I find it hard do believe that most would argue that the market will solve this issue, unless they're deeply ignorant of mainstream economics. Pollution is a cl

I find it hard do believe that most would argue that the market will solve this issue, unless they're deeply ignorant of mainstream economics. Pollution is a classic example of a negative economic externality [0], and markets generally don't "fix" externalities unless: - merger costs are low enough that the people afflicted can buy out the polluter; - transaction costs are low enough that they can reach a mutual beneficial bargain (as per Coase)[1]; Both of which are impracticable. I won't even talk about the first solution. As for the second one, Global warming affects everyone across legal boundaries, so bargains are off the table. But I don't think the third solution is currently applicable either, which is the government stepping in. Who would step in? There isn't a world government yet, and the interests of national governments are much more likely to align with the polluters located in their territory than with with an Indian peasant whose crops just died because of the heat. Even if several governments committed to an agreement, it could be profitable to deviate from the agreement by enforcing and requiring lower environmental protection standards in order to attract investments from polluting industries. It's kind of a hard problem. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem