BP Protest Rescheduled for July 8

Share:

Yolo Progressive Democrats of America will sponsor a demonstration to boycott Arco/ampm on Thursday, June 24 July 8 between 4:30 PM and 6 PM at the Arco/ampm station at Russell and Anderson. Arco and ampm are retail brands of BP.

While we await action on the disaster in the Gulf, we can play our part. We can stop rewarding BP. It is our purchases at Arco Stations that give BP its profits and power.

Please bring signs carrying your messages.

The demonstration will follow Davis Police Department guidelines to not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic.  There will be no physical interference with the commercial business of this gas station.

QUESTIONS TO:  zbox@dcn.org.

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

29 thoughts on “BP Protest Rescheduled for July 8”

  1. E Roberts Musser

    And by boycotting ARCO, you will be hurting those in the Gulf who have been hurt by BP. Putting BP out of business will ensure there is no compensation for the victims of the oil spill. Putting BP out of business will put about 50% of the workers in the Gulf region out of work. Then what? Are you going to cough up the tax money to help these people out? Your actions, while well intentioned, have unintended consequences that will be devastating to a huge number of very poor people.

    It would be far better to put your efforts towards convincing the federal gov’t to institute a comprehensive energy plan, that would wean this nation from its oil dependence over a period of years. The blame game is a dangerous one – and not necessarily productive. We don’t even know right now what the real cause of the oil spill was. It could have been a manufacturing defect in the blow-out preventer. If that is proved, won’t you have egg on your face?

  2. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t think that boycotting BP is going to put them out of business, and if it does, I suspect they were going to go out of business anyway.

  3. E Roberts Musser

    DMG: “I don’t think that boycotting BP is going to put them out of business, and if it does, I suspect they were going to go out of business anyway.”

    If enough people across the country and this world protested, it very well could put BP out of business, especially because BP’s economic woes right now are gargantuan. Secondly, it is not necessarily fair to blame BP at the moment, without knowing the cause of the oil spill. Thirdly, any protest in an attempt to decrease business for BP will ultimately hurt the Gulf oil spill victims. Just because something feels politically correct to do does not mean it is the correct or sensible thing to do. Knee-jerk reactions are often counterproductive.

    rusty49 has it exactly right – blame the lack of gov’t oversight of offshore drilling (MMS gov’t officials were caught watching porn on a regular basis instead of doing their jobs); the poor handling of the oil spill debacle by the federal gov’t who has primary responsibility for the clean up efforts (turned away help offered by other nations); the federal gov’t for ignoring the energy crisis as far back as 1976 when we had the first gas lines, and realized then we as a country needed to work on finding alternative fuels/develop new clean energy sources.

    The feds (both political parties) have been asleep at the switch when it comes to developing a far reaching and sensible energy policy – despite knowing it was/is a national crisis of epic proportions. What do you think is fueling funding for the terrorists – money from oil in the Mideast. If we could get the world to slowly wean off of oil, it would dry up the money being funneled/extorted by the terrorists from oil rich third world nations. Argggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

    The left needs to stop vilifying business with cockeyed PC soundbites that sound good but are very destructive to this nation. The right needs to stop catering to wealthy corporations and water down/eliminate gov’t oversight (the left does some of this too). I’ll get off my soapbox now 🙂

  4. wdf1

    The protestors should direct their ire at Washington and Obama for their terrible oversight of the
    cleanup measures.

    I’m surprised at statements like this. I have known Republicans and political conservatives to pride themselves on emphasizing personal responsibility (a value I appreciate). But when it comes to BP making a mistake, then someone else is to blame, especially if Democrats and government can be included. What’s wrong with holding BP responsible?

  5. rusty49

    “What’s wrong with holding BP responsible?”

    I hold BP responsible for the platform fire and collapse. But the ensuing cleanup should’ve been the responsibility of the Government and they dropped the ball from the beginning. Their slow response and subsequent mishandling of the cleanup has been derelict. Comeon wdf1, you know if Bush was still president you’d be all over him about this.

  6. wdf1

    I hold BP responsible for the platform fire and collapse.

    And what about the blowout? Is BP responsible for that, too? The one that’s still gushing out oil?

    Comeon wdf1, you know if Bush was still president you’d be all over him about this.

    I think I’d probably still be focused on BP. When the Exxon Valdez happened, I remember the public focus being on Exxon and the shipmaster, not on Bush 41. As far as I remember, the govnernment didn’t even have anything to do with the cleanup effort in that case; Exxon was responsible for the cleanup. Why have things changed?

  7. E Roberts Musser

    wdf1: ” What’s wrong with holding BP responsible?”

