July 8 BP Protest Announcement

Share:

Yolo Progressive Democrats of America will sponsor an EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE demonstration on Thursday, July 8 from 5:30 to 6:30 PM in front of the Arco station at Russell and Anderson.  Arco/ampm are brand names for BP in western states. We will have signs expressing outrage at  1) the human and environmental costs of oil profits  2) lack of government regulation of industry and  3) our own excessive use of fossil fuels.  Participants are encouraged to write their own messages on signs. This gas station and the Davis Police Department have been notified of this event. Obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic and physical interference with business are prohibited.

A boycott of Arco gasoline will have limited economic impact on BP. The majority of BP’s profits derive from the sale of natural gas and massive Department of Defense contracts. Unfortunately, we cannot easily withdraw our patronization of BP via utility companies and the government.
The Arco station at Russell and Anderson is independently owned; by franchise, it only sells BP gasoline. Two thirds of its profit is from purchases at the convenience store from customers drawn in to buy gasoline. A boycott of this station will impact this local business more than BP (discussion with store manager).

While we appreciate and need our local merchants, the modus operandi of Arco uses gasoline to attract customers for tobacco and junk food sales which, in turn, generate medical costs.  Our support should go to businesses that contribute to the health of our environment and citizens.   

The Arco demonstration provides an opportunity for a public expression of our concerns at a site of   direct contact with BP. Our goal is to highlight the horrendous lesson of BP: changes in industry, government regulation and our lifestyles are urgently needed. 

Please address questions to zbox@dcn.org.

Share:

About The Author

Related posts

8 thoughts on “July 8 BP Protest Announcement”

  1. Dr. Wu

    There is also an Arco on Covell near Mace which is extremely popular and close to other gas stations. Arco was acquired by BP some time ago and BP decided to keep the Arco brand name (which now looks like one of the few good decisions they have made).

    Boycotts generally don’t have a lot of impact, but its pretty easy to buy gas somewhere else and BPs actions are deplorable.

    Some industry experts think that the costs of the BP spill are still being underestimated.

  2. E Roberts Musser

    So you have decided to take the risk of hurting local businesses here and innocent victims in the Gulf area to make your point? Nice… Why not picket the federal gov’t, the real party in interest in this debacle? They signed off on what BP did as appropriate. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, we still don’t know why the oil spill occurred. What we do know is that the federal gov’t and its agency MMS was engaging in activities totally unrelated to its mission of overseeing oil drilling while on the job (watching porn).

  3. wdf1

    Interesting argument, Elaine: we don’t know why the oil spill occurred, but be sure to blame the government, because they watch porn. Seems that you’re contradicting yourself.

    When did “they” sign off on what BP did?

  4. E Roberts Musser

    wdf1: “Interesting argument, Elaine: we don’t know why the oil spill occurred, but be sure to blame the government, because they watch porn. Seems that you’re contradicting yourself. When did “they” sign off on what BP did?”

    MMS signed off on using a single layer pipe that was longer in length, than a shorter double layer pipe. In fact, MMS sighed off on everything that BP did – but then MMS employees were not looking very closely bc they were too busy watching porn. Some in Congress are contending the single layer pipe may have been what caused the explosion – but have no idea if that had anything to do with anything since Congressmen are not engineers. Supposedly the longer pipe was used by BP bc it had greater longevity, and I believe has been used successfully in other deep water wells.

    However, the ultimate fact is that the blow-out preventer, which should have stopped the explosion and rupturing of the well did not work as specified. So the bigger question is why not? Was it defective? If yes, then the blame is not that of BP (except in the strict liability sense), but the fault of the blow-out preventer manufacturer. And if some part of the blow-out preventer failed, ultimately the fault could lie with the manufacturer of the failed part. Bottom line – we just do not know what went wrong and must wait for the investigation into exact cause to wrap up.

    However, what we do know is that MMS (a federal gov’t agency) was not doing its job. At the very least, MMS signed off on the inadequate emergency plans BP had, where BP outright lied about emergency equipment it did not have. But upon further investigation, this emergency plan is generic among all off shore oil drilling companies, and I mean all. None of them have most of the equipment listed in their plans. Whose fault is that? That of every oil company that lied, but more importantly, MMS – who failed to verify even one of those emergency plans.

    Reminds me of Katrina, and the local officials whose emergency evacuation plans were completely inadequate. Yet Bush allowed all the local officials off the hook – despite clear fault on the dilatory officials part. And as a result, I will bet you my bottom dollar those same jurisdictions don’t have any better emergency plans than they did before. Yolo County is a case in point. Right after the Katrina debacle, the county was making inroads into making a better emergency plan to evacuate the elderly, but it fell through the cracks when the county had no more money to pay the consultant it had hired.

    And just for the record, I do not let BP off the hook, but neither do I let the federal gov’t off the hook for the Gulf oil spill. My main gripe is as follows: Private enterprise will always try to save money, and often at the expense of safety, bc their primary goal is to watch their bottom line. However, the country has huge bureaucracies in place, that we pay humongous amounts of tax dollars for – yet these agencies are not doing their jobs. So why should taxpayers foot the bill for these agencies if they are not going to do the work they were hired for?

  5. E Roberts Musser

    Just read an article stating federal gov’t is refusing all sorts of volunteer help for the Gulf oil spill. Fishing boats are sitting in the dock, waiting for instructions. Many countries who have offered equipment and other assistance were turned away, or their help was accepted many, many weeks after it was offered. Complaints like these are coming from frustrated local officials. Can’t say how true any of this is – there is one person’s side, the other person’s side, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. But all reports seem to indicate the federal gov’t response to the Gulf oil spill is wa-a-a-a-a-y too slow!

  6. David M. Greenwald

    BTW, someone mentioned the Jones Act on one of the discussions, FactCheck.org finds out that the Jones act does not apply to this case:

    [quote]Obama slows foreign cleanup aid by not waiving Jones Act

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Charles Djou, both Republicans, have said that the 1920 Jones Act is standing in the way of foreign ships that could otherwise assist in the cleanup – and that Obama could waive its requirements but hasn’t.

    But that’s false. No waiver has been needed. The Jones Act requires goods carried between U.S. ports to be shipped aboard U.S.-flagged vessels built in the U.S. and owned by American citizens. The law doesn’t apply to ships operating far from the U.S. coastline, skimming oil or performing other such chores and not hauling cargo from one American port to another.

    In the case of the BP oil spill, the Jones Act hasn’t prevented several foreign-flagged ships from delivering resources and skimming oil. And the administration says it’s prepared to expedite requests for waivers, should any be needed.

    Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Act, June 23.[/quote]

  7. E Roberts Musser

    So the obvious question is why the Obama administration has turned down so many offers of assistance, both from foreign gov’ts and from local volunteers. Which takes us back to a suggestion someone made – Obama doesn’t want to anger unions. I can’t think of any other explanation that makes sense, and I’m not sure if that one makes sense.

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