It should be mentioned more often than it is that the guy who wants the rest of us to refrigerate our homes with ‘heat’ pumps, or half-fill the kettle – Ed Miliband – has two kitchens in his own house, presumably in case he loses one. It’s a relevant point, isn’t it, that the people in charge of environmental policy get to do so with such fashionable North London hypocrisy?
The immiserating effects of the Government’s Net Zero obsession are well documented. Additionally, in fact worse, climate alarmism is generating more and more excuses for state incursions into what used to be the private space, orchestrated by people financially and culturally insulated from the whole madness.
It shouldn’t be like this. The end-of-rainbow quest for renewable energy is unnecessary. We have what we need right under our feet. To import it anyway, via supply chains which amplify the end-use cost, is frankly ridiculous.
It is hard to think of an analogy which does justice to the combination of incompetence and malice driving this wretchedness. The closest I can get is to suggest that Miliband has turned the UK into a thief who robs £10 to buy £5 even though he knows, along with the rest of us, that he has a crumpled wad of £20 notes in his back pocket.
The Government has swallowed a secular “nature religion” in which the planet exists for us in two arguably incompatible ways – we’re supposed to worship it while we experiment on it. It is perverse eschatology, a ghastly modern paganism.
Such wisdom as there is in the environmentalist cause will not survive the fetishistic attentions of the Net Zero maniacs, many of whom seem to be imposing their mid-life crises on the rest of us.
In Green Philosophy, Roger Scruton applies a general criticism of utilitarian ethics against its contemporary iteration as Leftist environmental activism. Utilitarianism makes the avoidance of harm central to morality but is never persuasive about what ‘harm’ actually is. It has nothing to say about human moral psychology.
The utilitarian mind lives in the present, is uninterested in the past and gets confused when thinking about the future. Hence the tendency of lanyard environmentalism to announce – correctly – that, for the sake of future generations, we have duties of care to the planet, without being able to articulate the nature of those obligations and, therefore, how they are to be translated into actual realistic – which is to say affordable – policy.
Scruton wrote that book as part of his attempt to reclaim environmentalism from the sharp-elbowed activists of the Left, who have seized and repurposed it to their own ends. Like transgenderism, Hamas fanboyism and anti-racism, it has become another fungible strand in a general, ubiquitous ideology of grievance.
The point of conservatism is to conserve. The contemporary green activist is like the religious convert who insists on evicting the steadfast regular attendees from the front pews so that he can take notes on how to modernise the liturgy. His intention is not conservation so much as revolution.
Green politics should be conservative politics because the traditional language of conservatism is best suited to explain our relationship to the planet and the duties to those yet-to-be-born which arise from it. Edmund Burke put it like this:
The purpose of politics… is not to rearrange society in the interests of some overarching vision or ideal, such as equality, liberty or fraternity. It is to maintain a vigilant resistance to the entropic forces that erode our social and ecological inheritance. The goal is to pass on to future generations, and if possible to enhance, the order and equilibrium of which we are the temporary trustees.
The language of faithful, historical conservatism makes use of these concepts – stewardship, inheritance, intergenerational obligation – and it is from these that a new liturgy of ‘Right-wing’ environmentalism is begging to be formed. Were it to take up this work, the Conservative Party might remind itself of its younger and wiser self. It might even survive.
All this brings us (though you might not have realised it) to the issue of farming, and the current war against agricultural exceptionalism. If conservatism is to be revived then this will not happen in Davos, Westminster or even in the ARC conferences currently favoured by the Celebrity Right. It will happen in Wiltshire, Kent and Lancashire. It will happen when conservative thinkers follow Scruton’s example and become working farmers.
The tradition and practices of farming are examples of active environmentalism because they encourage the “vigilant resistance” Burke recommends. The farmer knows that the climate speaks to the soil, and he is therefore well-placed to hear what it has to say.
When you are alert to the demands of seasonality you develop a different sense of time, one in which the idea that we have obligations of an intergenerational sort seems both obvious and urgent.
