Greenpeace activists close down BP stations in London

Sounds like Greenpeace are a bunch of morons really I wonder how many of their own relatives or even them themselves have pensions and the like invested with BP and they don't even realise it.

I also still think it's wrong the blame has been fully pushed on BP when it was American contractors did the damage and American safety laws that allowed it to happen at all. Saying that though the media has an agenda here hyping this up beyond all reason and wildly out of proportion.

If you let any big company legally cut corners they definitely will and it doesn't matter the business or type of company they would be in serious trouble with the boardroom if they did anything else.

In my opinion this disaster was absolute CERTAIN to happen and unless the safety laws are heavily changed it is also certain to happen again although hopefully next time it's Exxon so we can see the bias clearly.

reply to post by Mike_A


Well the comments in those links are actually quite disheartening. They still don't prove that there's a majority either way.

However... from the complaints of those posters it really does seem like Brits are a bunch of coddled whiners. "HOW DARE GREENPEACE INCONVENIENCE US AND 'MAKE' US CHOOSE WHICH PETROL STATIONS TO USE!!" As if there aren't OTHER options and as if Greenpeace is FORCING them to do anything??

Seriously, such comments just show that most people ENTIRELY miss the point of direct action and monkey-wrenching and don't actually give a crap about the larger issues in the world. Instead they're content with whiny, spoiled isolationist thinking... when they can't buy gas at a BP for a couple days in London... when those BP stations lose some money on those days. SO WHAT? Do these people even REALIZE what's going on in the world?? I think peoples' boring, bourgeois, everyday consumerist, go-to-work-come-home-watch-the-tele lifestyles have really packed their minds with a thick layer of fat. The world is going to sh** one way or another and the consumption of petroleum has a HUGE if not paramount role to play in it. Of course people would rather shut their eyes and doors and curl up pretending it's all just "rubbish" but it ain't. There are a multitude of wars going on whether you like it or not and sacrifices have to be made. If you and/or the rest of the motherland (or the new world for that matter) think they can perpetually sit comfortably living a modern first world lifestyle as if the world is not decaying then they've got another thing comin'. So many people see Greenpeace as hypocrites screwing around... but the reality is the reverse, the people milling about day to day pretending everything is alright and lambasting groups like Greenpeace so they can feel like tough-guys are the ones screwing around and their unthinking apathy is ten times worse than principled hypocrisy. I'm not saying everything Greenpeace does is perfect and glorious and noble, but for chrissakes at least they're doing SOMETHING and sticking their necks out when nobody else will. They are targeting the right people/entities and ya know what, it's not always pretty or convenient for the average consumer; And the way I see it- SO BE IT. We must wake up from the dream of globalized hyper-consumption before it wakes us up itself.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by NoHierarchy]

Originally posted by Teknikal
Sounds like Greenpeace are a bunch of morons really I wonder how many of their own relatives or even them themselves have pensions and the like invested with BP and they don't even realise it.

I also still think it's wrong the blame has been fully pushed on BP when it was American contractors did the damage and American safety laws that allowed it to happen at all. Saying that though the media has an agenda here hyping this up beyond all reason and wildly out of proportion.

If you let any big company legally cut corners they definitely will and it doesn't matter the business or type of company they would be in serious trouble with the boardroom if they did anything else.

In my opinion this disaster was absolute CERTAIN to happen and unless the safety laws are heavily changed it is also certain to happen again although hopefully next time it's Exxon so we can see the bias clearly.

No... TransOcean and American companies like Halliburton/Exxon should ABSOLUTELY feel the pain too.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by NoHierarchy]

I disagree some of what you wrote, but agree on others. I'll only reply to parts that actually pertain to the topic otherwise I'd be here all day.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Disrupting a bunch of franchises is not going to lower fossil fuel consumption by any reasonable amount - to the contrary - it might damage the whole movement because as this thread shows, it makes them come off as idiots. I guess, however, sometimes any publicity is good publicity?

As far as Greenpeace goes, I consider them responsible for the use of the dirtiest fossil fuel - coal.

