If you genuinely don't know the basic story of anti-science work by the big oil/carbon companies, the basic story is this: the science was pretty clear by 1980 that we need to draw down carbon emissions, and by wilfully lying and deceiving the carbon lobby has managed to muddle the water enough that emissions have grown yearly instead.

Here is a detailed timeline over the case of Exxon and their actions in relation to climate change: https://exxonknew.org/timeline/

I was more looking to an answer to the question: "why we don't cover vast swathes of uninhabitable desert in said solar panels" from OP.

It sounded specific, so I thought they were referencing something that actually happened.

I'm less interested in a generalized "the 'carbon lobby' is bad" conversation - nobody is going to disagree with you.

Sorry, then I misunderstood your meaning. But it does seem strange to say that there is no opposition to the notion that the carbon lobby is bad, for example Trump can still summon much support.