A climate debate beyond windfarms: engaging the centre-right on climate change
Support for policies to tackle climate change is weaker on the right, but a new report says there’s no good reason why. The paper, launched today, sets out some ideas for how the conversation could proceed on a better footing.
‘A new conversation with the centre-right about climate change’, by Dr Adam Corner for Climate Outreach Information Network (COIN), addresses two different, but interlocking problems.
First, people – and politicians – with right wing values are less likely to support government policies designed to tackle climate change. Second, centre-right voters are more likely to be skeptical about the evidence base supporting climate science – and skeptical voices more likely to be found in right-leaning media.
A significant body of research indicates that this is at least partially because many people work backwards from policies they disagree with, downplaying the seriousness of the problem they set out to tackle.
Corner argues that a messaging malfunction has left environmentalism stuck in a “left wing ghetto”. It’s also down to the fact that the policy prescriptions on the table – often involving more government intervention – are less palatable to citizens on the centre-right.
Speaking at today’s launch event at right-leaning thinktank Policy Exchange, Conservative MP – and prominent green campaigner – Zac Goldsmith explained why he thinks Conservatism has green roots:
“Conservatism and environmentalism ought to go hand in hand – stewardship, looking after future generations, appreciation for the scale of issues on the countryside and insecurity – these are core stable Tory values. If you are a Conservative and you are not also motivated by regard for the environment, you can’t call yourself a Conservative at all.”
Conservative politicians have pioneered environmental legislation: Goldsmith pointed to Benjamin Disraeli’s Artistans Dwelling Act, Howard Macmillan’s Clean Air Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, brought in under Margaret Thatcher.
Having a different conversation
The report is careful to point out it’s not intended to help rebrand climate change for a centre-right audience. Instead, it says it aims to start a meaningful conversation with people on the centre-right “about what climate change means to them”.
One example of what this could mean is philosopher Roger Scruton‘s concept, ‘oikophilia’ – or love of the land, which he promotes as a central Conservative value. The report argues that this sense of stewardship and shared responsibility could be used to motivate people to act on climate change. Guy Newey from Policy Exchange pointed out at today’s event that this argument has its limitations when applied to climate change policy, however. What does it mean in arguments over the aesthetics of windfarms, for example?
Second, the need for energy security resonates strongly with right-wing audiences, the report suggests. This argument might also prove problematic, as it could easily be interpreted to promote exploiting more indigenous shale gas – which the Committee on Climate Change has warned could endanger the UK’s emissions reduction targets.
Elsewhere, editor of website BusinessGreen, James Murray, has pioneered the idea of a ‘ new environmentalism‘ – presenting the business case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and giving bold decision makers in business more say in how to do it. The report presents this approach as:
“optimistic and techno-centric, and unashamedly in favour of responsible forms of capitalism (but not business as usual). Corporations are viewed as in need of transformation, not opposition.”
Finally, there’s the concept of ‘the good life’. Modernising Conservatives regularly argue that the centre-right vision of life is about more than money – it’s about promoting quality of life. Climate change threatens living standards by degrading local environments and damaging the health of people and communities, the report points out. Reframing climate change as a public health problem is a particularly powerful way to talk across political boundaries, it says.
Will it work?
Today’s report presents a paradox. On one hand, the problem seems significant. At one point Goldsmith asked the room how many people saw themselves as being part of the ‘green centre-right’. He didn’t seek a show of hands – presuming that the answer would be “not that many”.
But at the same time, polls consistently show that action on climate change has cross-party support. Wherever the truth lies, it is clear that the route for right-wing citizens to express support for green policies is not well-defined.
Newey argued it’s also “extremely damaging” when opposition to some green measures like wind farms are conflated with climate skepticism or support for fossil fuels, a tendency which increases the political polarisation of the debate, he said.
COIN’s report can’t answer all of the problems it raises, but the work could be the beginning of a more inclusive debate over the best way to tackle climate change.