What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism
The environment has long been the undisputed territory of the political Left, which casts international capitalism, consumerism, and the over-exploitation of natural resources as the principle threats to the planet, and sees top-down interventions as the most effective solution.
In How to Think Seriously About the Planet, Roger Scruton rejects this view and offers a fresh approach to tackling the most important political problem of our time. The environmental movement, he contends, is philosophically confused and has unrealistic agendas. Its sights are directed at the largescale events and the confrontation between international politics and multinational business. But Scruton argues that no large-scale environmental project, however well-intentioned, will succeed if it is not rooted in small-scale practical reasoning. Seeing things on a large scale promotes top-down solutions, managed by unaccountable bureaucracies that fail to assess local conditions and are rife with unintended consequences. Scruton argues for the greater efficacy of local initiatives over global schemes, civil association over political activism, and small-scale institutions of friendship over regulatory hyper-vigilance. And he suggests that conservatism is far better suited to solving environmental problems than either liberalism or socialism. Rather than entrusting the environment to unwieldy NGOs and international committees, we must assume personal responsibility and foster local control. People must be empowered to take charge of their environment, to care for it as they would a home, and to involve themselves through the kind of local associations that have been the traditional goal of conservative politics.
Our common future is by no means assured, but as Roger Scruton clearly demonstrates in this important book, there is a path that can ensure the future safety of our planet and our species.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2011
About the author
Roger Scruton
146 books1,379 followersSir Roger Scruton was a writer and philosopher who has published more than forty books in philosophy, aesthetics and politics. He was a fellow of the British Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He taught in both England and America and was a Visiting Professor at Department of Philosophy and Fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, he was also a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington D.C.
In 2015 he published two books, The Disappeared and later in the autumn, Fools Frauds and Firebrands. Fools Frauds and Firebrands is an update of Thinkers of the New Left published, to widespread outrage, in 1986. It includes new chapters covering Lacan, Deleuze and Badiou and some timely thoughts about the historians and social thinkers who led British intellectuals up the garden path during the last decades, including Eric Hobsbawm and Ralph Miliband.
In 2016 he again published two books, Confessions of A Heretic (a collection of essays) and The Ring of Truth, about Wagner’s Ring cycle, which was widely and favourably reviewed. In 2017 he published On Human Nature (Princeton University Press), which was again widely reviewed, and contains a distillation of his philosophy. He also published a response to Brexit, Where We Are (Bloomsbury).
In 2015 he published two books, The Disappeared and later in the autumn, Fools Frauds and Firebrands. Fools Frauds and Firebrands is an update of Thinkers of the New Left published, to widespread outrage, in 1986. It includes new chapters covering Lacan, Deleuze and Badiou and some timely thoughts about the historians and social thinkers who led British intellectuals up the garden path during the last decades, including Eric Hobsbawm and Ralph Miliband.
In 2016 he again published two books, Confessions of A Heretic (a collection of essays) and The Ring of Truth, about Wagner’s Ring cycle, which was widely and favourably reviewed. In 2017 he published On Human Nature (Princeton University Press), which was again widely reviewed, and contains a distillation of his philosophy. He also published a response to Brexit, Where We Are (Bloomsbury).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
July 15, 2016
It is true, as Scruton spends the first chapters arguing, that environmentalism does not have to be (and has not always been) the sole domain of the political left. It is also true that conservatives, as their parties stand now, need a coherent framework for protecting the environment that complements their own political philosophy and values. Unfortunately, this book does not provide a coherent or useful alternative. It at first headed in a good direction, and even his chapter on climate change ends ultimately with the conclusion that action is needed, despite the fact that he seems to be a sceptic about anthropogenic contributions. Though his citations are dubious and I disagree with his interpretations, at least he forms a logical argument for action that could be used with other sceptics.
When discussing the domain of science (climate change included but not exclusively in that domain), Scruton is clearly out of his depth, and I found myself shaking my head fairly frequently, both at the citations he used and his interpretations of the science. There are contradictions, which I did not expect from a philosopher, but perhaps most frustrating were the number of strawmen he produced, only to tear them down in support of his view. For example, his view of 'modern environmentalism' seems to be constructed almost entirely from his perception of the international NGOs, and he spends a fair bit of time arguing for the value of small, local groups such as the Women's Institute, which he argues have done more for the environment than any of these NGOs, which he believes have done harm. He also seems to have missed most of the academic literature in environmental governance because the strawman he constructs lacks all of the limbs of recent literature around adaptive governance, co-managment, and co-production of knowledge. He claims the environmental movement is always focuses on punitive legislation and centralised action, but these literatures I mention argue the opposite and some are in fact built on Ostrom's work (which he clearly loves). One wonders if his entire view of the left is built on personal interactions with NGOs and news stories about environmental activists. The action of environmental professionals and environmental researchers - many of whom have a political philosophy on the left - are completely left out of his depictions.
I thought, in reading the early chapters, that he was going to use some of what we know from behavioural economics and cognitive psychology to design appropriate solutions in service of his aim, but to my disappointment, he did not. Instead, he describes a philosopher's view of human nature, accepts that as truth, and proceeds with the book on that basis. I still so badly would like to see a book that tackles the same aim of this book, but uses research from social science to support it. Having a co-author who understands the environmental sciences would also be a big bonus. Perhaps most puzzling part of this book, however, is his chapter about how environmental philosophy cannot offer answers to our environmental woes. In particular, he has a major problem with utilitarians in general and Peter Singer quite specifically. But the irony of it all is that the book offers a 'green philosophy'; precisely what he says cannot provide answers. Perhaps it is only *his* philosophy, and not the philosophies of others, that can provide a framework for action.
Ultimately, the book ends with what Scruton calls 'modest proposals', which I will not give away, but which I could have predicted from reading page 1. They heavily rely on extreme decentralisation, the ability of people to work at small scales simply because they love their local communities, markets, and protecting the aesthetics of the country side. It all sounds rather lovely in one way or another, until you realise how absurd some of it is. I would particularly have liked to see him apply the principle of subsidiarity instead of almost blanket decentralisation, as there is no real consideration of the scale of problems and how they do (or do not) align with effective action.
When discussing the domain of science (climate change included but not exclusively in that domain), Scruton is clearly out of his depth, and I found myself shaking my head fairly frequently, both at the citations he used and his interpretations of the science. There are contradictions, which I did not expect from a philosopher, but perhaps most frustrating were the number of strawmen he produced, only to tear them down in support of his view. For example, his view of 'modern environmentalism' seems to be constructed almost entirely from his perception of the international NGOs, and he spends a fair bit of time arguing for the value of small, local groups such as the Women's Institute, which he argues have done more for the environment than any of these NGOs, which he believes have done harm. He also seems to have missed most of the academic literature in environmental governance because the strawman he constructs lacks all of the limbs of recent literature around adaptive governance, co-managment, and co-production of knowledge. He claims the environmental movement is always focuses on punitive legislation and centralised action, but these literatures I mention argue the opposite and some are in fact built on Ostrom's work (which he clearly loves). One wonders if his entire view of the left is built on personal interactions with NGOs and news stories about environmental activists. The action of environmental professionals and environmental researchers - many of whom have a political philosophy on the left - are completely left out of his depictions.
I thought, in reading the early chapters, that he was going to use some of what we know from behavioural economics and cognitive psychology to design appropriate solutions in service of his aim, but to my disappointment, he did not. Instead, he describes a philosopher's view of human nature, accepts that as truth, and proceeds with the book on that basis. I still so badly would like to see a book that tackles the same aim of this book, but uses research from social science to support it. Having a co-author who understands the environmental sciences would also be a big bonus. Perhaps most puzzling part of this book, however, is his chapter about how environmental philosophy cannot offer answers to our environmental woes. In particular, he has a major problem with utilitarians in general and Peter Singer quite specifically. But the irony of it all is that the book offers a 'green philosophy'; precisely what he says cannot provide answers. Perhaps it is only *his* philosophy, and not the philosophies of others, that can provide a framework for action.
Ultimately, the book ends with what Scruton calls 'modest proposals', which I will not give away, but which I could have predicted from reading page 1. They heavily rely on extreme decentralisation, the ability of people to work at small scales simply because they love their local communities, markets, and protecting the aesthetics of the country side. It all sounds rather lovely in one way or another, until you realise how absurd some of it is. I would particularly have liked to see him apply the principle of subsidiarity instead of almost blanket decentralisation, as there is no real consideration of the scale of problems and how they do (or do not) align with effective action.
March 13, 2024
Scruton never misses…. Unfortunately being right is ultimately meaningless in a world where my 30-hr narration delivered to Joe Biden via flash drive is intercepted and destroyed by the secret service
February 17, 2022
I love nature. And I think that it´s pretty important to look after our environment. But there is something absolutely bollocks about modern environmental activists. There´s something in their general discourse & motive that feels more hateful than loveful (is that a word? If not, now it is. Hah! Take that, Shakespeare). That sourness, in a way, moved me away from environmentalists´ key points.
