Do you disagree with the idea that making large parts of the planet potentially uninhabitable for humans as a result of climate change is a bad thing then?
I can get if you want to protect the Earth for the sake of the Earth, or for the sake of other flora/fauna on the Earth, so that's why you might not want energy from oil, or plastics, or industrial farming. But as soon as you start to introduce the human element to that justification for being against those things, the argument falls apart.
Industrial Farming has virtually
solved world hunger, where world hunger is now a
political problem, not an agricultural problem. Prior to industrial farming, hundreds of thousands of people died of unavoidable starvation. Because of industrial farming, plastics, and energy from fossil fuels, starvation is not an agricultural problem anymore. Because of these three things -- industrial farming, plastics, and energy from fossil fuels -- disease, famine, malnutrition, clean water, and almost any other ill has been reduced to logistical or
political problems. That is to say, these problems still exist in places that are under political duress or are logistically difficult to address, but political and logistical problems are soft problems that can be solved... The tyrant starving his population is overthrown, medical supplies can be brought to a disease stricken area, relief programs can eventually reach suffering populations that are difficult to access.
So, I get it if someone wants to turn back the clock on human life from some sort of Gaia/planetary concern, the idea that humans should not destroy nature and harm the delicate balance of all species on the planet, or perhaps the idea that if humans die of mass starvation, famine, or disease that maybe that's all part of nature's plan to regulate population, or what have you. I get those arguments and if that's your religious belief then I couldn't really argue against it... But the moment we bring in the human element to this, the idea of 'making the planet uninhabitable for humans,' the argument isn't convincing, because those three things in particular have made earth more
habitable for humans than it ever was before they came about. Entire civilizations used to die of starvation over several bad crop seasons; entire continents would be ravaged by disease, reducing human populations by as much as 60% in Europe, or in some cases completely eradicating large cities. These three things, and really just one of them, the harnessing of fossil fuels, has led to the single largest reduction in pestilence, disease, starvation, and strife in human civilization (industrial farming and plastics both don't exist without petroleum). The cost to the planet, though, has been steep, so I get it if we're in favor of pestilence, disease, starvation, etc., as a means to keep some balance to the planet greater than the human species, but insofar as we're focused on humans ... it's a tough argument to be convincing.
Rather than outright strike these things from human knowledge (say, like some Assassins Creed Piece of Eden sorcery), I'd rather we live in a world where that knowledge is known, utilized, but then the same thing that leads us to those scientific discoveries, is the same thing that educates us on how to utilize them without destroying the planet. In the long term, maybe that's impossible, but in the short term, we'd all have been dead without them anyway.