    Because no one, and I mean no one, knows exactly why the explosion happened yet. There is still an ongoing investigation. One of the current theories is that the blow-out protector failed, so may have been defective. If that were the case, then BP was not “at fault” except from a strict liability point of view. But the manufacturer of the defective part could be the ultimate liable party – who BP could sue for any damages BP incurs bc of the spill.

    Right now, it “feels good” to blame BP, but the fact of the matter is, the MMS (a gov’t agency) signed off on everything BP did as proper. To let the feds off the hook is unconscionable – they are equally if not more to blame. It is also possible this was an unexplainable accident, and we will never know the real cause.

    Furthermore, to blame BP to the extent that people want to put BP out of business is extremely foolish and cruel to the victims of the Gulf oil spill. If BP goes bankrupt, how will the they pay for the cleanup and compensating all the victims of the oil spill? Where will all the workers in the oil industry find jobs in this abysmal economy?

  8. E Roberts Musser

    wdf1: “I think I’d probably still be focused on BP. When the Exxon Valdez happened, I remember the public focus being on Exxon and the shipmaster, not on Bush 41. As far as I remember, the govnernment didn’t even have anything to do with the cleanup effort in that case; Exxon was responsible for the cleanup. Why have things changed?”

    I’m not sure this is correct. You might want to do some research into this issue, to be sure the gov’t had no role in the cleanup. I suspect the gov’t was directing the whole operation through an incident and command center, just as they are doing with the BP oil spill.

  9. E Roberts Musser

    From Wikipedia: “The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, hit Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef and spilled a widely reported estimate of 10.8 million US gallons (40.9 million liters, or 250,000 barrels) of crude oil. Others estimate the total was closer to 30 million gallons.[1][2] It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters ever to occur in history.[3] As significant as the Valdez spill was — the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill — it ranks well down on the list of the world’s largest oil spills in terms of volume released.[4] However, Prince William Sound’s remote location (accessible only by helicopter, plane and boat) made GOVERNMENT and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline[5] and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.”

    Note the words “government… response”!!!

  10. wdf1

    Furthermore, to blame BP to the extent that people want to put BP out of business is extremely foolish and cruel to the victims of the Gulf oil spill. If BP goes bankrupt, how will the they pay for the cleanup and compensating all the victims of the oil spill? Where will all the workers in the oil industry find jobs in this abysmal economy?

    I’m surprised you’re defending BP in this way.

    Wikipedia lists BP as the third largest energy company in the world (probably after Exxon/Mobil & Shell), and the fourth largest company in the world. With the price of gas I pay at the pump, I doubt BP is going out of business anytime soon.

    You can boycott AM/PM or BP service stations, but the way refined gas is traded and sold, it is the individual retailers who will be most hurt. BP, Inc. will only be minimally affected. They will probably sell instead to other retailers who aren’t necessarily BP franchises.

    Also from wikipedia: “Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon’s inadequate response to the crisis.[16] More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment.” [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Cleanup_measures_and_environmental_consequences[/url] Other parts of article describe what Exxon did in the cleanup.

    I would expect to see BP out there cleaning things up, as Exxon did ~20 years ago. But somewhere along the way, the narrative and blame has shifted so that now today, the government is really to blame, according to some. Was the government then really to blame back in 1989, but we just got hung up on blaming Exxon?

  11. E Roberts Musser

    wdf1: “I would expect to see BP out there cleaning things up, as Exxon did ~20 years ago. But somewhere along the way, the narrative and blame has shifted so that now today, the government is really to blame, according to some. Was the government then really to blame back in 1989, but we just got hung up on blaming Exxon?”

    In the case of the Exxon Valdez, the fault was clearly Exxon’s. In the case of BP, it is not so clear – as of this moment, we just do not know what caused the explosion. It is not that I am defending BP, just not willing to jump to conclusions. However, the federal gov’t is to blame in large part, it appears, for their failure to properly oversee offshore oil drilling (and this has been going on for years). And their immediate response to the Gulf oil spill was less than stellar. For some reason, the feds refused help from various countries who had equipment for the purpose of cleaning up oil spills – why I don’t know. And by the way, BP is out there cleaning things up, and paying for that cleanup. But as experts have noted, sometimes less is more. Mistakes were made in the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup, bc too much was done, which caused the oil to sink into the soil and become part of the topography. BP is trying not to make those same mistakes.

    wdf1: “Wikipedia lists BP as the third largest energy company in the world (probably after Exxon/Mobil & Shell), and the fourth largest company in the world. With the price of gas I pay at the pump, I doubt BP is going out of business anytime soon.”

