> That message quietly dissappeared without explanation. No, it didn't. New data emerged, and priorities shifted. There's nothing sinister or weird about it. T

> That message quietly dissappeared without explanation. No, it didn't. New data emerged, and priorities shifted. There's nothing sinister or weird about it. Trees only manage to temporarily store carbon, so there's a finite amount of CO2 mass trees can contribute to neutralize per year, and go figure it's not enough. I believe the idea is that a single wind turbine can offset the loss in CO2 consumption cause by that same turbine taking up tree space, right? > you have to destroy a lot of trees to plant wind farms and solar panels. You have to destroy a lot of trees to put in country-spanning oil pipelines and run strip mines, and similar things are true for just about any other industrial-scale form of power production, so it doesn't make sense that minor tree death would become a conspiracy amongst environmentalists only when it's such an open problem for everything else, to me. ... Also, California learned how bad it is to never kill trees ever, so that may have contributed.