A dictatorship[1] of the proletariat could do that!
> I genuinely believe the only answer is violently enforced regulation.
I would like to point out that 'violence' is not _strictly_ necessary, except as a defensive measure. An internationally-organized working class could simply refuse to work on destructive projects (new oil pipelines, etc). Unfortunately, people in power tend to react with increasing violence when their power is threatened (see for example the police response to DAPL protests), so you do have to be prepared to respond to violence one way or another during the transition of power. i.e. better organized = less violence. Unfortunately we are very disorganized currently, and organizing is (in my experience) hard. Better get on that.
[1] This word makes the whole term sound undemocratic but actually refers to the proletariat as a whole enforcing their will (which must by definition be determined in a democratic way) despite the will of the existing ruling class without the need for negotiation.
> I genuinely believe the only answer is violently enforced regulation.
I would like to point out that 'violence' is not _strictly_ necessary, except as a defensive measure. An internationally-organized working class could simply refuse to work on destructive projects (new oil pipelines, etc). Unfortunately, people in power tend to react with increasing violence when their power is threatened (see for example the police response to DAPL protests), so you do have to be prepared to respond to violence one way or another during the transition of power. i.e. better organized = less violence. Unfortunately we are very disorganized currently, and organizing is (in my experience) hard. Better get on that.
[1] This word makes the whole term sound undemocratic but actually refers to the proletariat as a whole enforcing their will (which must by definition be determined in a democratic way) despite the will of the existing ruling class without the need for negotiation.