By "boycotting BP" we are just dumping one drug dealer for another.

[Javaman]

Drug addict: Jay, pissed me off, I will never buy drugs from him again!

Other drug addict: so you giving up the junk?

Drug addict: no, just Jays stuff.

Other drug addict: you know Jay and all the other dealers get their stuff from the same supplier, right?

Drug addict thinks a bit.

Drug addict: But I hate what Jay's drug is doing to me!!!

Meh. We are just addicts because there is no other game in town.

[KamaAina]

1. Yes, but Jay capped my homie's ass with his nine

so I'll be getting my shit from Scooter or CC, thasnk you very much.

[NoSheep]

27. Could not have put it better myself.

[Jennicut]

2. We are addicted to all oil. BP's safety track record is worse

but Exxon, etc. is still big oil.

[damntexdem]

3. True in a general sense. Still, the latest culprit DOES need punishment.

So it is worthwhile to boycott BP.

[Javaman]

9. That's why boycotting will do no good, but heavy regulations will. nt

[Turbineguy]

19. +1

[GaYellowDawg]

4. Unrecommend.

Drug addict: Jay pissed me off. I will never buy drugs from him again!

Other drug addict: So you giving up the junk?

Drug addict: No, just Jay's stuff.

Other drug addict: You know Jay and all the other dealers get their stuff from the same supplier, right?

Drug addict: Yeah, but the other dealers didn't coat the whole fucking neighborhood with it.

Other drug addict: Yeah, there is a difference. I guess I'm a dumbass.

Meh. If we can't get off the shit, then we can at least make sure the fuckers are more careful with it.

[meow mix]

8. +1000

lol

Drug addict: Yeah, but the other dealers didn't coat the whole fucking neighborhood with it.

Other drug addict: Yeah, there is a difference. I guess I'm a dumbass.

[Javaman]

18. So you think that buy not buying gas from BP when...

that same exact gas, which is produced via BP is being sold at a none BP station right across the street, that you choose to buy, is boycotting?

right. have fun.

[blondeatlast]

10. =1. Just like with Wal-mart--emake an example out of 'em.

[Javaman]

13. Yeah, wal-mart really took a hit...

:eyes:

Last time I checked they had one of the largest quarter returns in the history of that corporation.

[Javaman]

12. boycotting them won't make them more careful, regulations do.

boycotting them just makes them sell their oil else ware. Do you think China is boycotting them? Or India? or any of the African nations?

Only until the regulations are enforce will things change. Until then, even if BP goes bankrupt, other oil corps will be making a windfall at our folly.

And again, even if BP goes bankrupt, who do you think will be getting it's assets? not the US government (since we don't have a nationalized energy sector) it will be the other oil corps, making them bigger and more powerful.

If we are to boycott, we should boycott across the board. This selective boycotting is just ridiculous and only results in making us feel better.

[jobycom]

5. Yep. nt

[Robbien]

6. Doing nothing just gets more threads saying "Where's the Outrage"

Okay fine, don't boycott. What do you want people to do to express their outrage? Or are you jonesing to start a "Where's the Outrage" thread.

[Javaman]

14. Make sure the old regulations and new regulations are enforced.

also that no new drilling takes place until the oil corp shows that actual emergency measures work in the event of a blowout.

If they don't they don't get to drill.

It's really that simple.

But alas, people enjoy screaming and stamping their feet instead of lobbying their congress people who can actually pass the laws if we demand them too.

We forget, they work for us. But for too long we have let them think otherwise.

So while everyone else boycotts, I write and call my half-witted congress people.

Yes, half-witted. I live in texas.

[Robbien]

23. Politicians go where the money is

After decades of using the process of petitioning Congresscritters and seeing no result, the only answer is to go directly to who controls this country, the corporations.

Why do you suppose there are hundreds of articles and opinion letters in the papers the last week or so demanding that people DON'T Boycott BP. Of course BP is spearing that PR drive. Taking our dissatisfaction directly to them is getting noticed.

Writing to congresscritters gets you a form letter in return, if you are lucky.

[Javaman]

25. Let me ask you this?

If BP goes into bankruptcy, what does that do? Their assets get sold off to the highest bidder. Thus making other oil corps larger and more powerful.

I would love to see the CEO goto jail. But if he does, and that's a big if, what is solved? The same regulations are still in place. The same type of enforcement will pretty much remain.

What changes?

