Is anybody boycotting BP?

[Nightlyraider]

Everyone here surely realizes that all the gas goes in one end of the pipe; gets mixed up; then comes out the other end... right?

These companies spend many millions advertising their "Eco-friendly" or "Cleaner burning" fuel while failing to tell the consumer it is also identical to every other brand name gas you can buy.

BP isn't going to hurt for money; a few individual BP station owners may though.

 

[Komakino]

Everyone here surely realizes that all the gas goes in one end of the pipe; gets mixed up; then comes out the other end... right?

I'm not sure what difference that makes. If you buy from a BP station then BP get the profit. Simples.

 

[XtreO]

A good portion of the Gulf coast is probably going to be ruined for the rest of our lives.

Talk about overdramatising.

 

[CapnSev]

There's no BP in Utah. We're kind of fortunate in a way here, because we have our own in-state oil companies.

 

[sleepytime]

they can, but this is one of those "the fail-safe failed" situations. how were they to know that the valve would be faulty and not cap itself under 5 miles of ocean. and believe me fire suppression is foremost on their minds in all operations of the oil industry.

Tests? Inspections? Drills? Redundant systems? In the absence of all that, how about an emergency plan? But why go to all this bother if there is no accountability when disaster strikes. If they are not held accountable by the consumer, they will not be held accountable at all, unless you count the grandstanding and puffery that will take place in Washington.

 

[baalroo]

Tests? Inspections? Drills? Redundant systems? In the absence of all that, how about an emergency plan? But why go to all this bother if there is no accountability when disaster strikes. If they are not held accountable by the consumer, they will not be held accountable at all, unless you count the grandstanding and puffery that will take place in Washington.

exactly

 

[billhilly66]

The grandstanding and puffery obviously isn't limited to DC.

 

[sleepytime]

The grandstanding and puffery obviously isn't limited to DC.

I suppose that compared to other issues the American public is sleeping through, this isn't that big a deal. It is probably the easiest to make a simple and effective point, though. 8% of those responding to the poll favor sending a message? Carry on Big Oil, and /thread.

 

[billhilly66]

You didn't ask in your poll about sending a message. You asked about boycotting BP. As others have explained, it isn't like not shopping at say, Walmart. The BP stations are locally owned franchises and everybody's oil gets sold out of the same barrels.

Reminds me of the idiots protesting AZ's immigration law by boycotting Arizona iced tea which is of course a company from NY.

 

[bassrique]

I'll wait until after the facts are in.

 

[UncleFluffy]

The rig was leased from and operated by Transocean. 90% of the people working on the rig were not BP employees. BP have some share of the responsibility but if you were to apply the boycott principle equally you'd have to boycott all oil pumped through Transocean rigs.

In which case you're not likely to be able to drive very far.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Here's a bnet photo gallery of the rig going down. First time I looked at it I thought it was stills from the end of some CGI-fest movie.

http://www.bnet.com/2346-13239_23-419915-1.html?tag=content;col1

 

[sloasdaylight]

The rig was leased from and operated by Transocean. 90% of the people working on the rig were not BP employees. BP have some share of the responsibility but if you were to apply the boycott principle equally you'd have to boycott all oil pumped through Transocean rigs.

In which case you're not likely to be able to drive very far.

+1

 

[hover]

The rig was leased from and operated by Transocean. 90% of the people working on the rig were not BP employees. BP have some share of the responsibility but if you were to apply the boycott principle equally you'd have to boycott all oil pumped through Transocean rigs.

In which case you're not likely to be able to drive very far.

WHAAAT??!?!?! There's no place for logic here, we have a witch to burn!

 

[mike_v_s]

I haven`t been keeping up to date on all the recent news on it, but if it was anything like their last disasters then it is entirely their fault for being neglectful.

Hmmmmm. This needs a response.


Here's one:

The rig was leased from and operated by Transocean. 90% of the people working on the rig were not BP employees. BP have some share of the responsibility but if you were to apply the boycott principle equally you'd have to boycott all oil pumped through Transocean rigs.

In which case you're not likely to be able to drive very far.

Facts for the win. I'm of the belief that the easier a company's name is to remember, the easier it is to hate them. "Transocean" doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as "BP", therefor an environmental pass is issued. Sharpen your pitchforks.

Mike

 

[UncleFluffy]

Invalid Link Removed

and to recycle an old and sick joke from the Piper Alpha days:

"what's got four legs and goes woof?"

 

[FromTheBassMent]

Tests? Inspections? Drills? Redundant systems? In the absence of all that, how about an emergency plan? But why go to all this bother if there is no accountability when disaster strikes. If they are not held accountable by the consumer, they will not be held accountable at all, unless you count the grandstanding and puffery that will take place in Washington.

Yup. The failure is not BP's... I'm sure they complied with regulations regarding safeguards to prevent against this kind of environmental disaster. The problem is the regulations are a joke, because big oil owns our government and provides kickbacks (oops! I mean campaign contributions!) to keep any meaningful regulatory measures from being passed or enforced by either Republicans or Democrats.

Does the technology exist to create reduntant failover systems to prevent spills like these? Yes. And it's expensive technology. It costs more than oil companies want to spend, because God forbid that protecting the environment might cut into their multi-billion dollar annual profits (not revenues, profits). If the government is too spineless to force them to protect the environment (and it is), we can hardly expect them to do it voluntarily.

 

[Din Of Win]

BP is already on my town's ****list for closing down a solar panel factory and moving production to China. It was our town's second largest employer and gave us a big spike in unemployment when they laid everyone off.

**** BP. They've had a multitude of reasons for consumers to boycot them already... this is just another nail in their coffin.

 

[mike_v_s]

Yup. The failure is not BP's... I'm sure they complied with regulations regarding safeguards to prevent against this kind of environmental disaster. The problem is the regulations are a joke, because big oil owns our government and provides kickbacks (oops! I mean campaign contributions!) to keep any meaningful regulatory measures from being passed or enforced by either Republicans or Democrats.

If this were the case, I'd expect people to have this kind of anger with their government. But the generally don't. It takes too much time and energy to accurately identify the problems and vote them out. It's MUCH easier to hate "big oil". It's a catchy moniker, after all.

Mike

 

[UncleFluffy]

If this were the case, I'd expect people to have this kind of anger with their government. But the generally don't. It takes too much time and energy to accurately identify the problems and vote them out.
Mike

In this situation that's somewhat hard to do without a "none of the above" option on the ballot. But to go any further down that conversational road may be straying into dangerous territory...