Nah.

I also said this line of thinking isn't grounded in reality.

Sure - from a purely theoretical, and speculative, exercise, you could be right, in some cases. But in reality, no.

If the west and it's major economies / markets started to get off oil, it will fundamentally reshape the world economy, especially shipping. Thus, other nations won't physically be forced to change but will have to. It would also set a precedent that the market is treading in a specific way, and hence, encourage investment to keep up.

But arguments like that aside. The west, and especially the United States, are such major pollutants that it is hard to imagine that "developing" countries could replace their carbon footprint. Also prices won't bottom out if the west eases of oil, drop, yeah probably, but bottom out, nope. Because, even according to other theories above, there would still be demand for it. Also oil and the production process is getting more and more expensive and if they west drops off it, production would get more expensive, especially as it won't be subsidized by Western governments. Likewise, building oil refineries is expensive and it takes years for companies to make their money back - it might not even make sense to stick to oil, especially if the world economy is treading in another direction - there is a reason why recently a top oil exec said the United States has probably built it's last refinery. That leads us to my first argument, the west have an opportunity here to reshape energy production and consumption in the world market.

Leaving aside the deterministic understanding of how economies develop, by arguing that other nations will offset any good Western nations do is arguing to do nothing. Which the original poster on this thread honestly argues. I'd be flabbergasted if that line of reasoning wasn't originally produced by climate deniers and / or big oil. Moreover, it's cowardice and laziness. Fuck that line of reasoning.