Do you honestly believe that BP is the only one that was disregarding regulations? They are just the easy target due to the spill. What do you think will happen if congress suddenly conjures up the guts to investigate Exxon or Shell? Do you think will happen? Nothing. And I can bet you dollars to donuts, we won't see a Dem president of any kind center, right or left or many a moon. (well maybe a hard right leaning dem)

This is nothing more than political theater.

Until real teeth are put in to the regulations, nothing is going to change.

I predict that there will be some sort of show trail/hearing of senators feigning condemnation and finger wagging to pacify the American public. Which in turn, will drag on for years.

After which, something else will replace our outrage, because we will be satiated at that point.

[Robbien]

26. BP won't go into bankruptcy

It has $30 billion in net annual revenue. No debt to speak of.
It is US's largest defense contractor, last year it raked in $9 billion in defense contracts.
It gets a hefty share of the $35 billion annual US credits to the oil industry.


Boycotting doesn't have its end means of bankruptcy. By registering our complaint directly to BP by boycotting, they may think twice before flaunting regulations and pushing the safety boundaries of their operations.

[Javaman]

31. There is a very real possibility that BP may go into receivership...

that is only if the US government exacts the kind of fine that BP needs to pay.

However as far as BP flaunting the regulations. That was done via the MMS arm of the Dept of Interior. They were the ones that allowed BP to fill in their one status reports, licenses and safety reports.

There was massive quid pro quo going on. This was also because the people needing to do the watch dogging were the same people in charge of the fines. That has now been separated. Trying to get away with ignoring regs or working out a sweetheart deal with the inspectors will be very hard now.

But again, boycotting sends no message to BP. 1) they are a foreign entity 2) they are a multinational 3) we aren't their only customer.

Upon reflection, you might be half right regarding them not going bankrupt. Their American holdings can be used as collateral in any fine. They could lose that arm of their corporation. So they could declare bankruptcy on that portion of their business. BP as a foreign entity will more than likely remain, weakened but still around. However, I do expect the other oil corps to buy up their American holdings.

[Oedipus W. Bush]

52. I have no idea whether you are misinformed or mendacious, but all of your stated facts are untrue.

BP had revenue of slightly more than $239 billion in 2009. Down significantly from prior years. It had a profit of $16.8 billion, also down significantly from prior years.

Bp had liabilities of over $134 billion at the end of 2009 including almost $29 billion in long term debt and slightly over $22 billion in deferred long term liability charges.

BP received a total of $9 billion in defense contracts over the last ten years. That is petty cash in our defense budget and for BP.

The $35 billion in tax breaks you refer to is over a 5 year period. It also is a highly questionable number derived from a number of questionable assumptions.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a viable and logical business decision for BP not only because of the automatic stay provision of bankruptcy law but also the ability of the bankruptcy court to force a settlement of all claims. It may not be likely but it certainly is possible.

[Uncle Joe]

34. The problem with regulations is that money buys regulations and/or those who regulate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x541228

This is already a critical dysfunction; of government's enforcement ability, that goes for both parties and this will only become more acute after the recent Supreme Court rulings eliminating any corporate spending cap regarding issues in influencing elections and now they're even trying to eliminate public financing with their most recent ruling.

Boycotts are the only tool remaining distinctly in the hands of the people and effective boycotts send clear symbolic and financial messages to those mega-corporations; that otherwise regard the people and their representatives as mere pawns.

[Javaman]

36. Actually, no.

The clean water act has a major section dealing with the spilling of oil.

For every barrel of oil spilled the corp gets fined $1000. It adds up. This is why BP still actively spins the amount being released.

While your post does cause a problem down the road, the here and now can still be dealt with, but alas, once Obama is out of office (I'm of the belief now that he won't get a second term), the repukes will make all this vanish into a pile of red tape for many years to come.

But you have to remember something, boycotts work when you are dealing with items, not commodities. Oil is traded on the world market. Anyone can buy it. Just because we don't, doesn't mean other nations aren't scooping it up. If you want to properly boycott a multinational, get other nations involved. We the people buying our gas from other gas stations other than BP is laughable.

Because oil is an open commodity, the non-BP station across the street is just as likely to sell BP gas as is a BP station.

People really need to understand how oil is traded. It's not like a stock or buying pampers, it's raw material. Anyone can buy it. Boycotting it, doesn't do anything in this case. It just gets sold some place else.

