Early proponents of any new technology usually overestimate the benefits, while established players tend to downplay or even intentionally distort the conversat

Early proponents of any new technology usually overestimate the benefits, while established players tend to downplay or even intentionally distort the conversation to reduce the threat to their existing business or political models. There's no question that everything we do has some impact. It's more important to try to understand that impact relative to alternatives. For example, concerning ourselves with the temperature increase near wind farms without comparing to the (just local) temperature impact of traditional power plants leaves one with the impression that wind farms must be bad because they raise temps. What is the temperature impact near a coal powerplant? And while not a direct competitor, we know the regional temperature impact of pavement in cities (like Dallas for example) is extreme. So build more public transport, reducing need for cars which reduces fossil fuel use (which increases temps) and reduces need for roads (which absorb heat all day and radiate it at night, raising average temps). I'm trying to avoid claiming that these studies may be funded by traditional energy players, but I have strong suspicions.