Boycotting BP?
#1
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:15 AM
I stuck with a simple yes/no to keep people like me from hedging their bets and saying "maybe".
I think that BP has been phenomenally negligent in the events that led up to the spill and nearly as incompetent afterwards. Between Hayward complaining about his lack of relaxation time, photoshopping employees into pics to make them look like they're working, expressing confusion as to why their stock prices might be going down and the photo op workers, they seem to be doing their best to give themselves a bad rep. And that's not even counting the screw-ups that have been hurting people, like the poor organization of clean-up crews on the ground and in boats, the delays in getting reimbursement checks (if at all), the screw-ups in fixing it and the overuse of dispersants.
But I think that they're honestly trying. It's just something that they hadn't planned for - and should have. But they are now. And it's not like all the screw-ups are them being tight-fisted. The oyster industry in Florida has basically shut down. Not because the oyster beds are closed, but because BP sent all the oystermen $5000 compensation checks (or $2500 if they're deckhands).
Still, it was a colossal screw-up on their part and not just one. According to their own reports, it's been a systemic problem at BP for years where they've been putting profits above safety. So I'm torn.
OTOH, what are the alternatives?
Exxon?
Back in 1989, they had a tanker spill in Alaska in an incident now known as the Exxon Valdez. The total costs were over $7 billion. Exxon was initially charged $5 billion in damages, but has challenged that and it was reduced to less than $600 million. Over 20 years later, they still haven't paid the full amount and many of the claimants have died. Plus, the coast is still contaminated.
Shell?
They're heavily involved in the oil from Nigeria which is spilling as badly as in the Gulf. They've also been accused of involvement in government persecution of tribes (and they paid fines, but didn't accept blame).
Chevron?
I personally kinda like them. They have some facilities in Indonesia which are fairly environmentally friendly. More so than the neighboring land which is being torn up by timber companies and more so than the government oil companies which get to regulate themselves (thus avoiding the middle step of bribing the regulators). However, they've had lots of problems in the Amazon which I'm not too clear on, but it sounds kinda like Shell's Nigeria problems.
Citgo?
Well, it's a Venezuelan company and the profits go more-or-less straight to Chavez. He's not any worse than your average tin-pot dictator except for his anti-Americanism (which is really only bad from our perspective; the other tin-pots have their own windmills to crusade against). And we seem to be fine with buying oil from tin-pot dictators that like us - like the Saudis.
Texaco? Pilot? Racetrack? Pure? Kangaroo?
I've lumped all of these together because they're pretty rare around here. I think that we have one station of each around town although they seem to be a bit more common in other places. (Isn't Texaco with Chevron now?) I think that Pilot is mostly associated with truck stops. It's actually the one that I go to the most often because it has the lowest prices and is on the way to work.
So from my perspective, there aren't a lot of choices for where you get gas. And the gas stations are owned privately so it's not really socking it to BP anyway.
I absolutely will not shop at Exxon. For some reason, I have the nagging feeling that I did get gas there once and I have no idea why, but that'll be the only time. I usually try to avoid Shell because of their Nigerian issues although Chevron still gets my business.
I answered my own poll with "no". I don't plan on boycotting BP unless they screw this up again (and they'll have plenty of opportunities.) However, I haven't bought gas there since the spill. It just doesn't feel right. They aren't the place that I usually go to, but I've deliberately passed up going there a couple times. So maybe it'll take me some time to get back to them. I don't think that it'll help if the BP station has lower prices (and I've seen a few that do). It'd feel like they're trying to buy me off. I may have cheap morals, but I only have a 10 gallon tank and the price of my conscience is a bit more than 3 cents a gallon.
#2
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:22 AM
An alternative available here (but maybe no in Florida) is Valero. They're every where in the San Antonio area. I'm unsure where Wal-Mart and HEB (grocery chain) obtain their gasoline.
#3
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:38 AM
An alternative available here (but maybe no in Florida) is Valero. They're every where in the San Antonio area. I'm unsure where Wal-Mart and HEB (grocery chain) obtain their gasoline.
