Do you want to fight climate change, or do you want to see me sock a few dingers?

This is a good question; one that may be rephrased and reiterated for many different scenarios of "going green". I'd imagine questions about such tradeoffs becoming more and more commonplace in the future...

nbsp;

We still have a lot of roofs left. If the solar panels needed to be put up, they could have offered free or cheap installation for one's roof. Perhaps a percent reduction on the power bill (like 50%) for that property as long as the panels are up. Make it voluntary and keep panels ownership outside of those willing participants.

During all this commotion and installation of "extra" green power for the grid, build some new nuclear power plants... these can and would produce the primary chunk of massive energy requirements of industry, rail, etc. in the grid.

Solar is great and wonderful to reduce usage in particular scenarios... especially when a bright sun might cause increased demand for power.

Going green does not have to be disruptive to our communities. I'd argue that "thinking globally whilst acting locally" instead should enhance and compliment existing habits and design whenever possible (like roofs). Making something painless or familiar garners larger support and participation.

Perhaps this was the desired outcome by the community here - I cannot say. Additionally going green should not be a forced solution to make use of government incentives and/or grants. Unless there was a relocation or refitting of other open space for youth and adults to unwind, this deployment appears forced.

Disclaimer: This comment amongst many is pure speculation based on images here; much of what I say above was not meant to educate or correct parent commentary. The above is just another conclusion that might be made from observation and consideration around this uncommon transformation of land use.*