It is folly for anyone to "demand" that a corporation take a particular action, unless they are an owner of that company. In the US, we have "demanded," through governemnt agencies, that all new refineries meet standards that are so expensive and restrictive that we have not built a new refinery in the US in over thirty years. Hence, when we lost refining capacitry due to a hurricane, oil prices in the US market shyrocketed as a result of low supply and typical demand. That's economics, 101. When uninfomred and "demanding" persons have not vested themselves in the outcome, they are not diligently guiding, but are instead "dabbling." We did a lot of "dabbling" as activists in the 1970's here in America. In retrospect, we can see that those who wish to limit corporate activity are pushing a collectivist agenda, one which has proven to fail to advance the interests of any country or region on earth.
As citizens, the demands we make come in the form of votes. In that sitaution, your legal citizenship is your vestment in the outcome, and your responsibility is to be fully informed and see the "big picture." If you vote to impose your view in an area where you and your legislators lack expertise, you set yourself up for failure.
An oil crisis preciptated by Iran is not catalytic, because it is not a matter of postponing the inevitable. First, we have energy available for hundreds of years. Not all of that is fossil fuels, but the available oil amount is MUCH greater than environmentalists pose, because to accurately characterize the oil stores does not serve their socio-political agenda, one which is anti-induistrial and anti-capitalist. Second, it is the enlightened self-interest of the future health of energy companies that will drive the use of profits to develop new energy sources and delivery chains. Government is the worst entity of all to make dictates in this area, because it is a source of pressure based on imprression and opninion rather than fact and business dynamics. In other words, when liberal citizens and legislators pass laws to tell energy companies how they should operate, they are placing their non-professional, political opinions into positions of power that have not been earned as learned entities in that business, and may in fact force companies to operate in a less efficient and less practical manner, leading to a less than optimum response to future energy needs. Almost certainly, the end result is to limit investment in that industry because of the increased costs and decreased profits, and that limits the progress you would otherwise like to see as stockholders and citizen consumers. Then, other countries that rely on the greater wisdom of the marketplace are left to take the lead for future energy needs, while the legislating country is hampered by higher consumer costs and less corporate innovation.
If we suffer an oil "shortage," it will be because it will have been too inconvenient or unsightly to produce our own energy sources here in this hemisphere due to social and environmnetal regulatory restrictions. In this way we allow Iran to make itself a poteential "cause" of the shortage because we have legislated ourselves out of production and development. If there is a "cataylist," it is how we have limited ourselves through our governments so that we must rely on an unstable region for our energy, one that can "cause" a shortage of supply through acts of evil and cultural defect.
If Toyota's Camry has become the most popluar car here, it is because they produced a product based on market demand, not government fiat. Remember, the best the government could do here for automotive innovation was the Chrysler K-car and the Omi-Horizon.