I thought I heard on the news that the BP gas stations were individually owned by citizens, which means the gas station owners aren't apart of BP's mess.
#4
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:40 AM
"The time has come at last for you to learn everything . . .
Fare thee well, Albert, my friend."
#5
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:45 AM
British Petroleum
#6
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:52 AM
British Petroleum
Ah ok, thanks. Now I can read and understand the topic
"The time has come at last for you to learn everything . . .
Fare thee well, Albert, my friend."
#7
Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:59 AM
A LIVING LEGEND
#8
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:00 AM
I believe it already has been capped and sealed off, just the oil clean up remains.
Edited by Uzumakikage, 26 July 2010 - 04:03 AM.
#9
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:07 AM
I really don't find that comment useful in a topic like this, really.
#10
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:10 AM
#11
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:10 AM
Considering that it is still sitting out in the gulf killing sea life and waiting to be picked up and spread inland by a hurricane, BAD TIMING!!
You are fined one pie.
#12
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:14 AM
Considering that it is still sitting out in the gulf killing sea life and waiting to be picked up and spread inland by a hurricane, BAD TIMING!!
You are fined one pie.
Really bad timing. It's along the lines of walking into a funeral and saying: "No use crying over a body."
Not tactful at all. Especially when the entire ocean's polluted and animals are dead or dying.
#13
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:23 AM
Umm...only the engineers of the worst man-made disaster in history
Click the link ---> http://www.narusaku....showtopic=10026
#14
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:27 AM
Click the link ---> http://www.narusaku....showtopic=10026
These guys were the ones that caused that oil spill? I knew about the oil spill, but I didn't know who did it...now I do.
Well, if that's the case...Sure, I'll boycott. Why not? Don't see any harm in it...until I actually have to worry about stuff like gasoline anyways
Edited by zacrathedemon5, 26 July 2010 - 04:28 AM.
"The time has come at last for you to learn everything . . .
Fare thee well, Albert, my friend."
#15
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:35 AM
Not tactful at all. Especially when the entire ocean's polluted and animals are dead or dying.
So is that an agreement?
Edited by Insurrection, 26 July 2010 - 04:37 AM.
#16
Posted 26 July 2010 - 04:51 AM
They're franchises. They have to pay BP for the right to use their name and BP would be the one supplying their gas. Fast food joints work the same way.
I dunno. I think you could argue Chernobyl was worse.
#17
Posted 26 July 2010 - 05:03 AM
"The time has come at last for you to learn everything . . .
Fare thee well, Albert, my friend."
#18
Posted 26 July 2010 - 05:28 AM
I could blame Obama for not being prompt as a president to fix it. I could blame other people for other things. I could blame the engineers for faulty equipment. Can't we just fix these problems and get on with our lives. Heck, as long as BP helped clean up or payed for cleaning it, then considered the matter solved. One accident should not condemn someone to to be hated. Accidents happen, but irresponsibility is another.
In this case, everyone shares the blame on this one.
#19
Posted 26 July 2010 - 05:39 AM
I guess it depends on the weighing of fundamental environmental impacts. For example, how much longer will the radiation linger in Chernobyl versus how long the residue from the oil will remain in the Gulf water? This would most likely be the defining characteristic on a decision of that matter.
But I digress. I think the boycott should be from the United States government, which would refuse any exports from British Petroleum and pressuring other customer-nations to follow en suite. Or, the other option is the nationalization of the oil industry under the United States government. Another option to solve this is to do absolutely nothing and go about your day despite the fact that faulty machinery as well as corrupted politics once again take steed with shrewd business practices to maximize production and minimize control. You can go off the board for your alternative answer, E, a Jar of Almonds.
#20
Posted 26 July 2010 - 06:13 AM
Chernobyl always receives an excessive bad reputation. Turns out Chernobyl wasn't all that bad.
http://www.iaea.org/...l/chernobyl.pdf
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users