> when we use limited social capital to address a problem

Let an actual free and fair market solve it. When externalities have to be included in pricings (be it insurance premiums for superfund cleanup, earmarked money in trusts for cleanup, or simply preventing emissions in the first place) instead of having them shouldered by society, the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage.

> Let an actual free and fair market solve it.

Ideally, yes, but that's like saying "we'll just use nuclear fusion to meet our energy needs."

Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener

That seems like a convoluted definition of "free market". For that to work there needs to be some agreed upon definition of what effects are considered "externalities" and there also needs to be an enforcement mechanism. There's no way that's going to be handled other than central planning.

> the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage

Do you have any data to support this fairytale?

I see the logic in what you are saying but I wonder if it would just lead to a situation where every problem just becomes, "not severe enough to warrant attention". I've sort of seen this with opposition to environmental regulations being opposed on the grounds that it "costs too much money".