YOU are the customer if each of these externalities that you are arguing against. Are you willing to shoulder the cost?
If that means some businesses are no longer viable, they go the same way as horse buggy manufacturers. Maybe far fewer will be willing to take international holidays every year. Business will seek more sustainable ways of doing the things we enjoy.
How can a market be expected to function fairly with secret information (an externality)? It's intentionally distorted. Pollution, waste and the rest comes with negligible immediate cost, but far reaching consequences to everyone else's freedoms. If all those externalities are priced in, customers can make informed decisions.
Courts are responsible for determining fiction from reality. This is true whether we're talking about gunshot murder, or climate damage.
Whether you produce CO2 is irrelevant to truth or fiction.
>YOU are the customer if each of these externalities that you are arguing against. Are you willing to shoulder the cost?
You're also the target of the damages. If you think climate change won't absolutely skyrocket food prices, I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
No one suggested "the wholesale curtailment of liberties". That's a strawman.
There are negative externalities associated with many activities, coal power generation is one of them. The external cost of coal power is at least more than twice the normal market price of the electricity[1]. This is the when you ignore external effects such as those that take place through water, soils, noise, or carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.
So the actual price is actually at least three times higher. Why not just bill the polluter for the damage they do and then let the market decide which is better based on the true price?
[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649