It is all in the "what do I get in return right now?" concept.
Reduce pollution is a promise to give back a safer Earth, save climate, make life less painful in future etc. which are all far away and the current generation in power will probably retire long before anything significant extinction level occurs.
AI on the other hand promises immeidate gain(lot of expensive job automation = cost cutting) as well as future return on investment. Like someone said, IT has returns realized quickly in few years, so that is more lucrative than /reducing pollution/.
Also, reducing pollution requires money spent(cost) and everyone is afraid of the cost if it does not promise at least x2-5 minimum return gain immediately(or in few years).
Pollution (especially the greenhouse gas type) is like the proverbial frog slowly boiling in the pot of water. Eventually we feel the effects, often in huge ways but disintermediated by time.
Whereas exploiting a new technology like AI for potential profit is like a massive hit of sugar/caffeine/drug in that we feel/act on ASAP.
> Man likes to think of himself as a rational animal. However, it is more true that man is a rationalizing animal, that he attempts to appear reasonable to himself and to others. Albert Camus even said that man is a creature who spends his entire life in an attempt
to convince himself that he is not absurd.
-Elliot Aronson, "The Rationalizing Animal"
Or to be less philisophical: the people with the money and power to say what's important are rarely the ones thinking long term, nor in an audience of other powerful, rich people thinking long term. US congress' median age is over 60: most aren't thinking about how to keep the Earth alive in 20-30 years. They won't be around to suffer the consequences.