Yet I fundamentally agree with many of the environmentalists´ key points. (Cars are overrated and public transport has real potential, local food is nice, fruits and vegetables are nice, plastic is quite shiite, massive livestock farming is shiite too, urban planning should probably go along with including some green stuff here and there, excessive consumerism is problematic and won´t ever solve our deepfelt needs and desires, we´re better off when we have some sort of connection to nature)
The difference is that, for me, these ideas have always come up from a feeling of loving, caring and protecting what I consider ¨home¨... The hills, the little birds that make those funny sounds, the smell of flowers, cows, pets (urrrggh some environmentalists oppose us regular citizens having dogs, ffffuck off will ya?), the breeze of fresh air going by as I sit somewhere bathing in the sun after weeks and weeks of constant cloudy weather and rain!!, gardening, the countryside.
What this books did for me is bring me back to those old values of nature conservation, the love of home, and give me back some patience for environmentalist arguments.
Yet I fundamentally agree with many of the environmentalists´ key points. (Cars are overrated and public transport has real potential, local food is nice, fruits and vegetables are nice, plastic is quite shiite, massive livestock farming is shiite too, urban planning should probably go along with including some green stuff here and there, excessive consumerism is problematic and won´t ever solve our deepfelt needs and desires, we´re better off when we have some sort of connection to nature)
The difference is that, for me, these ideas have always come up from a feeling of loving, caring and protecting what I consider ¨home¨... The hills, the little birds that make those funny sounds, the smell of flowers, cows, pets (urrrggh some environmentalists oppose us regular citizens having dogs, ffffuck off will ya?), the breeze of fresh air going by as I sit somewhere bathing in the sun after weeks and weeks of constant cloudy weather and rain!!, gardening, the countryside.
What this books did for me is bring me back to those old values of nature conservation, the love of home, and give me back some patience for environmentalist arguments.
April 4, 2015
Mind shifting book; a must-read for everyone who wonders how to save the planet without becoming frustrated, dogmatic or dictatorial.
The insights provided by Roger Scruton are:
1) top-down measures do not always work and can be even harmful
2) top-down thinking is often motivated by ideals, and prone to evolve towards fundalism (cfr. communism, religion)
3) people taking action or putting measures/rules into place, should always be accountable by the community
4) community based approaches, based on mutual accountability, are much more sustainable and effective
5) community based actions arise when there is a sense of community
6) a sense of community and accountability arises when people feel they have a lot in common
Accountability and community are the basis for feeling connected to one-another; to our ancestors and to our children... which in turn are the basis for feeling responsible for the future of our planet.
This puts a huge challenge to the way we build our cities and communities. The digital area can make us virtually connected to anybody... can they make us feel so connected that we become better citizens?
The insights provided by Roger Scruton are:
1) top-down measures do not always work and can be even harmful
2) top-down thinking is often motivated by ideals, and prone to evolve towards fundalism (cfr. communism, religion)
3) people taking action or putting measures/rules into place, should always be accountable by the community
4) community based approaches, based on mutual accountability, are much more sustainable and effective
5) community based actions arise when there is a sense of community
6) a sense of community and accountability arises when people feel they have a lot in common
Accountability and community are the basis for feeling connected to one-another; to our ancestors and to our children... which in turn are the basis for feeling responsible for the future of our planet.
This puts a huge challenge to the way we build our cities and communities. The digital area can make us virtually connected to anybody... can they make us feel so connected that we become better citizens?
March 8, 2021
Both a must read in its own right and an excellent introduction to conservative environmentalism (Ruskin and the Lake Poets in particular play big roles)
October 28, 2025
This started really good, employing economic theory and the role of costs, and then he did a 180 and apparently forgets the costs of “clean” energy. In the words of Tommy Norris, “…alternative energy. There’s nothing clean about this.” Global warming, and even more so, qua an actual threat, is simply accepted and unchallenged. He wasn’t alarmist, so there is that, but man, too much of this is really retarded.
April 26, 2015
The problem with this book is the way its main arguments are constructed. The author describes a view, then attacks it. Often however the view he describes is not really interesting or relevant – at best he offers simplifications of views. The use of examples tends to be selective and often conclusions are based on simplistic assumptions of human nature or motivation. In the end the real problems are not addressed since the author firmly believes that different views on environmental issues are due to different temperaments or ideologies. Some of the discussion is clear and interesting however notwithstanding its fundamentally flawed nature.
January 17, 2022
Cuando Scruton plantea un “ambientalismo conservador”, lo que más me temía es que fuese a defenderlo desde un punto de vista “patriótico”, es decir, añadiendo el medio ambiente a los componentes que conforman una nación. Eso es lo que parecen hacer muchos conservadores cuando hablan de ambientalismo, su argumento se reduce a la simpleza de “protege el medio ambiente porque es tuyo”. Lamentablemente, muchos conservadores abogan por la protección de un bosque, paraje natural o parque nacional no por su valor intrínseco o su valor ecológico, sino simplemente con un acto más de patriotismo. Me sorprendió para bien que no fuera así.
Otra cosa que me temía es que el libro fuese una simple defensa del libre mercado con enfoque medioambiental, es decir, una manera de hacer encajar el medio ambiente en una ideología de liberalismo económico. Me sorprendió que tampoco fuera así, y muy gratamente.
Scruton desarrolla el concepto de “oikophilia”, un apego a la casa común, un lazo que une al hombre con la tierra, centrándose en el valor intrínseco de la naturaleza, el valor de la naturaleza más allá de los usos que le podríamos dar o los recursos que podríamos extraer de ella.
El concepto de conservadurismo que maneja Scruton no es el de una serie de ideas concretas, sino de una concepción de las instituciones y su papel en la sociedad. Scruton resalta la importancia de las pequeñas instituciones en la toma de decisiones y en la gestión de los recursos naturales. Ejemplos de estas instituciones serían asociaciones de ornitología, municipios o familias, y el libro podría tratarse como una gran defensa de estas instituciones y de su papel esencial para la protección de la naturaleza y su administración (stewardship). Scruton prefiere la gestión “bottom-up” a la “top-down”.
Si alguien asocia el conservadurismo a la negación del cambio climático, la ignorancia de los problemas medioambientales o el desarrollismo industrial desmesurado, que sepa que el pensamiento de Scruton no encaja en ninguna de esas categorías. De hecho, observando el panorama político actual, diría que gran parte de la derecha criticaría duramente las ideas de Scruton por su rechazo a las grandes propiedades, a la sobreindustrialización de la economía, a las transformaciones sociales producidas por la tecnología, etc. Del mismo modo, gran parte de la izquierda criticaría a Scruton por su rechazo a un Estado grande e intervencionista o por su defensa de la caza y la pesca, actividades aborrecidas por gran parte del ecologismo.
Cualquier interesado en la política ambiental debería leer este libro, al margen de su ideología, o al menos conocer las ideas de Scruton, ya que plantean distintas soluciones para una misma crisis socioecológica. Son unas soluciones que, entre la tozudez de la derecha, que parece mirar siempre para otro lado, y el dogmatismo de la izquierda, se suelen dejar de lado o ni siquiera debatir.
Otra cosa que me temía es que el libro fuese una simple defensa del libre mercado con enfoque medioambiental, es decir, una manera de hacer encajar el medio ambiente en una ideología de liberalismo económico. Me sorprendió que tampoco fuera así, y muy gratamente.
Scruton desarrolla el concepto de “oikophilia”, un apego a la casa común, un lazo que une al hombre con la tierra, centrándose en el valor intrínseco de la naturaleza, el valor de la naturaleza más allá de los usos que le podríamos dar o los recursos que podríamos extraer de ella.
El concepto de conservadurismo que maneja Scruton no es el de una serie de ideas concretas, sino de una concepción de las instituciones y su papel en la sociedad. Scruton resalta la importancia de las pequeñas instituciones en la toma de decisiones y en la gestión de los recursos naturales. Ejemplos de estas instituciones serían asociaciones de ornitología, municipios o familias, y el libro podría tratarse como una gran defensa de estas instituciones y de su papel esencial para la protección de la naturaleza y su administración (stewardship). Scruton prefiere la gestión “bottom-up” a la “top-down”.
Si alguien asocia el conservadurismo a la negación del cambio climático, la ignorancia de los problemas medioambientales o el desarrollismo industrial desmesurado, que sepa que el pensamiento de Scruton no encaja en ninguna de esas categorías. De hecho, observando el panorama político actual, diría que gran parte de la derecha criticaría duramente las ideas de Scruton por su rechazo a las grandes propiedades, a la sobreindustrialización de la economía, a las transformaciones sociales producidas por la tecnología, etc. Del mismo modo, gran parte de la izquierda criticaría a Scruton por su rechazo a un Estado grande e intervencionista o por su defensa de la caza y la pesca, actividades aborrecidas por gran parte del ecologismo.
Cualquier interesado en la política ambiental debería leer este libro, al margen de su ideología, o al menos conocer las ideas de Scruton, ya que plantean distintas soluciones para una misma crisis socioecológica. Son unas soluciones que, entre la tozudez de la derecha, que parece mirar siempre para otro lado, y el dogmatismo de la izquierda, se suelen dejar de lado o ni siquiera debatir.