Do you think china gives a shit about the gulf? In public yes, in private, hell no. And the same goes with many other nations. And frankly, I bet a few nations are glad that we are having this problem do to our use of 25% of the worlds fossil fuels with only 5% of the population.

Yeah, it's down right fucking depressing, but this is what happens when corps control and make the rules. 30+ years of republican love fests with corporations.

[Uncle Joe]

38. I did specify both

"The problem with regulations is that money buys regulations and/or those who regulate."

If those who regulate are deliberately under-counting the damage; in this case the amount of oil being gushed, for public consumption as the link to the Rolling Stone column points out, then the Clean Water Act loses much of it's effectiveness.

Furthermore safety regulations and/or environmental impact statements; being exempted when logic should have told them otherwise, ignored all together or rubber stamped would also be included under my premise, not just the Clean Water Act and the eliminating or ignoring of those regulations contributed to this catastrophe.

If the boycott is effective, Corporate BP will lose franchise fees as their fuel stations, either change brands or new ones don't sign up in the first place as their brand becomes radioactive and this is a financial cost to them with each passing year, this dynamic remains in place.

Oil may be an open commodity, and no doubt other nations will purchase it, but future sellers might think twice about totally ignoring safety precautions if they're forced to pay a financial cost and boycotts in spite of some limitations remain the only viable tool still directly held in the peoples' hands.

[Javaman]

42. You make some good points...

but it was more than just ignoring regulations. It was the systemic failure of our government via the MMS that allowed this to happen. More of that crazy repuke "oversight" that never seems to happen.

Subdividing the dept so the regulators are apart from the people who exact the fines is a very good first step. However, unless there are checks and balances put in place to ensure people actually do their jobs, this won't amount to much.

As far as stations losing franchises, that's the private owners issue. BP will still be able to sell gas all they want.

But like I stated in another response in this same thread, because BP is a multinational, the only effective way for a boycott to take effect, in this situation, is to get other nations involved. Relying upon the American people to exact revenge in the form of a boycott upon BP won't amount to much. BP can just sell their wares else ware to other nations more than willing to buy it.

There is so much more globally here at play than just the gulf being massively polluted. I can say without a doubt that there are many nations feeling more than a little schadenfreude at our misfortune. We have been the bully on the oil stage for many years and as such a number of nations are pissed. So while they publicly say they are sorry that this happened, I can bet you they are saying that we deserve it. We have 5% of the population of the world yet use 25% of it's fossil fuel resources.

so as as result it will be very hard to get an international effort together to boycott BP.

[Uncle Joe]

50. It's corporate BP's and the people's issue as well and if the boycott is effective enough,

those private owners will change brands out of necessity; if nothing else BP will still lose franchise fees even if they can sell fuel to other brands.

"As far as stations losing franchises, that's the private owners issue. BP will still be able to sell gas all they want."

I don't expect BP to lose all their franchises, but they will take a hit in regions or nations that are damaged by their total disregard for worker safety, the environment and society; at large whether business or home; dependent on that environment.

I also believe that subdividing the MMS is a good step in the right direction but it won't make any difference if the Secretary of Interior and/or the President; whether Republican or Democrat is intent on protecting corporate profits or interest over those of the public.

If you didn't read the entire Rolling Stone Column, I respectfully suggest you do, this lack of oversight didn't end with the repukes.

Peace to you.

[Javaman]

54. When I say 30+ years of repuke rule...

I am referring to dems as well, because what passes as the democratic party these days is much closer to traditional republicanism. Both parties are massively to blame.

The simple fact here is no one appears to know how oil and gas distribution works.

I can go into it again, but I explained it in another post on this thread.

If people understood the basic facts about distribution, then you will see that the only effective way a boycott would work is; if other nations get on board and stop buying bp products and if traders stop buying bp products.

the traders who buy bp product are the ones who then sell it to the stations.

the stations (independents) don't know where the gas comes from.

this is how it works.

I'm really done arguing this point.

It's getting down right ridiculous trying to impress upon people how oil and gas distribution works and how an boycott of the stations does no good.

[Cant trust em]

7. Getting off of oil is going to be a multi-step process.

1. Reduce use of fossil fuels
2. Boycott BP since they have such an atrocious safety record. There are other companies who are doing exploration better.
3. Clean up MMS and ensure that drilling practices are as safe as they can be

All of these steps need to happen concurrently.