[edit on 28/7/2010 by C0bzz]

The actual profit made by a franchisee on the sale of petrol(gas) is miniscule.

A bit more money is made on the sale of goods in the shop of the station itself.

Stopping the fuel will affect the sale of shop goods by only a small amount. There are still plenty of people who use the shop rather than getting petrol. Yes, a lot do both but many will be watching fuel prces for the 'best deal'.

Found this info;

Q How much profit does a gas station make per gallon of gasoline?

A according to the National Association of Convenience Stores. the average profit per gallon was in 2005 4q 2.7 cents on a markup of 12.7 cents per gallon

There was a 20-20 show (or maybe it was 60 minutes) i watched a year or so ago, when gasoline prices were going through the roof. I was surprised to learn that only like 2-3cents a gallon is the profit that the gas station actually makes.

This is a good subject, Gas companies ie. gas stations make there profit on the merchandise you buy from them not all on fuel.The more the barrel goes up the less the gas station makes after tax and delivery fees,the lower the barrel the more the margin goes up for the gas company. the gas companies do not have all the control on gas pries like folks think they do,that is the oil company and the good old government, I know for a fact that when gas prices were almost $5.00 a gallon that the gas station was losing .3 a gallon at gas prices today at 3.19 a gallon they are making .9 a gallon and i have good insight too this matter, also if you think the gas station makes money then why when gas hit 4.85 a gallon did more then 5000 gas station go out of business,

www.answerbag.com...

Fuel tax;

Fuel tax in the UK is constantly changing and has risen steadily over the last 15 years. Between 1993 and 1999 there was a rapid increase with duties on fuel increasing by 3% above inflation. This was due to a major change in petrol taxation in 1993 when the Conservatives introduced the Fuel Price 'escalator'. This was a way of the government making money and also to help protect the environment by discouraging people from using their cars.

This fuel escalator forced prices up from one of the lowest in Europe to now one of the most expensive. When it was first added, fuel prices rose by 3 pence a litre and tax contributed to 72.8% of the total cost. By 1997 the escalator had added 11.1p to the cost of unleaded petrol and was at 75%. It didn't get any better when the conservatives left office and Gordon Brown took over, as the escalator increased and 3 pence was added per litre. This took tax up to an incredible 81.5% of the total price of fuel.

www.petrolprices.com...

So there is a rough guide to just how much petrol stations make on the sale of fuel. BP and the government suffer far more from the actions of Greenpeace than the actual franchise does.

We are not aware of how many non-fuel sales these individual stations made in the affected hours of the fuel being stopped so we are not really in a position to say how badly, or not, these small businesses have suffered. From what I am seeing in these numbers, these 'convenience' stores suffered little inconvenience financially. But, even that is speculation just like many of our comments for, and against, the actions of Greenpeace.

reply to post by Extralien


That's the point. The petrol stations disrupted by Greenpeace need the incidential sales that are made by either local people or when fuel is purchased to survive.

And if I can not get fuel, I will go somewhere else. Maybe Tesco. That's a good small business. NOT. What a great idea Greenpeace. Drive people to a another global business that cares nothing for local and small businesses.

And I have yet to hear of any police action against those who stole the handles from the pumps. No doubt the Police will visit in a few days and decide not to take it further, leaving the business owner to suck it, rather than hitting the bully Greenpeace.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Strange that the majority of posters to this thread might come from the UK as it related directly to action in our capital city.

Guess what, not everyone gives a crap about the bigger picture, and are more focussed on what is going on locally. Something they can influence and impact.

Your post seems an attack at the NWO and the fact that we are not all up in arms. Newsflash - There are members on ATS who do not buy into the whole NWO thing, and prefer to focus and react to local issues.

If caring more for my local country man means you discribe me as a "coddled whiner", I will take it

And the bully boy tatics of Greenpeace make them no better than the the actions of the oil exploration and producing companies.