September 7, 2019
If you believe, as I do, that aspects of environmental protection (including climate change) should be a basis for consensus across the political divide, this book is an extremely useful and persuasive exposition of what that looks like for the conservative mindset. Scruton provides excellent analysis, enlivened with plenty of historical evidence, for how some of the key principles of conservatism work especially well in terms of crafting practically effective approaches to the environment. It is weakest on climate change, simply because the nature of the problem is one where a lot of the locally-driven actions cannot deal with the full breadth of agenda - but these limitations are clearly acknowledged and robustly addressed. Anyone who cares about the environmental agenda but only ever reads the 'traditional' campaigning literature would benefit from approaching this book with an open mind and reflecting on its message.
August 5, 2016
I especially liked the author's linking of positive environmental action to oikophilia, or love of home, as a motivating factor for people to care for their local environment. Instead of heavy-handed, top-down solutions from a distanced government (liberalism), the ideals of conservatism and trusteeship better serve the object of protecting the quality and aesthetic of the world around us.
October 15, 2012
Some positive points about green NGOs, risk & climate change, but misunderstands the changing character of conservationism & environmentalism. Disappointing given the author's great classical philosophical works. I will be publishing a full book review shortly.
November 20, 2020
Roger Scruton mostra como discutir e proteger o meio ambiente de forma adulta, sem afetação de sentimentos e sinalização de virtudes, sem o histrionismo dos ecoterroristas.
June 5, 2022
„Консерватизмът е гласът на хората, които откриват своите социални потребности и стремежи в позната и обичана среда, място което за тях е дом и което се стремят да подобрят, ако не с друго, поне с малки корекции и усилия от страна на доброволци. В основата на много леви екологични движения е желанието за друг вид общество, което е организирано около някаква кауза, а не около дълбоко вкоренена лоялност - тъкмо в това е истинският смисъл на кампаниите на неправителствените организации за разлика от „малкия взвод”.”
May 17, 2020
Roger Scruton é um autor que admiro muito, pois além de sua capacidade intelectual, ele possui propostas muito moderadas, levando em consideração ambos os lados das disputas. Nesse livro não é diferente. Ele consegue demonstrar a quantidade de histeria que há no discurso ativista, mas também consegue mostrar como alguns conservadores não pensam nessas questões. Sempre recomendo livros do Scruton!
January 30, 2019
Superb
December 7, 2022
Compelling. I appreciated, among other things, Scruton’s insistence on the importance of oikophilia, the love of home.
April 10, 2024
Insightful, passionate, and compelling.
August 28, 2025
Beste boek over klimaatfilosofie dat ik tot nu heb gelezen (en dat van een rechts-conservatieve denker)
January 14, 2015
Groen en conservatisme, een onverwachte politieke combinatie? Wie het extreem-linkse karakter van de meeste West-Europese ecologische partijen bekijkt, zou denken van wel. Rechts kan of mag niets te zeggen over "het milieu". Nochtans zijn in de Angelsaksische wereld heel wat groene denkers verwant met conservatieve ideeën (Goldsmith, Schumacher).
Wie beter dan de bekendste Engelse conservatieve denker, Roger Scruton, om zijn licht te laten schijnen over natuur en politiek.
De auteur laat uiteraard niet na de tegenstelling links en natuurbehoud te onderstrepen. Onder het communisme in China en Oost-Europa werd de natuur op schandalige manier beschadigd, zelfs vernietigd. Overheidsinterventie is immers te abstract en onvoldoende gevoelig voor genuanceerd, lokaal en aangepast beleid. Heel wat NGO's en regeringen (Gore, Obama,...) koesteren nog steeds het idee dat de overheid ondermeer de opwarming van de aarde kan aanpakken. Een nieuwe heilsleer, die door niemand (ook niet op wetenschappelijke wijze) mag worden weerlegd. Popper's falsificatie is hier een stille dood gestorven. Was ook de Club van Rome niet verkeerd en sprak men immers niet enkele decennia geleden over afkoeling in plaats van opwarming?
Maar ook de markt laat steken vallen. Het voornaamste probleem is dat de markt geen weg weet met de neiging om kosten te externaliseren (bvb. afval en de opruiming ervan af te schuiven op de samenleving).
Tussen laissez faire-kapitalisme en overheidscontrole ligt de conservatieve derde weg. Meer aandacht voor traditie, kleinschaligheid en "bottom up"-inspraak in het beleid. De auteur haalt meerdere voorbeelden aan, vooral gesitueerd in Engeland en VSA. Beide lijken ondanks de sterke economische groei het landschap vrij goed te beheren. Scruton verwijst onder andere naar de belangrijke invloed in schilderkunst en literatuur (Morris, Constable,...).
De reden hiervoor situeert de schrijver in de historische en wettelijke mogelijkheid die burgers hebben om zich te verenigen in initiatieven die op lokaal niveau concrete projecten voor natuurbehoud opzetten. Ook jagers en vissers bekijken hoe ze het dierenbestand kunnen handhaven, en niet het probleem van de meent ("problem of the commons") herhalen.
Roger Scruton trekt terecht de milieuproblematiek breder dan louter fauna en flora. Ook de maakbaarheid van onze steden (in de geest van Le Corbusier) hebben sociale woestijnen doen ontstaan. Grijze appartementsblokken en doodse zakenbuurten in het weekeinde (Berlaymont - Brussel) zijn het pijnlijke gevolg. Ook de immigratie heeft geleid tot verbrokkeling van het sociale weefsel en legt bovendien een demografische hypotheek op onze natuur. Ter linkerzijde sluit men de ogen voor beide problematieken. Oikofilie (liefde voor zijn omgeving) is inderdaad veel meer dan enkel planten en dieren. Met permissie wijst de auteur dan ook op het oikofobisch karakter van groen links dat planten en dieren in hun natuurlijk biotoop wil laten floreren, maar de mens laat vervreemden van zijn omgeving en als Icarus denkt de goden te moeten tarten met zijn maakbaarheidsidee. Op dat vlak scoort de Europese Unie natuurlijk heel hoog. Rijkelijk rondstrooien van subsidies die de lokale landbouw vernietigen, leiden tot reusachtige overschotten die dan moeten worden vernietigd of gedumpt worden in de Derde Wereld en de absurde diarree aan regelgeving die meer kwaad doet dan goed.
Heel veel inspiratie tot nadenken en een verfrissend geluid rond een thema dat verder unisono door autoritair links gedomineerd wordt. Men zegge het voort!
Wie beter dan de bekendste Engelse conservatieve denker, Roger Scruton, om zijn licht te laten schijnen over natuur en politiek.
De auteur laat uiteraard niet na de tegenstelling links en natuurbehoud te onderstrepen. Onder het communisme in China en Oost-Europa werd de natuur op schandalige manier beschadigd, zelfs vernietigd. Overheidsinterventie is immers te abstract en onvoldoende gevoelig voor genuanceerd, lokaal en aangepast beleid. Heel wat NGO's en regeringen (Gore, Obama,...) koesteren nog steeds het idee dat de overheid ondermeer de opwarming van de aarde kan aanpakken. Een nieuwe heilsleer, die door niemand (ook niet op wetenschappelijke wijze) mag worden weerlegd. Popper's falsificatie is hier een stille dood gestorven. Was ook de Club van Rome niet verkeerd en sprak men immers niet enkele decennia geleden over afkoeling in plaats van opwarming?
Maar ook de markt laat steken vallen. Het voornaamste probleem is dat de markt geen weg weet met de neiging om kosten te externaliseren (bvb. afval en de opruiming ervan af te schuiven op de samenleving).
Tussen laissez faire-kapitalisme en overheidscontrole ligt de conservatieve derde weg. Meer aandacht voor traditie, kleinschaligheid en "bottom up"-inspraak in het beleid. De auteur haalt meerdere voorbeelden aan, vooral gesitueerd in Engeland en VSA. Beide lijken ondanks de sterke economische groei het landschap vrij goed te beheren. Scruton verwijst onder andere naar de belangrijke invloed in schilderkunst en literatuur (Morris, Constable,...).
De reden hiervoor situeert de schrijver in de historische en wettelijke mogelijkheid die burgers hebben om zich te verenigen in initiatieven die op lokaal niveau concrete projecten voor natuurbehoud opzetten. Ook jagers en vissers bekijken hoe ze het dierenbestand kunnen handhaven, en niet het probleem van de meent ("problem of the commons") herhalen.
Roger Scruton trekt terecht de milieuproblematiek breder dan louter fauna en flora. Ook de maakbaarheid van onze steden (in de geest van Le Corbusier) hebben sociale woestijnen doen ontstaan. Grijze appartementsblokken en doodse zakenbuurten in het weekeinde (Berlaymont - Brussel) zijn het pijnlijke gevolg. Ook de immigratie heeft geleid tot verbrokkeling van het sociale weefsel en legt bovendien een demografische hypotheek op onze natuur. Ter linkerzijde sluit men de ogen voor beide problematieken. Oikofilie (liefde voor zijn omgeving) is inderdaad veel meer dan enkel planten en dieren. Met permissie wijst de auteur dan ook op het oikofobisch karakter van groen links dat planten en dieren in hun natuurlijk biotoop wil laten floreren, maar de mens laat vervreemden van zijn omgeving en als Icarus denkt de goden te moeten tarten met zijn maakbaarheidsidee. Op dat vlak scoort de Europese Unie natuurlijk heel hoog. Rijkelijk rondstrooien van subsidies die de lokale landbouw vernietigen, leiden tot reusachtige overschotten die dan moeten worden vernietigd of gedumpt worden in de Derde Wereld en de absurde diarree aan regelgeving die meer kwaad doet dan goed.
