Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.
Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries that would like to not have to install complicated and expensive filters for their manufacturing exhaust, and for the automotive industry which would surely love not to have to meet quite so stringent air quality standards.
Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Let's also understand that much of the western world like the US are about to show significant declines in carbon emissions irrespective of what Fox news or any other polemics - pro or con say. (ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline...)
Don't count on it. Enron, 1998: "If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States, the potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous."
The biggest contributor to the debate is governments, and their self-interest in climate change is eclipsing that of any business.
> Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Apparently not. Obviously, your plea is sound, had it not followed an assertion of one side of the argument that it is claiming problematic and stupid.