We don't tax the neighbour (or all property owners) because his fence is falling over. We prop it up and replace it if necessary. We take action through the use of technology.
Look around your own home:
Space heating. Various options are available and in the majority of situations it is possible to achieve at least a 70% emissions cut compared to electric resistance heating.
Hot water. Again several options, and at least a 65% cut is achievable.
Transport. Simply switching from a petrol engine to diesel in an otherwise identical vehicle achieves a 30% cut.
Lighting. A 30% reduction compared to the old incandescent bulbs is easily achievable with virtually no downsides. A 75% cut is doable if you accept some differences in lamp performance. And the LED technologies which aren't far away will take that to an 85 - 90% cut.
TV / computer monitor. LED LCD displays achieve around a two thirds reduction in energy compared to plasma / CRT.
And so on. None of the above measures would have ANY noticeable impact on the lifestyle of the average person despite delivering very real energy savings.
One real problem however is that many people tend to "cling" to inefficient technologies. Plenty will argue the merits of old fashioned electric water heaters over solar etc. Just like many will argue about the benefits of incandescent lighting. There's even a few who still think burning wood in an open fire to be a good idea. And yet strangely, those same people ditched the dial phone, twin tub and top loading VCR years ago (anecdotally, it seems to be those most willing to embrace new technologies in some areas, are also the least willing to embrace energy efficient devices. Why I don't know, but it is something I have observed on numerous occasions).