    Don’t be so sure. BP has already put $20 billion into an escrow fund for compensation to the victims/cost of clean-up as a mere down payment. They are promising to pay all costs – which if they truly do, will probably bankrupt the company. Frankly, I do not believe for one second that BP will end up paying for all the damage it has caused – I don’t think it can.

  12. wdf1

    Through contract language, BP may be able to prove itself legally not at fault, or perhaps they will show that a U.S. inspector signed off on something he/she shouldn’t have, but that will not absolve them of moral responsibility, and that’s what the public will be looking at. Reliability in US inspection is not as high as it used to be. Industry has managed to soften the regulations, weakened the oversight agency (inadequate funding/staffing), or has developed too chummy a relationship with regulators.

    The accident happened in carrying out a project to help BP exploit an oil reserve. BP was overseeing the venture. Any such company should care enough about its reputation to not want this to happen and to spend the extra cost to avoid it and not cut corners. The name BP will be synonymous with “Gulf oil spill” for decades, the way many still remember Exxon and Valdez together.

  13. rusty49

    “Gulf Oil Spill” will be synonymous with Obama forever because of his administration’s bungling of the cleanup effort just like Bush will always be synonymous with “Katrina”.

  14. David M. Greenwald

    I don’t think that’s going to be the case because in the case of Gulf Oil Spill, the first thing that comes to mind is BP not Obama. Katrina it’s Bush.

  15. E Roberts Musser

    DMG: “I don’t think that’s going to be the case because in the case of Gulf Oil Spill, the first thing that comes to mind is BP not Obama. Katrina it’s Bush.”

    Only if you’re a leftie does Obama not come to mind in regard to the Gulf oil spill 🙂

    Furthermore, Bush came through on the Katrina issue once he realized how his FEMA appointee bungled the job. The Coast Guard went in there and rescued the victims in quick order – once the Coast Guard was placed in charge. In fact the local politicians were largely to blame for the Katrina debacle for having inadequate emergency plans (just as BP and other oil companies did/do), but Bush stupidly let the local politicians off the hook. Altho the ultimate resolution for thousands of victims of Hurrican Katrina still has not resolved itself I don’t believe – bc there is no good solution to some folks still living in FEMA trailers. The federal gov’t cannot solve all problems, despite what Obama says/believes.

    Obama, on the other hand, has bungled the Gulf Oil spill for months; will be saddled with the lack of oversight being on his watch (even tho it has been going on for YEARS); turning down help when it was offered by other countries; being very detached about the whole thing (not visiting the Gulf until 2 months into the crisis; playing golf as the misery unfolds). However, in all fairness, Katrina was a one time event that was over in a few days; the Gulf oil spill is in intractable problem that will go on for months.

    I suspect both Obama and BP will be “tarred” with the Gulf oil spill…

  16. E Roberts Musser

    to wdf1: In THE WEEK, a news magazine that tries to take a balanced view (presents views from various perspectives), there was talk of BP going bankrupt. It was noted that not only victims of the Gulf oil spill will suffer if BP goes belly up financially, BP workers will suffer (from unemployment), as will many of the British people whose pensions are invested in BP stock. The British are not very kindly disposed towards the United States at the moment, feeling BP was strongarmed into coughing up the $20 million “compensation fund”. There is more than one way to look at things – this tragedy is going to have far reaching consequences, and is a very complicated issue with lots of ripple effects. How best to proceed is very tricky – even Obama is beginning to realize his position of blaming BP so harshly was perhaps not the wisest course of action. As a result, now he is reaching out to BP to make amends and trying to work more cooperatively…

    Meanwhile a strip club is trying to sue BP for the club’s “downturn” in business! Should the strip club be compensated ahead of a fisherman who has been grounded in port? And the let the legal games begin…

  17. rusty49

    Reuters story out this morning:

    “The Gulf of Mexico oil spill piled pressure on Barack Obama on Thursday as the hurricane season closed in and voters angry at his crisis management hammered the U.S. president in a poll rating.

    The crisis has thrust to the top of Obama’s crowded domestic agenda and a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found half of those surveyed disapproved of his handling of the spill.

    Overall Obama’s rating stood at 45 percent in the poll, down 5 points from early last month. For the first time in the survey, more people, or 48 percent, say they disapprove of his job performance.”

    Obama will be synonymous with “Gulf oil spill”.

  18. E Roberts Musser

    rusty49: “The crisis has thrust to the top of Obama’s crowded domestic agenda and a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found half of those surveyed disapproved of his handling of the spill.”

