I think you're editorializing it in a way that is making it far more politically neutral or "pox on both your houses" than it actually is. It's not about warring world views. It's just about money.
The simple reality is: almost all wealth on the planet is tied up with fossil fuels.
This being the case, the more wealthy you are, the more "polarized" in a certain direction you will be.
Might makes right. Or at least attempts to make right. And right now, "might" = "money" = "capital" = "energy"
There's a lot of not wealthy people who are polarized in that direction as well though. It's not simply a matter of sending a few oligarchs to the gillotine. In the short run, basically everyone in North America and Europe benefit from out destruction of the climate, and most people in other countries too.
To put it another way, the people who control the oil supply aren't simply wealthy because they pillaged and stole a bunch of people's stuff. The product they supply is extremely convenient and popular. You'd probably have an easier time fixing a world where everyone's a methhead than fixing the current problem.
I don't disagree with your central point. Though I think there is room to quibble about the definition of "pillage and stole" given that the cornerstone of this whole structure is control over physical lands, physical lands to which troops and violence have definitely been deployed.
Almost all of us are tied into this circuit in some way and "most of us" (in the west) short-term benefit from the continuance of the status quo energy economy and its growth. But what I would say is this: at the end the rich and powerful will continue to be able to buy fresh water and air and arable land and stable neighbourhoods with armed guards and fences. The rest of us will not be so lucky.
It's much more simple than that - vast majority of the world has become rich or richer by using more energy (almost a tautology), and vast majority of energy is produced from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are still for the most part the simplest, technologically, energy source with the fastest payoff.
To get the world even to European per-capita energy usage levels, current energy production would have to be expanded 3x [1] You just have to convince a few billion and their leaders that they should remain in relative poverty for a few more decades, waiting for solar/wind/nuclear to ramp up to several times the entire current energy production. Heck, the energy production needs to expand just to bring everyone to Chinese levels, and then you would not only need to set a forever-ceiling for the above billions, but also convince a billion or so Americans/Europeans/... to become poor.
If you can't convince people to stay or become poor voluntarily, they are going to need energy. Surprise, some people are eager to sell them this energy. But it's the demand that drives the supply.
The simple reality is: almost all wealth on the planet is tied up with fossil fuels.
This being the case, the more wealthy you are, the more "polarized" in a certain direction you will be.
Might makes right. Or at least attempts to make right. And right now, "might" = "money" = "capital" = "energy"