Many people claim to care about saving the planet—until it demands even the slightest inconvenience. Councils, businesses, and politicians face the tough task of tackling climate change, but often only under the condition that no one must compromise or sacrifice anything.
Our planet’s situation is dire. Yet when solutions arise that cause any personal discomfort, resistance quickly follows. The threat of a global crisis seems less troubling to some than minor changes like emissions-based parking charges.
This pattern plays out endlessly: objections to new bike lanes, clean air zones, solar farms, or even peaceful protests disrupting the status quo. Complaints about recycling collections are not uncommon either.
READ MORE: Three Major Benefits for North Somerset Residents Joining WECA
READ MORE: ‘Parent power’ and the year-long fight to save Newton House
Reasons given vary: it’s too expensive, it spoils the landscape, it might harm the local economy. The sentiment is always the same: “Sure, change is needed—just not here, not in my backyard.”
It’s true that not every environmental proposal is perfectly conceived or flawless. But for many critics, unless a project is flawless—causing no inconvenience or concession whatsoever—it’s instantly dismissed. There’s no space to weigh costs against benefits or accept some trade-offs. It’s seen as an all-or-nothing zero-sum battle.
So it was no surprise when plans to install 320 solar panels at a scenic spot in Bath triggered an overwhelming 186 objections, against only 59 voices of support.
Dr. Alyson Warhurst, the applicant and local resident, assures that the site is hidden from public roads, footpaths, and bridleways. Still, fears arose that the panels would disrupt the view so badly Bath might lose its UNESCO World Heritage status.
To clarify, there are over 1,200 UNESCO World Heritage Sites worldwide, and since 1945 only three have ever been removed—one because the very species it protected was driven to extinction. The idea that a few solar panels could endanger Bath’s designation is, frankly, an exaggeration.
Another common complaint targets the loss of a patch of grassland designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), replaced by gravel under the solar panels. Critics claim this questions the environmental value of the project, suggesting it’s purely profit-driven.
This critique belongs to a familiar genre: “Don’t do this eco-friendly thing because it might be less eco-friendly than you think!” Yes, wind turbines can impact birds, tidal power may affect fish, and even vegetarian farming can unintentionally harm wildlife.
However, such objections would be more constructive if accompanied by alternative solutions or mitigation ideas. More often, they simply amount to a demand that we carry on with current habits, which clearly haven’t brought us success.
Here, we should carefully consider whether losing a patch of grassland outweighs the damage of continuing to rely on non-renewable energy sources. Sustainable progress is rarely perfect or painless.
No, these solar panels alone won’t save the world. Climate change solutions will come from millions of small, incremental decisions—not one grand gesture. Conversely, a few solar panels in Bath won’t irreparably damage the city either.
It’s time to accept imperfect but necessary steps toward a greener future. Let’s support these solar panels—and others like them.
Plans for the solar panels are currently under review by Bath and North East Somerset Council. While public comment is now closed, the proposals are available for viewing online.