The actual gist of the article is that walls are damaging to wildlife (which is true) although I suspect all the immigrants crossing the border do way more damage to wildlife and a wall would.

The headline is a bit misleading (wow that's new..) since it implies solar walls are bad, whereas it's actually saying: the environmental benefit of some green energy is outweighed by a wall messing with habitats.

The issue with that argument is that beyond it being misleading, can be used on virtually every other green energy system too. Wind Power for instance is notorious for killing birds. However everyone is fine with it and wind power continues. So this is the type of thing where if you push it, it really weakens all your core arguments.