Probably because most companies are content to simply patronize those who believe in “climate change”, but not really Do Something. Which goes the same for Warmists like Al Gore, who do not want the “problem” solved, because they make a boatload of cash off the issue, as well as prestige and power. This comes from DeSmog Canada at the HuffPo
Why Hasn’t the Free Market Solved Climate Change?
One of the great mysteries of contemporary capitalism is the fact that as a system it appears absolutely incapable of responding to the crisis of climate change. Why can’t a system that made the automobile into an accessible mass consumer good provide us with clean and efficient mass transit, or at the very least electric cars? Why are we still burning coal, the energy source that drove the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago? Where are all the new green enterprises leading the way into a low-carbon future?
It’s no mystery: only a small number of people are demanding expensive replacements for existing energy and travel methods, which lead to higher prices for everything else. People also do not want massive government control of our lives.
From Joseph Schumpeter’s description of “creative destruction†to the fabled entrepreneurial powers of innovators like Steve Jobs, we’re accustomed to thinking that capitalism provides the social and economic framework that best nurtures human creativity and fosters technological innovation.
But with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 sailing past 400ppm and scientists warning of a global environmental catastrophe caused by the breaching of the nine planetary boundaries, the forces of the market are curiously silent.
First, the free market is doing what the free market does: take advantage of what people want. And they saw the utter disaster of government intervention in trying to push “green”. They really do not want to waste their money.
Second, the atmospheric CO2 concentration never did make it to 400ppm. Furthermore, it sure isn’t sailing past, having dropped from almost 400ppm to 394.30ppm as of July 2013. Yet, the Earth is still seeing a 15+ year pause in warming, and 2013 has been pretty cool for much of the world.
Let’s skip to the end, because the rest is a rambling mess of nothingness
Developing new green technology, hiring workers and investing in new productive facilities involves a real risk: it may not be as profitable as purely speculative investments. With derivatives and the implicit backing of government removing the fear of failure for the world’s biggest corporations, there simply isn’t an economic incentive to make investment decisions that would help to avert climate catastrophe.
In other words, all this tech the Warmists want (but refuse to put their own money into), is super risky, and not worth it. Especially since the “science” of “climate change” is extremely suspect, to put it mildly.
Read: Warmist Wonders Why Free Market Hasn’t Solved Hotcoldwetdry Yet »
Obama and Syria: Britain has helped Obama rediscover the Constitution. No need to thank us, America
But it would stretch credulity to push the comparison too far; obviously cars are not ‘habit forming’ in the sense that cigarettes are, and certainly do not have the addictive characteristics of certain hard drugs. The habit-forming effects of drugs such as nicotine and heroin are mediated by specific receptors in the brain. But it is of course meaningless to talk of a specific ‘brain receptor’ activated by exposure to a car advert. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to posit that our responses to brands in general, the preferences we develop and the behaviours that we subsequently exhibit as consumers (and more generally as citizens), have a neurobiological basis. This does not at all imply that such preferences and behaviours are deterministically ‘fixed’, in the sense that they can be modified by learning and experience, or even pharmacologically. If we are sufficiently concerned about the environmental impact of travel, we can by our own volition choose to run an electric car rather than a gas-guzzler.
