I've seen this as a reason not to switch several times, without anyone considering the sheer physical quantity of fuel any one consumer burns into the atmosphere.
I am curious, however, about the lifecycle analysis for the blades and the energy and emissions that go into producing them. One would think that they could be repaired somewhat indefinitely, but perhaps this is naive.
So you could probably keep the steel tower and put new blades on it (and repair/replace the generators etc), but the blade probably has to be replaced as one.
Energy content of natural gas: 53.6MJ/kg=14.8kWh/kg Efficiency of combined cycle plant: ~50% Energy/Mass Ratio = 7.445kWh/kg
Mass of wind turbine: ~150 tons Max power: 1.5MW Capacity factor: 0.4 Lifespan: 25 years Energy/Mass Ratio = 876kWh/kg
Obviously refining the materials for a wind turbine requires more energy than making natural gas. Also obviously didn't include the mass of the natural gas plant itself. Also obviously natural gas leaks are very problematic for climate. Also obviously if only the blades are discarded (and these are typically a small percentage of the weight), you could imagine continuing to use the tower, nacelle, generator, etc...
Could result in a 1-2 order of magnitude increase in efficiency.
Even building a hut in Amazon disturbs nature but it beats a lot of other things, so let's encourage building huts (you get the idea)