Global Warming weakly branded?

I've been following the debate about WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS BRANDED SO BADLY. See Tom Peters blog marketing global warming.

Gill Friend (click on title) even got involved.

Why should an impending disaster have a BRAND? Does " Millions of people are starving" have a brand? Or "5000 people control 80% of the world's economy"? Brands are for organisations (or an organisation of one). And organisations, unless it is specifically written in in the articles of association, have NOTHING to do with global problems. Meaning no manager is assigned to do anything about it.

Put it another way. Researchers are assigned to study and present risks and probabilities. No one is assigned to listen. We mix up people and corporations. Corporations have the legal status of the individual without the heart. Individuals have the heart without the clout of the corporation.

Now, what we need is a big corporation where the articles of association require it to respond to major risks to sustainability. Now...what could they sell? But more interesting; how would their BRAND look?

Anyway it's not Global Warming. It's impending global climate destabilization. The issue is not If it is when and how much. And is there enough oil left in the Earth that if we burnt it all up (will take 30 years at this rate) would it destabilise the climate system to cause a major extinction event. Or would it mean killing off half the world like in the film "Day after tomorrow"?