cCosts vs. the dDangers of the cClimate cChange

This is a title, and all nouns are usually capitalised in titles. If you choose not to capitalise all nouns in a title, only the first letter is capitalised: "Cost vs. dangers of climate change" would also be correct.

While the ideas of mitigating the effects of climate change are widespread in rich countries, the industries are eschewavoiding the camera, avoidingspotlight and attention from social media, ignoring Pprotestantismors' blaming, and seeking a new method to decrease the costs and increase productivity.

1. the industries -> industries
'The' is not necessary here. It is grammatically correct, but just saying 'industries' sounds more natural.
2. eschewing the camera -> avoiding the spotlight
'Eschewing the camera' does not make any sense. I assume the term you are trying to use is 'avoid the spotlight' but I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say.
3. Protestantism' -> protestors'
Protestantism is a religion, this was probably a mistranslation. Additionally, a possessive apostrophe after a plural noun is only used if the plural noun ends in 's'. Protestantism is never used with an apostrophe.
4. decrease the cost -> decrease costs
Using 'the' here means it is a cost belonging to something, which we have not mentioned to readers.
We are talking about costs generally, so 'the' is grammatically incorrect here. Consequently, we change 'cost' to 'costs'.

For everyWith successful industry leaders, the health capital income, in thes, for most of the time, is more powerful than the rhetoric of propaganda about climate change propaganda.

Unfortunately, I also have no idea what you are trying to say here.
1. 'For every ... leader' -> 'With ... leaders'
Using 'for every' is used when talking about a correlation between two nouns, often statistics. Example:
"For every person, there are 1.6 million ants".
2. 'the health capital income'
These words together do not make sense, I don't know what you're trying to say.
3. in the most of time -> for most of the time
The correct term is 'most of the time', not 'the most of time'. Additionally, using 'in' is incorrect here.
4. propaganda about climate change -> climate change propaganda
This isn't grammatically incorrect but 'climate change propoganda' is more suitable. 'Climate change' is the important part of the sentence, so putting it as an adjective before 'propaganda' conveys a better image.

For an example of an astute leader of the cosmopolitan industrial factory of a state-owned company in the 21st century, look no further than the Fuyao glass industry of Cao Dewang, which built the factory in Ohio.

The use of 'for an example of...' with 'look no further' doesn't quite fit in this context. I don't know how to correct this without rewriting it entirely. There are too many adjectives here to understand the important parts of the sentence. I would remove 'astute', 'cosmopolitan', and 'state-owned'.

Mr. Cao and his factory bring theought income to locals and stanood out as aby decreasing unemployment rates, soarboosting the local labor market, and bargained a huge perk from Ohio’s government, as quid pro quo.

1. Mr. Cao -> Cao
Mr. is a bit outdated nowadays, you can just use 'Cao', or 'Dewang' if you wanted to. Mr. is only used in schools, when students are talking to their teachers.
Not sure what you mean by 'bargain a huge perk'.

At the same time, the local government had entirely disregarded the pollution of exhaustedfrom emissions and Ssewage Ddisposal from Mr. Cao’s factory and have taken the pieces from this win-win cooperation.

Not sure what you mean by 'have taken the pieces'

When the government and capital collaboratecollaborates with the private sector and make an acquiescence under the tables, the slogans of climate change weaken.

'Capital' doesn't quite fit in this context, 'private sector' has a more suitable definition.
'Under-the-table' does not apply here, it implies something intentionally illegal/shady. The scenario you are talking about seems to relate more to negligence.

cCost vs. the dDangers of the cClimate cChange

While the ideas of to mitigatinge the effects of climate change areis widespread in rich countries, the industries are eschewing the camera, avoiding attention from social media, ignoring Pprotestantismors' blaming, and seeking a new method to decrease their cost and increase productivity.

For every successful industry leader, the health capital income, in the most of time, is more powerfuls more powerful most of the time than the rhetoric of propaganda about climate change.

I don't exactly know what you're trying to say here.

For an example of an astute leader of the cosmopolitan industrial factory of a state-owned company in the 21st century, you need look no further than the Fuyao glass industrcompany of Cao Dewang, which built thea factory in Ohio.

Mr. Cao and his factory bring the income to local and stand out as a decreasing unemployment rate, soaring the local labor market, and bargain a huge perkstand out because they have increased local incomes and are responsible for a decreasing unemployment rate. They bargained for huge perks and a quid pro quo from Ohio’'s state government, as quid pro quo.

At the same time, the local government had entirely disregarded the pollution of exhausted emission and Sand sewage Ddisposal from Mr. Cao’s factory, and have taken the piecesbenefitted from this win-win cooperation.

When the government and capital markets collaborate and make an acquiescencedeals under the table, the slogans of climate changetrength of the environmental movement only weakens.