“What makes you think those valuable trunks are just destroyed, in every city everywhere, when they are in fact profitable?”
Again, you try to make the case for cutting down city trees.
I most certainly do not.
My defense of oaks in general was not because of cities, but oaks as a species that are native to our land, and because of the hysteria of cancel culture in today's media saturated world. Once a species is labeled "bad" for any reason, the campaign against all members of that species blows up and endangers all the perfectly innocent oaks whose roots are holding down large areas of earth from erosion, or whose canopies are providing shade or habitat in forests or groves.
Oaks in cities is a side issue that you have seized upon. City trees are not purposely harvested for timber. But oaks add immeasurable grace to city parks, university campuses, and riversides. Occasionally some city trees do get taken down because as they grow, tree roots can interfere with underground gas or water lines or building foundations; or they get split by lighting, are struck by cars, or fall over uprooted in flooding storms. Competent city works departments would attempt to sell the usable oak wood. Some woodworking outfits would do the retrieval in exchange for the material.
Hysteria over oaks supposedly poisoning the atmosphere would be a tragedy. So, back to my original point: the academic is going after the trees instead of the man-made car emisslions that supposedly combine with the tree exudate to make a toxic substance. I say, go after the car emissions rather than blame the trees.