How can the dwarf green market paradigm-traditional market paradigm based sustainability framework be stated and use to show that patching external market failures shifts the responsibility for market failure from dwarf green market paradigm producers/dwarf green market paradigm consumers to governments placing governments in direct conflict of interest with their role as market overseers if things go from bad to worse?

There is an environmental pollution production problem separating traditional market paradigms from green market paradigms. In other words, there is an external environmental market failure between green market paradigms and traditional market paradigms, which needs to be fixed. It is the role of governments to address market failures when free markets run into them to make sure economies run efficiently as the government role is to act as market promoter, as a market monitor, as a market regulator, and as market policy enforcer under no conflict of interest since the responsibility of proper market functioning and of market failures falls on green market paradigm producers and green market paradigm consumers, and on traditional market paradigm producers and traditional market paradigm consumers, respectively. Hence if the government fully fixes the external environmental market failure by fully shifting traditional market paradigms to green market paradigm the responsibility for market failure passes from traditional market paradigm producers and consumers to green market paradigm producers and consumers; and the government then would intervene only if there are internal green market paradigm failures. However, if the government chooses, knowingly or due to green market paradigm shift knowledge gaps or due to simply by relying on the external environmental market failure externality neutrality assumption to ignore a real external environmental market failure, to implement dwarf green market paradigms to manage the consequences of the external environmental market failure, then the responsibility for dwarf green market paradigm failure as things go from bad to worse falls now on governments, not on dwarf green market paradigm producers and dwarf green market paradigm consumers.  And this makes the following questions relevant: How can the dwarf green market paradigm-traditional market paradigm based sustainability framework be stated and use to show that patching external environmental market failures shifts the responsibility for market failure from dwarf green market paradigm producers/dwarf green market paradigm consumers to governments placing governments in direct conflict of interest with their role as market overseers if things go from bad to worse? As markets here are under permanent government interventions, what are the implications of this situation for critical environmental problem-solving advocacy?