What other steps should there be?

[Javaman]

15. Conservation.

simple things like: lowering the national speed limit, make sure your tires are inflated, walk when you can, take a bike if you can.

Don't buy anything plastic if you can get it metal or wood.

[Walk away]

11. 90% of BP gas stations do not belong to BP.

They belong to small business people and many are owner operated. Except for BP brand oil they don't even necessarily sell BP product. It is just as likely that BP is providing product for the generic station across the street that you switched to.

If it makes people feel good to boycott BP stations I guess they know what they are doing.

[Javaman]

16. Yup.

This is why boycotting them is useless.

Oil is an open commodity. Many people here fail to understand that simple concept.

[Javaman]

17. dupe. nt

[TexasObserver]

20. No, we aren't.

BP deserves the death penalty as a corporation, and that's probably where it is headed. Imposing the death penalty on this very bad corporate citizen is long overdue. Boycotting BP helps bring about the end to BP. It will go into bankruptcy, and all the majors will take a lesson. The lesson is "don't be like BP - don't ignore safety."

If you don't want to participate in a boycott, don't. If you don't understand that even a one percent dip in revenues at BP retail centers matters, you don't understand business.

[Javaman]

22. Right.

So because oil is sold on as an open commodity and the none BP station across the street could be selling BP gas as much as the BP station, means I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.

Once you understand that boycotting BP, for other than emotion reasons, won't have any effect, they you will see.

Also, even if BP goes bankrupt, their assets will be sold off to other oil corps. Thus making those entities larger and more powerful.

If you have noticed, all the other oil corps have been very quiet. You think that's an accident. They are riding out the storm.

As so many on here love to put words in my mouth, I would enjoy seeing BP's jackass CEO in prison. He might well end up as such, but in reality, I don't believe he will.

People have this really naive notion that these people will be held responsible for their actions. I will give you little peek into the future. There will be years upon years of litigation. BP will be sold off to someone else. Those responsible will escape and some poor bastard middle management moron will take all the heat.

You want a classic example? Look up Bhopal and Union Carbide. They just had a settlement. Did the CEO of that corp go to jail? LOL hell no. They were bought out by Dow. Dow assumed no responsibility for Union Carbides problems. The CEO of UC, I believe, eventually died of natural causes in freedom, the middle managers took all the heat. A token sum of $108 million was awarded to the victims, which have yet to see a singe dime.

I can tell you right now, BP is looking very hard at that case. They are taking notes and are going to follow that game plan. Bank on it.

Only until old regulations are enforce and new more stringent ones created, nothing will change.

In the mean time, we are still addicted to oil.

[TexasObserver]

40. Your lack of expertise on this topic is obvious.

Have you ever sued BP?

Have you ever negotiated with BP?

Have you ever analyzed a franchise agreement for an oil company retail outlet?

Do you have even a smidgen of experience in any area related to this topic?

I've sued BP. I've negotiated with BP. I've represented franchisees of major oil companies. I've sued most of the major oil companies. I've litigated for years at a time against them on major commercial matters. They fight for every dollar, and they certainly try to avoid boycotts.

Why do you feel this urge to argue against a boycott?

[Javaman]

43. I never ever said don't boycott

I just said it's a waste of time.

Show me once case in the oil industry where a boycott has actually worked?

Remember the half assed "lets boycott all oil corps" 2 summers ago during the run up in prices? that worked like charm. :eyes:

oil is a world commodity. how is boycotting BP gas stations going to solve anything when that same gas (sold by BP) can be sold right across the street at a non-BP station?

The only effective way a boycott will work in this situation is if other nations are involved. The US, although a big market for their product, is not their only market. If we don't buy it, I can bet you sure as shit, China or any other number of nations will.

You maybe a lawyer but you don't have a clue as to how distribution works.

[TexasObserver]

45. You're confused.

Every dollar spent at a BP retail center puts money into BP's pocket. By favoring BP's competitors and boycotting BP centers, consumers register their disdain for BP, they deprive BP of their dollars, and they help BP's competitors, who are ALL better citizens than BP.


I understand exactly how distribution works. It's immaterial to this discussion and further evidence you're lost and grasping at straws.

[Javaman]

55. way to avoid the pertinent question...

distribution is everything regarding this argument, and by you avoiding it, shows me you don't have a single clue how it works.

It's the basis to how any sort of boycott would effectively work.

wow, way to show your hand.

