The case for green conservatism

To continually paint this issue as a world problem does little to remedy it, rather it removes the responsibility from the individual, often preferring to criticise governments and large corporations.

This article featured in our third print issue, available here.

Environmentalism, concern about and action aimed at protecting the environment, is today a belief most commonly attributed to the political left. Peculiarly however, conservationism is considered a natural position on the right.

Conservation charities have successfully worked with Conservative Party governments for many years in the formulation and execution of policy. In recent times we have undoubtedly seen centre-right parties such as the Conservative Party in the UK adopt a kind of green conservatism that attempts to bring about incremental change largely based on the principle of moving to renewable and cleaner forms of energy.

Another idea that might appeal to the conservative is eco-nationalism. A country or nation that wants to be truly independent must not rely on foreign powers to keep the radiators warm and the lights on. Thus, total energy self-reliance is a priority. Criticism of government policy in this area is not generally in objection to the policies themselves but rather the timescales. For instance, the government's '25 Year Plan' on the environment announced two years ago will inevitably be derided as too little too late by environmental doomsayers.

It is certainly unfair to accuse Conservative leaders of ignoring this subject. One such Conservative Prime Minister who epitomised the idea of green conservatism, even going so far as to make an incredible speech on the plight of the planet to the United Nations in 1989, was the ‘Iron Lady’ herself Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher passionately spoke for over half an hour, her scientific educational background very much evident to the audience. The content of this speech could well be largely acceptable to even a staunch leftist environmentalist but for one important consideration; Thatcher emphasised the importance of continued economic growth; effectively suggesting that otherwise the project would be doomed from the start.

It is often stated that there is a generational divide on environmental issues. It is thought that young people are far more aware of the perceived problems we face regarding for example climate change and by consequence far more willing to accept radical policy in this area. The elder generation on the other hand are seen as either ignorant or somehow in denial of the danger with which we are confronted. I do not believe this to be wholly true. Older people are in my estimation less concerned about the ice caps melting than the air quality on their local high-street and quite rightfully so: the latter directly affects them, the former does not.

By the start of the nineteenth century, due in large part to the Industrial Revolution, forest coverage in Britain had fallen to a dire five per cent; today the figure stands at around ten per cent. Air quality almost every-where in the UK has notably improved and careful management of our water resources meant that even during the heatwave and subsequent drought of last summer, the UK’s reservoirs remained at near full capacity. As the conservative philosopher Professor Sir Roger Scruton outlines in his some-what comically titled book ‘How to be a Conservative’:

'Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.'

Such words seem as poignant as ever in a time when we are perennially hearing about the pollution of the oceans and the destruction of the rainforests. There are no rainforests in Britain and the impact we have on the oceans is negligible. Our environmental policy must start at home where as individuals we can make a tangible impact.

To continually paint this issue as a world problem does little to remedy it, rather it removes the responsibility from the individual, often preferring to criticise governments and large corporations.

Undoubtedly governments and large corporations are far from blameless but is it not the case that our desire for consumption continues to triumph over our desperate need for restraint? The embodiment of this is our continued usage of single use plastics. In 2015, the Conservative government imposed a 5p levy on all single use plastic bags given out by businesses employing at least 250 employees. The statistical result of this relatively non-invasive piece of legislation was a huge eighty-plus per cent reduction in consumption. This is, on the face of it, a victory for incremental change. The government, so contented with the results, now intends to double the charge to 10p and include smaller businesses that have till now been exempt in order to further deter consumers from using single use plastics and hopefully encourage them to adopt more ‘environmentally-friendly’ shopping habits.

Conservatives find it hard to get on board with environmental movements for one obvious reason. A quick glance around at a climate change protest such as those that have been the subjects of media attention recently, yield placards with slogans that do not just berate government inaction on climate change but rather go further to endorse political messages precluding to a ‘change of system’, ‘socialism’ and other communications of a radical an anti-capitalistic nature. This not-so-subtle juxtaposition of the protestor’s political goals and their environmental aspirations immediately alienates the wider British public, who at large, are turned off by talk of all-encompassing world ideologies.

Reactions to global warming have often taken the form of proposing a war on carbon from the left, and subsequently policies such as carbon taxes. Such directives often serve only to vex the poorest in society whilst making little impact on total emissions. The reason for this seems obvious.

Regardless of the liberal elite’s opinion on the causes of climate change, the reality for working class people needing to get to work does not change.

Looking broadly at energy consumption in the UK overall, we can see that around forty per cent of all energy consumption is found in the transport sector, the majority of which (seventy-three per cent in fact) is road transport. It would seem that reducing emissions in this area requires a concerted move away from petrol and diesel cars toward new electric alternatives. According to government statistics, 2018 saw a thirty-three per cent increase in the number of electric vehicles on the roads. In real terms, this is still only 52,000 in total up from 39,000 in 2017. Although we are now seeing larger car companies make the move to hybrid and electric vehicles, few are currently offering affordable alternatives to popular petrol fuelled models.

One name that so often captures the headlines in this industry is Tesla who are fighting vehemently to achieve their aim of reaching the mass market of the automobile sector. Tesla is an American company, but its vision is undoubtedly a global one. All this considered, it is simply not realistic in 2020 for every household to trade in their petrol/diesel guzzling auto-mobile for an emission free electric alternative. Perhaps in ten years’ time it will be, but alas we are not there yet.

The message from environmentalists commonly projected by the media is one of desperate panic whereas a calmer, cooler conclusion based on the evidence would suggest restraint. Sometimes what seem like obvious solutions generate less obvious problems.

Never has it been more important to take ownership of this issue and highlight the virtues of incremental change. Failing to do so means ceding the ground to the ideological left and with it losing the public’s willingness to participate in the movement towards a society that wastes less and conserves more of its countryside and its wildlife.