In The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein argues that you can't make a moral case for something without establishing a standard of value. His standard of value is maximizing 'human flourishing' to which he contrasts 'minimizing human impact' as the environmentalist standard.
Straw man alert!
Why do we get just two possible standards of value? Must they be irreconcilable opposites? Can't different standards be at least partly compatible? Can't we care about human flourishing and care about the environment and other species for their own sake? Is there a quota on standards of value? Do environmentalists get just one?
Sure, some environmentalists and climate change activists fit Epstein's cartoonish picture of them: infatuated with notions of 'pristine nature', fighting for policies that would cause immense human suffering, unwilling to compromise. But plenty of environmentalists include humans in their circle of caring. It's just that their circle includes more than humans. Such caring doesn't need a rationale. It doesn't even need to be rational.
Yes, Epstein is right about fossil fuels having enabled humans to flourish like never before. And he is right that humanity still needs fossil fuels, at least for the foreseeable future. But he is wrong that "any restriction on fossil fuel use would do devastating damage". This doesn't have to be an either/or argument.