An ecologist would readily note that we do restoration work on damaged environments on a regular basis, so it is clearly possible to undo some level of damage. They'd also likely note that consulting an ecologist as part of the process might limit the damage in a way that a bunch of Harry Potter fans making a pile would not know.

Not doing anything might indeed be better for the environment alone in isolation, but has to be balanced with other considerations, like the benefits of a power cable carrying clean power from wind farms to replace coal.

It is also entirely possible to plant native, locally appropriate seeds in a reasonably natural fashion. I am obviously not proposing a layer of lawn sod.

Where is the big damage in putting stones on a spot? So sure, that spot and the area around will be in use, so sensitive life won't prosper there, but apart from that?

> Where is the big damage in putting stones on a spot?

I think that's a question for the ecologists.

My guess, though, would be that part of the concern is people visiting the site on an ongoing basis as a tourist location, which won't happen with a buried power line.

> I think that's a question for the ecologists.

Now ask the ecologists if bulldozing and paving over hundreds of square miles of forest to make a city is ecologically sound. You might be shocked to learn that your entire so-called "civilization" is a pox on the planet.

"Louisiana is an impoverished shithole populated by violent negroids."

I think I'll take my critiques from people who don't have shit like this in their comment history. Thanks!