Heel veel inspiratie tot nadenken en een verfrissend geluid rond een thema dat verder unisono door autoritair links gedomineerd wordt. Men zegge het voort!
January 31, 2024
Toen ik begon met het lezen van dit boek, wist ik niet wie Roger Scruton was. Ik heb hem opgezocht op het internet en ik ben erachter gekomen dat ik het niet zo'n leuke man vind: hij heeft Thierry Baudet begeleidt tijdens zijn proefschrift (een man die nu een fascist is), hij was zeer homofoob en Viktor Orban, de Hongaarse dictator, was aanwezig op zijn begrafenis. Het boek is in mijn ogen erg slecht. De logica van Scruton is soms van een belabberd niveau, wat ik in deze review bewijs. Mijn grootste probleem met dit boek is het feit dat de theorieën niet aansluiten op de werkelijkheid.
Conservatisme wordt gedefinieerd als: "De politiek van het uitstel, met als doel het leven en de gezondheid van een maatschappelijk organisme zo lang mogelijk in stand te houden" (p. 14). Dit wordt gekoppeld aan groen-beleid: "Conservatisme en milieubehoud zijn twee aspecten van één enkel langetermijnbeleid, gericht op het zuinig omgaan met hulpbronnen en het veiligstellen van de vernieuwing daarvan" (p. 14). Scruton zegt het volgende: (1) conservatisme staat voor behoud; (2) we hebben een klimaatprobleem; (3) conservatisme en klimaatbehoud delen dezelfde visie. De koppeling van conservatisme en klimaatbehoud slaat in de werkelijkheid nergens op: het verklaart niet waarom het huidige beleid er niet in is geslaagd om te verduurzamen, aangezien de meeste landen een rechts-conservatieve regering hebben. Daarom ben ik het fundamenteel oneens met de kern van dit boek. Wel zijn Scruton en ik het eens dat conservatieven voor klimaatbehoud zouden moeten zijn, maar ze zijn het in de praktijk niet.
Roger Scruton heeft (samen met Paul Cliteur) Thierry Baudet begeleidt in zijn proefschrift. Thierry Baudet is op dit moment de leider van een fascistische partij (FvD) die klimaatverandering (door menselijk toedoen) ontkent. Dit boek is geschreven in dezelfde periode dat Baudet zijn proefschrift schreef - het woord 'oikofolie' komt dan ook geregeld terug, Baudet heeft (kort na het verschijnen van dit boek) een boek geschreven over de tegenhanger van dat woord ('oikofobie'). Scrutons eigen pupil laat dus zien dat conservatisme en klimaatbehoud niet samengaan. Daarom is de volgende uitspraak frappant: "Om die reden, zo lijkt me, moeten Groenen voor het conservatisme kiezen" (p. 258).
Scruton vindt dat individuen alle verantwoordelijkheid moeten nemen voor hun gedrag: "De oplossing is onze vraag aan te passen, zodat we de kosten ervan zelf te dragen krijgen, en een manier te vinden om bedrijven zo onder druk te zetten dat ze hetzelfde gaan doen" (p. 19). Ook schrijft hij: "Telkens wanneer we een vliegreis maken, de supermarkt bezoeken of fossiele brandstof verbruiken, schuiven we onze kosten af op anderen en op toekomstige generaties" (p. 19). Echter kan een bedrijf veel meer impact maken dan een individu: als ik stop met autorijden, kan Shell alsnog een nieuw boorplatform openen, waardoor mijn verantwoordelijkheid geen resultaat heeft. Daarnaast zijn individuen afhankelijk van hetgeen bedrijven aanbieden. Zo wil ik graag een vliegreis maken met een vliegtuig die aangedreven wordt met zonnepanelen, maar zo'n toestel bestaat niet; ik kan alleen maar kiezen uit niet-duurzame producten en diensten. Scruton pleit hier dus impliciet voor het onttrekken van mensen uit de samenleving: ik mag alleen bedrijven bekritiseren als ik niet meer consumeer, wat onmogelijk is.
Het hele boek is gevuld met anti-globalistisch sentiment; Scruton drukt zich uit als een xenofoob. De argumenten tegen globalisme zijn volledig eenzijdig: de voordelen van globalisme worden niet benoemd. Bovendien worden islamieten weggezet als barbaren: "[De traditionele Islam slaat over] naar een Europa waarvan de instituties en tradities wringen met de islamitische levenswijze" (p. 18). Dit sentiment veranderd later in het boek onverwachts: "De opwarming van de aarde is een transnationaal probleem en roept vragen op over verdragen en internationale samenwerking" (p. 52). Ook schrijft hij: "Persoonlijk ben ik voorstander van een wet [van de Europese Unie] die niet-afbreekbare verpakkingen verbiedt of de inzameling ervan waarborgt" (p. 78).
Scruton beargumenteert het volgende: "Toch blijft het zo dat de activistische ngo's onvoldoende verantwoording afleggen en dit is een natuurlijk gevolg van hun werkwijze" (p. 29). Inherent in dit argument is het idee dat organisaties die verantwoording afleggen per definitie goed zijn. Echter blijkt dit in de praktijk niet te werken: FvD hoeft geen verantwoording af te leggen voor fascistische uitspraken en kan geld blijven verdienen met de gelieerde bedrijven; zolang er mensen zijn die geloven dat het World Economic Forum bestaat uit satanistische pedofielen, blijft FvD zetels houden. Verantwoording afleggen is een terugkerend thema in het boek: bureaucraten vindt Scruton niks.
De auteur creëert een foutieve tegenstelling door het volgende te schrijven: "Er zijn mensen die politiek zien als het mobiliseren van de samenleving voor een bepaald doel. En er zijn anderen die politiek zien als een methode voor het oplossen van conflicten en het verzoenen van belangen, een methode die echter geen eigen doel heeft" (p. 30). Scruton vindt dat linkse mensen bij de eerste groep horen en hijzelf bij de andere groep. Echter schreef Scruton eerder nog: "De politiek van het uitstel, met als doel het leven en de gezondheid van een maatschappelijk organisme zo lang mogelijk in stand te houden" (p. 14). Zijn doel van politiek is dus om de huidige maatschappelijke orde in stand te houden. Dit betekent dat Scruton in beide groepen valt, net als iedereen.
In hoofdstuk 2 lijkt Scruton het klimaatprobleem (op meerdere momenten) te bagatelliseren: "Ik stelde mij in dit hoofdstuk ten doel aan te geven dat de waarschijnlijkheid van de opwarming van de aarde niet voldoende is om milieuproblemen uit de sferen te tillen waarin het door mij verdedigde conservatisme vaste voet krijgt" (p. 52). Hierdoor betwijfel ik de oprechtheid van Scruton om het klimaatprobleem aan te pakken.
Scruton en ik delen de volgende visie: ". . . zij die voor schade verantwoordelijk zijn, deze ook behoren te herstellen" (p. 53). Daarom moeten we grote bedrijven aanpakken, aangezien 100 bedrijven verantwoordelijk zijn voor 71% van de globale uitstoot (The Guardian, 2017). Echter pleit Scruton hier niet voor. Integendeel: "Bovendien miskent het de eigenlijke verantwoordelijkheid, omdat het mikt op de energieproducten in plaats van op de consumenten" (p. 267).
Scruton beargumenteert in hoofdstuk 4 dat het nemen van risico's nodig is en dat voorzorgsmaatregelen (genomen door de Europese Unie) erg slecht zijn: "Hoeveel slaperige keizerrijken waanden zich niet veilig in hun langdurige overvloed en werden weggevaagd door barbaarse horden, eenvoudigweg omdat de basileus of kalief zijn leven had doorgebracht in risicovrije paleizen" (p. 84). Dit voorbeeld is compleet onbenullig en wordt veel gebruikt door rechts-conservatieve mensen. Het Romeinse Rijk is inderdaad omvergeworpen door "barbaren", echter hebben de Romeinen ook ontelbare volksstammen verslagen en overgenomen. De geschiedenis wordt simpelweg geschreven door de winnaars. Bovendien laat het voorbeeld niet zien dat er geen risico's werden genomen, maar dat de risico's verkeerd zijn ingeschat; Scrutons logica klopt niet in zijn eigen voorbeeld.
Scruton heeft hierover nog wat te melden: "zij [, de risicomijders, zullen] de verliezers zijn en ze zijn alleen van bescherming verzekerd wanneer ze op een bemoederende staat kunnen terugvallen. Toch is de bemoederende staat zelf afhankelijk van risiconemers." (p. 87). Echter vergeet hij dat grote bedrijven en andere ondernemers (de risiconemers) vaak ook afhankelijk zijn van overheidssteun: grote bedrijven moeten regelmatig gered worden door de overheid en ze krijgen veel subsidies (vaak in de vorm van belastingkortingen).
