Assuming this comment is true, it's a pretty elegant argument for the necessity of regulation. If the most efficient consumer products are deleterious to the environment, they need to be regulated or banned until they are no longer the best purchase option. Markets can't solve this issue because the incentives are cross-aligned.
If your regulated replacement is unaffordable for poor people (which are majority in the society), they will vote for populists, who will build their raise to power on cancelation of such regulations. That's the reason why aggressive green policies will not propel us forward, but will eventually implode under social pressure.
There's one option we all don't want to accept-- maybe democracy is just too flawed for this world. Democracies reach the right conclusion only given enough time, which can be very long. In a world with limited resources that won't always work. Basically in our modern democracy where if green equivalents to our current technology don't show up, we are gonna vote for a populist to tell us comforting lies instead of taking the difficult route. The only policy that will move is forward is hoping someone figures out how to make affordable green energy
This has definitely happened in the past. It's arguably happening to US Democrats now, with pickup trucks getting more expensive to drive. This is an indictment of the political system rather than an argument against regulation, however.
