Arguments
Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?
Posted on 13 January 2026 by Sue Bin Park
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.
Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?
Clearing trees to build solar farms does not negate their climate change benefits, because one acre of solar panels prevents far more CO2 emissions than an acre of forest absorbs.
In the U.S., replacing equivalent natural gas power with one acre of solar prevents about 175 to 198 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.
In contrast, an average acre of forest sequesters less than 1 metric ton of CO2 per year. An acre of solar cuts roughly 200 times more CO2 than an acre of trees.
Cutting forest does release stored carbon, but even if all 304 metric tons of CO2 in a forested acre were emitted during construction, a typical solar farm would offset that within two years of operation.
Only about 4% of U.S. solar projects have been built on forested land.
Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact
This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.
Sources
Alliance for Climate Transition Cutting down forests just to put up solar panels will make climate change worse
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Land Requirements for Utility-Scale PV: An Empirical Update on Power and Energy Density
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: Update
EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator - Calculations and References
EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator - Revision History
Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles
Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!
About fact briefs published on Gigafact
Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.
Any reason the discussion does not include any of the O2 molecules that are not replunished when the trees and other vegitation is removed for the solar farms? I would think a more compehensive discussion of all factors would provide better insight.
David-acct,
Any reason your question seems to be missing the understanding that a more comprehensive evaluation would include that O2 is removed and locked into CO2 and H2O by the oxidation of fossil fuels?
The evaluation of the impacts of solar farms would be to fully compare them with the impacts of the alternative energy systems, which would be more than the O2 impacts.
I look forward to a more comprehensive evaluation done by you reported back here.
Indeed, let's not forget the part concerning oxygen that is accomplished by every gas, coal and oil power plant, and every single internal combustion engine:
CH+O2 --> CO2+H2O
It seems obvious that if we are concerned about oxygen, this process is also a concern, a rather gigantic one, in fact.
David-acct says: "Any reason the discussion does not include any of the O2 molecules that are not replunished when the trees and other vegitation is removed for the solar farms?"
Except "other vegetation" is not removed, or it is replaced. Solar farms are freqently built over large areas of grass, standing on support struts so the areas of grass are not significantly impacted. You can even farm these areas. So impacts on oxygen are insignificant.
Nigelj - It remains a legitimate question. The article specifically compared.
"Clearing trees to build solar farms does not negate their climate change benefits, because one acre of solar panels prevents far more CO2 emissions than an acre of forest absorbs."
Comparing apples to apples remains a valid question, even if one doesnt like the applicable comparison.
David-acct @ 1:
What on earth are you talking about? The OP specifically mentions "Cutting forest does release stored carbon, but even if all 304 metric tons of CO2 in a forested acre were emitted during construction..."
Are you saying thet there is some unaccounted O2 flux into the forest that is distinct from the O2 that is consumed in turning forest carbon into CO2 (which is included in the above statement)?
Normally, a growing forest (defined by accumulations of carbon, be it trees, other vegetation, soils, or detritus) is releasing O2, as it splits CO2 into C and O2. What exactly is being "not replenished" in your scenario? Are you talking about replenishing atmospheric O2?
David-acct@5:
You posted while I was preparing #6.
Same question for you: the O in CO2 is O2. What other O2 flux are you going on about?
Bob - Read the OP in the full context - it specifically mentions the future carbon dioxide not absorbed because the trees are gone. But again doesnt discuss the O2 that is not created becasue the trees are gone, thus a lose of an element that is more essential the human and animal life.
The issue is that the OP truncates/ skips over an important aspect of the topic that is inconvenient. Why does the OP omit the discussion?
David-acct @ 8:
Take your own advice.
The CO2 that is not absorbed involves the same O2 that is not created. I have already quoted the section of the OP that quantifies this: "an average acre of forest sequesters less than 1 metric ton of CO2 per year." That tells us how much O2 will not be produced if the forest is removed.
Unless, as I have asked, you know of some other magical source of O2 released by the forest that is not involved in the forest growth (CO2 uptake).
CO2 is the bad guy
O2 is the Good guy
Again - Why does the OP truncate - Skip over - important facts ? is it because it becomes inconvenient to present full and complete facts that reflect poorly on the advocacy?
You're losing it, David-acct.
Let's quote the full context, since you're big into context:
Now, since you want to emphasize O2, please do the full calculations to compare the O2 involved in all the fluxes mentioned in that quote from the OP.
Why do you truncate the discussion to just the O2 involved in the forest uptake (which wlil no longer happen)? Is it because looking at the O2 involved in the CO2 reductions from the solar panel installation becomes inconvenient to your advocacy?
The CO2 reduction from the solar panels results in less atmospheric O2 being consumed as carbon is burned. In far greater quantities than the "lost" O2 production from the forest you think is so important.
For readers that are not as dug in to a position as David-acct, there are several posts here at SkS that cover changing levels of CO2 and O2. It's a well-covered aspect of climate science. In general, one of the pieces of evidence in support of the argument that burning fossil carbon is the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is the correlated decrease in atmospheric O2.
Here are posts that discuss this:
Several of those posts contain graphs of observed atmospheric O2 levels. Here is one, from the second link:
Note that a drop of 70ppm in O2 levels is not particularly worrisome from a human health standpoint. We're at 21%, and OHS warnings don't kick in until O2 drops to about 18%.
...but if David-acct is really worried that we're going to run out of oxygen because science is hiding something, he might want to get on to a path that helps stop burning fossil fuels.