Maybe some think that the massive use of fossil fuels over the last century has little effect, but you can't deny the pollution of air, land and water that is harming people and nature. Continuing on the current path is suicidal.
I'm not a climate scientist, but it seems there is a consensus on the issues. You may say the scientists are biased, but some politicians may be more so for their own self interest. I know there will be some 'rogue' scientists who see it differently, but they need some strong evidence to back them up. These are all people with imperfections, but most of them care about what they do.
Making thing 'political' is not always productive.
I'll start there. Inserting politics into science destroys science. The word science means knowledge, and that is ascertained by observation of evidence, not concealing it, lying about it, or censoring it. Whoever censors in a scientific debate has proved themselves wrong.
The climate change alarmism starts with policy the banksters want to impose, and has worked backwards to fabricate support for it with fraudulent research, blatant lies, censorship of scientific debate, and changing data to fit their narrative. The majority of actual climate scientists - not a few rogues - deny that CO2 has affected climate in the last few million years. CO2 is not pollution. It is the very basis for life on Earth. NO, S02, and some various other chemical species are very much pollutants and have wrought harm to ecosystems and human health (not climate) for decades, for example xenoestrogens have dropped testosterone in human males by >60% since I hit puberty, but you don't hear XR screeching about that. No one pays them to screech about that. That plummeting fertility is just what the NWO wants and that's who controls the purse strings.
And fertility is plummeting globally, an existential danger to humanity.
However, the fertilizer CO2 has risen a tiny bit in recent decades, ~200ppm. NASA says that plant productivity has increased by ~30% because of that increase. Does that sound like an extinction risk to you?
wuwt.com is a place where climate scientists actually discuss research, and I recommend you have a read at it. I don't want to further hijack @meno's blog, which is why I offered to discuss this elsewhere, and I will be very happy to because you seem eminently reasonable and I think exposure to actual research and the evidence will do to you what it did to me: change your mind to agree with the observations.
There is no single problem threatening us. As I have said pollution is serious and so is the wiping out of species through agriculture and resource extraction. There are campaigns around those too. There is a big one here about water pollution. Humans have an impact that we could reduce if we wanted to. Vested interests in industry try to talk it down.
I know you want a debate, but my time is limited. I have been taking measures in various ways for decades, but I'm not living in a tent and eating moss.
We're pretty much in agreement on these matters you specify, and I don't see any reason why we can't agree on most things, at least. Have a great day, and enjoy your moss!