Sure all forms of mining can cause pollution or potentially earthquakes.  Probably the worst for water pollution would be mountain top removal.  I believe the jury is still out on what kind of damage fracking really causes.  Sure in some instances it probably affects very little.  However, I'm sure in other areas they have suffered from leaching chemicals and other problems. 

GMO crops destroy biodiversity because the company that is selling the crop only sells one type of seed.  Farmers used to save their best seeds but now companies like Monsanto would rather sell you their seed every year.   This is what happens when you industrialize farming though.  We only grow one type of banana even though there used to be several types of bananas.  There is great concern of tree fungus that could take out the entire banana crop ("In the 1950s, Panama disease, a wilt caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum, wiped out vast tracts of ‘Gros Michel’ plantations in South America and Africa, but the cultivar survived in Thailand.  By 1960, the major importers of Gros Michel bananas were nearly bankrupt, and had waited to deal with the financial and environmental crisis. The Cavendish was cultivated so consumers would still be able to obtain bananas.") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana

If you have different types of bananas then at least one type would not be susceptible to the fungus.  There is danger in only growing one type of apple, banana, corn, etc...  Monsanto has over 90% market share of corn right now in USA.  If there was a bug (that adapted to round up), fungus, parasite, etc that started going after their corn then most the corn crop could be wiped out.  I also don't believe in over use of pesticides and don't believe in the overall increased yields of GMOs because over time your soil turns to crap if you constantly use pesticides. 

The world is starting to wake up to GMOs.  Japan and Europe banned a huge shipment of wheat because they don't want any GMOs ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/global/japan-and-south-korea-bar-us-wheat-imports.html?_r=0 ).  "Although none of the wheat, developed by Monsanto Company, was found in any grain shipments — and the Department of Agriculture said there would be no health risk if any was shipped — governments in Asia and Europe acted quickly to limit their risk."  So the shipment supposedly didn't even have Monsanto GMO wheat but they decided to limit all risks.  Soon U.S. farmers might not have that much of a market to sell to because the rest of the world doesn't want our crops.  Even farmers that aren't growing GMOs suffer due to other countries thinking that the shipment could still be contaminated with GMOs.

Factory farms have cattle, chickens, pigs etc in close spaces or stuck standing up all day long.  Would you rather eat something that has been standing around doing nothing all day pumped full of antibiotics and eating food that really isn't in their diet (cows are supposed to eat grass not corn)?  You know there is a reason why deer, buffalo or any other game meat taste better than factory farmed animals?  Because they actually move around and eat what they are supposed to eat.  Sure the companies want to save space and drive down costs.  However, animals that are allowed to graze in a field will always produce better meat than ones stuffed into a pin and forced fed questionable food.

It actually says plenty.  Because no matter how much actual science and evidence gets posted, deniers do not give a damn.  They'd rather accept some global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to dupe people into carbon credits and stifling Capitalism rather than think for a moment and realize we are jeopardizing the future of the only planet we have.

So again, denial will damn us all.  Because nothing else I say will ever sway those who deny it anyway. 

What I'm saying is that laymen debating the very validity of the science itself, with some of the detractors outright claiming "CONSPIRACY!", is pointless and unproductive. It's not much different than us debating whether plate tectonics is real or just a conspiracy to hide the "fact" that the Earth is hollow. Politics and money should never be an excuse to reject science. Just because those dirty hippies at Greenpeace are proclaiming the end of the world doesn't mean the scientists are full of shit. Just because you don't like the Big Bad Gubmint doesn't mean the scientists are lying to us. Just because you might lose some short-term profits doesn't mean you should work to sow doubt about the science. Lumping in the scientists with the non-scientist activists is counterproductive and intellectually dishonest.

What I'm saying is that we should take the scientists at their word. The world is warming, we are the cause, and there is a chance, however slight, that the warming could be sufficient over the next century to have detrimental effects well beyond the costs to solve the problem. Millions of people displaced by rising seas, crop disruptions, increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, spread of tropical diseases, disruption of ocean currents, loss of mountain glaciers. These problems are most likely solvable, and global warming isn't going to cause the end of civilization itself (unless we find a way to burn every bit of recoverable oil and coal in the Earth's crust), but it would be prohibitively expensive and millions would still suffer in even middle-of-the-road scenarios. The warmer it gets, the greater potential for worse scenarios and thus greater cost to adapt. It's not alarmism. It's not a plot to establish totalitarian communism. It's real science.

What I am saying is that we can solve the problem with technology we already have, and we don't necessarily have to use solutions frequently suggested by liberals. We could offer positive incentives or lend money to utilities to get them to invest more in and gradually change to nuclear, wind, solar, etc. I personally think that liberals and environmentalists bear at least some of the blame themselves for their knee-jerk rejection of nuclear power, which the data clearly shows is a statistically far safer form of power generation than coal or natural gas. Think of solving the problem as more like insurance. Yeah, you might have less money in your pockets each month just to buy something you might not ever need, but you get it anyway just in case shit happens. You may go your whole life without ever crashing your car of having a house fire or a catastrophic illness, but in the worst-case scenario you'll want that insurance. And just like how some insurance companies offer partial refunds for being a good driver, getting off of fossil fuels for electricity generation and automotive fuels would have benefits beyond preventing potential harm in the future. Even ignoring global warming, fossil fuels kill hundreds of thousands each year and cost humanity many millions of dollars just from the direct effects of pollution.