It is strange though because it is often the people who acknowledge or advocate the use market approaches who later complain about them when they are put in practice.
(Note: I'm not saying the approach is wrong, I'm just explaining the position. Personally, I still haven't found anyone making a decent libertarian position on the issue. The only ones I've read/listen boiled down to "I'm not a climatologist, but I'm pretty sure it's not a real problem")
Look, everyone is part socialist, part capitalist, part communist, part fascist, part anarchist. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking your current favourite blend of these colours is the one true path. If there's one thing you learn looking around the world, there are many blends that have proven to work comparatively well. (And others that clearly don't.)
Abuse of wealth should still be a problem, but that doesn't require the government micromanaging that wealth.
Sure, it's not voluntary, but then again neither is most of the stuff that producers of things do. The consumer demand is the taskmaster, and thanks to government regulations, so is the public interest, in the form of policies designed to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
I think unqualified free market advocacy amounts to basically a wish for there to be consumer interest only, without any system for representing public interest that uses any signal other than money. But taken to its extreme, the absence of any system to balance the money signal can lead to things like buying up lakes to dump in, or buying up all the judges in a town, just because you can pay off enough people. In a completely free market, if you are rich enough, you can theoretically buy enough institutions and mercenaries and set up enough corrupt judges to let you kill people for fun.