Environmentalists are conservative by nature | Christopher Barnard
Anyone who cares about the environment is a conservative by nature- indeed, the pun there is fully intended. I realise this is a deliberately provocative start to an article, but it serves a salient point. The principle of protecting nature or combatting climate change implies a dedication to conserving what is good and already exists. This is the most basic philosophical bedrock of conservatism, from the likes of Edmund Burke in the 18th century to Russell Kirk in the 20th. It is also why the Marxist political philosopher G. A. Cohen considered himself a philosophical conservative on the defence of existing value. And as the late Sir Roger Scruton stated, “The cause of the environment is not, in itself, a left-wing cause at all. It is not about 'liberating' or empowering the victim, but about safeguarding resources. It is not about 'progress' or 'equality', but about conservation and equilibrium.”
Yet, for a long time environmentalism has been perceived as a distinctly liberal, leftwing cause. On the one hand, this is due to recent climate movements such as Extinction Rebellion, and prominent voices such as Al Gore, coming from a more left-wing perspective- therefore also promoting popular, big-government policies such as the Green New Deal. On the other hand, conservatives have simply failed to really address the issues of climate change and environmental degradation, oscillating between disjointed green-washing and outright denialism.
In Green Philosophy, his magisterial defence of conservative environmentalism, Scruton emphasises two aspects of conservatism that align with being green: personal responsibility and local sovereignty. Personal responsibility is a much-maligned and under-appreciated concept nowadays, but it is central to proper environmental stewardship. Conservatives can take notes on this from antiquity, as Aristotle once said, “that which no one owns, no one will care for.” Indeed, when divorced from the consequences of their actions, individuals tend to abuse, exploit, and desecrate the natural resources at their disposal. At the most basic level, this is why a renter is far less likely to maintain the upkeep of a house than a homeowner. Well-enforced property rights are therefore crucial to the conservation of the environment. This bears a trinity of positive outcomes: ownership, accountability, and trade. Ownership, as mentioned, is the principle that if you own something, you take better care of it. Be it out of genuine environmental dedication or self-motivated financial reasons, private land-owners have the incentive to preserve the resources of their land and ensure their sustainability.
Accountability, which is closely linked to responsibility, implies holding people accountable for their actions. Under a system of property rights, if an individual or company pollutes a river or someone else’s private land, there is a clear line of accountability. It ought to be universally recognised that pollution is vandalism. An entity guilty of such pollution can and must then be held liable for the environmental damage caused. Even with the issue of air pollution, which is less tangible than, say, an oil spill, enterprises with a specific risk of environmental damage can be insured or bonded, to be held accountable by the communities potentially impacted, thereby providing an economic and legal incentive not to pollute.
Finally, trade is the principle that environmental resources, such as biodiversity or wildlife, can reveal alternative ways of providing maximum value and sustainability. For example, in America, the law often requires that federal land purchases must be used for resource extraction purposes, thereby precluding the creation of nature reserves or private conservation areas. Under a system of property rights, trade can reveal alternative resource uses that empower conservationists to buy and negotiate land in order to preserve it, rather than exploit it. In economic terms, this is commonly known as the ‘opportunity cost.’
Scruton’s second principle, that of local sovereignty, is equally important. One of the most crucial pitfalls of environmental degradation is that infamous notion of the “Tragedy of the Commons.” Such a tragedy occurs when a resource is owned in common, such as fish stocks or grazing land for cattle, and is therefore non-excludable, yet it remains rivalrous – meaning that everyone has access to the given resource, but it is simultaneously limited in capacity. As a result, this creates a free-for-all where everyone is incentivised to exploit the resource to the detriment of others, and no one is held accountable. Fishermen catch too many fish, not leaving enough for reproduction, whilst farmers allow livestock to excessively graze the land, thus rendering it useless in the long term.
The prevailing orthodoxy is that this is a clear example of environmental failure where the government must step in to prevent resource-exploitation. But that is misguided. Far-away bureaucracies and central government mandates often fail to take into account the nuances and complexities of such local problems. They are unable to respond effectively, because they are not only slow and cumbersome giants, but also lack the necessary local knowledge. Instead, Elinor Ostrom put forward the idea of “common pool resource management.” She argues, with a wealth of empirical evidence, that local communities are in fact capable of self-organising localised solutions to pressing environmental problems.
In Switzerland, for example, farmers have created rotating schedules to allow each farmer’s herd the opportunity to graze the best plot of common land. This incentivises not only sustainability, as it is in the farmer’s best interest for the grass to still be green by the time it’s his turn again, but also a system of accountability as the farmers will ensure no-one else abuses the agreement. This is a prime empirical example of what Scruton means by local sovereignty.
However, he also applies it to the national level. The nostalgic notion of oikophilia- "the love and feeling for home"- can otherwise be translated as ‘patriotic environmentalism.’ We seek to preserve the beauty of the United Kingdom’s landscape for the simple reason that we conceive of it as home. As a nation, we share a common natural heritage, one in which we take great pride and delight. Britain’s rolling hills, immortalised in William Blake’s Jerusalem, are the epitome of that. They represent why national sovereignty, rather than centralised globalism, is crucial for environmental protection.
However, we might add a third principle to Scruton’s apologia for green conservatism. Indeed, the undeniably global problem of climate change requires solutions that extend beyond mere personal responsibility and local sovereignty. Yet, here too conservatives have a lot to say. As opposed to the anti-growth narrative of Extinction Rebellion, conservatives seek to protect both our economic livelihoods and the environment. They are not mutually exclusive. However, this requires us to think outside the box, and promote innovative solutions. A conservatism with perspective, therefore, highlights the immense potential and creativity of the human mind. We have faced existential crises together in the past, and we can do so again. As such, this necessitates a largely pro-enterprise, and to produce sustainable solutions to environmental issues also a mostly pro-market approach wherein innovators can innovate and entrepreneurs can create. Of course, conservatives are instinctively wary of dramatic, near-revolutionary change, and this issue must be approached with prudence and a degree of cautious oversight.
Pragmatically speaking, such solutions will likely come from a mixture of the public and private sectors, stimulated through sensible policy by the former and materially achieved by the latter. But it is only by unleashing the human mind through economic prosperity and the right market conditions that the adequate technological solutions to climate change can arise. It is entirely within the remit of conservative philosophy to champion such an approach- especially when the political alternative potentially spells chaos, destruction, and disorder.
Ultimately, it seems rather bizarre that the left has managed to monopolise the environment- at least from a philosophical perspective. Again, that is partly due to the fact that conservatives have tended to avoid this issue like the plague, uncomfortable with the orthodoxy that large state solutions reign supreme on these matters.
Yet, from the defence of existing beauty and value to the avoidance of disorder and chaos, conservatism innately promotes the conservation of our planet for the benefit of generations to come, through conservation most primarily- with the potential economy of personal responsibility, local sovereignty, and innovation. So if you care about conserving the environment, you really are a conservative in the most literal sense of the word. In politics, insticts are everything.