The current climate activism is unattractive because for its high priests it is the activism, not the climate, that is the main point. If starting a farm is too big an ask, then conservatives should at least take time to reacquaint themselves with their intellectual legacy. Like the prodigal son, the environmental cause fell into bad company. Conservatives must get ready to welcome it back home.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Other cheek of the same orifice – Saving humanity from the humanity haters.
Off-T
Breaking News.
This should be hilarious. Kneel will be spinning faster than one of Milli’s windmills to convince us all “nothing to see here.”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/breaking-eu-commission-wrong-to-block-von-der-leyens-secret-texts/
“… that, for the sake of future generations, we have duties of care to the planet..”
The vast tonnage of absurdity and nonsense shows low grade thinking and weak intellect.
Did our Stone Age ancestors have a “duty of care”? Yes? Please do show how they achieved this marvel. Perhaps it’s just modern Man who has had a “duty of care” bestowed upon him. By whom?
Do we also have a duty of care for the Moon – if not why not? What about all the little asteroids – surely we must have a duty of care to these little darlings.
How about the Sun does our duty of care extend to it – are we using too much of its energy? That’s not sustainable. Yikes!
Planet Earth is a big rock hurtling through Space – a speck of dust comparatively speaking – with a vast, chaotic, non-linear, dynamic system which coincidentally, serendipitously has the right conditions to sustain life including Human life, in the development and emergence of which conditions we played no part and cannot in any way control. King Cnut put that stupid notion to bed a thousand years ago.
We have a duty of care to ourselves and the propagation of our species – that’s all. The “duty of care” we supposedly have involves impoverishing and immiserating Humans in pursuit of this Paganist “duty”.
The natural condition of Humans is poverty. By our ingenuity, Human capital and using what the Planet provides we grown wealthy. E have as much “duty of care” to “the planet” as we have to a lump of coal.
The argument is that by our actions we are compromising the planet in a way that will harm us. So by “saving the planet” we are saving ourselves, because the planet is where we live. You could argue that if the impending danger to “the planet” is clear and preventable and that downsides of any actions taken to prevent that danger are less than the consequences of doing nothing, then we should act. But I would say that the bar for proving all that has to be pretty high and the consequences of various courses of action pretty clear before we can make a meaningful choice – like a huge asteroid is approaching that will smash us to pieces and we can stop it by, for example, blowing up Alaska with everyone it. Absent unequivocal proof, the precautionary principle applies (not the perverse version that was used during “covid”).
The argument is that by our actions we are compromising the planet in a way that will harm us. So by “saving the planet” we are saving ourselves, because the planet is where we live.
Who defines what precisely contitutes a compromised planet and an uncompromised one, what’s the definition and who decides if it does or doesn’t apply to any particular planet? Further, who determines what’s necessay to uncompromise or decompromise a compromised planet and who has the authority to ensure it gets done and where did this authority come from?
Such a statement is really just grandiloquent waffle certain kinds of people employ to camouflage their desire to control other people to the degree chess players control chess pieces: They must not move unless authorized to do so and they may only move exactly as authorized. Otherwise, IRREPARABLE PLANETARY COMPROMISE will occur.
Bonus question: Are people who believe it’s up to them only them to prevent IRREPARABLE PLANETARY COMPROMISE really the kind of people who’d be able to prevent that should this actually be necessary? Or are they perhaps seriously full of themselves and greatly overestimate their abiltiy to avoid stupid mistakes?
Wisdom, intelligence and knowledge beget modesty and not rethorical cavalary charges against global boiling.
Indeed. As with “covid”, in a real emergency you would not need to pass laws to tell people what to do.
”Saving the planet” we are saying to ourselves we are lunatics,
This impending danger to,”the planet” – what happens… planet explodes, veers off into a galaxy far, far away?
I struggled to come up with an example which tells me that it’s not something we should be thinking about much. If there’s ever an obvious “emergency” then there won’t be much debate about it – for example, most people agree that, for example, exploding nuclear bombs over every inch of the planet would not be a good idea, neither would developing something that poisoned every source of water or killed all plant or animal life. Nobody needs a committee to tell them we should avoid doing those things. Or telling that living under an active volcano is dumb, or living next to a river that keeps flooding without building flood defences.
If you think farmers have a much longer view of time then try joining us in forestry where you will commonly plant a crop that will mature after you die.