I think this argument is very shallow at best. You seem to be claiming that the choice is either "use all fossil fuels forever" or "give up all fossil fuels imm

I think this argument is very shallow at best. You seem to be claiming that the choice is either "use all fossil fuels forever" or "give up all fossil fuels immediately". You also seem to be ignoring the fact that replacing any fossil fuel tech you name with an equivalent one that doesn't produce CO2 is the very definition of "advancing the tech". The argument for clean energy is basically that we need to be doing as much as we can to advance energy technology as quickly as possible no matter how it affects legacy industry, like fossil fuels. The human costs from ditching these legacy fuels are real, but rate very low compared to the cost to future humanity. There really is no argument about what we should be doing, but rather how quickly we can and how much effort is needed.