There isn't anything to fix. The projected effects are either unknown or not as bad as many say. The doom of climate change loses its appeal when you try to figure out exactly what would happen. Even if government regulators were the answer, they wouldn't be able to fix anything since nobody knows what there is to fix or what would fix that.

The broad answer for how regulators stifle "fixing the climate" is in reducing economic growth. Invention and innovation are the only solutions in the long run. The more economic freedom we have, the more of those we get. As usual, the food industry is a good example. Crops are continually becoming more resilient, more nutritious, and with higher yields because of innovation by companies. In the context of global warming, where arable land would likely decrease, farm innovation is what would keep the denominator growing, as it has been.

Additionally, the wealthier a society, the more resilient and capable of bouncing back from tragedies it is.

Another answer is in the tragedy of the commons like discussed in ocean life. "Common" property is nearly impossible to protect because of how incompatible the "common" interests are. But private property is easy to protect. If we let people just own things, then we'd see far less ecological destruction.

If global warming really is doomsday, the only way we fix it is with technology far beyond what we have today. This means that the goal should be to empower the engine that invents and innovates and creates wealth. Also, I'm not horribly against the government spending on research. However, its role should be exclusively in untapped areas, perhaps like basic research at CERN. But once the market wants to get its hands on a technology and manipulate it for consumer goods, the government needs to let it happen.