However, it should consider the investments in “green” carbon based matrials such as biodiesel or ethanol, that will maintain a similar energy market to the one it is already familiar with. The motivation to do so is the same as described in this article. If the future of renewable energy will turn out to be based on biofuels, I don;t think that the mass production of it will be in the consumers hands.

I’m glad at least you saw the sarcasm as gentle, which is how it was intended. I don’t at all expect we will reach agreement on this topic. I appreciate you posting your views and the supporting links.

But just because its wrong for big oil to make multibillion dollar investments in wind doesn’t mean it’s not right for other types of investors. Goldman Sachs bought the third largest US wind company several years ago and sold it to a Portuguese utility last year. There are plenty of people willing to invest in wind. It just doesn’t make large scale sense for oil companies. And I get that they have a PR problem. So what? Their job is to maximize returns legally to the pension funds and small investors who own the majority of their shares. If they can’t, they should return the money to shareholders via dividends or share buybacks.

Btw, it’s not appropriate to characterize this as the “other side.” I can be pro-wind and pro-alternative energy without assigning any special responsibility to oil companies.

You say, “When those [alternative] technologies are mature enough to have the risk profile demanded by oil company investors, and can support the type of investment that oil companies need to make (billions of dollars), the companies will invest more.” Then you go on to say that lack of capital is not the issue.

Your view doesn’t make any more sense to me than mine makes to you.

These technologies have been around for decades now. Individual people invest in them even though the price is still high. Why shouldn’t oil companies invest in them?

I don’t think people have misconceptions about oil companies, I think oil companies have a huge PR problem and there are lots of good reasons for that. That’s why they have expensive ads all over TV explaining how nice and innovative they are. Investing in alternative energy in a very public fashion would go a long way toward taking the edge off public resentment–It would be much more effective than websites, expensive ad campaigns, and stonewalling at Congressional hearings,

Thanks for sticking up for them though. It’s always admirable when someone steps forward and sticks up for the big guys.

Second, why do people always assume that oil companies don’t know what they’re doing with their cash? Exxon Mobil invested over $15 billion in its business last year. If it is opportunity-constrained, as it is, it should return money to shareholders so that they can invest in wind power or whatever they’d like. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what EM is doing through its stock repurchase plan.

Third, under what basis do you assume oil companies are not innovative? They are pure engineering and technology companies; there’s nothing simple about extracting oil from the middle of the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea. They have big R&D departments working on a variety of things: ever heard of bio-butanol? Google it; it was invented by BP. Chevron owns a large biodiesel plant in Texas. Shell first entered the solar business over a decade ago. Many oil companies have made investments in a variety of alternative energy technologies. When those technologies are mature enough to have the risk profile demanded by oil company investors, and can support the type of investment that oil companies need to make (billions of dollars), the companies will invest more. But as I said earlier, lack of capital is not the issue holding back the development of alternative energy in this country. As soon as the regulatory environment is clear and the economics make sense, the money for investment is there. Click on the link in my name for more on common misconceptions about the oil industry in the MSM.