Just because species have not been negatively affected in the past (to your knowledge) doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Imagine if a new set of power lines were installed across the migration paths of some large herbivores - they might affect their migration, and so the health of the groups affected. That means their normal predators (whose numbers have grown large enough to be sustained by that group of herbivores) are now without enough food. They might just start attacking humans. That's pretty extreme, but it's an example of a much worse secondary effect of what otherwise seems like a rather benign primary effect.
No-one's calling this the "next global warming", and you might want to leave your Al Gore bashing out of this so you don't look quite so ridiculous.
I appreciate your stance, but this whole "but X is adaptable!" answer to having to change our behaviour to help X is clearly limited. We need to know the scale of the impact before we know if they're adaptable enough to adapt to the changes we are throwing at them. I'm sure you appreciate that if the change we are talking about is simply making them walk 1 meter out of their way - they can probably adapt to that. If the change is causing them to jump off cliffs, there's not much adaptability that would work in that case.
Are you aware that we rely on other species to survive? We evolved with those other species around - removing them from our environment might indeed change the balance of wildlife to the point where things we directly rely on start being affected by our changes to other species. Yes, humans are awesome and clever and can fly and go to the moon and everything, but we still breathe the same air as other (air-breathing) animals, drink the same water, and live on the same planet.
Our role in nature should be to not mess with nature so much that we die out. The status quo got us this far - changing it too much is not a good idea. Science can tell us what constitutes "too much", and ignoring that is folly. Suicidal folly.