It is difficult to find words adequate to describe the travesty of the oil spill in the Gulf. A disaster of unprecedented proportions, the response has been anything but. The pictures of the wildlife and habitat destroyed by the spill are heartrending, and the testimonials from the human victims are moving beyond description. The mere inability to articulate the disaster, much less the inability to help with the relief effort, is infuriating.
The oil has just stopped gushing out a mile under the surface; efforts to address the spill, untested contingency plans which were never intended for use, are still being made on the fly. The lack of preparation on the part of the oil companies is inexcusable. The government shares some responsibility as well; the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (n?e the Mineral Management Service) should not have been issuing permits without thoroughly investigating the consequences of a worst-case scenario.
With such an integral part of this country threatened, there is a frustrating sense of helplessness among the populace, though some are doing their part. The Coast Guard and BP are leading cleanup efforts along with volunteers from the Gulf region. Efforts to help wildlife are being undertaken by properly trained volunteers. However, there is no readily available volunteer experience through which one can cathartically express one’s anger at the situation. The most an individual can do, it seems, is to support the Gulf through tourist dollars.
The impetus for the BP boycott stems from these frustrations. BP was totally unprepared for this disaster, and the company’s figurehead is, well, Tony Hayward. It is BP’s oil that is taking a sledgehammer to the economy, wildlife and habitat of the Gulf, therefore BP should be held accountable, and wouldn’t a boycott do just that? BP would lose money, which is presumably the language corporations are most fluent in.
The boycott is targeting BP gas stations, the most visible sign of BP’s presence in the United States. But boycotting BP stations hurts the independent gas station owners who have contracted with BP. Instead of hurting the CEOs, the boycott is mostly affecting the bottom line of the gas station owners, and there is not much they can do. Gas stations cannot simply break their contracts with BP — the contracts are legally binding and many owners cannot afford the fees they would incur for breaking the contract. Furthermore, breaking the contract would leave gas stations without a supply of gas, an undesirable situation for any gas station. In many towns, there are multiple gas stations, which would make it even more difficult for a gas station to simply switch gas suppliers. The boycott hurts independent gas station owners more than it hurts BP in any monetary sense.
BP does not just produce gasoline to sell in BP gas stations. BP produces solar power, Castrol motor oil, industrial lubricants and other petroleum-based products, such as asphalt. A true boycott of BP would include all products touched by BP petroleum. Such a boycott would require a wealth of information that is hard to track down. Also, BP gas is not just sold in BP gas stations; it is also sold in Amoco and Aral stations, and is sometimes even mixed with gas from other companies and sold in those gas stations as well.
A boycott of BP does not mean that Americans are not buying gasoline or any other products derived from fossil fuels. Instead, a boycott means that Americans are buying those products from other companies. The alternatives? The top three U.S. oil companies are Exxon Mobile, ConocoPhillips and Chevron. Exxon Mobile’s environmental track record is not so good either — they were responsible for the spill in Prince William Sound that formerly held the record for the worst oil spill in America. A Chevron subsidiary, Texaco Petroleum, was dumping oil into rivers in Ecuador for 22 years, destroying wildlife, habitat and the health of residents. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ConocoPhillips is responsible for dozens of Superfund sites — places where hazardous materials have simply been dumped, threatening local ecosystems and residents. In short, there are no environmentally friendly oil companies, so turning to BP alternatives is not really helping to inspire change.
Anger at BP is warranted; indeed, if anyone is not angry, they have not been paying attention. A boycott, however, will not dissolve any of the causes of the anger. A boycott will not hurt BP’s bottom line, nor does avoiding BP gas stations truly avoid all BP products. Finally, there aren’t any good alternatives to BP. BP’s disaster does not lessen the environmental havoc wreaked by other oil companies. The only boycott that can be truly effective is one of all fossil-fuel products and derivatives.
Elise Swanson ([email protected]) is a sophomore with an undecided major.
