For example, ok there may be a coal seam or gold or whatever in them there hills, but it's underneath a forest that is habitat for birds and trees. Are you going to slash and burn the forest just to extract this gold or coal?
But if coal was just all on the ground or flowing in the rivers, and easily obtainable, or the rivers are rushing and forever generating movement, why not harness this renewable energy - we do in NZ. It's called hydropower.
Solar power works in Australia because of flat land with plenty of sun. They get a lot of sunshine hours.
And wind does work for areas that are very windy. But it won't work everywhere.
Oil can be leaking out of the ground in tar pits or whatever. Some countries have volcanoes and geothermal areas. I think if you have a source of energy thats ok, use it, but if not you will have to buy it from somewhere else - that's why whales were hunted to near extinction for their oil and why Arab countries are now so rich. There is a price peeps need to be aware of.
The pollution is another thing - oil spills, extraction dumping, radioactive waste that causes cancer and acid rain, disturbing wild life habitat. In nz because of the dams built to create hydropower, it was threatening river wildlife. So some environmentalists campaigned to save the snails. True story.
When the forests got cut down forestry just left logs lying around and the rain would fall on slashed forests causing landslips. That's why Gisborne/Hawkes bay area is so devastated, nothing is keeping the soil. It just washes away and all the rivers carry that sediment and silt up the harbours. If people studied ecosystems more and closed the loops it would be better but there is a huge amount of waste people generate that they think just magically disappears into the ether. It doesn't. It has to go somewhere and will affect something else.