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.
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.
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.
You know that you can take strollers on buses and trains, right?
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.
Who lives in a bubble?
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/B...
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)