Banning CFCs to fix the ozone hole over Oceania/Antarctica. Scientific consensus was CFCs were directly responsible for the problem, countries around the globe got together and mandated the use of different refrigerants with the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Every single member of the UN ratified the agreement. It's regarded as one of if not the most effective international environmental agreement ever. Potentially saved millions of lives with reduced skin cancer cases.
Banning CFCs were a win/win for industry/environment because industry had alternatives for CFCs that they could charge a premium for. No such option exists for fossil fuels.
that's absolutely not true though. there are countless alternatives from DAC/CCS coupled with anything, endless variations of nuclear (even fusion too), T shaped dams in the sea, wind, solar.
the problem is about collective action, and justice/fairness/negotiation/geopolitics. like the iterated prisoner's dilemma. defectors get cheap energy, but then the next round your exports get a big tariff added, but then defectors of that get cheap shit, the next round they might get tariffs too, but then you hit a ceiling on this.