Scruton noemt het Groot-Brittannië van na de Tweede Wereldoorlog socialistisch, wat enigszins overdreven is - socialisme vindt hij overduidelijk slecht, terwijl het ook goede dingen heeft voortgebracht zoals de NHS. Hij beweert het volgende: "[door socialisme] raakten de rivieren ernstig vervuild, en in veel van de mooiste bleef geen leven meer over" (p. 113). Echter klinkt dit totaal niet logisch en realistisch - waar ik geen bewijs voor heb. Bovendien wordt de Sovjet-Unie meerdere keren weggezet als een inherent niet-duurzaam land, terwijl alle industrialiserende landen relatief veel uitstootten. Een voorbeeld die Scruton gebruikt is de kernramp van Tsjernobyl. Waarom wordt Fukushima niet gebruikt als voorbeeld van de inherente niet-duurzaamheid van het kapitalisme? De kernreactor was immers geplaatst door een geïndustrialiseerd land, nabij een breuklijn.
Scruton gebruikt het pleidooi van Edmund Burke om de conservatieve benadering van het milieuprobleem te schetsen. In dit conservatieve denken zitten drie kernideeën: "respect voor de doden, het 'kleine peloton' en de stem van de traditie" (p. 151). Burke dacht het volgende over de Franse Revolutie: "Minachting voor de doden leidt zo tot het ontnemen van rechten aan de ongeborenen, en hoewel dat resultaat misschien niet onvermijdelijk is, werd het door alle daaropvolgende revoluties herhaald" (p. 152). De revolutionairen kwamen in opstand omdat hun huidige leven een lage kwaliteit had, terwijl de monarchen een extreem luxeleven hadden. Scruton definieerde conservatisme als het in stand houden van de huidige maatschappelijke orde. Wellicht was de revolutie de schuld van de monarchen zelf: als de monarchen het volk hadden voorzien van een beter leven, was een revolutionaire beweging waarschijnlijk niet succesvol geweest. De monarchen waren, volgens de logica van Scruton en Burke, dus niet conservatief genoeg: de maatschappelijke orde werd immers omvergeworpen.
Scruton heeft het volgende te zeggen over tradities: "Mensen die ze aanvaarden zijn niet altijd in staat ze uit te leggen, laat staan ze te rechtvaardigen. . . . De rede blijkt uit datgene waarvoor we geen redenen geven en misschien ook geen redenen kunnen geven" (p. 154). Hiermee beweert Scruton dat alle tradities hoe dan ook goed moeten zijn en niet veranderd mogen worden. Echter zijn er tradities op te noemen die afgeschaft moeten worden. Denk aan de verering van kolonialisten (met standbeelden) zoals Jan Pieterszoon Coen (bijnaam 'de slachter van Banda').
Scruton beschrijft het ontstaan van naties als een idyllisch proces, en gebruikt USA als voorbeeld: "Het is duidelijk dat naties ook een jurisdictie nodig hebben die voor het hele grondgebied geldt. Zo'n jurisdictie vereist wetgeving en dus een politiek proces. Dit proces transformeert het gedeelde grondgebied tot een gedeelde identiteit, en die identiteit is de natiestaat. Dit is ook een korte samenvatting van de Amerikaanse geschiedenis" (p. 168-169). Echter vergeet Scruton hier de genocide (van de inheemse bevolking) en de burgeroorlog te vermelden. Bovendien verklaart de visie niet waarom kolonialisten (geboren in het Verenigd Koninkrijk) zich in een ander land wilden vestigen. De gedeelde identiteit van USA is volgens Scruton dus het afpakken van land en uitroeien van inheemse volkeren door kolonialisten.
Scruton ziet een causaal verband tussen oikofolie en zorgen voor het eigen milieu: "Over het algemeen wordt het milieu het best onderhouden waar de oikofilie sterk is, zoals in de Scandinavische landen, in Zwitserland en in de Engelssprekende landen" (p. 169). Echter is deze redenering eenzijdig: per hoofd stoten inwoners van deze landen namelijk het meeste uit van de hele wereld. Daarnaast zijn dit de landen die de welvaart hebben om iets te doen aan het milieu. Scruton maakt hetzelfde punt nogmaals: "Twee van de ontwikkelingslanden die momenteel het meest verantwoordelijk zijn voor de uitstoot van broeikasgassen zijn India en China" (p. 208).
Scruton beschrijft een land als volgt: "We hebben te maken met een enorm machtig kartel van rijke mensen, die het recht controleren dat hen zogenaamd controleert en die geen enkele aantasting van hun bevoorrechte status kunnen dulden" (p. 206). Gaat dit om China of de Verenigde Staten? Uiteraard schrijft Scruton niet zo kritisch over de VS. Maar dit beschrijft redelijk de positie van de elite in de VS, zoals de leden van de Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Na meer dan 200 bladzijden te hebben gelezen, ben ik het eindelijk volledig eens met Scruton, hij schrijft: "Achter de EU, altijd aandringend op de uitbreiding en hopend de wetgevende bevoegdheden van de Unie te kunnen gebruiken om de markt in hun voordeel te beïnvloeden, staan de grote bedrijven Europa, Japan, China en Amerika - en in het bijzonder de supermarktketens, de fastfoodfranchisers, de farmaceutische ondernemingen, de autofabrikanten, de leveranciers van mondiale goederen en mondiaal amusement, die de hele wereld eender willen maken om verzekerd te zijn van een 'gelijk speelveld' dat een maximale klandizie voor hun goederen oplevert" (p. 223). Het sentiment dat in dit stuk heerst, lijkt verdomd veel op een groep mensen die ook kritisch zijn op grote bedrijven, en waar Scruton een hekel aan heeft: linkse mensen. Bovendien ben ik het eens met het volgende: "Europa werd inderdaad zelfvoorzienend, grotendeels door toedoen van wereldwijde (hoewel naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet duurzame) veranderingen in de landbouwmethoden; maar het eerste slachtoffer hiervan was de kleine boer, die meer werd benadeeld dan geholpen door het GLB [Gemeenschappelijke Landbouwbeleid van de Europese Unie]" (p. 244).
Scruton benadrukt keer op keer dat eigendomsrecht het belangrijkste element is om natuurbehoud te realiseren; de staat zou zich alleen hiermee moeten bemoeien. Echter schrijft hij ook het volgende: "Er kwam een gerechtelijk verbod op verkaveling en uiteindelijk nam het parlement een wet aan - de Epping Forest Act van 1878 - die het bos sindsdien als gemeenschapsgrond heeft beschermd" (p. 232). Bovendien spreekt een groot gedeelte van hoofdstuk 10 tegen dat staatsingrepen slecht zijn, als Scruton het volgende triomfantelijk schrijft: "Wie het Engeland van nu met Nederland of België vergelijkt, beseft ten volle welke ecologische voordelen de wet van 1945 heeft opgeleverd" (p. 238). Als we Scruton mogen geloven, is de VK (met haar vele burgerinitiatieven) een utopie - dit is uiteraard niet waar. Ook spreekt Scruton zichzelf tegen over de Franse Revolutie: "Intussen was stadsplanning een belangrijk punt van publieke aandacht geworden, deels als gevolg van invloeden uit het Frankrijk van na de revolutie" (p. 237).
Scruton bewijst dat conservatieve mensen last hebben van excessieve bekrompenheid; als er iets nieuws is zijn conservatieven direct tegen. Als het nieuwe wordt uitgevoerd en succesvol blijkt te zijn, kunnen ze er achteraf wel tevreden naar kijken: "De spoorweg kwam er uiteindelijk toch en vormt vandaag de dag een monument van victoriaanse techniek en architectonisch kunnen" (p. 234).
Scruton maakt een uiterst bizarre vergelijking tussen windmolens en communisme: "De turbines doen denken aan Lenins definitie van het communisme als 'sovjetmacht plus elektrificatie'" (p. 265). Deze opmerking heeft twee mogelijke verklaringen: (1) Scruton is hallucinant; (2) ik ben niet intelligent genoeg om deze analyse te begrijpen. De waarheid ligt vaak ergens in het midden. Bovendien laat dit weer Scrutons haat over het communisme zien; dingen waar Scruton het mee oneens is, zijn communistisch.
Conservatisme wordt gedefinieerd als: "De politiek van het uitstel, met als doel het leven en de gezondheid van een maatschappelijk organisme zo lang mogelijk in stand te houden" (p. 14). Dit wordt gekoppeld aan groen-beleid: "Conservatisme en milieubehoud zijn twee aspecten van één enkel langetermijnbeleid, gericht op het zuinig omgaan met hulpbronnen en het veiligstellen van de vernieuwing daarvan" (p. 14). Scruton zegt het volgende: (1) conservatisme staat voor behoud; (2) we hebben een klimaatprobleem; (3) conservatisme en klimaatbehoud delen dezelfde visie. De koppeling van conservatisme en klimaatbehoud slaat in de werkelijkheid nergens op: het verklaart niet waarom het huidige beleid er niet in is geslaagd om te verduurzamen, aangezien de meeste landen een rechts-conservatieve regering hebben. Daarom ben ik het fundamenteel oneens met de kern van dit boek. Wel zijn Scruton en ik het eens dat conservatieven voor klimaatbehoud zouden moeten zijn, maar ze zijn het in de praktijk niet.
