There are big reasons why green energy isn't as green as we'd like to think.

E.g.
The manufacturing of solar panels, from the mining of the ores all the way to distribution of final product, leaves a huge ecological imprint that is hard to reconcile as a net positive. Much more efficient solar panels could offset this cost to the point of an acceptable compromise, but it's not really on the technological horizon, yet.

I'm not studied in wind turbine technology, but I imagine there are similar problems with manufacturing costs offsetting the "green" advantage of the operating turbine.

Both of these suffer from the cost of scaling. The amount of effort and dedicated land to create enough power to match current demands (much less projected demands) is many times the current system's footprint. The man-hours to maintain the facilities would be much greater, though. There goes the argument about jobs.*

***
I'd wager that it's in the economic interest of energy producers to do so as efficiently as economically possible. I know that Ameren UE (the local electric company in St Louis) has a physics research lab. It is a much sought after job in the field as they are doing real, practical work in pushing the frontier of green energy.

I believe that the people who care about solving the problem are replacing the baby boomers at a rapid rate. The notion that people act without cognizance of the ecological consequences is diminishing.


*I never put much faith in the argument about jobs. It seems to imply that the jobs today are the same jobs there have always been and ever will be. Societies change and the jobs they need change to suit. The transition can be rough on individuals as a society changes, but that is part of progress.