Originally posted by @wildgrass
Question 1: Yes. "An estimated 5.3 million acres (roughly the size of New Jersey) of this new energy-related development is most likely to occur in forested areas."  Keep in mind it's not just the footprint of the actual turbine but all the roads and infrastructure surrounding it. It very clearly destroys animal habitats, and will ultimately reduce bio ...[text shortened]... ience/2015/03/05/new-study-offers-first-comprehensive-picture-of-appalachian-energy-development/
Question 1: Yes. "An estimated 5.3 million acres (roughly the size of New Jersey) of this new energy-related development is most likely to occur in forested areas."
NO; some wind turbines put into a 'forested area' does NOT mean cutting down all the trees in that 'forested area'.
I live in an area with wind turbines and they are in a 'forested area' and I see the tree are still there!
They are nearly always put in clearings in the forested area that where already there
, just like in my area. I have never once seen any tree being cut down specifically to put up a wind turbine and I assume the local cancel would generally block such a move as it would obviously would be in most cases environmentally counterproductive.
Question 2: I don't have any idea.
Exactly! So, how is it that you both, as you just admitted, have "no idea", and assume that trees elsewhere in the world will not be killed by the additional global warming effects by not erecting those wind turbines thus the wind turbines giving net benefit to most trees?
Are you asking how many more trees we'd have now if it weren't for electricity-generating carbon emissions?
No. I am asking would trees elsewhere in the world be killed by the additional global warming effects (more hurricanes blowing them down etc) by NOT erecting more wind turbines. In other words, how do you know there isn't a global net benefit to most trees from erecting more wind turbines? I don't make the assumption of either net benefit nor net cost but, either way, erecting loads more wind turbines certainly wouldn't be used to devastate forests world wide.
In general, a proposal to cut down significant numbers of trees (or just one relatively large tree) to make room for a wind turbine would be strongly rejected and therefore prevented by governments or local cancels and for obvious reasons. It would be the same for solar panels; forests won't be cut down to make way for them because the authorities simply won't allow it and for obvious reasons.
Most wind turbines aren't erected at an exact spot where there was a tree. And what about off-shore wind and wind turbines NOT put in forested areas? There is no shortage of such places left to erect huge numbers of them if necessary thus wind power is still a massively under-exploited resource that can be scaled-up without chopping down a single tree.