I think this part of the article, instead of just being the last four paragraphs, should have been almost all of it. As it is, you make some very strong claims with no supporting argument whatsoever:

"the solution has to be political"

"The current system of profit motives, one might call it a market, was designed to optimise the process of extracting, refining, and transforming physical resources."

"some like to idealise the aforementioned market as a free and unregulated system, the truth is that it optimises rather poorly under those circumstances, and needs heavy regulation to align profit motives in the direction of efficient processing and distribution of resources."

And this in a footnote:

"I’m not convinced we should [keep these profit motives at all]"

All of this needs a lot of justification.