Why are the "Green Movement" not interested in solutions other than reduction in economic activity

I have long wondered what would happen if a solution to the "problem" of CO2 emissions was ever discovered. What would the "green movement" do, after all if excess CO2 (whatever excess CO2 is) could be eliminated then we would not need to make the radical reductions in CO2 emissions that we are told are necessary to save the planet.

So I was interested to read this at Miller McCune:

"Peridotite, it turns out, absorbs carbon dioxide, and according to Krevor it potentially represents one of the greatest — if most bafflingly ignored — solutions to climate change in the world.

Originating deep in the earth, peridotite is a part of a family — "ultramafic rock" — that reacts naturally with CO2 to form solid minerals. Last May, Krevor was the lead author of a study identifying and mapping enough ultramafic rock in the United States to sequester an enormous amount of carbon dioxide. Taking into account various land-use constraints — private property, proximity to cities, national and state parks — he and his fellow researchers found storage potential for 500 years of the country's CO2 emissions.

So it's a mystery of current climate studies that the U.S. Department of Energy, the country's largest single source of funding into clean energy research and development, has awarded just one small grant, in 2003, to researchers studying mineral sequestration.

"It's very striking," Krevor said. "This is a technology that's a potential game changer, and there's been very little research done in the area.""

If the ecologists are not interested in mineral sequestration then might that be because their object is not CO2 emissions reduction but wealth redistribution.


All the above assumes that the science of Global Warming is correct, something that intelligent people I think realise is not by any means proven.