How much richer would the world be if we all agreed on who has property rights to everything on the planet?  If we could all (including those who are not yet born) sign a binding contract over such ownership, then there would be no need for armies or the police. There would be no violence.  If you want something that someone else owns, there would be a market price and you would make a decision to buy it or not. 

This economy would not feature rising GHG emissions because those who desire lower emissions would form a coalition to purchase this polluting energy source  and would "buy coal" (for details read this 2012 JPE).   If there are potential free riders in the group,  then a mechanism design expert would need to work with the most ardent supporters of carbon mitigation to design a format to elicit each person's willingness to pay to reduce the risk of climate change. 

Ph.D. economists will note an irony.  Much of the news in the New York Times each day is really about this core question over the fight over "who has property rights".   Yet, in modern economics at the start of any macro or general equilibrium lecture --- property rights are established and agreed upon.

One of the best general papers on this broad subject, is Acemoglu's paper.   https://economics.mit.edu/files/4461