Even allowing for the ridiculously massive technical leap from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3, it doesn't make much sense.
For one thing, if states are determined to enforce individual emissions limits, they can do it today with legislation. You don't need a predictive model. What does the model add?
Also, the only difference between 2 and 3 is whether a person acts on a thought.
So are you suggesting with #3 that predicted thoughts (e.g. not literal mind reading) which a person doesn't act upon will prompt state action?
To be honest, I feel the latter sense of the word is a bit of a stretch - semantically, not politically.
But you see it because "freedom" is a powerful word in politics, and rather than argue against "freedom", pundits go up the ladder of abstraction and argue the definition instead.
1. First, models will predict pollution. The outcomes will help shape urban policy. But these won't solve crime or stop people from driving.
2. Second, models will predict individual behavior and track person level emissions. The outcomes will force behavior changes, mostly freedom limiting.
3. Third, and finally, models will predict thoughts. The the thought of driving instead of walking might trigger a response.
It's a slippery slope and we need to draw a line between prediction and policy.