This webpage says that the MacArthur Foundation seeks to fight climate change. San Francisco's Tom Steyer has focused on this policy agenda.  Many successful progressives and non-profits seek to "fight climate change" through investing their time and $ resources to reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions through changing public policy.

If coal is the major dirty fuel, then why hasn't this group of actors figured out how to work together to use markets?  Right now they are focusing their efforts on changing policies but policies leak across borders.  U.S progressives can't change policies in China and India.  Suppose that the progressives pooled their ample $ and purchase just one asset called coal.  If they could purchase enough of it and keep it in the ground, the price of coal would rise and this would incentivize both green research and development but also fuel switching all over the world.  How much $ would this take?  Do progressives have enough $ to achieve this? Could they overcome the free rider problem to achieve this? I will leave this to others to figure out.

For a technical overview of these issues read Harstad's 2012 JPE paper. 

So, it appears that progressives seek to tax everyone in terms of changing our fuel mix and lifestyle to purchase a reduced exposure to climate change risk.  Many Republicans oppose this collective solution.   In Coase's work on the lighthouse, one group of people will privately provide a public good (the lighthouse) when their aggregate benefits exceed the costs of providing it.  Do coal purchases = a  lighthouse?  Will progressives unilaterally pay for the climate change mitigation effort and thus remove Republican opposition?