And here is the crux of the environmental argument. Someone else's "freedom," is actually negatively impacting all other members of the human race. A Northern North American is producing huge amounts of garbage and emissions, and they pay for it, but those that pay for it most are those who are already worse off.
Evidence points to anthropological climate change being real. The majority of evidence points to this change being potentially catastrophic. I would rather operate with the precautionary principle in hand and aim to reduce potentially catastrophic damage. If the potential risk is widespread death and destruction, and the relative cost to stop this is high (but still low compared to well, widespread death and destruction) then I'd rather err on the side of caution then let myself in older life and subsequent generations of humans and non-human beings on this planet suffer for our grandiose.
jcb, see what The Economist has to say on climate change. They fully embrace the fact that anthropological climate change and global warming is real and accept that it will likely be absolutely devastating. They had a very coolly discussed podcast about the widespread ramifications of this issue where they attempted to come up with some solutions.
I say: build approximately 29837420938472908347238 nuclear fission reactors. Canada and Australia has the world covered for uranium.
EDIT: Fund these reactors, and use the reactors to create desalination plans,
by seizing the assets of, and repatriating users of tax havens.