We live in a crucial time in which the urgency to combat climate change has become a global clamor. The transition to sustainable, clean and renewable energy sources is no longer an option, but an imperative necessity.
Within this range of alternatives, solar energy stands out for its accessibility, low cost and enormous potential. However, despite its obvious advantages, solar energy faces an unexpected obstacle: resistance from some sectors of society.
It is understandable that any large-scale project, especially those that modify the landscape or are perceived as an intrusion into the natural environment, generates debate in the community. The key lies in understanding the causes of this resistance and in establishing mechanisms for dialogue that allow reconciling sustainable development with the legitimate concerns of the population.
In the specific case of solar energy, resistance can be analysed from different perspectives:
1. The visual and landscape impact: It is undeniable that large solar plants, with their rows of panels, transform the landscape. This transformation, which may seem unattractive to some, becomes the main argument of those who oppose this type of project.
However, this argument must be analysed with perspective. Firstly, there are alternatives to minimise the visual impact, such as the architectural integration of the panels in the environment, the choice of strategic locations that minimise their visibility or the installation of panels on already disturbed land, such as roofs or industrial areas. Secondly, it is necessary to weigh the visual impact of solar plants against the much more serious and long-term impact of pollution generated by traditional energy sources.
2. The fear of losing arable land: Another recurring argument is the supposed competition between solar plants and agriculture. It is argued that the installation of solar panels would take away land from food production.
While it is true that solar plants take up space, this statement ignores a number of considerations. Firstly, the surface area occupied by solar plants is insignificant compared to the total surface area used for agriculture. Secondly, there are innovative solutions, such as agrivoltaics, which make it possible to combine solar energy production with agricultural activity on the same piece of land.
3. Misinformation and manipulation: The lack of accurate and verified information about solar energy can fuel unfounded fears and create a negative image of this technology. Sometimes, these fears are exacerbated by groups with special interests that seek to hinder the energy transition for economic or ideological reasons.
The proliferation of fake news and arguments without scientific basis contributes to creating a climate of mistrust towards solar energy. Therefore, it is essential to combat misinformation with objective data, rigorous studies and transparent communication that explains the benefits of solar energy in a clear and accessible way.
4. The need for a new energy paradigm: Resistance to solar energy ultimately reflects the difficulty of abandoning an obsolete and polluting energy model. The transition to an energy model based on renewable sources requires a change of mentality, a new way of understanding our relationship with the environment and a collective commitment to build a sustainable future.
Overcoming resistance to solar energy means addressing fears and doubts with empathy, with truthful information and with innovative solutions that show that environmental sustainability and social progress are not contradictory objectives, but complementary.
I have read with regret the news that in an area of the UK the construction of a solar plant with 1.5 million panels that could sustainably power 400,000 homes has been put on hold (for the moment). And the main reason is that some people have opposed the idea.
When the authorities have asked citizens for their opinions, around 230 people have responded, and 54% of them have opposed the idea, and the main reasons were the visual impact and the ecological impact.
I think it is important to have the approval of citizens in projects that affect them, but there should be minimum participation numbers to take those responses into consideration.
That 124 people stop a sustainable energy project that benefits more than a million people does not seem to make much sense. I hope that within a few months (at the end of this year) this project will be put on track for the good of all.
Which does not prevent the need to explain to citizens the benefits and necessity of sustainable energy projects to deal with the enormous Climate Crisis that we are facing.
EN 
ES