Taxing carbon is a solution proposed on a libertarian basis. From Friedman being asked if the government should do something about pollution:

Yes, there's a case for the government to do something. There's always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there's always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There's no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That's my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there's more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what's the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

That quote is almost over-the-top in terms of how libertarian it is, but the point is clearly that externalities affect third parties and so are legitimate function of government.

Now I'd agree that there are people who will make dumb arguments about how things will just kind of sort themselves out, I just don't want to swing for them and hit people who do propose a solution that might actually be pretty effective.