The very existence of something affects its environment. Even the caveman burned sticks for warmth; would you say he is the "cause" of "the problem" of increase

The very existence of something affects its environment. Even the caveman burned sticks for warmth; would you say he is the "cause" of "the problem" of increased carbon emissions? Because unarguably he did release carbon into the atmosphere. So you'd have to be very specific about the "cause" and the "problem". The electricity that feeds my computer allowing me to type this comment comes from the local power plant, which is fossil-fuel based (coal and natural gas). Shall I be put to death? Or am I far enough removed, and instead perhaps the CEO of the utility company? Or considering that they answer to the shareholders, maybe anybody who owns shares? Considering that it's a publicly-traded company that serves roughly 4% of the landmass of the continental US, that's quite a lot of people. In the end, nobody burns polluting coal and gas for fun. They do it because it's the economical choice; if we could all have abundant clean energy from fusion power at the wave of a wand, we would do it. The fact remains that "problems" cannot be "solved" as much as they need to be weighed against the tradeoffs; there is no free lunch, and the scarce time and resources that can be spent "solving" something can be equally spent somewhere else. I'm afraid that the desire of some people to classify the problem of the changing climate as a categorical imperative that must be "solved" at any cost does not change the underlying reality, which is that "at any cost" is an impossible thing in real life.