Considering the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs),

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

We can easily note that at least SDGs 7, 9, 12 are focused on the creation and diffusion of green technologies.
A bright step forward could be the analysis of progress so far realised in the various Countries in the attainment of these goals, and of the strong and weak aspects of the related policy measures.

(I) As analysed by various authors – a classic in this sense is Skidelsky, R. and Skidelsky, E. (2012), “How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life” – since the needs of consumers are becoming increasingly tied to the immaterial and the intellectual side of consumption, their fulfillment tend to depend less and less on the “material and quantitative” aspects of consumption.
In fact, we do not buy books by kilos and cultural activities by mere numbers. Also, if we buy a high-tech product, we are likely to be more interested in learning how to use it, rather than in changing it with every new model.
These aspects constitute a significant explanation of the tendency – underlined also by J.M.Keynes in the “Essays in Persuasion” – of the socio-economic systems to move from work activities resting on “the economic motive” to activities (social, cultural, scientific, artistic) more based on the expression of the real needs and inclinations of persons.
Also the John Kenneth Galbraith, in his important book “The Affluent Society” underscores the economic and environmental unsustainability of a system based on ever-growing consumption – pushed by an organised process of massive advertising and creation of consumers’ debts – of mostly useless and pollutant products.

(II) In addition to these aspects, a consumeristic system is unfit also for securing full employment (however defined). In this regard, a central question comes to the fore: what are the effects of technological progress on job creation? On the one side, the increase in productivity originating in process innovation requires a growing amount of goods for guaranteeing the same level of employment.
On the other side, firms can introduce new products on the market, but this would not solve that structural issue. In fact, even if new jobs are created in these fields, the increase in productivity extends also, and perhaps even more, to the new products. This could help explain that every innovative wave tends to create fewer and fewer jobs (or even a jobless recovery). For instance, it is easily observable that, whereas the durable goods typical of 1960’s and 1970’s involved hundred thousand workers, innovative cycles of today high-tech products would employ (at the best) some thousand workers.
All this suggests that a kind of “forced” over-consumption is the only and very imperfect way, in our present economies, for attaining some kind of full employment level. How many high-tech items, cars, clothes, etc., should we buy to sustain the effective demand? For a host of economic, social and environmental reasons, this system is untenable in the long run.
In this respect, the problem becomes to realise an effective coordination between the various policies (in particular, macroeconomic and structural) and institutions (supranational, national, regional, local) implied in the promotion of green techologies.

the next step is to find a plausible solution to moving forward. the topic is debatable, though very viable.