[TexasObserver]

68. Are you one of BP's many employees in America?

Because that's the only people who should oppose a boycott.

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is obvious.

[Javaman]

69. LOL

You counter by calling me a shill?

You are a lawyer and that's the best you have?

Holy crap.

You love to pull out the old canard of "lack of knowledge" but yet you don't support any of your arguments.

Like most lawyers, your full of shit. LOL

man, you are an easy target.

[Nihil]

57. You're right.

Everything in that post is spot on with the exception of two little
glitches in the Union Carbide paragraph.

> The CEO of UC, I believe, eventually died of natural causes in freedom,
> the middle managers took all the heat.

The CEO of UC is still alive and living in Long Island (although he has also
got a Florida house) - still being protected from extradition by the US government.

The middle managers hardly "took all the heat" as only 8 were accused of
which 7 were given trivial jail sentences but allowed straight out on bail
(=no punishment at all). (The other one died in the intevening 26 years.)


Neither of the above affects the truth and validity of the rest of your post
but thought I'd just let you know (especially as it isn't that often that
I agree with you around here!)

:hi:

[Javaman]

63. Thanks for the corrections! :)

it makes me even more depressed knowing that CEO is alive and well and under protection.

Cheers to you! :)

[Taitertots]

21. When do we get to start asset forfeiture against BP execs?

If drug money buys your car or house the government will take them.

If your money comes from the destruction of the gulf, the government will do nothing.

[Javaman]

24. That won't happen for a long while...

I do believe at some point in the far future or maybe (oddly) in the near future, BP will declare bankruptcy.

Their assets will be bought up by the highest bigging oil corp. Thus making that oil corp bigger and more powerful.

The new corp will not assume any responsibility of the previous entity, thus allowing any prior claims to vanish.

I have been following the Union Carbide/ Bhopal disaster for years.

This past week a settlement was reached.

CEO got off scott free, middle management took the hit, a small pay out $108 million and the poor have yet to see a dime.

The $108 million won't even scratch the surface of what is actually needed to help those folks.

I believe we will see something similar with BP.

Only enforcement of regulations will help prevent future problems. As for the current problems? Nothing but short term solutions. When the next repub gets into office, expect those short term solutions to vanish and the prosecution of what ever BP winds up being, to be put on the back burner.

[Taitertots]

28. With the current political atmosphere (both sides) it will never happen

Even realistic safety measures don't seem very high on the governments list of things to do.

All that is going to happen is the people responsible will keep their excessive wealth and BP will disappear into the other oil giants.

Both parties offer no solutions. Concentrated wealth will continue to distort the economic system and profitability will slowly push back safety until the next Gulf, Bhopal, Chernobyl, or Exxon Valdez.

[Javaman]

32. Yup.

It's nice to believe that their is a "John Doe Goes to Washington" moment, regarding this mess, but reality always dictates otherwise.

As always, the rich get richer and the poor suffer.

[cprompt]

29. Yes however

Negatively impacting their profits is the only way companies actually listen to consumers. And if enough people do it perhaps all big oil will make it so this crap never happens again. The reality is oil will be a part if mine and yours lifetime, hopefully through strict environmental legislation and holding companies accountable we can see change for the good. To do nothing is to condone the behavior by both bp and the government

[Javaman]

33. The only way they will be negatively impacted financially

will be with very heavy fines.

BP knows they are in deep shit, that's why they have been spinning the amount of oil that is being released much lower than reality.

The only hope I see in this whole mess of holding BP responsible is the a Section in the clean water act. They get fined $1000 for every barrel of oil released.

This is why they were holding onto the 5K per day release like grim death. If the actual numbers officially get released, BP is done.

Why do you think they were keeping the press out? Why do you think they were disputing the plumes? They know it's an ecological catastrophe. They know they are basically fucked. But as long as those plumes can't be seen easily, they will continue to spin. And spin they will to make sure they aren't handed their asses in fines.

This will drag on for years.

[JackRiddler]

30. Yes and No. Why do so many people want to prevent a BP boycott?

It's about a political message. This is a step on the way to the end of this criminal entity, to their total asset forfeiture, and an end to the sacredness of corporate ownership and the rule of corporate will.

