Pollution and depletion deprive people of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.
The Constitution doesn’t define property, but all the founders, including those who wrote and ratified the Constitution, understood it as John Locke wrote, including that you can not allow people to make property—that is, to appropriate—from nature without leaving enough as good in common for others. In other words, bringing fossil fuels and uranium into the biosphere violate constitutional property rights.
Those rights are defined not for the fun of it or arbitrarily. They are there to protect liberty, freedom, equality, democracy, and national security from tyranny, civil war, and invasion from disunity, preceded by civic breakdown.
You may like the perks you get from activities that violate these protections. You probably think you can only get modern medicine, overseas travel, and longevity with behavior that pollutes, depletes, and otherwise violate them. Well, slaveholders liked their perks too.
My question to you:
If you like those perks, should we amend the Constitution to stop protecting life, liberty, and property? Should we amend it to stop protecting property rights?
Sure, we’d accelerate toward tyranny, civil war, and being invaded, but you’d get to fly around without violating the Constitution.