> That's not the point.

That is the point. That's my point. It's irrelevant whether it's your point or not because we're not arguing about your point. We're arguing about my point.

I didn't say anything about land converted back to wild land. I said protected wild land shouldn't be being converted in the first place.

> It has value whether we are considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection.

So...you're saying that what you just claimed isn't the point actually is the point. I'm not saying it's okay to put agricultural land on protected woodlands, but not solar farms, and I'm not saying that no land anywhere should be used for energy generation. I'm saying that protected lands shouldn't be being released from their protected status so they can be razed for solar farms when there are perfectly viable alternatives. Feel free to re-read what I said if you think that wasn't my point (although I stated it explicitly by saying I don't care if you want to build a 10 mi^2 solar farm in the mojave.)

You're trying to discredit my position by equating lands already in agricultural use with protected wetlands and woodlands. It is both a false equivalency and a strawman.

You keep trying to use economics to manipulate my opinion, but my point was never an economic point to begin with. My point is an environmental point. The environment should be preserved when it can reasonably be preserved, even if it's not the most economically viable option.

If there is a more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce the equivalent amount of beef at the equivalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land that also requires the conversion of less wild land than conventional agricultural techniques, then I'll advocate fully for its use, provided that it's not being carried out on otherwise protected land.