I guess the point is also that at least Greenpeace are ACTIVELY DOING SOMETHING. They clearly feel that they need to respond PHYSICALLY not just passively commenting on websites. I was with them on one occasion recently outside BP headquarters in London when they campaigned against the tarsands situation. The leader very courteously and respectfully let the security guard know that there would be Greenpeace folk handing out leaflets illustrating the repercussions of tarsand exploitation and there we were for a couple of calm hours (zero aggression or bullying) after which we gave signed petitions that had been collected in our respective boroughs to a head honcho guy. Because I was there, I was able to confront the BP guy IN PERSON re the GoM situation and the dispersants issue (that the EPA had asked BP to stop using CorExit etc). IN PERSON! Not writing on a forum " OOH, if I could meet so and so I'd give them a piece of my mind!" as you shake your fist at a computer screen... If a thing REALLY bothers you THAT much, integrity would dictate that you do more than just gripe and post messages. Whether shutting down petrol stations is your style or not, surely Greenpeace should be applauded for putting their money where their mouth is. Can you say the same?

[edit on 28-7-2010 by 5senses]

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Well the comments in those links are actually quite disheartening. They still don't prove that there's a majority either way.

Greenpeace do not have peoples support, you were wrong; their actions are alienating people exactly as I said. Don’t try and twist it.

Seriously, such comments just show that most people ENTIRELY miss the point of direct action

Well then answer my question from a couple of pages ago; what exactly has this achieved? As far as I can see nothing but bad publicity for Greenpeace. How has that helped the gulf?

Don’t insult the naysayers just because they don’t share your world view; just because they don’t think interfering with safety gear at a few petrol stations is a good idea doesn’t mean they don’t care about the outside world.

If you and/or the rest of the motherland (or the new world for that matter) think they can perpetually sit comfortably living a modern first world lifestyle as if the world is not decaying then they've got another thing comin'

Says the person happily burning through a ton of carbon and petroleum to lecture strangers half the world away on how dumb they are for supporting the oil industry. Get of your high horse.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Strange that the majority of posters to this thread might come from the UK as it related directly to action in our capital city.

Guess what, not everyone gives a crap about the bigger picture, and are more focussed on what is going on locally. Something they can influence and impact.

Your post seems an attack at the NWO and the fact that we are not all up in arms. Newsflash - There are members on ATS who do not buy into the whole NWO thing, and prefer to focus and react to local issues.

If caring more for my local country man means you discribe me as a "coddled whiner", I will take it

And the bully boy tatics of Greenpeace make them no better than the the actions of the oil exploration and producing companies.

I'm actually not big on the whole "NWO is out to get us" thing. I think there is some truth to it but I do not follow the conspiracy bandwagon, I have my own mind/thoughts on modern tyranny and I prefer to be scientific about it.

The bottom line is... the things you and I are doing AFFECT the globe. Simply our consumption/buying patterns do, not to mention everything else. So... it might suck to live in this modern world but we are STILL responsible for it and must accept that responsibility, both locally and globally. Being conscious, concerned, and active can absolutely better our lives.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Greenpeace do not have peoples support, you were wrong; their actions are alienating people exactly as I said. Don’t try and twist it.

Like I said- the comments don't prove a majority either way. You'd have to conduct a more scientific survey of populations to gauge support for Greenpeace.

Well then answer my question from a couple of pages ago; what exactly has this achieved? As far as I can see nothing but bad publicity for Greenpeace. How has that helped the gulf?

I can't tell you what EXACTLY it has achieved, but I surely do support AT LEAST the efforts. The results have yet to be seen and are never 100% predictable (nor could they be). But BP's new CEO STILL must have his balls squeezed at least SOMEHOW in order to send a message that we (the populace) are not screwing around... that we are watching him/BP and that they still must handle the spill and company practices from here on out responsibly and sustainably. The actions were a push to the new CEO to make good on promises of being "beyond petroleum" and REALLY invest and convert to renewables instead of languishing in the profits of dirty petroleum. Also remember- Greenpeace and organizations like it are some of the MOST INVOLVED in directly cleaning up the gulf and spreading awareness/gathering help. So when you ask how has it helped the Gulf- I say look into it yourself, every action has its place in changing the world for the better.

