Who are/were worse, the big evil oil barons of yesteryear or the sun worshippers of today?

A fairer comparison might be the equally contemporary, climate alarmists verses climate deniers. Especially given we now have access to information with unique ease compared to the time at which the big evil oil barons piqued. However, the comparative exposure in the times we now live of both the above finds a discrepancy far wider: The alarmists sit front and centre in the media resembling the societal importance big oil was given. The power of both being monikers of their respective times. Public dislike of methods given similar air time also. Although their overall messages: We need oil to create jobs and improve livelihoods to we need to do *something* to save the planet, both seldom being up for dispute. "Deniers" do not really get any airtime for messages and findings let alone approaches to be delved into. 

Creating a set of criteria would be difficult: desires and motivations behind actions being unknowable for certain. Who flew in the face of the mantra "live and let live" the most? This would seem to have bias in favour of the alarmists, given their well documented, if self reported, caring and empathetic nature. Love is love, inclusivity and so on. Let's see how the big bad barons fare in this oil-rigged game. 

To not have your toes treaded on by the respective group, you would merely have to not work in that particular field. Right? Not so, if you live in big cities these days. Seldom does a day go by without a green rebellion gluing themselves to the ground or sitting in front of waiting traffic. But is this fair? Didn't big oil have government backing, so drastic actions are needed to battle such an empire? Well, no, not totally. Whereas big green rebels' very sentiments are echoed almost verbatim by todays government. And corporations. Going back to that word, rebellion...can you really call yourselves a revolutionary vanguard when you're sponsored by coca-cola? 

When the oil barons were digging it was mostly in otherwise unpopulated areas and land. What about tax subsidies? How much went to big oil? The amount seemed to depend on the supply. Which has been known to be fabricated by governments to control flailing economies and line their own pockets. This is evident, as is the impact of oil leaks, pre-planned or otherwise. The benefits to the fat cats seems far more likely even than this when you look at big greens' lack of visable benefit aside from maybe bird killing wind turbines. The best part of a million per year according to most studies. 

How about advertisements? Of course we know favourable billboards were abundant when big oil wasn't the culprit for everything wrong with the planet. That's big oil and fossil fuels of course. Not tectonic plates shifting, sun spots, earths axis of rotation or volcanic eruptions. Turning on any Television station today puts billboards, potentially some radio ads, on the bottom of the undercard minimized entirely by the headliner that is the constant slew of carbon emission wary and climate change adverts. Their cheaper production costs and positive press from being so good to the planet surely just being an unaccounted for side effect.

What about benefactors and shareholders enabled by each of these behemoths? Could they, fueled by either big green or big oil, cause harm to people? Whom is most guilty? 

The answer is yes. And both. The population control group, headed by The Rockerfellers and others, a group of eugenicists, felt stunted in their ability to justify population control following the industrial revolution. They used funds raised by big oil and their monopoly on fuel to create pseudoscience to give them reason to cull people. When this guise no longer worked, was overturned in courts, they changed their tact. The aim: Depletion of "germ plasm" or the little old lady who cannot afford to heat her home, towns and cities running out of energy or, having already "gone green", finding that energy not fit for purpose. Big green became the new, very effective, front. 

Maurice Strong had hands in both pies. He funded big oil projects simultaneously with environment groups such as his very own, wwf. Pierre Trudeau appointed him to head petroleum regulation in Canada. His co-opting of oil companies and green environmental charities never had the aim of job creation or innovation. Neither did they aim to save the planet. They aimed to control it. 

I began with a question regarding the actions of groups with different approaches on ordinary people. What I found via the research into the matter, made the question almost redundant. The real question may be are we more controlled as a populace now? Or is the brainwashing less avoidable?

All we know for sure is those who monopolised power are upping the anti in the bid for global control.