Roger Scruton heeft (samen met Paul Cliteur) Thierry Baudet begeleidt in zijn proefschrift. Thierry Baudet is op dit moment de leider van een fascistische partij (FvD) die klimaatverandering (door menselijk toedoen) ontkent. Dit boek is geschreven in dezelfde periode dat Baudet zijn proefschrift schreef - het woord 'oikofolie' komt dan ook geregeld terug, Baudet heeft (kort na het verschijnen van dit boek) een boek geschreven over de tegenhanger van dat woord ('oikofobie'). Scrutons eigen pupil laat dus zien dat conservatisme en klimaatbehoud niet samengaan. Daarom is de volgende uitspraak frappant: "Om die reden, zo lijkt me, moeten Groenen voor het conservatisme kiezen" (p. 258).
Scruton vindt dat individuen alle verantwoordelijkheid moeten nemen voor hun gedrag: "De oplossing is onze vraag aan te passen, zodat we de kosten ervan zelf te dragen krijgen, en een manier te vinden om bedrijven zo onder druk te zetten dat ze hetzelfde gaan doen" (p. 19). Ook schrijft hij: "Telkens wanneer we een vliegreis maken, de supermarkt bezoeken of fossiele brandstof verbruiken, schuiven we onze kosten af op anderen en op toekomstige generaties" (p. 19). Echter kan een bedrijf veel meer impact maken dan een individu: als ik stop met autorijden, kan Shell alsnog een nieuw boorplatform openen, waardoor mijn verantwoordelijkheid geen resultaat heeft. Daarnaast zijn individuen afhankelijk van hetgeen bedrijven aanbieden. Zo wil ik graag een vliegreis maken met een vliegtuig die aangedreven wordt met zonnepanelen, maar zo'n toestel bestaat niet; ik kan alleen maar kiezen uit niet-duurzame producten en diensten. Scruton pleit hier dus impliciet voor het onttrekken van mensen uit de samenleving: ik mag alleen bedrijven bekritiseren als ik niet meer consumeer, wat onmogelijk is.
Het hele boek is gevuld met anti-globalistisch sentiment; Scruton drukt zich uit als een xenofoob. De argumenten tegen globalisme zijn volledig eenzijdig: de voordelen van globalisme worden niet benoemd. Bovendien worden islamieten weggezet als barbaren: "[De traditionele Islam slaat over] naar een Europa waarvan de instituties en tradities wringen met de islamitische levenswijze" (p. 18). Dit sentiment veranderd later in het boek onverwachts: "De opwarming van de aarde is een transnationaal probleem en roept vragen op over verdragen en internationale samenwerking" (p. 52). Ook schrijft hij: "Persoonlijk ben ik voorstander van een wet [van de Europese Unie] die niet-afbreekbare verpakkingen verbiedt of de inzameling ervan waarborgt" (p. 78).
Scruton beargumenteert het volgende: "Toch blijft het zo dat de activistische ngo's onvoldoende verantwoording afleggen en dit is een natuurlijk gevolg van hun werkwijze" (p. 29). Inherent in dit argument is het idee dat organisaties die verantwoording afleggen per definitie goed zijn. Echter blijkt dit in de praktijk niet te werken: FvD hoeft geen verantwoording af te leggen voor fascistische uitspraken en kan geld blijven verdienen met de gelieerde bedrijven; zolang er mensen zijn die geloven dat het World Economic Forum bestaat uit satanistische pedofielen, blijft FvD zetels houden. Verantwoording afleggen is een terugkerend thema in het boek: bureaucraten vindt Scruton niks.
De auteur creëert een foutieve tegenstelling door het volgende te schrijven: "Er zijn mensen die politiek zien als het mobiliseren van de samenleving voor een bepaald doel. En er zijn anderen die politiek zien als een methode voor het oplossen van conflicten en het verzoenen van belangen, een methode die echter geen eigen doel heeft" (p. 30). Scruton vindt dat linkse mensen bij de eerste groep horen en hijzelf bij de andere groep. Echter schreef Scruton eerder nog: "De politiek van het uitstel, met als doel het leven en de gezondheid van een maatschappelijk organisme zo lang mogelijk in stand te houden" (p. 14). Zijn doel van politiek is dus om de huidige maatschappelijke orde in stand te houden. Dit betekent dat Scruton in beide groepen valt, net als iedereen.
In hoofdstuk 2 lijkt Scruton het klimaatprobleem (op meerdere momenten) te bagatelliseren: "Ik stelde mij in dit hoofdstuk ten doel aan te geven dat de waarschijnlijkheid van de opwarming van de aarde niet voldoende is om milieuproblemen uit de sferen te tillen waarin het door mij verdedigde conservatisme vaste voet krijgt" (p. 52). Hierdoor betwijfel ik de oprechtheid van Scruton om het klimaatprobleem aan te pakken.
Scruton en ik delen de volgende visie: ". . . zij die voor schade verantwoordelijk zijn, deze ook behoren te herstellen" (p. 53). Daarom moeten we grote bedrijven aanpakken, aangezien 100 bedrijven verantwoordelijk zijn voor 71% van de globale uitstoot (The Guardian, 2017). Echter pleit Scruton hier niet voor. Integendeel: "Bovendien miskent het de eigenlijke verantwoordelijkheid, omdat het mikt op de energieproducten in plaats van op de consumenten" (p. 267).
Scruton beargumenteert in hoofdstuk 4 dat het nemen van risico's nodig is en dat voorzorgsmaatregelen (genomen door de Europese Unie) erg slecht zijn: "Hoeveel slaperige keizerrijken waanden zich niet veilig in hun langdurige overvloed en werden weggevaagd door barbaarse horden, eenvoudigweg omdat de basileus of kalief zijn leven had doorgebracht in risicovrije paleizen" (p. 84). Dit voorbeeld is compleet onbenullig en wordt veel gebruikt door rechts-conservatieve mensen. Het Romeinse Rijk is inderdaad omvergeworpen door "barbaren", echter hebben de Romeinen ook ontelbare volksstammen verslagen en overgenomen. De geschiedenis wordt simpelweg geschreven door de winnaars. Bovendien laat het voorbeeld niet zien dat er geen risico's werden genomen, maar dat de risico's verkeerd zijn ingeschat; Scrutons logica klopt niet in zijn eigen voorbeeld.
Scruton heeft hierover nog wat te melden: "zij [, de risicomijders, zullen] de verliezers zijn en ze zijn alleen van bescherming verzekerd wanneer ze op een bemoederende staat kunnen terugvallen. Toch is de bemoederende staat zelf afhankelijk van risiconemers." (p. 87). Echter vergeet hij dat grote bedrijven en andere ondernemers (de risiconemers) vaak ook afhankelijk zijn van overheidssteun: grote bedrijven moeten regelmatig gered worden door de overheid en ze krijgen veel subsidies (vaak in de vorm van belastingkortingen).
Scruton noemt het Groot-Brittannië van na de Tweede Wereldoorlog socialistisch, wat enigszins overdreven is - socialisme vindt hij overduidelijk slecht, terwijl het ook goede dingen heeft voortgebracht zoals de NHS. Hij beweert het volgende: "[door socialisme] raakten de rivieren ernstig vervuild, en in veel van de mooiste bleef geen leven meer over" (p. 113). Echter klinkt dit totaal niet logisch en realistisch - waar ik geen bewijs voor heb. Bovendien wordt de Sovjet-Unie meerdere keren weggezet als een inherent niet-duurzaam land, terwijl alle industrialiserende landen relatief veel uitstootten. Een voorbeeld die Scruton gebruikt is de kernramp van Tsjernobyl. Waarom wordt Fukushima niet gebruikt als voorbeeld van de inherente niet-duurzaamheid van het kapitalisme? De kernreactor was immers geplaatst door een geïndustrialiseerd land, nabij een breuklijn.
Scruton gebruikt het pleidooi van Edmund Burke om de conservatieve benadering van het milieuprobleem te schetsen. In dit conservatieve denken zitten drie kernideeën: "respect voor de doden, het 'kleine peloton' en de stem van de traditie" (p. 151). Burke dacht het volgende over de Franse Revolutie: "Minachting voor de doden leidt zo tot het ontnemen van rechten aan de ongeborenen, en hoewel dat resultaat misschien niet onvermijdelijk is, werd het door alle daaropvolgende revoluties herhaald" (p. 152). De revolutionairen kwamen in opstand omdat hun huidige leven een lage kwaliteit had, terwijl de monarchen een extreem luxeleven hadden. Scruton definieerde conservatisme als het in stand houden van de huidige maatschappelijke orde. Wellicht was de revolutie de schuld van de monarchen zelf: als de monarchen het volk hadden voorzien van een beter leven, was een revolutionaire beweging waarschijnlijk niet succesvol geweest. De monarchen waren, volgens de logica van Scruton en Burke, dus niet conservatief genoeg: de maatschappelijke orde werd immers omvergeworpen.
