Wrong. None of those actually prevent pollution. You merely have to pay more to do it. Try again.
In your original post, you said "reduce" pollution. Now you are moving the goalposts to "prevent" pollution.
clearly, if we reduced the number of cars on the road, and reduced the amount of fuel the produce, and replaced coal burning plants with nuclear plants or hydro-electric or wind farms, that would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the air. enough to allow the natural methods of the carbon cycle to cope with it.
That said, and the reason why it's questionable to continue this conversation is, that you are kind of impervious to reason or compromise. No amount of evidence that this would be a good thing would convince you that we need more government to implement it. I could show you charts all day, scientific studies, etc. and you'd be all like "I don't want no more gummit in my life!!!"
So what would be the point, really?