> I can guarantee you that the industry will shift its affiliation towards the side that makes it more money

Which in this case is just 'right-wing' side. I get that they would shift to other side if it fits but in reality there is no other.

> And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money.

He may be example of "of changing affiliation" for money - even if this is also arguable - but still not relevant to topic of that fossil industry goes hand in hand with right-wing agenda.

Why do you want to move attention from the relation between right-wing politics and fossil industry by creating hypothetical scenarios that are not happening and by moving the goalpost of the topic with examples that are tangential at best?