Don’t insult the naysayers just because they don’t share your world view; just because they don’t think interfering with safety gear at a few petrol stations is a good idea doesn’t mean they don’t care about the outside world.

What enrages me most about such naysayers is their blind rage towards Greenpeace without seemingly any rational consideration for the benefits/merits of their recent actions.

Says the person happily burning through a ton of carbon and petroleum to lecture strangers half the world away on how dumb they are for supporting the oil industry. Get of your high horse.

I'm not saying I'm this perfect, idyllic environmentalist... but not being 100% eco-friendly IN NO WAY precludes me from caring about these issues nor does it AT ALL preclude me from discussing them with others. I only support the oil industry with my very meager amount of money because I haven't been given any great alternatives. I don't think you realize that being born into our cultures means you're essentially LOCKED into them. It's not at all an easy decision to abandon it all... nor is it financially CHEAP to live off the grid. I do have my own personal eco-conscious practices, and I do wish to increase them and become more and more eco-friendly, but it takes time, money, and learning. Perhaps I'm on a high horse... but I've got a point.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Like I said- the comments don't prove a majority either way. You'd have to conduct a more scientific survey of populations to gauge support for Greenpeace.

Oh please stop, you were claiming support without any backing whatsoever; any means of measure available to us shows that most people disagreed with Greenpeace’s actions. To go back to the disputed comment, “it will alienate those who are affected”, the evidence shows that this was correct. You can state it any which way you like but the fact remains that anywhere that people have commented on this the majority view is negative. Whether it is the world majority or not it has alienated a hell of a lot of people.

I can't tell you what EXACTLY it has achieved, but I surely do support AT LEAST the efforts.

Followed by…

What enrages me most about such naysayers is their blind rage towards Greenpeace without seemingly any rational consideration for the benefits/merits of their recent actions.

By your own admission you can’t even say what it has achieved yet you’re angry at other people because they won’t consider the benefits?!

There is zero evidence of any benefit or merit behind this action; it has alienated people, it has disrupted people’s day, it has cost people money, it hasn’t helped anyone in the Gulf and there is no reason to believe that BP has taken any notice. In fact in relation to the latter, if BP has taken notice they’re probably quite buoyed by the backlash against Greenpeace.

The naysayers have sound reason for their complaints, you however have no reason for your blind support.

I'm not saying I'm this perfect, idyllic environmentalist... but not being 100% eco-friendly IN NO WAY precludes me from caring about these issues nor does it AT ALL preclude me from discussing them with others.

And not agreeing with some silly publicity stunt masquerading as moral action does not preclude anyone else from caring about the issues either. Yet according to you anyone who has expressed a disagreement with Greenpeace’s actions is a whiney, spoiled, isolationist.

I only support the oil industry with my very meager amount of money because I haven't been given any great alternatives.

So in other words you are just like everyone else except you’re better than them because you lecture people while you do it? Yeah the world really needs more people like you!

I don't think you realize that being born into our cultures means you're essentially LOCKED into them.

No it doesn’t, you could get off the internet for a start, how much energy do you think that uses up? How much oil goes into the production of all the components?

Things that absolutely, positively will never reduce the use of petroleum:
» Being a douchebag
» Irritating people who are just trying to get to their damn job
» Acting as some kind of self-appointed non-government environmental police
» Defacing the property of others
» Locking workers, owners and customers out of businesses that they have the right to be at
» Pretending you are some kind of warrior or somehow brave for being a douchebag

depletedcranium.com...#/

Last I checked, even the comments on Greenpeace (who sometimes censor the comments) were negative.



[edit on 29/7/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Oh please stop, you were claiming support without any backing whatsoever; any means of measure available to us shows that most people disagreed with Greenpeace’s actions. To go back to the disputed comment, “it will alienate those who are affected”, the evidence shows that this was correct. You can state it any which way you like but the fact remains that anywhere that people have commented on this the majority view is negative. Whether it is the world majority or not it has alienated a hell of a lot of people.

