I find effects have causes and arguing with effects while ignoring causes is delusional.

Consider the issue of climate change, as function of fossil fuels; That energy sources will be used is inevitable. The real issue is whether they are used wisely. Which goes to how we structure society and the economy.

For example, capitalism is considered synonymous with a market based economy, but markets need money to circulate, while people tend to see it as signal to extract and store. Consequently our entire society has devolved into accumulating what amounts to receipts from others. The tool has become the god. The medium has become the message.

Econ 101 says money is both medium of exchange and store of value, but is that logical? Consider blood is a medium, while fat is a store. Roads are a medium parking lots are a store. Would it work to mix them up?

Back in the day people raised their kids and were taken care of in old age. Now they have retirement accounts and the kids have debt. The reality hasn't changed, but the levels of corruption creating blocks in the system are becoming terminal.

The fact is there isn't the investment potential to save what we feel necessary, but we do save for many of the same reasons, so the concept of the commons will eventually have to be resurrected. The problem is that it only works when society is based on responsibility, with rights as reward, but in our paradigm, rights are a given and no one is actually responsible.

If we had a society based on responsibilities, the question of the climate could be addressed more effectively than just protesting it.

Dig down through the layers.