Green vs. sustainable chemistry - More than a discussion on catchwords

Isn't it appealing - or even necessary - to focus the desirable future development of good-old chemistry by a clear visionary message? After conventional chemistry has helped to satisfy all our fundamental needs, "Green Chemistry" can head for products designed for the environment. No longer do we need to "fight against an outraged nature" [Hamlet - as you know of course]. Mankind has overcome the chains of vital necessities - Green Chemistry promises reconciliation with nature and without risk. Do you remember how Hamlet continued after having questioned himself "... whether it's nobler to fight against an outraged nature ..." - he wondered if the alternative should be "... to die, to sleep - no more ...". At least in some discussions it appears that some people dream that dream: to close their eyes, to no longer be bothered by this incredible complexity of the real world, to withdraw from continuously trying to balance contradicting demands and finally, to not having the duty to decide. Whereas physically die or sleep in normal-day life is not a real option, "Green" offers an excellent escape: the priorities are clear (are they?), the legitimation is not biased by dirty egoistic thoughts (it's primarily for nature, not for individuals!) and it is said to also help mankind survive (if not, it at least does no harm to animals and trees!). The above, of course, is polemics to a certain extent - but it is not completely out of range.