and creativity are key to addressing the climate emergency, which is why it is so disappointing to see 50 prominent writers threaten to boycott the Edinburgh international book festival.
Baillie Gifford has sponsored the festival for the last 19 years, over which time many of the signatories have made regular appearances at the festival and benefited from the support and connections it offers to the writing and publishing community.
Their decision to speak out on this issue stinks at a time when the funding landscape for the arts is so bleak, and the festival, on its 40th birthday, had to make redundancies and significant cuts to its programme. It is disingenuous to think that there are easy alternative funding solutions available. Would it be preferable not to have a book festival? Those who shut down conversations through boycotts and absolutism cause needless divisions that prohibit action.
Book festivals that offer space for thought and debate, and inspire change across the generations are part of the solution. If the writers were serious about collective action instead of virtue signalling off the back of Greta Thunberg’s cancellation, they should be offering solutions not ultimatums, and campaigning on behalf of book festivals not against them.
Name and address supplied
As Charlotte Higgins points out in her article on the messy reality of greenwashing (Of course Greta Thunberg is right to call out greenwashing, but the reality can be messy, 11 August), absolutist actions have often been the fountainhead of change, particularly in social movements. However, those opposed to fossil fuels, more often than not forget how inextricably these fuels are tied to everyone’s daily lives, including theirs.
Nearly everything we own comes from industry and almost every industry – including the book business – uses fossil fuels to some extent in the manufacture and distribution of its products. So a true boycott of financiers of fossil fuels is almost impossible, as is the boycott of industries that have an environmental impact. And frankly, if we do want to adopt a holier-than-thou stance, why end with fossil fuels? As Higgins mentions, why not gambling companies and other such businesses?
For initiatives in the arts, the search for the “untarnished penny” is like searching for the holy grail, particularly in an economy where sponsor money is so hard to find. Clearly, compromises are inevitable, and the Edinburgh book festival seems to have chosen judiciously. Unless, of course, the protesters can step in with more concrete plans of eco-friendly sponsorship.
While I understand the concerns of the protesters, I think that instead of mounting “ban fossil fuels” campaigns, they might do better if they spoke of realistic ways in which they themselves are boycotting these fuels in their daily lives and helping others do the same. I might actually get more from that.
Finally, I think it’s rather hypocritical that people seem to have no such qualms about the Baillie Gifford nonfiction prize, but want to target a festival that’s actually providing a platform to have meaningful discussions on such matters.
Megha Gupta
Bath