I’ll try to explain. Even things that science sees as clear (the finiteness of resources, warming) are attacked by people of science and belief who challenge them. But it is clear that this is not really a factual-scientific dispute, but a value-based dispute that stems from worldviews, and it is expressed on two planes. The first is humanity’s place and status in the world. Someone who thinks that man is the ruler of the world and capable of solving everything through intellect and technology will challenge the axiom of finite resources, because in his view everything has a substitute and a solution will always be found, even if it is not currently in our hands. And so this position opposes taking action to moderate the use of resources. The second is a social-political outlook. Climate-change deniers come with a “libertarian” ideology according to which the state should not restrict its citizens’ freedom, and therefore they cry out against taxing disposable utensils (immediately after the elections it was reported that representatives of the Haredi parties promised they would repeal the tax), or taxing carbon emissions, and in general they claim that any action to mitigate climate change necessarily harms economic growth. Etc.
I turned to you here because in my opinion this is a central issue that humanity and society are unable to solve, and it requires deeper thought and fresh thinking.
Thank you.

I think that at bottom this is a factual dispute. If, factually, we have reached the conclusion that there is a problem, there is no justification whatsoever for not acting to solve it. I also don’t think anyone seriously claims otherwise. To say that in the future solutions will be found is not serious. Does anyone seriously claim that if we are heading toward a budget deficit, there is no need to cut expenses because solutions will be found? There may perhaps be a question of dosage, meaning what prices should be paid now in order to prevent the future problem. But that is too general a question, and I can’t say anything intelligent about it right now.
The Haredi claim regarding taxation is not rooted in facts but in ignoring them. They simply want not to pay any price and to continue conducting themselves as usual, and they do not care even if the world is destroyed (not that this tax would prevent destruction, of course). And they certainly do not recognize the categorical imperative that requires us to act even if our impact is small. So the debate there is not connected to the matter, and it is not really a value-based debate at all. It is just an interest.
The fact that we are not managing to solve the problem is for two reasons: 1. Not everyone agrees that it exists. 2. Even if they do, people are not willing to pay prices in terms of their immediate interests. I have no solution to that. It is like our failure to solve the problem of murders. It is simply because people act according to self-interest and are unwilling to subordinate it to morality.

Thank you

Many of those opposed to climate panic make fairly clear claims:
1. It has not been proven at all that there is a human-caused problem. The climate may perhaps be affected by carbon dioxide and human activity, but there is no strong evidence that this is a substantial effect. So far all climate models have overestimated the warming, and in the past the world was also warmer with less carbon dioxide (the Medieval Warm Period) and colder with more carbon dioxide (the Carboniferous period, for example).
2. Even if there is climate change caused by human action, a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out regarding preventive measures. In such a cold calculation, the cost of action today (in damage to the economy equivalent to the killing of hundreds of millions of people) is dozens of times greater than any climate damage, even under severe scenarios.
3. There is not necessarily any logic in austerity today in order to “leave more for future generations,” since given today’s trend of economic growth, future generations will be wealthier than us by orders of magnitude. That is, they may have tools many times better for solving those same problems (a classic example: our generation can economically produce oil and gas that two generations ago was not economical to produce; our generation has computational power substantially stronger than what existed 70 years ago. Imagine if back then they had invested computing resources in climate modeling—it would have required half of U.S. GDP, versus 0.000001% today)

That is exactly what I wrote. The debate can be about the costs. You understand that according to your calculation, if we take it to its logical conclusion, we should never act, because in the future we will always be able to act better. That way we will all expire like Buridan’s donkey. But one certainly does have to weigh cost and benefit, as I wrote.