The World In 2009: A Question About Green

In the 1970s or '80s, then we are accustomed to looking far ahead, say the year 2009, we have to imagine the world as a place where everything is "futuristic".
We would imagine that cars can fly, everything is driven by solar power, no more pollution, there is already a cure for cancer or the common cold, the streets are clean, can be a vacation to the moon or other planets far away, robots will be doing our homework and work in the garden, and so on and so forth.
We are accustomed to view it as an era in which rapid advances in technology in many fields such as medicine, agriculture, transportation, energy production, and the production of electronic tools for productivity or entertainment will solve many world problems. People will live longer and comfortable.
Why do we have to also see changes like that at least in the things we never imagined?
Year 2000 has been almost 10 years we've been through and even though we have made many advances, the world it is still more like 30 years ago than usual as the next state we previously imagined.
For example, a car has become increasingly streamlined, aerodynamic, and offers many advantages, but a car is still just a lump of metal and plastic on four rubber wheels that should we drive alone and that must be filled with fuel.

 This is the same case with the movement to protect our planet and to become more environmentally friendly. For example, the sanctions have been established in factories that use fossil fuels to reduce air pollution, and the automotive industry must now designing cars that emit carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide to a minimum.
Although these changes seem good on the surface, when we really look at the broader situation, we will see that the cars and factories still make pollution - only slightly reduced. Just as smokers who think they can avoid cancer or other health problems associated with cigarette smoking by replacing them with low levels of tar and nicotine. They're just delaying something that can not be circumvented.
Why, in 2009 we have also seen a movement that led to the elimination of greenhouse gases, and instead just reduce their number?
Many of the major polluters are already taking steps that they need to reduce pollution levels that have their causes, but are now approaching 2010, and so far, no visible indication that they will stop the pollution unless they are forced.
American residents can be proud for having pioneered many positive efforts. Unfortunately, there are many efforts that are not too positive. For example, the U.S. is the world leader in terms of contribution to the greenhouse effect. Since the technology is more than 50 years, the U.S. has created a car with electric power, solar power, or some other fuel that can be updated and a cleaner, then why in 2009 there were still factory that produces cars that require combustion of gasoline?
With many changes taking place, much remains the same. I ask this rhetorical question in the hope that more people will start questioning the same thing.
The problem is, these questions have been asked to the people who have power and who can make meaningful changes. Long conversation and heated debate has occurred, the study of environmental impact has also been implemented, and meetings have been held. In the end, seems the most important decision factor is always money. Why? (A. Darin / The Epoch Times / mer)