There is every reason to turn BP into a symbol of the intolerable. They are much more than a scapegoat. They are exactly the right target - one of many other corporations that must also be targetted. Boycotting them isn't about the direct economic damage caused to them, it is a small way of saying that they must be terminated. It is not incompatible with an end to oil dependence and corporate dominance, it is one small way to begin to end of these things.

Of course it is even more powerful to find ways to reduce driving and oil dependence.

More powerful than this is finding ways to land millions of people in every city center, shutting down business as usual until the death system falls.

But I'm not going to discourage people from boycotting one of their enemies. It's a start toward different ways of behaving.

[Javaman]

35. I don't want to prevent it at all...

I'm just saying, it would be far more effective to demand of our elected officials to do their jobs, exact heavy fines, follow the clean water act, make sure the old regulations are enforced and any new regulations also enforced.

If you want to boycott, knock yourself out, but also understand that oil is a tradable commodity. And the non BP station across the street is just as likely to sell BP gas as is the BP station.

But hey, if you want to boycott the unboycottable, go crazy. Everyone needs to vent, I just don't have the energy to waste on fruitless endeavors.

[JackRiddler]

37. No energy is wasted by avoiding BP.

Anyone who thinks of boycotting as a substitute for other action is an idiot. But for most people doesn't take any energy to avoid tanking at the motherfuckers' banner.

Even companies not directly dependent on the consumer, like them, fear loss of their hard-earned brand.

We already know well that oil is fungible and how difficult it is to boycott the whole interconnected system. Your repeating the obvious seems condescending. You should ask about your own feelings.

BP have directly wronged us all. Their name is already a curse. Their symbols should be burned. They are no scapegoat, they are part of the target.

---

Simple question: are you for the immediate seizure without compensation of all BP assets that the US government can reach?

[Javaman]

41. ...

I guess you didn't understand that oil is a tradable commodity and the non-BP Station is just as likely to sell BP gas as the BP station. but why beat a dead horse? right?

If the US can seize BP's American assets, sure, but it then must be put into some sort of trust. Because, as we all know, any money that isn't actively doing something in washington will quickly get sucked up and in it's place plenty of IOU's will be left.

From that trust fund, build a comprehensive plan to help out those ruined by this mess. Jobs programs, retooling the fishing industry for proper clean up, etc.

Personally, speaking, I think the CEO of BP should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity and nature. But that's me.

[JackRiddler]

46. Very sad that you don't read before repeating your talking points.

Hm, obviously I don't understand that oil is fungible, because it's exactly what I said.

You apparently don't have a clue how to avoid condescension.

So let's say it again: It's not relevant that oil is fungible. People should create deserted landscapes around the BP banner. It's one way they have of showing their outrage. It's very low cost. We're wasting time debating a BP boycott when, as you point out, there are more important things.

As for the rest of what you say, I'm on board. Seize them, obviously to defray (some of) the expenses for what they have done. (What did you think I meant, that the assets should be used to help fund the Pentagon?!)

Try them.

Put their heads on pikes. Okay, maybe not that. But harsh punishment is an excellent deterrent to white collar crime.

[Javaman]

53. fine..

It is very relevant that oil is tradable. Do you know how oil and gas distribution works?

BP gets their oil via 3rd party extraction. They then either sell it to yet another part to refine it or refine it themselves (they have their own facilities but not as many as say exxon), the products are then sold to their franchises via contract, once fulfilled, the remaining product is put up on the world market for sale. Traders bid on the products. Those traders who win, take the product and sell it manufacturers and gas stations. This is how it works.

so if you wish to boycott bp fine, but know that their product could easily be sold by a 3rd party gas station as it could by a bp gas station.

I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

[Nihil]

59. "I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp."

Three reasons:
- People are ignorant about the difficulties with fixing the Gulf blowout.
- People are frustrated at the apparent lack of effective action.
- People are in denial of their own culpability in the demand for fossil fuels.

These combine to produce a desire to lash out at the first opportunity in
order to release their frustration, overlook their ignorance and assuage
their unconscious guilt.

Hence they do dumb things like boycott their local BP station without realising
that it has practically zero effect (and probably use one of their lesser known
brand outlets anyway).

:shrug:

[Javaman]

61. I know...

:(

I completely understand the anger, hell, I'm pissed too, but I would much rather direct my anger toward action rather than reaction.

I started this thread to state the obvious that many people fail to grasp.

But alas, all it has done is show me that nothing is going to change.

We are reactionaries. (the larger sense of the word "we").

