444 By Susan Ariel Aaronson and David Deese With a reaction by ...

YouTube, and nor did Kodak popularize digital photography. It is precisely because thesemajor corporations were too deeply invested in their legacy systems that they have beenso poor in promoting step changes in related businesses. Would oil companies fare betterin the stated goals of diversifying energy supply away from oil and gas and in achievingefficiency gains in energy consumption?Furthermore, the best estimates are that it would take at least 20 to 30 years beforethe world can shift decisively from a reliance on oil and gas as energy sources, given thevast scale involved. Therefore, IOCs have a big continuing responsibility to provide theoil and gas that will be needed during this period. Why not leave oil companies to dowhat they know best, which is to deploy technology, capital, and skilled manpower toextract oil and gas and to process and deliver them to market? What economic efficiencywould be gained by asking oil companies to diversify? If the industry is under-investingin this area, would society not be better served by oil companies passing along thoseprofits through higher dividends or higher taxes so they are available for investment inalternative energy and conservation through either capital markets or governmentsponsoredresearch and development?American Oil Companies and Climate ChangeThis is an intriguing question: the relative responsibility of government or theprivate sector in an area that directly impacts its business. Comparing European andAmerican companies, the authors suggests that the more progressive behavior on the partof BP, Shell and Statoil may be in response to home governments’ and EU guidelines. Sois the absence of such political consensus, until recently, in the US the reason forAmerican IOCs’ hesitancy?470