    Since the media took the poll, and the media is biased left, I would argue the real truth is Obama’s approval may be even lower than what the polls are showing. However, at this point, I’m not sure there is anything more Obama could be doing – his mistakes have already been made.

  19. rusty49

    “However, at this point, I’m not sure there is anything more Obama could be doing – his mistakes have already been made.”

    For one Obama could suspend the Jones Act.

    “It is unconscionable that bureaucratic red tape is putting our area at increased risk. Nothing should be standing in the way of our efforts to contain this spill and protect our coastlines, certainly not a bureaucratic provision that can be waived for the short term,” said Congressman Boyd. “The WAIVER Act cuts through the red tape that could hamper our efforts to contain this crisis and protect our natural resources. Our communities deserve better, and I will continue fighting to ensure that they have unencumbered access to every resource they need to fight the oil.”

    In 2005, the Jones Act was waived three days after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf to allow foreign-flagged ships to assist with the disaster relief efforts. That waiver eased the transportation of fuel in the aftermath of the hurricane.

    For some reason, President Obama has not yet waived the Jones Act in this case.

    There are foriegn skimmers and oil sucking tankers that could greatly limit the damage but Obama chooses to drag his feet. Why?

  20. justoutsidetown

    Will the protesters drive to the boycott using ‘ethical’ gasoline form Shell Oil ?

    Yes that it the Shell oil that is floating all over the Nigerian Delta.. where is the outrage for that environmental and humanitarian disaster?

    Also, did you know it was USA firms Transocean and HALLIBURTON that were actually doing the work under contract to BP ?

    Why not boycott those that actually messed up the works?

    Another hollow half-baked ‘protest’. Why not protest your stupid government that sits on its hands ?

  21. justoutsidetown

    Upon learning that the BP Chief was going to a yacht race our president was so upset he ‘sliced’ his drive at the golf course !

    Wake up peoples.

  22. E Roberts Musser

    rusty49: “For some reason, President Obama has not yet waived the Jones Act in this case.
    There are foriegn skimmers and oil sucking tankers that could greatly limit the damage but Obama chooses to drag his feet. Why?”

    I don’t get this either. The only thing I can think of is that too many captains in the area could gum up the works? The Coast Guard leader of the Incident and Command Center doesn’t seem to be too concerned either, and he was stellar in ultimately handling the Katrina mess. Why wouldn’t the Coast Guard leader advise Obama to allow the foreign skimmers/oil sucking tankers to come on in and help? Is it possible the Coast Guard leader (Thad Allen is his name I think) has asked, Obama said “no”, but the Incident and Command Center leader doesn’t want to lose his job? I’m really reaching for any kind of logical explanation for this lapse in not permitting assistance from foreign govts’ who are reaching out to give our country help. Frankly, it is not even good public relations from a diplomatic point of view, let alone for Obama’s reputation/legacy, to not accept the help.

  23. justoutsidetown

    Rusty and E Roberts

    The Jones act is essentially a closed shop union law.. Obama doesnt want to upset the unions, and the unions would rather see dead dolphins than foreign workers in US waters.

  24. E Roberts Musser

    justoutsidetown: “The Jones act is essentially a closed shop union law.. Obama doesnt want to upset the unions, and the unions would rather see dead dolphins than foreign workers in US waters.”

    That certainly would explain things… interesting thought.

  25. rusty49

    You know what’s funny about the whole Gulf oil mess and DavisVanguard is how quiet the outrage is from the left about this catastrophe and the Gov’t bungling. I guess they choose to look the other way when it’s their chosen one in charge. Defend him at all costs and damned be the Gulf.

  26. indigorocks

    rusty, the left is totally disgusted and outraged, particularly with the govt. handling.
    look at the epa…allowing corexit to be used in unprecedented amounts?
    Lisa Jackson needs to be fired, among other layovers from the Bushit and Dickless Cheney error.

  27. indigorocks

    to justoutside town!
    just because one has the audacity to drive doesn’t mean they should somehow be forced to sit on their hands and be quiet..
    look we are protesting the ridiculous greed and negligence of all the oil companies, bp, shell, transocean etc..
    but this boycott is a good thing because it lets ppl know that we are pissed and really want a change.
    we should have switched over to plug in hybrids a long time ago but the powers that be would rather suck the earth dry to the very last drop…
    is this our fault? well if you’re rich and have enough money for solar panels and a plug in hybrid and you claim to care about the environment, then you are to blame for not investing in renewables.

    we are all part of the problem, but we have the right to express our anger and demand systemic change…
    don’t stand up for the rights of corporate america..

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for