Unfortunately, they seem far less interested in, y'know, actually saving the planet, then a) Attacking an out-dated straw-man version of leftist "statism" and b) using any given topic as an opportunity to re-invent conservatism in their own image (that is, as a philosophy wholly alien to the Republican party, and, I can only assume, the Tories as well).
Scruton writes:
What then is the conservative solution, if there is one? A revival of trusteeship is the only hope for the future, and this attitude is natural to human beings. They enter the world through no choice of their own, to be greeted, as a rule, by the love of parents and the security of home. The trustee is the one who recognizes that his home, and all that it means, are inherited things, things to be safeguarded and passed on. This attitude exercises itself at the local level in the voluntary associations and small institutions of civil society. It is the core component in that associational genius that Tocqueville discerned in the American people. It is the legacy of a political order that regards people, not rulers, as the source of authority and the fount of responsible decision-making.Brilliant. His solution is a Trust. A concept from English common law that grew out of feudalism. He really is a capital-C Conservative. And this Trust will treat the earth as something to be "inherited", "safeguarded and passed on." Like a Lordship or a Country House. Sounds great.
And how will we organize ourselves? Certainly not through the government or some official agency. No, no. That's the State (boo!). We'll have "voluntary associations and small institutions of civil society". Like a Book Club, or a Home Owners Association. Great, because those are fun (and always super nice).
But remember, this is not elitism. This is not an aristocracy of land owners. Perish the thought. "It is the legacy of a political order that regards people, not rulers as the source of authority..." Oh yeah, you mean like a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Wait, what?
See, here's the thing these conservatives (even the placid British ones) can't seem to understand: if you attack the government, you attack the people. The United States collapsed the difference in its founding and in its Constitution some 200 years ago. So all this talk about "The State" and "Big Government" interference is just plain nonsense (and as a side note, if you want to attack the poor planning of government schemes, quit talking about Maoism or Stalinism and start looking at the planning that' s gone into the Iraq war courtesy of the Bush administration).
So aside from advocating an environmental policy based on private property stewardship (Capitalism, Consumerism, and Christianity), the other problem with this big C conservatism is the absolute certainty they have in "human nature" and "human motivation". Unlike any other science or philosophy, they have very little doubt that they have locked down what it is that people want and need. More than freedom, more than happiness, more than shelter, food, or beautiful things to look at, people need a sense of entitlement. They'll own up to the problems of the world, once they are reassured that they sit firmly in its center:
The job of protecting the environment is one that citizens must undertake, and we will—just as soon as we see it to be ours. The problem is not the lack of state initiatives but the surfeit of them and the general attitude, enhanced by every treaty and every leftist publicity stunt, that state control, not individual freedom, will make us take our responsibilities seriously.See the problem with the Left is that they think environmentalism is about the Earth; The plants, the animals, the seas, and the air. But conservatives no better. They know it's really about the millions and millions of little kings in their multitude of little suburban castles hoping for a nicer yard than the guy next door.
