If the bureaucracies protect their current organizations they can't do things like help cut fossil fuels, so they hold on to an approach which is to be committed to replacing fossil fuels with a renewable regime that is not technically possible - lack of raw materials and huge energy use to assemble. Such an approach means nothing else has to change -new energy replaces fossil fuels and the organizations that are the economy can just keep doing what they have been doing. No wonder such commitments are supported by existing organizations.
Bureaucracies grow as a way of adequately managing increasingly complex societies and their dependence on nature. That takes many programs, policies, and hierarchical sub-organizations to achieve the health and goals of the systems they serve. But when the situation changes and the narrative shifts from one situation to a new reality the bureaucracy has to change. But that change disrupts existing relationships and punctures walls that separate the parts of the organization. Silos emerge to better cope with the situation as then understood. But silos tend to not support each other.
While consulting. at HP I worked out the idea of ä team of teams in contrast to simple teams I observed that people could form in teams as productive members quite easily. In this culture, people know how to team but in a group of teams, say of several divisions, they are much more likely to badmouth other teams and not cooperate. A key motive was wanting to win the approval of the senior managers. Often it meant competing for budget. But as a building contains fire extinguishers and exits in case of emergency, the bureaucracy, during its construction, did not provide for an exit if needed. We desperately need the bureaucracies we have but not if they persist in supporting the current regime and preventing obviously needed change.
What to do?