Scruton heeft het volgende te zeggen over tradities: "Mensen die ze aanvaarden zijn niet altijd in staat ze uit te leggen, laat staan ze te rechtvaardigen. . . . De rede blijkt uit datgene waarvoor we geen redenen geven en misschien ook geen redenen kunnen geven" (p. 154). Hiermee beweert Scruton dat alle tradities hoe dan ook goed moeten zijn en niet veranderd mogen worden. Echter zijn er tradities op te noemen die afgeschaft moeten worden. Denk aan de verering van kolonialisten (met standbeelden) zoals Jan Pieterszoon Coen (bijnaam 'de slachter van Banda').
Scruton beschrijft het ontstaan van naties als een idyllisch proces, en gebruikt USA als voorbeeld: "Het is duidelijk dat naties ook een jurisdictie nodig hebben die voor het hele grondgebied geldt. Zo'n jurisdictie vereist wetgeving en dus een politiek proces. Dit proces transformeert het gedeelde grondgebied tot een gedeelde identiteit, en die identiteit is de natiestaat. Dit is ook een korte samenvatting van de Amerikaanse geschiedenis" (p. 168-169). Echter vergeet Scruton hier de genocide (van de inheemse bevolking) en de burgeroorlog te vermelden. Bovendien verklaart de visie niet waarom kolonialisten (geboren in het Verenigd Koninkrijk) zich in een ander land wilden vestigen. De gedeelde identiteit van USA is volgens Scruton dus het afpakken van land en uitroeien van inheemse volkeren door kolonialisten.
Scruton ziet een causaal verband tussen oikofolie en zorgen voor het eigen milieu: "Over het algemeen wordt het milieu het best onderhouden waar de oikofilie sterk is, zoals in de Scandinavische landen, in Zwitserland en in de Engelssprekende landen" (p. 169). Echter is deze redenering eenzijdig: per hoofd stoten inwoners van deze landen namelijk het meeste uit van de hele wereld. Daarnaast zijn dit de landen die de welvaart hebben om iets te doen aan het milieu. Scruton maakt hetzelfde punt nogmaals: "Twee van de ontwikkelingslanden die momenteel het meest verantwoordelijk zijn voor de uitstoot van broeikasgassen zijn India en China" (p. 208).
Scruton beschrijft een land als volgt: "We hebben te maken met een enorm machtig kartel van rijke mensen, die het recht controleren dat hen zogenaamd controleert en die geen enkele aantasting van hun bevoorrechte status kunnen dulden" (p. 206). Gaat dit om China of de Verenigde Staten? Uiteraard schrijft Scruton niet zo kritisch over de VS. Maar dit beschrijft redelijk de positie van de elite in de VS, zoals de leden van de Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Na meer dan 200 bladzijden te hebben gelezen, ben ik het eindelijk volledig eens met Scruton, hij schrijft: "Achter de EU, altijd aandringend op de uitbreiding en hopend de wetgevende bevoegdheden van de Unie te kunnen gebruiken om de markt in hun voordeel te beïnvloeden, staan de grote bedrijven Europa, Japan, China en Amerika - en in het bijzonder de supermarktketens, de fastfoodfranchisers, de farmaceutische ondernemingen, de autofabrikanten, de leveranciers van mondiale goederen en mondiaal amusement, die de hele wereld eender willen maken om verzekerd te zijn van een 'gelijk speelveld' dat een maximale klandizie voor hun goederen oplevert" (p. 223). Het sentiment dat in dit stuk heerst, lijkt verdomd veel op een groep mensen die ook kritisch zijn op grote bedrijven, en waar Scruton een hekel aan heeft: linkse mensen. Bovendien ben ik het eens met het volgende: "Europa werd inderdaad zelfvoorzienend, grotendeels door toedoen van wereldwijde (hoewel naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet duurzame) veranderingen in de landbouwmethoden; maar het eerste slachtoffer hiervan was de kleine boer, die meer werd benadeeld dan geholpen door het GLB [Gemeenschappelijke Landbouwbeleid van de Europese Unie]" (p. 244).
Scruton benadrukt keer op keer dat eigendomsrecht het belangrijkste element is om natuurbehoud te realiseren; de staat zou zich alleen hiermee moeten bemoeien. Echter schrijft hij ook het volgende: "Er kwam een gerechtelijk verbod op verkaveling en uiteindelijk nam het parlement een wet aan - de Epping Forest Act van 1878 - die het bos sindsdien als gemeenschapsgrond heeft beschermd" (p. 232). Bovendien spreekt een groot gedeelte van hoofdstuk 10 tegen dat staatsingrepen slecht zijn, als Scruton het volgende triomfantelijk schrijft: "Wie het Engeland van nu met Nederland of België vergelijkt, beseft ten volle welke ecologische voordelen de wet van 1945 heeft opgeleverd" (p. 238). Als we Scruton mogen geloven, is de VK (met haar vele burgerinitiatieven) een utopie - dit is uiteraard niet waar. Ook spreekt Scruton zichzelf tegen over de Franse Revolutie: "Intussen was stadsplanning een belangrijk punt van publieke aandacht geworden, deels als gevolg van invloeden uit het Frankrijk van na de revolutie" (p. 237).
Scruton bewijst dat conservatieve mensen last hebben van excessieve bekrompenheid; als er iets nieuws is zijn conservatieven direct tegen. Als het nieuwe wordt uitgevoerd en succesvol blijkt te zijn, kunnen ze er achteraf wel tevreden naar kijken: "De spoorweg kwam er uiteindelijk toch en vormt vandaag de dag een monument van victoriaanse techniek en architectonisch kunnen" (p. 234).
Scruton maakt een uiterst bizarre vergelijking tussen windmolens en communisme: "De turbines doen denken aan Lenins definitie van het communisme als 'sovjetmacht plus elektrificatie'" (p. 265). Deze opmerking heeft twee mogelijke verklaringen: (1) Scruton is hallucinant; (2) ik ben niet intelligent genoeg om deze analyse te begrijpen. De waarheid ligt vaak ergens in het midden. Bovendien laat dit weer Scrutons haat over het communisme zien; dingen waar Scruton het mee oneens is, zijn communistisch.
May 1, 2023
Conservatism and environmentalism may seem like strange bed-fellows. Roger Scruton agrees; that’s why he wrote Green Philosophy, to explore how the natural world might be—should be—defended from a conservative viewpoint.
There are more starting points for a “green conservatism” than one might think. The words “conservatism” and “conservation” are related; they are about conserving different kinds of things. And the godfather of English conservatism, Edmund Burke, once described society as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” There is an obvious congruence here with the idea that we are only trustees of the earth and must leave it in good shape for generations to come.
Yet Conservatism’s local affections usually put it at odds with the broader constellation of environmental politics, most of which obey the formula that climate justice, being something which affects the whole world, is therefore going to need a globally coordinated response. Scruton disputes the efficacy—and possibility—of such a global solution. International treaties, lobbied for by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), don’t always translate into a meaningful course of action for those who sign up. Nor do they bring about a tangible change in the incentives (and therefore behaviour) of producers and consumers. When these efforts fail, nobody is responsible. Despite our increasingly interconnected world, diverse countries struggle to reach a consensus, and ultimately cannot compel each other to do anything. The nation-state therefore remains as the top-most level of effective political action.
The problem with “top-down” solutions—whether national or international—is what Scruton calls their tendency for “radical precaution”. Whatever the problem is to be solved, a centrally planned solution will proceed by identifying certain risks and then proposing measures or regulations to eliminate their possibility. But everything in life carries some level of risk. In all that we do, we are constantly trading off expected outcomes against foreseeable risks. This is a finely tuned sense that we can only calibrate through personal exposure to risk and harm. By “disaggregating” risks and attempting to reduce them to zero, radical precaution ends up generating negative externalities: “Normally you can reduce one risk to zero only by increasing risk elsewhere: and the risks that stand to be increased will be the concern of some other department, and thus removed from consideration.” (ch. 4)
Scruton gives an example from the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak:
Other side-effects of the top-down “health-and-safety regime” have been disastrous for the environment. For minimal gain in hygiene, the barrier to participation in the food economy is raised enormously. Large corporations become the only ones with the means to follow (or evade) the strict regulations. They squeeze out local businesses. Above a certain size, they divest themselves of all motives apart from their own profit and growth, and no longer have a reason not to externalise costs where they can. Now that society comes to rely on supermarkets to supply the necessities of life, more goods must be transported over longer distances. Urban planning must start with the needs of the car, another hidden subsidy for the large corporations. The overall result is to incentivise everyone—producer and consumer—towards more petrol and plastics.
When it comes to conserving a natural resource, a top-down approach might involve the state administering it on behalf of individuals, perhaps with quotas limiting the overall amount that can be taken. However, this results in a tragedy of the commons: every individual has a motive to take what is theirs from the common fund, but no single person has the motive to protect that fund, nor to prevent other individuals from depleting it below the point of replenishment.
