I think everyone wants this. Though people have varying degrees of concern. I think the ultimate solution is a little bit counter-intuitive but we'll get there eventually. The data more or less proves we are in a warming period, but it's not definitive as to the source. Regardless of whether it is natural or anthropogenic, we need to find ways of dealing with it. Even if there is no anthropogenic cause, we're still headed for an eventual energy crisis if we don't move to renewable sources since coal/oil can only sustain us for so long. I believe the transition will be smoother without government intervention, but I digress. The next major Human revolution will be around energy efficiency and economization out of necessity due to the diverging trend of available non-renewable energy sources and the growth of the population and demand for energy.
I agree that we need a moderate response, but we
do need a response. Ocean acidification doesn't get as much news, or as much lobbying, but it's a serious economic and environmental hazard, and it's culprit is CO2. The problem I see with saying you, "waste money on the environment," is that it's short sighted statement, and ignores the massive economic role of the environment (as in, it's the foundation, without which there could be no economy). Clean air and water laws have saved us money by reducing health problems related to dirty air and dirty water, money which can then go back to other parts of the economy. It's a balance to be sought, for sure, but protecting and aiding the environment through investments does not necessitate economic harm (even National Park and Wild Life Refuges attracts tourists, which although not productive in a strict sense, is a good thing for a local economy).
For example, the efficiency standards for cars. Here we have a field of technology which is
very capable of expanding beyond the efficiencies in place, but which don't happen due to other reasons. I have a car which is 15 years old and get's better mileage than some brand new hybrids. Why? Because my car doesn't have fancy shit that takes up energy. It doesn't have TV's, it doesn't have a huge amazing sound system, it's windows are manual, it's lighter (but still quite safe), and has shitty cup holders. Recently, Obama, in cooperation with the private sector (which makes me very very suspicious of corruption, to be honest), raised the required fleet fuel efficiency to a standard of 56 by 2025 (it varies by car, by size; semi's and trucks have lower standards, some have higher, I believe); this was accompanied by a commercial which basically said that this law will
drive innovation, and that it wasn't a problem for the car industry.
Basically, the market, and consumer purchasing power, does not address all issues, and humans are woefully nearsighted. When buying a car, an individual may go for that amazingly awesome car with a bunch of cool electronics, and GPS units, and TV's, and all that, but suffer a huge hit to their fuel standards. Problem is, most consumers are too ignorant to realize that those electrical devices take energy away from the car's mileage, and those shiny things attract them. Other car companies then face problems in trying to raise their mileage, because they still have to compete with all those shiny cars (note: I didn't say impossible, the Prius is a good example of these hurdles being overcome). The overall effect is a fleet which is much less fuel efficient, but which causes all the pollution problem's we're aware of, and is something which
must be addressed for environmental reasons. On a macro level, CO2 and pollution breach the liberal definition of liberty and freedom, and so macro level solutions (government), are not only justified, but they can sometimes be necessary to address the problem. To go back to cars; the problem in and of itself is not that a company is making a less "efficient" product than it should "regulated," it's that those inefficiencies cause problems for all of us, and yet individually we cannot address the problem as well as we can if we do it en masse. By doing it en masse, we also give producer's a clearer idea of what they need to do to satisfy their customers; that is, instead of companies being hindered from progress due to all those fancy cars with their fancy things, the focus will be on efficiency, by all companies, with attention later given to those shiny, fancy things.
Beyond that, though, it amps up the potential gain for innovating beyond the current technology. Our engine designs, in basic concept, hasn't changed much since it was created; but there have been people who have recently come up with completely new ways of trapping the energy made by a small explosion. Whereas those kinds of idea's, in the stale market we we're seeing in fuel efficiency, would never be given a shot, now there is much more incentive to invest, research, and try out some different models and approaches.