Weren't many of those things available to the Romans? Isn't that just a logical step in civilization, rather than science pushing an agenda?
Sanitation was always possible, but the Romans didn't have the population density that Western civilizations were forced to deal with in the mid to late-1800s. Industrialization created waste and populations that cities had never had to deal with before.
Governments did not feel compelled to perform basic sanitary services, like waste removal or clean up after livestock. I'm not even kidding. Living conditions in New York and London with filthy. New York for instance (circa 1830), had a population of 250,000 and there was no sewage system, no clean water supply, no waste removal and swine were literally running the streets.
But services would mean an increase in taxes, and the living conditions were something their constituents seemed content to deal with.
What pushed sanitation
was cholera, and not some natural evolution of government services. People thought the air, from all the waste and filth, was literally hazardous and spreading cholera. There was almost an immediate reaction to the speculation, and over the course of the next several decades, major cities developed sanitation services. It was pushed heavily by the scientific community, despite after it was learned that cholera was spread through water and not air.
If CO2 was found to be a minor player in the greenhouse effect, would that make the green industry disappear? Wouldn't it still continue on? Would we still not seek more efficient homes and appliances? A smarter energy grid? A more varied use of energy sources?
No.
As I just stated, governments and people are compelled by a sense of urgency only when they're directly threatened. If we told people that could pour oil into the ocean and create slicks to slide off of, with no negative impact to their livelihood (but still destroy the ocean), they'd probably do it.
I know you're not an optimist about the human condition, so please don't troll me.
