Where I’m at, we’re actually getting a decent amount of solar, but unfortunately the power district is building the solar fields over some remnant tallgrass prairie, probably since it’s cheaper than buying agricultural or residential land. This sucks since we’ve destroyed 98% of all the tallgrass prairie in the US, which makes it one of the most endangered biomes in the world, which is extra sucky since tallgrass prairie is one the most effective biomes at sequestering carbon, much more than even forests/woodlands.
Didn’t read the whole article, but the whole thing reads as very anthropocentric to me. It seems that the entire discussion is around human/Native relationships to trees and whether we’ve grieved/learned our lesson enough. Which put humans entirely at the center of the narrative, when the narrative should primarily be around the tree’s ecological relationships to all of nature. Hell, the article even mentions moth species that have gone extinct due to the downfall of the tree but fails to recognize that maybe humans shouldn’t be the center or the universe in this narrative.