Andrew Lilico: What should we say about the environment?

I have discussed my view of the importance of topic choice previously.  Notwithstanding that discussion, and although I have not always been convinced by the arguments and policies put forward on green issues, in my view Cameron’s early emphasis on the environment had great political potential, but a slight mishandling of the issue has meant that it has not played for us as well as it could have done and could yet be made to do.  I shall explain.

I have no statistics to prove it, but I am confident that many core Conservative activists are much more environmentally conscious and active than the average Briton.  They recycle; they buy dolphin-friendly washing-up liquid, free-range eggs and organic carrots; they are members of the WWF and the RSPB; their favourite TV programmes are David Attenborough documentaries; at the time, they were first in the queue to buy ozone-friendly sprays and lead-free petrol; they write letters to their local paper to complain about urban sprawl or the poor state of their local park; they regularly spend their weekends rambling in the countryside.

They always were environmentalists.  But they have not in the past thought of their environmentalism as part of their Conservatism.  David Cameron almost changed that – but not quite.  His pitch is that Conservatives care about threats to our nation and way of life, old and new, and that Global Warming is, along with Terrorism, one of the new threats that Conservatives must face down and take the tough decisions to combat.

Now I don’t want to say that Cameron’s angle on this is wrong, as such.  But it does seem to me to be much more convoluted than is necessary, and to appear forced, artificial.  As matters stand, though the green pitch has its attractions in marketing terms, we have found it hard to be really convincing on exactly why this is a Conservative issue.  I believe that the reason is that we have emphasized the Global Warming aspect of environmentalism – as in Cameron’s analogy with Terrorism – and seen the more concrete “micro” environmentalism (recycling, dolphin-friendly washing-up liquid, and so on) as a natural accompaniment to mention occasionally (e.g. when local elections are on).  In my view, the tactic should be the opposite.  Without eschewing the commitment to combating Global Warming in any way (for though some of us may consider adaptation responses superior, Cameron’s personal conviction is clearly for mitigation, and we need Cameron to be totally authentic to himself for now), I believe that we should view practical environmentalism – wise husbandry of resources; honourable stewardship of the Earth; a willingness to see Nature change if it improves, but reluctance to see depredation – as a core Conservative idea, given witness primarily through concrete practical action of the micro sort, though (of course!) we shall do what we can at the global level, also.

An emphasis on practical environmentalism, quite apart from enabling our activists to see things that they do anyway as a part of their being Conservatives, would also allow us to see why a concern for the environment is Conservative in another way, also.  Micro-environmentalism will surely also include things like wanting to see rubbish taken away regularly, stopping fly-tipping and littering, clearing away broken glass and graffiti, wanting our parks managed so that the flowers and trees are elegant, not ragged, and a whole host of other issues that are clearly connected to addressing anti-social behaviour and improving the safety and amenity of our city streets.  If we can see environmental action as connected to our security at the local level, then it will seem much less forced to make the connection at the global level.

So, I believe that although the main issues for us to discuss must remain Labour’s strong territory of the economy, health, and education, as well as the eternal topic of security, the environment should have a place as an important secondary issue, and can be made to be an obviously Conservative topic if we focus first at the practical level that our activists are already committed to, and allow our ambitious schemes to save the world from Global Warming to take their place as a natural extension of a practical Conservative environmentalism.

Comments

[Simon Newman]

How about "Conservation yes, Environmentalism no"?

Conservation is a traditional and respectable conservative aim. Environmentalism is a misanthropic life-hating cult grounded in cultural Marxist dialectic on the evil of Western civilisation.

[Londoner]

Glad this is being discussed again. Conservation and environmentalism are another case of "and" aren't they? What we have not yet got is a distinctive policy re global warming: we have a great many ideas from the Gummer/Goldsmith report, some of which have rightly been rejected, but we now need it to be brought together into a coherant overall policy, so this becomes more than just branding. There is time to consult properly now both inside the party and outside. But if we move off this topic without such a policy, it will seem very cynical. Personally I wonder whether Ainsworth is the man to do it; conversely this is now his chance to make the positive impact in his present job that he has somewhat failed to do so far.

