Members of the Rockefeller family are jousting with Rex Tillerson, the boss of ExxonMobil, calling for an independent chairman and a corporate governance upheaval at the oil company, which was once part of Standard Oil, founded by John D. Rockefeller in the 19th century.

Some Rockefellers don't like Exxon's lofty disdain for the environmental lobby and its refusal to consider anything other than a simple diet of more hydrocarbons.

They are pushing for a vote on the issue at the annual meeting.

It is less exciting than it sounds. The Rockefellers are not controlling shareholders and investors do not like change for its own sake - Exxon's profitability and valuation is leagues ahead of rivals, such as BP, Shell and Chevron, the industry's green agony aunts.

While the Rockefellers beat their breasts, most shareholders will continue to love the fat Exxon dividend.

Yet underlying the protest from the trust fund Rockers is a big problem for oil companies - their ever-increasing reliance on the support of governments and regulators.

Exxon's riposte to the climate change and peak oil lobbies is that technology rather than regulation will provide answers to our energy problems.

It is a disingenuous argument because the energy industry is at the governments' knees begging for help - big dollops of taxpayer cash to build experimental power stations.

It is not merely subsidies that the energy industry demands, it is guidance, direction and regulation.

The continuous clamour from big oil to civil servants in Brussels, Washington and Whitehall is: “Tell us what you want us to do. What kind of energy, what kind of biofuel, which renewables, where to invest and to what specification.”

Never before in the history of capitalism has such a powerful industry swallowed so much humble pie.

There is a strategic vacuum at the heart of the energy industry. In such an environment, leaders can emerge and at the turn of the 20th century Standard Oil was such a company, hell-bent on developing a standard petroleum product that would achieve universal acceptance.

John D. Rockefeller bullied and bulldozed his way to the top of the pile and the market was awash with his kerosene.

No Standard Oil has emerged to tell us which product will keep the lights on in 2030 without frying the planet.

Is it nuclear power, hydrogen, biofuels or old king coal with new and improved carbon capture? Weeping hysterically, the energy barons cling to the skirts of the civil servants and ask for guidance.

It is deeply depressing, because we know there is little knowledge and no leadership in government.

Ministers consult, but who is there to give advice? Only the businesses that have just passed the buck. They will not invest without a protective net of regulation that guarantees them an acceptable return. In short, they want a licence to print money and they want grants and subsidies.

Consider the latest fashion: carbon capture and storage (CCS). Its supporters reckon that it is the best option for large-scale power generation.

The Chinese and Indians can carry on burning their coal - we will just stick CCS units on to thousands of power stations and pump the offending gases into old oil wells or coalmines.

It can work, say the oil companies, but there are various competing technologies. No one has built a commercially viable plant and the best estimates are that such a plant would cost about €1 billion (£790 million).

It would also require continuing subsidy in the form of a very high carbon price - between four and five times the present price of CO2 to ensure that the electricity generated was price-competitive with power generated by conventional gas plants.

Hot to the latest topic, the European Commission wants to build 12 pilot CCS plants in the European Union. But there is not a single project under serious consideration and no agreement as to how the pilots are to be funded.

Things are more advanced in Britain, where the Government has committed itself to part-funding a pilot plant. It is uncertain how much money is available (Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, is not flush with cash) and it is unclear how the Government would ensure a continuing subsidy for the plant.

There may have to be grants or consumers will end up paying as electricity distributors are forced by government diktat to buy the expensive power.

Whatever the solution, it is clear that we are entering an age of not just big but enormous government and business is colluding with the ever encroaching regulation, intervention and manipulation of markets.

Europe's Emissions Trading System (ETS) is the shining example, a construct of policy-makers and regulators that would become a leading commodity market, the world's biggest exchange for trade in allowances to emit CO2.

We tend to forget that carbon is not a commodity - no one wants to buy CO2 - it is a tax and we are just trading the value of a penalty. The ETS exists and will only function as long as we trust the thousands of auditors and regulators who administer the market and the politicians who employ them.

Technology was just a means to an end for John D. Rockefeller, whose objective was market dominance.

He won and his company became the standard energy product until the US courts broke Standard Oil, but by that time it was too late. Rockefeller's model of oil refining and distribution had been set and the oil industry claimed its grip on America.

Today, regulators are being asked to impose very expensive forms of energy on consumers and to grant licences to companies to make money in captive regulated markets. It is a licence for some to make money, but a good bet that it is also a political disaster in the making.

carl.mortished@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive