I'd like to establish a variant of Chesterton's fence - something like 'You don't get to get morally outraged about something without understanding "why".'
Why are developed countries not doing it? My guess would be cost, so why is a "wasteful" practice cheaper? Is it something else than externalities that aren't properly represented in the cost, or is the morally odious thing possibly more efficient, or is it something else?
Without that answer, it's hard to suggest meaningful action: If it's the externalities, we need to make them part of the cost. If it's actually more efficient this way, we need to stop demanding to make it worse. And if it's something else, then we need to figure out what it is and whether/how to address it.
But right now, it seems like random things are picked based on looks/feelings, pointed at, and demanded to change (usually to something that was done in the past and is no longer done).