Here is exactly what I said, "Most people are probably cheering them on (unless they for some partisan reason can't muster a cheer for Greenpeace)". Note the word "probably", this means there is room for doubt. And I may be wrong, so what? My points still stand that outrage I've seen over Greenpeace's actions is WAY beyond rational. Also, we did not take a count of all the comments on those websites so neither of us actually know how many commenters support Greenpeace or not. If people are seriously THAT alienated over their actions... I'm seriously left scratching my head and dumbfounded. It honestly makes no sense to me, except the possibility that most of the outraged do not think about these issues much. And if London is anything like America in those regards, then that is probably the case. Most people I know or run into on a day to day basis are FAR from educated on these issues, and too many are proudly apathetic. It is somewhat understandable as human nature, but to me it's not excusable considering what we face. People cannot hide behind their ignorance and lambast people who target their preferred corporate chain-market, that's the world we live in and people cannot act as if the places they shop at do not have larger repercussions that may well be protested. Can you suggest a more effective method that would garner more public support?

I can't tell you what EXACTLY it has achieved, but I surely do support AT LEAST the efforts.

Followed by…

What enrages me most about such naysayers is their blind rage towards Greenpeace without seemingly any rational consideration for the benefits/merits of their recent actions.

By your own admission you can’t even say what it has achieved yet you’re angry at other people because they won’t consider the benefits?!

There is zero evidence of any benefit or merit behind this action; it has alienated people, it has disrupted people’s day, it has cost people money, it hasn’t helped anyone in the Gulf and there is no reason to believe that BP has taken any notice. In fact in relation to the latter, if BP has taken notice they’re probably quite buoyed by the backlash against Greenpeace.

The naysayers have sound reason for their complaints, you however have no reason for your blind support.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to know the full scope of the results! Is that not clear? Historically such actions HAVE had success in swaying the public, government, and/or businesses to change their behavior whether by stopping bad behavior or starting positive behavior. What are these people supposed to do? Yell out their windows and hope the new CEO of BP hears it?? NO! They must do something clever, public, and visible. It's not like they firebombed the damn gas stations (which, aside from the air pollution wouldn't exactly cause me to shed any tears for BP). You still don't realize the nature of protest, direct-action, and monkey-wrenching. Please do your homework on it AT LEAST, you may gain more respect for it instead of stagnating in how inconvenient a closed gas-station chain is to a fraction of drivers.

I am absolutely angry at people who won't consider the benefits. I can picture it, they go to pull into a gas station, they see Greenpeace shut it down, this conflicts with their tank-filling plans, they spit and curse and fume and this clouds their rational mind from deciding whether the larger issues trump the convenience of their commute for a portion of a day. Outrage is to be expected, however when put into context it's not really that important, it really just isn't. It's a minor pain in the a** for a number of Londoners, but they can always choose a different gas-station, there's really no difference between them.

And not agreeing with some silly publicity stunt masquerading as moral action does not preclude anyone else from caring about the issues either. Yet according to you anyone who has expressed a disagreement with Greenpeace’s actions is a whiney, spoiled, isolationist.

The notion that it was a "silly publicity stunt masquerading as moral action" is your opinion and you're entitled to it. But would you rather they get very serious or violent? The very nature of such actions is to be non-violent, somewhat mischievous, but for the right reasons. This is why people free animals from testing labs or graffiti a political poster or create a flash mob or liberate a billboard... it's largely innocent, it all has its place, it's fun/effective and it's better than doing nothing. I must ask you one thing though- if the outraged motorists truly cared about the issue... why the hell were they buying gas at BP?? And don't give me that "to keep them buoyant so they can pay for the cleanup" propaganda. Yeah, that is the impression I get from the raging comments about Greenpeace's actions- they're being whiny and spoiled about their "right" to shop at BP for a day or two and they're being isolationist by pretending BP's actions aren't their problem/concern... as they buy the petroleum supplied by them.

So in other words you are just like everyone else except you’re better than them because you lecture people while you do it? Yeah the world really needs more people like you!

