How we solve the problem isn't the issue.

it absolutely is the issue. If you say "do this to save our children"...and this doesn't actually save our children that's a problem.

I have no problem paying more for one trillionth of one percent greater chance that my children and my children's children will live in a better world... just like I have no problem doing the myriad other things parents do in the hope it will pay off for their kids in the long run.

[evil hypothetical below]

lets try a hypothetical "What if i say I'll kill your children in 20 years unless you give me your life savings today." What's the chance i could follow up on this hypothetical and kill the real life child? given how i've framed it as a hypothetical you can be pretty sure the answer is zero...except you can't actually say there is a 0% chance because there's a tiny chance i'm a insane psychopath committed to actualizing hypothetical scenarios i lay out. So lets say there is a 1E-989 % chance I'm going to do it unless you pay up...do you pay up? by your logic I think you have to...after all your children's children's children don't exist if i kill your child. look at all those generations at risk, isn't anything justified to remove any possible risk?

In reality your answer is no: the chance is so trivial as to be worth taking seriously so we've hopefully established some percentage point chance isn't going to be worth the sacrifice. Thus we need to weigh the actual benefit & "pecent chance of being important in saving our children's lives" with the current costs.

I have no problem paying more for one trillionth of one percent greater chance that my children and my children's children will live in a better world

you see I do have a problem with that and so do most people. I don't consider something like a 1E-99999 % chance of harm worth sacrificing say a third of my net lifetime earnings. That's crazy. the question is what is the true percentage and how does that weigh against the costs