Again, "sheer blind adoration of trees" isn't really my position. I recognize there are costs, downsides, and contraindications. By contrast, you seem to think

Again, "sheer blind adoration of trees" isn't really my position. I recognize there are costs, downsides, and contraindications. By contrast, you seem to think PV is all upside and trees are all downside. Again, even accounting for PV roof shading, the energy audit showed a 15x improvement in keeping trees vs. cutting down trees and adding PV. That roof shading was already 'baked in.' Accounting for PV roof shading is basic stuff in sustainable architecture. If we're being fair, we should acknowledge that solar panels can also reduce the longevity of the roof they're on, due to poor installation, the addition of new roof penetrations, and wind funneling. It's easy to say "well don't get a poor installer then," but of course the problem is you don't always know that going in! The presence of PV also greatly increases the cost of replacing/repairing a roof, since the PV has to be essentially uninstalled and reinstalled to access the roof beneath. Well-positioned trees will shade a structure in the hottest parts of the day (normally south and west), which is precisely the "evening peak" when the grid is most stressed. PV instead produces most of its energy in the "afternoon lull," when electricity demand dips. So trees are effectively producing 'negawatts,' (credit to Amory Lovins) reducing demand on the end-of-line distribution grid at exactly the right time of day.` At the risk of stating the obvious, if trees are crashing through your living room they're not "good" shade trees! Any competent arborist will be able to give you advice on setbacks, trimming, and (yes) removal if necessary. Remember that the trees are most likely giving you a much greater "energy payback" than PV[1], so you should use an appropriately levelized playing field when comparing the expense of paying an arborist every ~decade vs. the expense of paying PV installers every ~2-3 decades. If I seem one-sided in my presentation, it's only because I'm needing to counter-balance your initial extremely one-sided presentation. My point is precisely that you need to look at both the cumulative upsides and the cumulative downsides of both technologies, and not simply look for evidence supporting a preconceived bias, in either direction. I think we're in agreement on that! Anyway the exchange has been fun, and hopefully enlightening to at least one other reader, so I'm voting up all. cheers [1] To quantify this, I would encourage hiring a sustainable design professional to do an in-person energy modeling of the home or business in question.