A question for our "green" government

Dear Green Goivernment,
You never tire of telling us how massive solar projects, the investments of hedge funds and Wall Street banks, must be approved b our local government officials (in charge of land-use decisions in California); you are considering modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act that will not doubt include weakening review of alternative energy projects; and lately we are being told that these projects, at least those on prime farmland, will be "mitigated" through perptetual agricultural easements on nearby farmland (assuming such easements are for sale by willing sellers); and of course all this must be done to lessen carbon dioxide emmissions because they cause global warming (a double plus ungood thing): 
But, what is never mentioned is if these massive solar projects -- there are so many more of them in the pipeline there may not be enough prime farmland left in the state to "mitigate" for all of them -- is the number of polluting gas and coal-fired plants in other states that are being taken off line are a result of the addition of the green and clean energy now available or soon to be available.
This should lead Californians that still have their wits about them to assume the obvious: that the power produced by alternative energy sources will not replace existing power sources; it will merely augment them and provide a comfortable excess of energy available for the next growth boom.
It is when we contemplate the next growth boom that a far more likely set of offsets than thousands of acres of prime farmland in perpetual agricultural easements comes into view: whatever decrease in carbon emissions realized by "green" energy plants will be more than offset by the increase in population bringing with them their SUVs, gas-powered leaf blowers, lawn movers, outboard motors, and all the rest of the panoply of carbon emitting[paraphernalia necessary for existence in the Inland Empire and kindred suburbs.
Badlands Journal editorial board