This is not confusing if you view government as the biggest business. Worse than a monopoly, since it holds powers no business should have.

Which countries would these be?

Also, I disagree on the premise you bring up here, btw. It (corruption of administrations) need be so. I hypothesize that it is a natural process as demonstrable as entropy.

I'm not too familiar. Elizabeth Warren has demonstrated herself to be a person of little value to my estimation, and I don't pay too close attention to "climate" politics as a habit. The little I googled before this response has not changed my opinion. I'm willing to listen, however, if there is something you found beneficial.

I found a 2019 bill restricting natural gas construction (unimpressive), and a 2020 bill imposing safety regulations (equally unimpressive). We can expand on this if it becomes relevant.

Then there's the Blue New Deal, which seems to me at best a broad-brush smorgasbord coming from the ivory tower with no real focus or understanding of the environments it would affect, and is more likely political grandstanding. But in truth I know little, so again am willing to listen.

Again, disagree with the premise. Big Business (capital B's) exists to a large degree because of its relationship with government. It is that relationship that give it more free reign. It can disregard market forces and grow like a cancer.

First of all, the market is not unregulated.

Second, I do not understand what you mean by the market caused this problem. If you are referring to our dependence on fossil fuels and subsequently our pollution of greenhouse gases, it is in my opinion unfair to pin that on "the market." It is the world we live in.

Energy is difficult to store and use effectively, and fossil fuels are the most effective way to do this to date. Alternative sources (outside of nuclear) simply do not meet the criteria to sustain the populations we have fostered with the cultural demands we have built.

Restricting fossil fuels, as I see it, will do nothing but consign more people to poverty and death. New innovations must be made, and to the extent that they have been made, they have been made through market forces. The Tesla has done more for moving the needle away from fossil fuels than anything in the last several decades. It is transforming the sector, forcing even established too-big-to-fail (read: government intervention) car companies to make their own electric cars to compete.

If it is something else you refer to, such as the pollution of our rivers, overfishing of our oceans, or depletion of our soil, then I agree that some of this is exacerbated by market demands. And much of it is government meddling. Take corn/wheat/soy subsidies, a monocrop Big Ag debacle that created such abundance that everything is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, cows are fed corn instead of grain, and our soils are depleted and our waters are filled with fertilizer pollutants and herbacides.

My response is going long, and I don't have the time at the moment to look these up. But I'd be happy to follow up on this at a later date, if you're interested.

It is my estimation that regulatory bodies enforce laws written by lobbyists from the companies they were meant to regulate. Any benefits of such a body are done almost by accident.

The politicization of our environmental impact is the problem. It has lead to (my opinion) the fake narrative of climate change with the fake metric of greenhouse gases so that politicians can make pretty speeches and pretend to do something to get elected/relected/relected, while Big Business can crowd out entrepreneurial innovations and go about business as usual.