First of all - in an extreme case, assuming imminent, objective catastrophe, I would support strong coercive action (not necessarily “government,” but maybe) against greenhouse gas emittors. None of the proposals put forward by any government are anywhere near strong enough to do anything significant about global warming anyway.
A non-state solution to the current case (assuming the situation is the media consensus, which I would dispute on a number of levels*) would be as follows:
Organized activism. Individuals interested in combating global warming form associations. Now, few individuals would be willing to reduce their “carbon footprint” if they were the only ones to do it, which is why collective action would be needed. Institute a central register for all people on the planet who share this concern.
This central register (probably along with other rating agencies, and watchdogs) would certify if a product was approved or not as “greenhouse-safe”. The register could also be connected to debit / credit cards, so that the card would only approve of “greenhouse-safe” products, and joining either the central global warming registry, or one of a network, would require the use of one of these cards. People would be motivated to join a global warming registry for the same reason people buy nice-looking clothes: social capital. And as we know, people are willing to pay a premium for social capital, coupled with genuine concern for the planet.
As more people join the registry, it goes from being elite to effectively mandatory - not instantaneously, but on a gradient. The three things that will drive the growth of the global warming registries are:
- Growth of the registries (returns to scale, returns to standard, returns to network)
- Economic advancement ie. increase in the world median income
- Global warming concern, awareness, and activism
As the registry grows, firms will then either cater to registry members or non-members. Firms which originally did not meet the registry standards will have to restructure at least part of their production line to satisfy the new demands of the registry members, as the new standards are in effect a boycott. Though the boycott is not aimed at a specific company, but a mode of production. The registry agency would be run by AGW activists and entrepreneurs. It is responsible to its members. Likely, there would be a network of competing registries similar to the network of competing credit cards we have today (but without the state-corporate collusion).
If people don’t join or aren’t convinced by the AGW arguments, then either (A) you have to make a better argument, (B) you have miscalculated the social cost of AGW as they do not subjectively value what you think they value, or (C) in the extreme case, lobby the state or military to take strong strong immediate action (nothing like the piffle being proposed now).
The agency could form its own enforcement arm (which would be much much more efficient than government enforcement) and that could be state-sanctioned or more preferably the state would just not be in the way. Private defense wouldn’t be too much a problem if you had significant support seconded by apathy, as you would have a much lower marginal cost of personnel than a purely for-profit military. In the extreme case where you believe there is going to be objective catastrophe - like hundreds of millions killed or something - then a “disruption of the social order” is of little net cost.
[I’d suggest military economist John Robb’s excellent book “Brave New War” which details exactly why non-governmental, decentralized militaries are so so much more efficient than government or government-supported ones.]
The registry enforces compliance by (A) threatening to remove the “greenhouse-safe” certification - this is similar to the Better Business Bureau, private cert. agencies, and so forth - and (B) negative publicity and (C) short-sell attacking the companies stock and whatnot and (D) physical enforcement in the more extreme case, if government gets out of the way. some people will be people willing to physically coerce against polluting firms if the awareness spreads and the argument is convincing. And to go even further, once the registry agency has enough members, it can field its own enforcement personnel against all firms that do not conform to the standards (assuming government doesn’t keep them from doing so).
If the registry agency grows in Europe, the US, ANZ, etc. it will have the advertising and communication power to break into China and India’s market as their median income rises enough so people there marginally value social capital like the people in the West. They are also affected by exports to the West, so they will already be incentivized away from GHG. If the anecdotal effects of global warming become clearer, you will see significant growth and it will keep compounding. Eventually it will become effectively mandatory for most firms as the opportunity cost of not been certified will be prohibitive.
Contrariwise, for the nation-state, the proposed solutions have been much more problematic and suffer from enormous incentive and calculation problems. I honestly think that if the AGW situation is as popularly described, that government getting out of the way and allowing voluntary human organizations (eg. registry agency) to take care of the problem would be more likely to meet the problem.
I see no possible solution from government other than drastic and effective action which in lieu of obvious immediate catastrophe is never going to happen. But again, if you believe there is some clear tipping point after which there is objective catastrophe, you should want governments and militaries to take strong action. However, you then have to deal with the incentive and efficiency problems of the state.
In the extreme case, I might not bother with government at all. My AGW activism would be social. I would make “global warming denial” akin to racism. Create a social capital value of AGW activism so high that the arguments from evidence are marginal… because you’re not going to get far even with evidential arguments alone, and if you do, governments will merely do something nominally that will make people think the problem is being taken care of while bureaucrats and investment banks and firms in collusion seek rent via the legislation. A registry agency network that captures and perpetuates that social capital will be much more effective than trying to appeal to the statesmanship of democratically elected politicians.
*I don’t think AGW a sham so much as a lot of non sequitur. Most of “the debate” is silly on both sides. There are very subjective elements to this risk-analysis and barring objective catastrophe scenarios, there is no “right answer.” And even if there were, you still have to do a cost-benefit analysis of social welfare, not just a cost analysis, and then you have to demonstrate how the proposed government action will in praxis remedy or reduce the problem factoring in the negative effects on social welfare of government action.
Speaking of human irrationality, people tend to wildly overestimate worst-case scenarios and overfactor anecdotal evidence.
Speaking of the Bill Gates foundation, corporate charity-funded geoengineering is another possible non-state remedy to AGW.