We devise a lot of fancy models, none of which are remotely accurate. Climate is a VERY very complex matter.
The main issue is that we know (by observation) how things tend to "naturally" balance themselves, but we have no fricking clue how to reproduce this balancing technically, even though many claim otherwise. Heck, we don't even really know what a proper balance means. Things have gone really bad climate-wise in the past. The Earth is still there and life on it is still abundant. Does that count for things getting balanced over time in a "natural" way? And at what point do we consider things are OK and not OK? Who gets to decide? (Hint: for instance, just because some temporary climate situation does not please us humans does not mean that it is "bad".) By unilaterally determining the rules of what is right and what isn't, we are not doing any better than when we release huge amounts of pollutants. It's just two faces of the same coin. Just my humble 2 cents though, probably not a popular idea.
Depleting "non-renewable" resources (by that we usually mean, resources that don't get renewed in a time scale compatible with our own human time scale) is one thing, pollution is yet another. We could have found ways of using only renewable resources while stilling emitting a lot of CO2 and otherwise pollutants.
In other words, I'm not denying we have been abusive with our environment. We sure have. But I unfortunately think that we are mostly clueless as to how to make things better (short of stopping everything right now, which we can't), and that most of the solutions we come up with are every bit as bad as what led us to this situation in the first place. The same causes, the same consequences.