An effective carbon tax that goes to finance alternative energy tech seems like a pretty good start that can only be implemented with global consensus.
Taxes are not the solution to every problem.
A tax on BS consumption won't "disproportionately affect the poor". The poor have vastly more basic needs to be concerned with a tax on all kinds of consumerist crap.
The atmosphere and oceans are a common good, and it's hard to see how we'll stop polluting without enforceable agreements. And that means some entity has to do the enforcing.
Global warming denial seems to be an ideological necessity to the right-wing because they can't accept a problem exists that can only be solved by global governance. Witness the poster you're replying to, suggesting we accept human extinction rather than taxes and regulation.
Straw man or False dilemma?
That was the original statement. To me, the fact that 'range' is included, means there's more than just two choices implied. I do believe it misrepresents the argument to suggest that there's only two 'extremes' of "taxes and regulation" or else "we go extinct."