Many people want to protect the environment—until it becomes even slightly inconvenient. Councils, businesses, and politicians tasked with addressing climate change often face backlash because their efforts seem to ask for no personal sacrifice or compromise. Yet tackling a planet in peril is challenging, especially when some consider minor inconveniences, like emissions-based parking charges, more upsetting than the looming climate crisis.
This resistance is evident in responses to initiatives like adding bike lanes, expanding clean air zones, or building solar farms. Even simple acts like recycling face complaints. Objections often center around cost, aesthetics, potential impact on the local economy, or the common “not in my backyard” attitude.
It’s important to acknowledge that not all environmental projects are flawless or perfectly planned. But for many opponents, the standard for action is perfection—no disruptions, no inconveniences, and no sacrifices. They reject any nuanced conversation about weighing pros and cons, treating it as an all-or-nothing battle.
READ MORE: ‘Parent power’ and the year-long fight to save Newton House
READ MORE: Somerset Nursery Turns Around From ‘Inadequate’ to ‘Good’ in Under a Year
Take the recent proposal to install 320 solar panels at a scenic site in Bath. Predictably, objections flooded in—186 against versus just 59 in support. Dr. Alyson Warhurst, who submitted the application, points out that the site is not visible from any public road, footpath, or bridleway. Nevertheless, critics claim the panels could devastate the area’s view, even threatening Bath’s World Heritage status.
Let’s be clear: there are over 1,200 UNESCO World Heritage Sites worldwide. Since UNESCO’s inception in 1945, only three sites have ever been delisted—usually due to catastrophic environmental disaster, not minor visual changes. The idea that solar panels would cause Bath to lose this status is exaggerated at best.
Another frequent complaint is the loss of grassland designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), replaced with gravel for the panels. Some argue this undermines the project’s environmental benefits, suggesting profit motives instead. This type of objection is typical—“green” solutions are often criticized for unintended ecological impacts. Indeed, wind farms affect birds, tidal power impacts fish, and even plant-based diets may inadvertently harm small wildlife through crop harvesting.
Such critiques would be more constructive if paired with feasible alternatives or mitigation strategies. Usually, they are not. Instead, the implicit message is to continue with the status quo, which clearly isn’t working.
In this case, it makes sense to weigh the minor loss of some grassland against the ongoing damage caused by the property’s reliance on fossil fuels. Solutions to enormous global problems are rarely perfect or painless. While a few solar panels in Bath won’t single-handedly save the planet, neither will they ruin the city.
Every small effort helps. It’s time to move beyond opposition rooted in inconvenience and support projects that point us toward a sustainable future. Let’s go for it.