The oil giants have been control and enjoyed huge profits for a very long time, don't image they plan on just stepping aside. The oil producing countries have way too much control over the profits, must be something in the works to turn things around.
That's true, but you're the first person I've known to suggest that the current trend towards alternative energy is somehow driven by the oil companies. I'm not saying you're wrong, but my impression is that that's taking the oil companies' conspiracies (and they do conspire) to one step beyond reality.
They ran an episode of a show we have here called the Fifth Estate, which is an investigative journalism show (kind of like 60 minutes, I think, although I haven't watched enough of 60 minutes to know for sure). The episode was all about this issue and how it's been playing out in Canada. There's been a movement of so-called scholars in Canada speaking out against global warming, but certain details of these scholars are not lending any credibility to their arguments. First, they're being sponsored by oil companies and right-wing politicians. Second, many may have PhDs, but don't have any qualifications specifically in the field they're criticizing (so they're essentially PhD padding used to confuse and insulate from their (or oil companies') skeptics). Third, the PhDs who do have qualifications in the field (e.g. climatology) do not have any published research to support their claims - in short, these people are just sharing their (paid for) opinions, and they're not backing anything up with credible research. For those of you who might not know, to be a credible researcher or expert in your field you must publish your research in a scholarly journal supported by your field's peers. That is, you must submit your work for scrutiny by a common body in your field. Anything else is just your opinion, and unfortunately there are very few laws limiting anyone's ability to pass their own opinions off as facts or accepted theories in their field. If you want me to believe what you're saying as an expert, give me a reference to a scholarly (not corporate or politically funded) journal in your field to back your claims.
Further to the connection between right-wing parties in Canada and the U.S. (and elsewhere) and large corporations like oil companies. This connection should not be viewed as any kind of conspiracy theory in itself, in fact, it shouldn't even come as surprising. The right-wing in the last century has always forwarded the advancement of select individuals in favour over the common interests of the general public. That's just what they do by definition - whether you think that's evil or not is up to you. Naturally, individuals (be they corporations or real people) inclined to exploit the means available to advance their own interests are going to gravitate towards an ethos (i.e. political party) that supports that interest, rather than towards one that challenges it (i.e. via the socialist interests of the left-wing). Inversely, right-wing political parties (and their individual members) will seek similar individuals (be they real people or corporations) that advance their agenda, meaning their agenda both in the political sphere and as individuals. It should be of no surprise to anyone that George W. et al, the oil industry, and military suppliers are bedfellows. George is looking out for #1 (himself), and likewise those industries. That's what they do - it's the ethos of those individuals to advance their own interests over other folks'. That's not conspiracy theory, in fact, that's what those party members and corporations will explicitly tell you what they're all about.
Political opinion is all just a measure of how much you buy into that. Sure, it has its charm and arguments - most obviously, the selling point of any individual's freedom to advance their own agenda. I think my concern, and what I would hope would be anyone's concern regardless of where they identify themselves on the scale of political opinion, is being fully aware of what the cost of that freedom is. What expense am I willing to pay to forward my own agenda? In the end, do I have any advantage over other people who perhaps have more momentum than I do in forwarding their own agendas? Will I myself become an expense sacrificed in the cost of fowarding someone else's agenda? Under the spreading chestnut tree...
