I didn't write this because it was too long already, but it depends on the technology.

I agree that CFC bans are a good example of when something was done.

But I can also name many situations in which nothing effective was done. And even in the face of overwhelming effort to halt it, the resistance amounted to little difference.

The difference all comes down to the technology.

So, my argument is that there are some technologies which can be addressed, and others which cannot.

Solveable problems tend towards those with few decision makers, low incentive to defect, adherence can be monitored, costs are internal, and where the problem exists at top-level of large organizations.

Unsolveable problems tend towards those with lots of decision makers, high incentives to defect, difficult to detect violators, costs are external, and the problem is personal.

CFCs fall more in the the former--there just aren't that many CFC manufacturers (apparently 18 companies accounted for > 99% of production). Consider for a second, an alternate world where everyone builds their own refrigerants in their garage, and each individual decided whether to use CFCs or an alternative. Do you think we would have solved CFCs by now?

This particular issue is very much the latter. The tech is already out in the open. The decision to use it responsibility or not is left to individuals.

You mentioned foisting externalities on the rest of society. I agree that this is happening. And I agree that society will not stand for it. But my point is not that society is going to accept it, it's that society cannot do anything about it. Oh, people will shout and stomp and raise hell. Hearing will be had. People will be lambasted in front of congress. Voters will decry politicians to do something. And efforts will be attempted. But in the end, it will all be for naught.

I realize this is a doomer outlook. Please don't mistake what I am saying as an endorsement.