B.P.'s Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Thread (it's all here).....
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Yes I do and I'm probably no less responsible for the fiasco than any other average citizen, but I'm not averse to doing something to rectifying it. :smile:
It is not only a question of car, Captain. If we are throwing stones here, how about mutual funds? Does anybody own a mutual fund which invests in BP? Any kind of index fund in US or British markets (e.g. S & P 500 index) or energy related fund probably invests in BP. So do many dividend funds. So people should look carefully at their mutual funds and get rid of those which invest in BP.
Even if you don’t own mutual fund, how about pension funds? Does anybody have a pension from workplace? If so, does that invest in BP? Chances are it does. So they should try to get their company to divest itself of BP holdings.
Many posters here probably are invested in BP shares and don’t even know it.
Great, then should we hold you, personally, partially financially responsible for the events in the Gulf?
I don't disagree with you on this. The notion that shareholders should be on the hook is patently absurd hence my questions regarding if anyone uses petroleum products in any form (directly or indirectly).
I assume you read Blackleaf's article.. While it is (in my opinion) too much of an over reaction, the sentiment is bang-on.
I'm safe. BP products haven't been big sellers in Canada since PETRO-Canada took it with Gulf....
One could make the argument that even though you didn't directly support BP through shares, the product that enters the pipeline grid, is refined, marketed and distributed through the system is not "company" specific. The petroleum products you use are a cuvee of (probably) every oil company that sells into the North American system.
The defacto position is that everyone has/is using BP oil in form form or another and therefore, we are all directly liable for the disater in the Gulf.... (You do understand that I am taking this remarkably extreme position with sarcasm intended, right?)
I have already checked my mutual fund portfolio, and no I am not investing in BP.
But what are you going to do. Give up your shares????
So you use assumption to support your position? That's quite jocular.
We all live on Earth, don't we? Everything in relation between us and the planet is our responsibility, isn't it? Of course, we each aren't as responsible as those directly involved with the disaster, but we have a little bit and we will pay for the stupidity in our small ways.
I agree. It is absurd. But shareholders have to deal with their own consciences for supporting BP and its disaster.
The point is fair, however, let me put you on a hypothetical spot.
I understand that you have an electricity generation unit at your home that draws "power" from a waterway on your property (I think I read something by Anna to this effect).. My hypothetical, if the manufacturer of that technology experienced some form of catastrophic environmental disaster, would you have a crisis of conscience because you owned some of their tech?
Breaking news:
A consortium of oil, natural gas and coal-opponents invented a car with solar panels that work on cloudy days (and get more than 20 miles from one gallon of sun shine) and as an alternative they invented a way that would allow cars being propelled by wind-mills, getting more than 20 miles per one mile of wind velocity, mounted on the trunk.
It has been not only endorsed, but blessed by Al Gore, before he kicked his wife of 40 years in the teeth.
A consortium of oil, natural gas and coal-opponents invented a car with solar panels that work on cloudy days (and get more than 20 miles from one gallon of sun shine) and as an alternative they invented a way that would allow cars being propelled by wind-mills, getting more than 20 miles per one mile of wind velocity, mounted on the trunk.
It has been not only endorsed, but blessed by Al Gore, before he kicked his wife of 40 years in the teeth.
Al Gore is an idiot, so if he is endorcing something, I'll have to rethink it, lol.
No. Our business with the manufacturer of the turbine is done. If we were still paying for the thing, yes.
If we are still using BP oil then we are supporting BP. If we stopped using BP oil before the disaster, then no.
He may be an asshole but he is not an idiot. The people that bought into his carbon trading scam on the other hand.......
No, he's not an idiot, but he did misrepresent facts a lot but did so because he was misled poor just didn't understand. IMO, he's one up on Monckton, who misrepresents facts on purpose.
The Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1 Million Gallons
By: Kelly Thomas
Tags:
Corexit is lethal in as little as 2.6 parts per million where oil is lethal in 11 parts per million meaning that Corexit is over 4 times more toxic than oil.
Furthermore scientific studies show that oil dispersed with Corexit is 11 times more lethal than oil alone.
In fact the study referenced showed that crude oil was lethal at 4250 parts per million to killifish but combination of oil mixed with Corexit was lethal in as little as 317.7 ppm.
Top PR firm for BP tied to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Top-PR-firm-for-BP-tied-to-White-House-Chief-of-Staff-Rahm-Emanuel-95223369.html
Tags:
Over at The Next Right, the've pieced together some interesting connections about the White House's ties to British Petroleum, better known as the company currently polluting the Gulf of Mexico. We all know Obama was the biggest recipient of BP's campaign cash in Washington, but it seems BP's ties to the White House run even deeper.
According to The Next Right, PR firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner "helped BP plan and evaluate its successful re-branding campaign, focusing the company's branding on energy solutions, including the development of solar and other renewable energy sources."
By: Kelly Thomas
Tags:
- CONSUMER RIGHTS / PRODUCT REPORTS
- COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS/PROPAGANDA
- CURRENT EVENTS
- ECONOMY
- SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE
Corexit is lethal in as little as 2.6 parts per million where oil is lethal in 11 parts per million meaning that Corexit is over 4 times more toxic than oil.
Furthermore scientific studies show that oil dispersed with Corexit is 11 times more lethal than oil alone.
In fact the study referenced showed that crude oil was lethal at 4250 parts per million to killifish but combination of oil mixed with Corexit was lethal in as little as 317.7 ppm.
Top PR firm for BP tied to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Top-PR-firm-for-BP-tied-to-White-House-Chief-of-Staff-Rahm-Emanuel-95223369.html
Tags:
Over at The Next Right, the've pieced together some interesting connections about the White House's ties to British Petroleum, better known as the company currently polluting the Gulf of Mexico. We all know Obama was the biggest recipient of BP's campaign cash in Washington, but it seems BP's ties to the White House run even deeper.
According to The Next Right, PR firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner "helped BP plan and evaluate its successful re-branding campaign, focusing the company's branding on energy solutions, including the development of solar and other renewable energy sources."
Both of these characters are profiting from their respective misinformation. I think
that neither are dummies, and much of their misinformation isn't accidental.....
Yes, it is absolutely absurd to expect the owners of a business to take any responsibility for the way the business operates.
How about your pension. Does your pension invest in BP?
You mean like your hero, Limbaugh kicked his three wives in the teeth? Or like you idol, Gingrich, kicked his three wives in the teeth (and was having sex with his intern while his wife was lying in a hospital sick)? And how about your God, Reagan? Did he kick his first wife in the teeth?
Pension has S.F.A. to do with it. The retiree has very little (more than likely none) control over where the pension fund is invested. I suppose however when one firmly entrenches himself in a losing debate, a smoke screen may throw the dumbest people off for 30 seconds.