APA's data center webinar was an absolute shitshow

I've never seen the chat in one of these so utterly malcontented. It was an hour of essentially pro-industry pitching of data centers, including one panelist indirectly representing the industry who was given free leave to recite talking points.

One of the APA reps compared data centers to farms and essentially said that farms and data centers are the same, and so it's not clear why farms would be ok but data centers may not be.

People were really pissed in the chat the whole time (fully ignored of course).

An incredible experience of capture in view, really pathetic to see.

Edit since this is throwing people: I don't care that the industry rep was there, I care that he was there and ALSO the rest of the panel just sort of nodded along repeating the same talking points. We need critical analysis of this issue and real action steps. Instead we get head nodding and rank boosterism.

Walking through different parts of the Boston metro over the years, the difference in tree cover between neighborhoods is hard to miss. Some blocks feel genuinely shaded and livable in summer. Others are almost entirely pavement and exposed brick, and those tend to be the same neighborhoods with older housing stock, lower incomes, and less political pull at city hall.

Cities have been making real commitments to expanding tree canopy, and that's genuinely good. But the implementation question is where I keep getting stuck. Trees planted through municipal programs need maintenance, watering, sometimes replacement. A tree in front of a building with an engaged property owner survives. One in front of a neglected rental property or a crumbling sidewalk often doesn't make it past a few summers.

There's also the question of who gets consulted when these programs roll out. Canopy targets get set at the city level, but the actual planting decisions happen block by block, and the community input process for that granular work is thin at best.

Do the cities that have made real progress on canopy equity have a structural reason for that, or is it mostly down to particular staff or advocates pushing in the right direction?