Eco-investments are wise investments as soon as they pay dividends. Just like buying shares of stock, if it pays me nothing back I'm wasting money buying it. The moment Exxon or another company finds a way to earn money spending it on eco-friendly stuff, they will. Some might argue that they would oppose anything that cuts their oil sales, but I'm talking as a net-sum, if they can earn money on anything (ie, some fuel that sells for less, that still uses their existing infrastructure), why wouldn't they? They don't care about selling oil anymore than anyone else wants to sell their own product, its just how they can make a living. These huge container ship companies have stumbled on an eco-investment that is going to save them mega-bucks. The government could have forced them into some un-profitable (monetarily speaking) eco-investment, creating bad feelings, decades of lawsuits and a bad attitude towards all things "eco". The shipper's "greed" for more profits for shareholders and CEOs, and an awareness of the environment brought them to a voluntary idea that helps everybody. Turning lights off to save power, driving slower, bicycling to work, are all eco-investments that people do to put more money in their pocket at the end of the day. Greed isn't always a bad thing. When some new technology looks promising to cut emissions while saving net-sum dollars (including loss of obsolete resources), you can bet any company would jump on it. Up to that moment its a net-loss to both the company and society (scrapping valuable existing equipment/operations), and thus is not pursued voluntarily.
Don't take what I said in the wrong way, I just tend to go back to the larger picture when discussing things like oil profits.
