Come on, now. Even if you do not believe these companies have been major contributors to AGW, or just pollution in general, working hard (behind the scenes) to push back on green-ish energy and BEV adoption, surely this is a problem.
If candidates for office advocate for reasonable solutions that leave big oil out of the picture, these companies will have the leverage to put that shit right down. This looks to me like a massive failure of our economic system.
I’d say it’s more a failure of the political system, that allows big money to buy elections, and jerrymandered legislatures to pack supreme courts with anti-democratic justices.
That is, the fact that these corporations are in possession of oceans of cash is one issue, but it would be a much smaller issue if they couldn’t use it to such nefarious ends.
I don’t have a proposed solution to either issue, by the way. I frankly don’t think any solution that would work would ever be approved or implemented. The way things are going, it would take revolution to change a trend that has been ongoing at least since Reconstruction, and I would not be sanguine about the possibilities of improvement based on armed conflict.
Here’s a few other little factoids. ExxonMobil’s gross revenues are so obscenely huge that they prefer not to widely quote them, talking in most of their public summaries about “earnings” instead. Their gross income in 2022 was in fact $414 billion, and to put that in perspective, that’s larger than the entire GDP of most countries. Only the world’s top 36 economies have higher gross national product; 180 countries produce less, and on average, much less. Exxon has so much cash that they literally don’t know what to do with it; in 2022, they spent $15 billion to buy back their own shares, and another $35B of share buybacks are slated for 2023-24.
What to do about this kind of obscene concentration of corporate wealth? Obviously, the right thing to do is offer them $12 billion to $19 billion annually in federal handouts, with taxpayer subsidies projected to amount to as much as $196 billion over the next decade. 
Once upon a time (though well within most of our lifetimes), corporations could not buy back their own stocks, meaning much of that cash used to go to things like…paying employees and for infrastructure and capital improvements and such.
Too bad that was such a long, long time ago that we couldn’t imagine our economic system working that way.
Why shouldn’t we be more interested in their profit than in their gross revenue? The difference is the cost to them of the products they sell. Gross revenue is a good measure of how much they are selling, but not of how rich they are.
Given that what they sell is damaging to the planet and the living beings on it, how much they are selling is a matter of intense policy interest. But that is a different issue.
Yes, but that’s the source of those massive cash reserves.
They don’t come about if the company is breakeven or losing money.
It depends what you want to measure. In some quarters of some years their reported earnings were negative. Does that mean they were poor? Gross revenue is, as you say, a measure of how much they’re selling, and also correlated with the magnitude of the resources they control, like people, natural resources, and goods and services. It’s comparable to the GDP of nations, and provides a yardstick for showing that the economic power of this one corporation dwarfs most nations on the planet.