When did I say I was "better than everyone else"? Like I said, this stuff needs to be discussed and people made aware and people who shut their ears to facts then take a stance on them are ridiculous.

No it doesn’t, you could get off the internet for a start, how much energy do you think that uses up? How much oil goes into the production of all the components?

Using the internet/computer uses up relatively SQUAT for energy. I rarely EVER buy new things at all, let alone electronics.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Here is what you said;

Greenpeace is actually doing something good, of substance and to the CORRECT target (P.1 posted on 27-7-2010 @ 09:34 AM)

To which I said;

Says who? Who are they or you to decide what is good, of substance and what the correct target it?

...

it will only serve to alienate those who are affected (P.1 posted on 27-7-2010 @ 09:50 AM)

Your reply was;

Says just about everyone on the planet with half a heart and mind.

...

It won't alienate those affected... how you do you even surmise that?? Most people are probably cheering them on (unless they for some partisan reason can't muster a cheer for Greenpeace). (P.1 posted on 27-7-2010 @ 10:40 AM)

The underlined section is what is contentious. I based my opinion that Greenpeace’s actions would be alienating on the significant negative reaction found anywhere that the public have commented.

Unless you completely ignore this negative reaction your point does not stand.

It honestly makes no sense to me, except the possibility that most of the outraged do not think about these issues much. And if London is anything like America in those regards, then that is probably the case. Most people I know or run into on a day to day basis are FAR from educated on these issues, and too many are proudly apathetic.

This quote answers this one...

When did I say I was "better than everyone else"?

You keep talking as though you are the only one who cares about these issues and that anyone who disagrees with you about this action must therefore by an apathetic, whining, isolationist; your words not mine.

You seem to blindly refuse to even entertain the possibility that this action has done more harm than good to any cause that Greenpeace held.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to know the full scope of the results! Is that not clear?

I’m not asking you to quote BP board members or provide a graph of their profits and how shutting twelve stations has impacted on them. All I’m asking is for you to tell me what affect you think this action is likely to have achieved and provide some evidence or at least some logic.

So far all we’ve had is “this was a good move, I don’t know why or what it might have done to help but thank god they did it!” It’s nonsense.

I am absolutely angry at people who won't consider the benefits.

You don’t even know the benefits yourself! You are a blind cheerleader.

The notion that it was a "silly publicity stunt masquerading as moral action" is your opinion and you're entitled to it. But would you rather they get very serious or violent?

No I’d rather they do something that was a bit better thought out. If someone could articulate what this action has done to help then I could support it but so far the only thing that it seems to have done is piss off a lot of Londoners.

I must ask you one thing though- if the outraged motorists truly cared about the issue... why the hell were they buying gas at BP?? And don't give me that "to keep them buoyant so they can pay for the cleanup" propaganda

You miss the point, it is their choice, not Greenpeace’s and not yours. Maybe they don’t care; maybe they do but don’t believe a boycott would be helpful, maybe I wasn’t talking about the motorists but everyone else who is against the action. Whatever Greenpeace has no right to do what they did.


To summarise; you think Greenpeace was right, you don’t know why or what good it has done, their action can’t be shown to have helped the clean up, there’s no evidence that it has affected BP in any way, it won’t help get anyone compensation, it has annoyed a large number of people, it almost certainly cost innocent people time and money, it doesn’t seem to have increased scrutiny of BP, it has turned some people against Greenpeace, but nevertheless they were right.

reply to post by Mike_A


I won't rewrite what's already written better. Here are a couple links on direct-action, monkeywrenching, and a couple articles specific to BP/Greenpeace:

affinityproject.org...

affinityproject.org...

www.gbw247.info...

c4ss.org...

Saw on the news yesterday that while BP's profits dropped dramatically in the past quarter, Shell and Exxon saw a doubling of their profits.

www.bbc.co.uk...

So, in other words, we boycott one evil and give all our money to another.

Hmmm.....

Perhaps this (the bp/gulf fiasco) was all perpetuated by BP's competitors? Probably not but...

follow the moola...