Most argue that "the market" will solve this. I'd argue that it got us here, as we continue to treat the habitability of earth as an externality, with no economic cost.
- 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.