Your comment is a good example of two of the classic global warming denial tactics.

You're claim about industrial productivity causing unavoidable damage to the environment is setting up a binary in order to pretend the badness is unavoidable. In reality, different industrial procedures have vastly varying effects on the environment. One procedure might have an incredibly small effect relative to another, but if we listen to your claim, we would lump them all together and shrug our shoulders because it's necessary to have industry in modern society.

And then there's the scale argument. Well, the scale argument is another kind of deflection. I think the background assumption is that because human beings have done things on a small scale for the past few hundred years, we shouldn't worry that things have been ramped up in the last half century. Of course that doesn't make sense because the world population has risen massively, and the effects of increased climate change end up causing irreversible damage, damage that wasn't even close to being caused a hundred years ago.

And finally, the fatalistic tone itself is a deflection tactic. In fact we have created a lot of legislation to fix problems created by pollution. We have successfully regulated a ton of environmental problems away. So if we're trying to use history as a measure of how to create the future, let's get even more regulation into place.

Industrial productivity comes at the cost of the environment.

There's no industrial productivity that comes from sustainability. You can only harvest to exhaustion. And you can never give back any more than you take.

This is the nature of industry and not at all the nature of profit chasing.

Like, that’s just how mining works.

No mining but strip mining.

Even industrial pollution isn’t a new concern.

An unsolvable concern. Certainly not one that industrial recycling and waste mitigation can address.