HISTORY SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN HOW NATURE POINTS UP THE FOLLY OF MAN: “It was a beautiful tree, it really was, but I kind of have a difficult feeling about it right now.”

Should the city have planted all these trees? Did it make sense at the time and now the wonderful “salvation” has been ruined by climate change or were all these trees always vulnerable to toppling with an unlucky combination of dryness and rain?

I’m trying to understand the use of the word “salvation” in the headline. It doesn’t appear in the text of the article. Why are trees “salvation”? If the natural environment of a place is “treeless vistas,” why not embrace treeless vistas? If the trees fall, they are falling not to nature but to human folly.

Oh no, there goes Sacramento, oh no Treezilla. Yeah.