[Ken Stevens]

I agree.

Conservatist, rather than Eco-fascist.

I would give more credence to governmental efforts if action was taken to reduce the creation of waste before it reaches the consumer, e.g. excessive packaging, junk mail, newspaper literary supplements with yet more Plath/Hughes verbiage.

[Tony Makara]

As with crime, low-level issues are the place where a real difference to the environment. The excessive amount of packaging, flimsy carrier bags and so on. Up until around 1990 my bin was large enough to take a weeks rubbish with room to spare, now it is never full. Most of the rubbish thrown away is packaging. The other day I went to buy some four batteries from my corner shop and they couldn't wait to offer me a wafer thin carrier back with the shop's logo on the front. A way around this would be a charge for strong plastic carrier bags and to ban the useless thin flimsy ones altogether.

[Christina]

Good article, but an important aspect is missing. Gardening. Gardens can be too tidy for wildlife. Organic and wildlife gardening could be promoted which would help the environment and wildlife. Composting could be promoted to cut down on waste. (local authorities have schemes which sell composters at low prices)

If the number of small ponds in private gardens were doubled, for example, it would make a massive difference to wildlife.

Public gardens and parks are often vandalised and I believe that people local to these amenities would like to put a stop to it, but they are frightened by gangs of young people and also the Police who tend to arrest people who are trying to confront destructive behaviour.

If the Conservative Party organised to have 'clean up' days in parks and other public places, it may do the trick, but ONLY if it is done in a way that 'takes the lead.' In other words, leaflet an area announcing the day and asking for local people to join in. Then organise the local people to make it an ongoing program. If local associations just do the work, by themselves, it won't last.

[Malcolm Dunn]

You could have been describing me here Andrew. Not suprisingly, on this issue, I think you're right.

[Simple Simon]

Hunting is the most environmentally-friendly activity you could imagine. The much-hated Hunting Act has reduced me to chasing a smelly sock across the countryside, and this grotesque attack on civil liberties must not be forgotten by Mr Cameron's Conservative Party.

I fail to understand why the party is not promoting its support for fieldsportsmen against the tyranny of this socialist government. Instead we are made to feel like an embarrassment, to be hushed with vague promises of repeal.

I AM NOT ALONE, MR CAMERON. DO NOT FORGET THE HUGE ARMY OF HUNT SUPPORTERS WHO WON MORE THAN SIXTY SEATS FOR THE CONSERVATIVES AT THE LAST ELECTION. WE WILL NOT BE BOUGHT OFF WITH VAGUE PROMISES.

[Captain Planet]

Ken Stevens, you make some cogent points about reducing waste, but why use a silly word like eco-fascist?

There may be some legitimate concerns about eco-regulation and eco-taxation, but no one is about to be taken out into the street and shot for failing to recycle.

Fascism is truly horrible thing, don't empty the word of meaning by using it so casually.

[Bexie]

Read the blog on this at freestudents.blogspot.com There are an awful lot of inconvenient facts that the ecofacists ignore when it suits them. Whilst I don't neccesarily side with Julian Morris on this issue, the comment on spending money on treating malaria rather than trashing western economies rings rather sensible.

[Ken Stevens]

Captain Planet October 09, 12:25 PM
"..why use a silly word like eco-fascist?..don't empty the word of meaning by using it so casually."

With due humility, I accept the principle of your point but the term is common parlance and in a world that takes the name of the Son of God as an everyday expletive, along with use of previously taboo four-letter words, I don't feel unduly contrite!

[Editor]

For those interested in Andrew's column this from John Redwood might also be of interest.

[Bexie]

Facist as in taking away freedom to purchase goods freely (bright light bulbs for example) restricting free movement through excessive taxation and regulation, general interference in the market and denouncment of any who disagree with them. C.f. the pressure put on acedemics who have the temerity to suggest that there might be other factors involved other than the carbon cycle.

"Global Warming" has been used to create a vertiable prok barrel for the psp community. Someone said to me that the collected world wide quangocracy is absorbing more than $1 billion a year and is becoming more an more blunt in stopping us do what we want to in the freedom of our own private property.

That is what I mean by eco-facism.