[azinman2]

It shouldn’t be a surprise. They’re an oil and gas company, with gigantic investments in that space, a culture that supports it, knowledge to do it, politics solved for it, and a crap ton of inertia.

The expectation that they’d pivot is far less likely than likely. This isn’t a sector known for disruption outside of new ways to extract.

[csnover]

The insane thing about this is to me that Exxon did seem to have ideas about pivoting away from oil and gas in the 1970s[0]. They funded research that brought down the cost of solar panels five-fold and started manufacturing and selling their own panels[1], they developed the lithium-ion battery[2], and they created subsidiaries for servicing the nuclear power industry[3], among other things.

I’ve never understood the obstructionist position of these oil execs. If you want to make a shitload of money, why not push for development of some emerging industry like renewables where all the infrastructure has to be built up from nothing? That could be money you are getting paid to build it. Instead, now it’s money going to some other company.

[0] https://www.desmog.com/s1ep1-bell-labs-energy/

[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-...

[2] https://www.bupipedream.com/news/49390/prof-whittingham/

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/14/archives/exxons-innovativ...

[Bluestrike2]

Despite having all sorts of advantages (a head start and patents for batteries and renewable energy tech, robust research capabilities, etc.) and a literal roadmap of how climate change would play out, they realized that it was easier and less risky--for them, at least--to maintain the status quo. After all, once you've started a revolution, there's no guarantee that you'll keep control of it.

A long, slow transition that started in the 70s would have been, if not painless, then close enough to it that the pain was easily managed. Worries about stranded assets? By the time the transition was over, they'd have been near the end of their expected lifespans anyways. New, more nimble competitors popping up? They could just acquire them.

Lost revenue? Please. They convinced the world not to take action on climate change, and even managed to hoodwink one of the two major political parties in the US that climate change didn't even exist in the first place. Persuading politicians and the public to support mindbogglingly massive federal subsidies to fund the transition away from fossil fuels would have been easy in comparison. And probably cheaper, for that matter.

I mean, my god. I can just imagine the marketing and PR angle: The industry that chose to end itself to save humanity's future. We'd have shoveled money at them, and thanked them for the privilege.

Had they been willing, they could have pushed for an energy transition that, in the end, would have likely been as profitable or even more profitable than what they managed since they first understood just how catastrophic climate change would be. Instead, they chose to merely delay the inevitable. They'll still face the very consequences that scared them off of acting on climate change, only they'll be worse due to the shortened window of action.

The only difference is that the executives who first made that decision will likely not be around for it.

[teddyh]

The first digital camera was (AFAIK) made by Kodak. The modern desktop computer was largely invented by Xerox. Both companies failed to follow through.

[nsriv]

The idea is to become so big by selling oil that you are essentially paid/begged to create the new industry that solves the problem, thereby giving you first-mover advantage in the new era. The obstructionist stuff is a little bit performative for shareholders, but there will be an inflection point in their public attitudes. Unfortunately it'll be past the inflection point for favorable living conditions.

[brmgb]

It’s not an either/or situation. Most of the Big Oil companies have significant investments in renewable power. It’s just that oil is insanely profitable, to a point which is hard to grasp so it dwarfs whatever else they do.

[fwungy]

Private oil companies like Exxon are only about 10% of oil production. The biggies are the state oil companies, on which state wealth depends. They aren't going to give that up.