> Rather, the point is to say "here's a huge vein of untapped energy, some of which could be tapped without damaging the environment and without releasing carbon."

Did we say that about trees? Fossil fuels? Have we said that about silica, lithium, or rivers (we're having plenty of issues from Georgia to Pennsylvania along the Appalachians because of just that)?

I agree with what you're saying, I just don't think your last sentence is right. Kinda seems like a contradiction if everyone overuses resources (keeps burning oil) and it's causing problems (and we know that is a class of problem that we've experienced with other substances like rubber, trees, fish, dodo birds, lithium - hell, anything we can get our hands on), shouldn't we ensure other problems don't pop up from overusing resources (what if everybody else did this)?

I think the exact point is to not make the same mistake we've made with pretty much every other resource we've ever found...