Green house gases, yes, carbon, no (at least not in an absolutist sense like your initial assertion was phrased). Besides, now you're talking about ecosystems instead of "earth." Earth is like honeybadger: it don't care if we kill ourselves and all other life, earth goes on. To your point about regulation vs. (presumably) harnessing market forces: Markets are excellent tools to allocate resources efficiently. Regulations are inept about allocating resources efficiently. Regulations should have high standards and not be prescriptive--that is, they should tell market actors what to achieve, but not how to achieve it. Let market actors figure out the most efficient means of achieving the high standards set by regulation. This is on the order of how to make a million dollars: First, you have a great idea for making a million dollars, then you implement your great idea. All you've done is move the problem from the making money stage to the prior having a great idea stage. The question is: HOW to get a large majority of people TO WANT to do something about the problem you perceive? That majority does not now exist in any politically effective way. Create that majority, and the problem solves itself.