That's EXACTLY what he's saying:
He is creating this vague, generalized image of two equal undefined camps in opposition both over the why of it and the blame for it; these two camps are so intent on their argument that they are paralyzed by the discussion. No such division exists, and that is NOT why there is a stalemate.
In reality, you have the very specific camp of scientists (and the people persuaded by them) that there is a huge problem that we have caused, that only we can mitigate, and who have no power to change anything at all or to initiate the most basic survival strategies.
In another camp, you have the concentrated power of corporations who know that the scientists are right, but have chosen to use their resources to convince the general public that no such problem exists. Meanwhile, they are doing everything in their power to take advantage of the situation by sucking up any remaining wealth on the planet. They don't care whether the general populace survives; they are putting their own survival strategy into operation already (in places like New Zealand).
And then you have the government, which has the theoretical power to not only stop the damage, but also, at the very least, invest in survival strategies. In truth, however, they are beholden to the corporations, to do their bidding, and they are vulnerable to the denial of the general populace because a strong stance for mitigation or survival, either one, would result in being voted out of office. Meanwhile, the military is fully aware of the damaging potential of climate change and they have been quietly drawing up their own survival plans.
So the OP is presenting this existential dilemma and massive power play as if it's two kids fighting on a playground, locked in a blame game, which is not only criminally simplistic, it's not even remotely accurate.