Believe it or not, this is a real question from someone.
“Owning” is a weird term. I gather, from the way it is generally used, it means completely destroying the arguments and existence of the people you are opposing. It seems a violently anti-civic position and hence an anti-real-conservative position.
But let us assume it can mean winning over the other side…. in which case it is easy.
Conservatives could show they are more concerned about conserving the environment than they are concerned about conserving corporate profits.
They could openly wonder whether environmental and climate science might be correct enough for us to accept it in general.
They could ask whether humans can keep destroying the global ecology (or God’s creation, if you prefer) forever with no consequences.
They could wonder whether burning fossil fuels at the rate we are doing is necessary or helpful to conservation.
They could think about opposing new drilling sites for oil, new mines for coal, new gas fields, especially new extreme sites like coal tar, deep ocean drilling etc, and ask people to make do with what we already have. This would mean that some companies might have to change, which could make it awkward, but sometimes you have to stand up for what its right.
They could wonder if leaving environmentalism to the market has worked well enough over the last 30 years, and wonder whether, if it works in some cases, which are those cases and why.
They could wonder if markets better at producing upheaval than they are at producing conservation?
They could propose constructive solutions that they know are likely to be acceptable to the population in general and plausible. Not, for example, massive upgrades of nuclear power, or carbon capture and storage, which sadly are enormously expensive, seem to take a long time to set up, and if they have disasters have maximal disasters.
They could wonder why the environmental solutions my conservative government is promoting include: tree clearance; koala destruction; removing more water from almost dead rivers; more coal power and more methane power; more money for carbon capture; while opposing emissions targets and renewable energy targets and pretending the Great Barrier Reef is not in decline. This does not seem like environmentalism of any sort whatsoever.
Conservatives could decide that while it is difficult to be virtuous and go first, the developed world, including the US, the UK and Australia, should go first, because it is the right thing to do, and sets an example. If a group of countries won’t do it, then you have to stand up for the right thing anyway, rather than mutter about losing advantage, or it being unfair.
So all Conservatives have to do, is to take environmentalism seriously as a conservative task, engage in dialogue with other people, and there you are… We might even get something done.
Tags: conservatism, ecology, politics
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 
Leave a comment