[stoperaticless]

There is no other way.

Whatever you do to producer, it will affect consumer.

Increase cost of production? Cost of product increases.

Decrease production output? Cost of product increases. (Assuming demand did not change)

Forbid a product? Consumer looks, for next best alternative which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick).

Regulate prices? Output is reduced. To fill in the gap, consumers look for next best alternative, which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick)

The only alternative is for consumer to stop desiring the product somehow. E.g by changing of definition of “good” via education, morals or religion.

[Spivak]

You subsidize the production of the better thing. Once you have (within reason) a better or equivalent product at the same or lower price at the consumer point-of-sale than the alternative you want to replace go ahead and ban the old thing.

It doesn't work for everything but it's the exact playbook we followed for LED lightbulbs.

[stoperaticless]

Good point. At least some times, there is other way, called “invent something better”. When it works, it can reduce price and reduce environmental damage both at the same time.

Trying to chase at least a tiny bit of “technically correct”: during subsidisation period, consumers are the ones paying for it with their taxes.