That's okay, I guess. This thread has not given me hope for the people of this nation to change.

That alone makes me just as sad as the spill does.

Cheers to you.

[Catherina]

39. Rec'd Nothing will change until we change our way n/t

[Javaman]

44. That sums it up in a nutshell.

we would rather boycott than change our ways.

Interesting, no?

[JackRiddler]

47. False dichotomy. Imputed motives. Foul.

[Javaman]

56. That's the best you got?

way to refute the argument.

sad.

[Catherina]

48. I support boycotting BP just for the image of it but what you wrote is true

If not BP then it's Exxon with a spill.

Or it's Shell arming thugs in Nigeria to protect its *investment* and killing activists. Since when do all the oil resources of the Nigerian people belong to Shell?



And then in addition to totally destroying the environment, their armed thugs executed activists for Shell, they got off with a light $15 million payment while people are still falling gravely ill from the carcinogens.


Or its wars being waged against Iraq, Afghanistan and coups against South American countries that have oil.



I honestly can't think of a more throwaway society than America. We're not innocent bystanders in this drama. Time to change our ways.

Boycotting Shell are ineffective unless we boycott every single distributor who buys oil from Shell too. Those gas stations are a small part of their business; they're way ahead of us.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. That's very true. This spill could have happened to any of the oil companies

The real problem is that our government deregulated the entire industry and does not require any of the companies to have shut off valves. You are completely right. We are only dumping one drug dealer for another.

[Javaman]

60. Exactly right.

someone up thread argued that "bp was the biggest violator of the regulations". (or something like that). How does this person know that? They don't, they are just regurgitating what the news told them.

They all are/were violating the regs. They all have been getting free rides. Why do you think the other oil corps have been so silent during this? they know if they open their mouths, they will have to account for themselves.

bp is the obvious bad guy for obvious reason, but last year it was exxon with their massive 40+ billion dollar quarter. Will it be shell next? will it be total? we are being led around by the nose and most people don't even know it.

People are caught up in the incidents and not the larger picture. (I'm certainly not trying to deminish the scale or damage caused it has caused) We have to look upon ourselves and our lifestyle.

We use 25% of the worlds resources with only 5% of the population.

The reality is, we have to cut back, but no one wants to bring that up in a public way. That would be bad.

[Uzybone]

51. Boycotting BP is like buying a Che shirt from A and F

[Javaman]

62. !

Good one!

[JVS]

58. What's wrong with picking better suppliers over worse ones?

[Javaman]

64. Nothing.

but the traders buy the gas off of the open market, the gas stations, generally speaking, don't know where the original gas comes from or whom it's from. The traders do.

This is why the boycott needs to go international. Since oil is traded on the open market, BP can sell the gas or oil we don't buy and sell it overseas.

If enough of the big nations boycott, then BP will feel the pain, so far, it's just people refusing to by gas from their stations, which really doesn't do much at all.

And trying to ask traders to stop buying bp products would be almost impossible. Since there are traders that deal only in crude futures. Having them cut out a huge market share would effect them in a massive financial way.

If nations boycott, then the traders will have a harder time unloading product with the bp stink on it.

But the international boycotts or embargo's have a long history of being hard to maintain. Usually what happens is a huge black market steps in to take the place of the traders.

[Statistical]

65. Which is the better supplier?

Shell - created an 3 decade long ecological disaster in Nigerian Delta , supports genocidal governments, still uses MTBE internationally (banned in US for polluting drinking water & causing cancer).

Chevron - primary defendent in MTBE lawsuit, for decades used MTBE despite knowing its propensity to pollute ground water and cause cancer.

Exxon - refutes global warming, funds anti-GW "research", never cleaned up Valdez spill

ConocoPhillips - 3rd largest polluter in US (#1 polluter among oil companies despite its "small" size), 470 clean water violations in 5 year period from a single site.

[Nihil]

66. Don't forget ...

... that Chevron has a much greater set of issues than "just" MTBE ...
Ecuador, Angola, Nigeria ... but, of course, those are "foreign" and
so don't count ...
:shrug:

[Statistical]

67. Yeah my list wasn't meant to be exaustive.

The idea that BP is bad and all the other oil companies frolick with bunnies is a fantasy people have constructed to make themselves feel better.

"See we can punish the BAD oil company by using the GOOD ones"

Only one problem with that Gracie..... THERE ARE NO GOOD OIL COMPANIES.