The Right Should Embrace Environmentalism

I am often astounded at the lack of strategic thinking on the right when dealing with causes which are ostensibly left-wing. We need to stop simply reacting and start getting results. The left seems to be far more effective at infiltrating organisations, circulating ideas in the media, and subverting their opponents’ arguments. I believe that, actually, we could be even better at this than them if we really put our minds to it. This does not have to be sly and underhanded, but rather uplifting and positive for both sides of the political aisle. This approach could be effective in subverting the most recent wave of environmentalism that has swept through the Western world.

I am not suggesting we should buy into the catastrophisation about the end of human civilisation, the fear of entire cities sinking into the ocean, or the self-flagellating solutions that the current strain of left-wing environmentalism proposes. We should simply admit, however, that there might be some real problems and an opportunity for us to carve out our own niche which can in turn subvert the other elements. This strategic positioning may give us the appearance of being ‘on-side’ with the left and, in turn, they may be more receptive to a more reasonable direction from the right. 

There is something intrinsically conservative about conservation. Even the words themselves are similar, with the first seven letters being the same - of course, they stem from a shared origin. Conservation, in the environmental sense, is dedicated to the preservation of an environment as it is or was at some point in time with the aim of preventing future changes that may damage what previously had value. Is this not textbook conservatism? 

The main issue with the left’s framing of environmentalism is that they are posing it as a global, rather than local issue. The problem with this is that, for most people, the influence that they themselves wield is only at the local level. Indeed, we should be trying to shift things towards preserving local environments. I for one do not want to live in some concrete hellscape where houses occupy most of the space, with people living on top of one another in hideous high-rises, and the odd shopping mall here and there; I’m sure many people feel the same. Those living in North America are very fortunate that they have a large amount of space and large tracts of unspoiled landscape, but Europeans are not so lucky. Both Europe and Asia have high levels of population density - a condition which I believe to be deeply unhealthy. 

Rather than adopting the left's position which posits that the quality of life we enjoy now is the problem, the right should push for an environmentalism that focuses on improving peoples’ quality of life. Nobody wants to be told that the way that they live makes them a problem, so it is hardly a difficult position to combat. The conservative case for environmentalism would see a greater movement away from urbanisation and the greater preservation of ecologically significant areas. Notably, both of these actions present a case for ending immigration that the left may well be more receptive towards than by other means.

I believe that human beings need to feel connected to the natural world. The mass alienation and moral nihilism felt by those who must endure modern urban living is undeniable at this point. Being amongst the natural world functions as an emotional ‘palette cleanser’, helping to mitigate the negative emotions that are produced through our daily lives that are ever abstracted from our inherent nature. For example, I am always struck by the feeling that, when entering a woodland that is completely untouched by humanity, there is something about the environment that feels deeply sacred. The feeling one gets in such an environment is comparable to that of an especially ornate church. However, of all of mankind's creative endeavours, I am yet to find one example to match the natural beauty we find ourselves blessed with. My experience of Southern England's forests in particular have led me to regard them as a wellspring that replenishes you to a point of emotional equilibrium. This is deeply valuable. Of course, there are an unfathomable number of comparable environments around the world which are equally as valuable. 

Veneration of the natural world is important. I believe we have a moral duty to adopt the role of a steward of nature. This planet is abound with the bright spark of life in an otherwise vast, empty, lifeless universe. It is a travesty that life must be destroyed to make way for more soulless housing developments and amenities we do not actually need. In particular, areas where nature thrives should be preserved at all costs. There should be many areas throughout a nation where nature can continue unimpeded by humanity, protected against the infringement of so-called development. Not only are these areas valuable for the humans that visit them, as outlined above, but also for the plants and animals themselves. You need not be an ecologist to see the benefits of having a network of protected areas that act as bastions for life to become well established. This, obviously, is already underway as national parks are already established in most nations - but these could certainly benefit from greater expansion. One issue with the current approach is that the spaces between protected lands are too broad, the urbanisation surrounding them creates an effect akin to these protected areas being islands surrounded by water. This could be solved by creating ‘wildlife corridors’ that connect populations of plants and animals that are otherwise separated by human activity. 

However, to return to the more human element, if we are truly serious about improving the quality of our lives, it may be beneficial to discuss the negative impacts of immigration on the preexisting population. It appears a universal trend that when a certain point of development is reached, the population stabilises, and then begins to gradually decline. The apparent need for eternal economic growth has seen mass immigration to many developed nations, a policy which, in itself, comes with a plethora of detrimental societal effects. However, the focus here is on the underlying assumption that we need to keep growing our population with foreign labour. As far as I see it, this is just robbing the pre-existing population of a greater quality of life that would have been. Not only does immigration create increasing competition for jobs and housing, pushing wages down and house prices up, but, worst of all, it makes the population density problem worse. We should aim to get people out of tower blocks of apartments and to oversee a scenario where owning your own modest plot of land is the norm. Dense cities can be a near lifeless desert for plant and animal life, beyond the few hardened species that remain - pigeons and rats and the like. Having networks of gardens and green spaces allows plant and animal life to coexist alongside humans far more easily to boths benefit. Cities need not be so dense.

Of course, what I have proposed here is not going to be achieved within our lifetimes - especially because it is contingent on natural population decline. It should, however, be a goal for the future none-the-less. We have a moral duty to others, to our ancestors, to plants, to animals, and ourselves to leave the world better than we found it and we should take this role more seriously. To return to the realm of politics, it would not be difficult to get the left on the same page, except perhaps on immigration, where they may be more resistant, which is of course advantageous. We could smuggle conservative philosophy in through the back door, in its most palatable form - environmentalism. Then, perhaps, we could move towards the preservation of history and perhaps even culture. We must at least try, for what we recognise as deeply valuable must be protected at all costs.