The actual document title: "Global Sustainable Development Report 2019 drafted by the Group of independent scientists:
Invited background document on economic transformation, to chapter:
Transformation: The Economy" (2018)
https://bios.fi/bios-governance_of_economic_transition.pdf [PDF]

Why I distrust command economies (beyond just because of our experiences with violent fascism and defense overspending and the subsequent failures of various communist regimes):

We have elections today. We don't choose to elect people that regard the environment (our air, water, land, and other natural resources) as our most important focus. A command economy driven by these folks for longer than a term limit would be even more disastrous.

The market does not solve for 'externalities': things that aren't costed in. We must have regulation to counteract the blind optimization for profit (and efficiency) which capitalism rewards most.

Environmental regulation is currently insufficient; worldwide. That is the consensus from the Paris Agreement which 195 countries signed in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Maybe incentives?

We could sell tokens for how much pollutants we're allowed to f### everyone else over with and penalize exceeding the amount we've purchased. That would incentivize firms to pollute less so that they can save money by having to buy fewer tokens.
(Europe does this already; and it's still not going to save the planet from industrial production externalities)

So, while I'm wary of any suggestion that a command economy would somehow bring forth talent in governance,
I look to this article for actionable suggestions that penalize and/or incentivize sustainable business and living practices.

Sustainable reporting really is a must: how can I design an investment portfolio that excludes reckless, irresponsible, indifferent, and careless investments and highly values sustainability?

No one likes to be driven by harsh penalties; everyone likes to be rewarded (even with carrots as incentives).

Markets do not solve for long term outcomes. Case in point: the market has not chosen the most energy efficient cryptocurrencies. Is this an information asymmetry issue: people just don't know, or just don't care because the incentives are so alluring, the brand is so strong, or the perceived security assurances of the network outweighs the energy use (and environmental impact) in comparison to dry cleaning and fossil fuel transport.

How would a command economy respond to this? It really is denial and delusion to think that the market will cast aside less energy efficient solutions in order to save the environment all on its own.

So, what do we do?

Do we incentivize getting inefficient vehicles off of the road and into a recycling plant where they belong?

Do we shut down major sources of pollution (coal plants, vehicle emissions)?

Do we create tokens to account for pollution allowances (for carbon and other toxic f###ing chemicals)?

Do we cut irrational subsidies for industries that don't pay their taxes (even when they make money); so that we're aware of the actual costs of our behavior?

Do we grow hemp to absorb carbon, clean up the soil, replace emissions, and store energy?

Who's in the mood to dom these greedy shortsighted idiots into saving themselves and preventing the violation of our right to health (life)? No, you can't because you're busy violating your own rights and finding drugs/druggies and that's not allowed? Is that a lifetime position?

"Go burn a charcoal grill and your gas vehicle in your closed garage for awhile and come talk to me." That's really what we're dealing with here.

Anyways, this paper raises some good points; although I have my doubts about command economies.

[strikethrough] You can't do that to yourself. [/strikethrough] You can't do that to others (even if you pay for their healthcare afterwards).

Where's Captain Planet when you need 'em, anyways?