“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Let us stipulate that (1) global warming is real, (2) it is caused by human activity, (3) keeping car-drivers dependent on fossil fuels makes it worse, and (4) all of (1-3) are firmly and clearly established facts. (I should add that this is in fact approximately my opinion. But that isn’t the point right now.) None the less, we should expect that senior people in companies like British Petroleum do not believe (1-4). Anyone who does is likely not to seek a career as a senior oil-industry executive; anyone in such a career will be very strongly motivated not to believe those things. Conversely, they will be strongly motivated to believe (e.g.) that electric vehicles are not ready for prime time, that their current weaknesses (e.g., limited range because of limited battery capacity) are very important, etc.
Therefore, the tradeoff they will see is not the one you describe. They will see that prolonging the dominance of fossil-fuel-based vehicles (1) makes them more money, (2) keeps their employees’ jobs going, (3) keeps consumers driving vehicles that are actually better suited to their needs, but (4) exposes them to some ill-informed criticism from tree-hugging environmentalists.
In which case it’s not so surprising if they do it.
(There is another possible position, which I know some people in finance hold: “Yes, my job is probably on balance harmful to the world. But it earns me a shedload of money, and I am donating a lot of it to effective charities, and the net effect is more positive than I could have achieved working in a different job.” That’s an uncomfortable sort of argument to make, and doubtless sometimes people make it insincerely, but I bet it’s sometimes correct.)
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Let us stipulate that (1) global warming is real, (2) it is caused by human activity, (3) keeping car-drivers dependent on fossil fuels makes it worse, and (4) all of (1-3) are firmly and clearly established facts. (I should add that this is in fact approximately my opinion. But that isn’t the point right now.) None the less, we should expect that senior people in companies like British Petroleum do not believe (1-4). Anyone who does is likely not to seek a career as a senior oil-industry executive; anyone in such a career will be very strongly motivated not to believe those things. Conversely, they will be strongly motivated to believe (e.g.) that electric vehicles are not ready for prime time, that their current weaknesses (e.g., limited range because of limited battery capacity) are very important, etc.
Therefore, the tradeoff they will see is not the one you describe. They will see that prolonging the dominance of fossil-fuel-based vehicles (1) makes them more money, (2) keeps their employees’ jobs going, (3) keeps consumers driving vehicles that are actually better suited to their needs, but (4) exposes them to some ill-informed criticism from tree-hugging environmentalists.
In which case it’s not so surprising if they do it.
(There is another possible position, which I know some people in finance hold: “Yes, my job is probably on balance harmful to the world. But it earns me a shedload of money, and I am donating a lot of it to effective charities, and the net effect is more positive than I could have achieved working in a different job.” That’s an uncomfortable sort of argument to make, and doubtless sometimes people make it insincerely, but I bet it’s sometimes correct.)