Properly is like what, assembler? So lets spend 100x power on developers notebooks and 100x of their paid time and rewrite eveything in asm so it will work faster? Or what "implemented properly" means?
No-one is advocating that. There are dozens of fast, high-level programming languages to choose from.
Today, dynamic programming languages are the most popular - and often (not always) the least performant and least power efficient.
What does energy efficient mean? Here's one perspective explored in a paper:
Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How does energy, time, and memory relate?
https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages
Here's the related Hacker News discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15249289
Dynamic languages benefit too from attention to energy-efficiency and speed in their evolution.
When PHP 7 was released, Rasmurf Lerdorf, the creator of PHP, said the performance improvements meant fewer servers, smaller memory use and reduced CPU activity - all of which equalled less power or electricity consumed.
When you consider the millions of servers in use, that additional language efficiency adds up to a substantial saving in electricity use. You can watch a segment from his presentation where he talks about this here - and the calculations he made of potential CO2 savings:
Google spends a lot of effort optimizing their software because they bear the energy cost of running it in their own data centers.
Websites do not bear the energy cost of running their code on enduser devices.
The lack of incentives turns energy waste into an externalty which means it is not factored into development.
And yes, there absolutly nonsensical stuff going on in modern software stacks, that could - in theory - be cut without any negative consequences. E.g., contemporary languages and framework seem to do a lot of stuff repeatedly at runtime that you could just as well precompute during build. However, this would require a completely different software stack than what we have now, so from our current point of view, it would be hard to change.
You can solve two problems at once - you will lower their carbon footprint to 1/10 of their current one, and become a multi-millionaire or even billionaire. Sounds like a double win to me.