> Good! Employees should have a say in how their labor is used.
The demand is "no business with them", not "no oil supporting business with them".
If Big Oil (and they're all looking into how to survive in a "beyond petroleum" future, to adapt the slogan BP espoused for a while) wants to use the cloud to do material science modelling (to pick some arbitrary possible use of cloud resource that an energy carrier company could have) or use map data to determine suitable places to help them transition off oil into renewables, they should pay somebody else for that service?
(Disclosure: I work at Google, not in Cloud, haven't seen that letter, didn't sign that letter, don't have a car [or other direct dependency on oil] and am looking into renewables myself, although not at the level of doing material science)
It's very much a solved-many-times-over problem. Search the following terms: bike child seat, extracycle, bakfiets, Burley, kid bike tag along. Those will take you all the way from infancy to big enough to ride their own bike. You wouldn't need all of those, but you could probably buy one of each for a total cost of less than 1/4 the cost of one car.
Your baby entitles you to drive, thereby endangering and impoverishing everyone around you? Yeah you're right, there's an out-of-control sense of selfish entitlement in America.
Many houses located in towns and suburbs across the entire United States have no public transportation. I suppose we should vilify all those who decided to live 20 miles away from a hospital and don't wish to ride a bike that far after giving birth. I won't comment further as I see no point in the discussion.
What in the world gave you the impression that they were being self-centered or entitled? They literally just said they don't have a car as context for their statement.
The bit about the car (which might change soon, but that would be a small EV, so still not oil-bound), within the context of all the other disclosures, was mostly to say that I'm not "pro oil" in any way, even when I seem to argue against Googlers asking Google to choose its customers in a certain way.
> I think there is a self-centered entitled view around the USA which to me, seems out of control.
That's usually the argument used when Americans say they need a car, because they lack public transport. For people living in say Copenhagen it's completely possible to have children and not own a car.
This seems only tangentially relevant ... babies can be transported just as well in prams, pushchairs, on buses, trains, aircraft, hovercraft, or even specially adapted cargo bicycles. Some of my more eco-conscious acquaintances have "Bakfiets" bikes for this purpose.
You can still own a car and advocate for renewable energy, better public transit, better cycling infrastructure, etc. You are right that most people in the US are forced or at least highly encouraged to own a car. It is not hypocritical to advocate for car free living while still owning one, since it is the only option in many places.
You must live in a huge bubble if you really don't know anyone without a car who has kids. The majority of the parents that live near me don't own cars.
You know that you can take strollers on buses and trains, right?
The majority of parents that live near me own cars. Anecdata is kind of useless here.
In 2017, the American Communittmy Survey showed that of the 46m households with 3+ people, approximately 44 million had 1 vehicle and 16 million had 3 or more vehicles.
If you see two parents and a child in America, it's more likely one of them thinks the moon landing is a hoax than that they do not own a car.
Clearly it's not flat-out impossible to have children without a vehicle if millions of people are doing it, by your own stats!
And those stats aren't suitable for this purpose (they're undercounting my millions more), as there are many one parent households, plus many parents who live in a household with others but who don't own cars themselves.
2 person households, 38 million with 1+ cars, 2 million without.
4+ person households are almost as likely to have 4 or more cars as 0 or 1 cars.
Single person households are almost as likely to have 2 or more cars as no car at all. (The dominant number of vehicles by far is, of course, 1.)
Of the 85 million households with more than one person, only 3 million have no cars at all. You can "undercount" and adjust all you want, you're talking 5%, maybe 7% maximum of "parents without cars."
Of course it's possible, in a few scattered geographic areas with high density and convenient public transit. But that's not almost any of America.
The demand is "no business with them", not "no oil supporting business with them".
If Big Oil (and they're all looking into how to survive in a "beyond petroleum" future, to adapt the slogan BP espoused for a while) wants to use the cloud to do material science modelling (to pick some arbitrary possible use of cloud resource that an energy carrier company could have) or use map data to determine suitable places to help them transition off oil into renewables, they should pay somebody else for that service?
(Disclosure: I work at Google, not in Cloud, haven't seen that letter, didn't sign that letter, don't have a car [or other direct dependency on oil] and am looking into renewables myself, although not at the level of doing material science)