What is common to top-down solutions is that they make sweeping changes to large, complex systems comprising many independent actors combining in unpredictable ways. We can never know precisely what the effects of a top-down solution will be; their implementation is slow; their inflexibility means they tend to squander the precious “social capital” on which they depend.
Instead of trying to change the world, Scruton implores us to look at existing systems of resource management around the world. The successful stories, he argues, have occurred bottom-up, where access to the resource was managed through a system of property rights transferable in a market, circumscribed by a “moral economy”, the parameters of which are ultimately determined by local custom and community.
Take the United Kingdom’s fisheries. Before the United Kingdom’s accession to the European Union, rights to fish in certain areas were recognised by common-law courts and could be transferred from one owner to another. The fisherman’s entire way of life—both the pride he took in his work and his literal ability to put food on the table—depended on him maintaining his fishing grounds. A system of Tort law ensured that the cost of social harms were returned to those who produced them. Producers and consumers were both directly responsible for the environment’s health in a cooperative, adaptive system of “voluntary restraint and conflict resolution.” (ch. 5)
Much of Scruton’s argument builds on Elinor Ostrom’s empirical studies. Her research illustrated many examples from around the world where resources had been successfully conserved by systems of management rooted in local communities, without the need for top-down directives. Scruton typifies the successful cases thus:
If customary systems succeed where the global think-thanks do not, they owe it to the bonds of solidarity out of which they were grown. Going back to Scruton’s ideal of the local food economy—in which food is partly grown, partly shared with friends, partly bartered with strangers—we can imagine that a household (oikos) might have more motives than mere profit. It is bound by the human scale of its interactions. The individuals are constrained by personal inclinations and social responsibilities and legal requirements that cannot be simply ignored or bought off. Identification with the community—and the attendant need to conform and belong to it—discourages the individual from putting his desires before the common wealth.
When we demand the world change its ways, we address everyone, but speak to no-one. But when we demand that we change our ways, speaking in the first-person plural to those like us, we affirm and assimilate the decisions of the community as our own, and take responsibility to act within the boundaries and imperatives laid out by our own collective decision-making. Given the right incentives from above, the local community forms a self-correcting homeostatic system. Despite the flux of individual decisions and inconstancies, the whole thing tends towards balancing out the contending risks and rewards across the whole of society with a sense of proportion and harmony. The solutions emerge organically. They are not planned or designed; they are often not even recognised as solutions, for they exist only within durable customs and traditions persisting beyond any one lifetime:
What motive rallies the members of a community to protect their home? Scruton calls it oikophilia.
(Oikophilia is a play on words on homo oeconomicus, the “rational man” postulated in economic science, who acts purely out of self-interest. Oiko- and oeco- both mean “home”, in Greek and Latin respectively.)
Oikophilia is a sense of belonging somewhere. It is a love of our entire human habitat: the natural world around us, the homes we make, the land we till, the people we deal with, the friends we meet, the family we are born into, the culture that expresses who we are, the ways of life that identify us as ourselves, and the common wealth we have inherited from the past, which must be preserved for the future. Oikophilia originates in “in our need for nurture and safety, but it spreads out across our surroundings in more mysterious and less self-serving ways.” It invites us “to look on things in our ‘homescape’ as we look on persons, not as means only, but as ends in themselves.” (ch. 8)
When we have a sense of belonging somewhere, we are hurt to see it destroyed. Because we love and respect that which is ours, we are willing to change our life in order to conserve and protect it. Oikophilia, argues Scruton, characterises good stewardship of the earth. It is an essential component of any environmentalism. From the “top-down” perspective, all we can do is set up the right incentives; it remains for communities, acting out of love and veneration, to develop the solutions.
So what are the right incentives? What can governments do? The book ends with a few suggestions. The de-centralization of energy, as in Denmark, might encourage local industries to search for more efficient sources of energy production, while also decreasing transmission leakage. The mandating of biodegradable packaging will reduce waste. Carbon and consumption taxes are needed to incentivise both producer and consumer to change their behaviour. Strict immigration laws will help to preserve the social capital out of which oikophilia grows. Raising the pension age will discourage the elderly from transferring the cost of their lives to the young. Lastly, the ending of all subsidies—especially agricultural ones—will stop hidden benefits accruing to large businesses at the expense of smaller ones.
Actually, on many of these points, Scruton doesn’t sound all that different from the global think-tanks he likes to criticise. Yet even if we set up the right incentives, what is the guarantee that the individual, having discovered his love of home, will actually live in harmony with the trees and the animals?
We are entering the province of nostalgia, a wistful realm from which you may gaze over the bucolic past, but remain powerless to do anything about its destruction. Most of us no longer live (if we ever did) in a world delimited by the horizons of our ancestral pastures. Our world is rather more hyperconnected and hyperkinetic, with loyalties and bonds as fickle and transient as our jobs and homes. How, in these circumstances, do we identify the first-person plural? How do we begin to look on our surroundings as something worth protecting?
Any solution must be highly personal, probably subjective. Yet on this point I find Scruton uninspiring. Despite the occasional example drawn from his life—which I am familiar with, and find very interesting—he is too avoidant or otherwise ignorant of the ways in which life has changed in the 20th century. People just don’t live in little self-contained villages any more. Any notion of belonging today owes less to geography than to shared values, ascriptive identities, and voluntary association.
Our economic life is also very different. The (post)industrial economy has overseen an historically unparalleled division of (wage) labour, animated by the promise that rising wages will allow us to satisfy our desires. Our desires multiply faster than ever. To satisfy them, our exploitation and destruction of the environment has risen in lockstep. If we ever want to live in harmony with nature, we will probably have to break this cycle—and perhaps roll back some of the conveniences we currently take for granted. Yet in an appendix, Scruton briefly dismisses “living frugally” as unnecessary and puritanical. Our fundamental resistance to this idea—our inability to say “no”—is exactly why a system of voluntary self-restraint wouldn’t work today.
Scruton also fails to defend localisation against any of its obvious criticisms. A typical argument goes that it is better for all the countries to invest their efforts into producing different kinds of goods as efficiently as possible, which entails minimising carbon emissions. What the countries lack they trade for on the global market using their comparative advantage. This is (in theory) better than re-inventing the same inefficient economies and markets the world over. There are many things one could say about this; Scruton doesn’t address it at all.
It is true that the environment affects everyone. Its good management should not be a matter of partisan politics. Yet while Scruton’s idea of oikophilia has a deep appeal to it, his development of the idea leaves us wondering how, exactly, it might be cultivated, and what application it has to the practical efforts of conservation. Transfixed by visions of a bucolic past that never was, Green Philosophy never connects lost traditions with present realities. The question of how we are to summon the love of home in a homeless world remains.
Read this review and others on my blog.
There are more starting points for a “green conservatism” than one might think. The words “conservatism” and “conservation” are related; they are about conserving different kinds of things. And the godfather of English conservatism, Edmund Burke, once described society as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” There is an obvious congruence here with the idea that we are only trustees of the earth and must leave it in good shape for generations to come.
Yet Conservatism’s local affections usually put it at odds with the broader constellation of environmental politics, most of which obey the formula that climate justice, being something which affects the whole world, is therefore going to need a globally coordinated response. Scruton disputes the efficacy—and possibility—of such a global solution. International treaties, lobbied for by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), don’t always translate into a meaningful course of action for those who sign up. Nor do they bring about a tangible change in the incentives (and therefore behaviour) of producers and consumers. When these efforts fail, nobody is responsible. Despite our increasingly interconnected world, diverse countries struggle to reach a consensus, and ultimately cannot compel each other to do anything. The nation-state therefore remains as the top-most level of effective political action.
The problem with “top-down” solutions—whether national or international—is what Scruton calls their tendency for “radical precaution”. Whatever the problem is to be solved, a centrally planned solution will proceed by identifying certain risks and then proposing measures or regulations to eliminate their possibility. But everything in life carries some level of risk. In all that we do, we are constantly trading off expected outcomes against foreseeable risks. This is a finely tuned sense that we can only calibrate through personal exposure to risk and harm. By “disaggregating” risks and attempting to reduce them to zero, radical precaution ends up generating negative externalities: “Normally you can reduce one risk to zero only by increasing risk elsewhere: and the risks that stand to be increased will be the concern of some other department, and thus removed from consideration.” (ch. 4)
Scruton gives an example from the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak:
A European directive issued in response to the slight risk that meat from sick animals might enter the food chain insists that no abattoir can function without the presence of a qualified vet. Qualified vets are expensive in Britain; hence all small abattoirs had to close. When Foot and Mouth disease broke out in 2001 it was not, as in the past, confined to the local source of the outbreak, but carried around the country by animals travelling a hundred miles or more to the nearest legal abattoir. Some 7 million animals were slaughtered in the attempt to confine the disease, and the cost to the economy was £8 billion. Such was the short-term cost of an edict that considered only one fairly insignificant risk among the many that cohabit in the management of livestock. (ch. 4)
Other side-effects of the top-down “health-and-safety regime” have been disastrous for the environment. For minimal gain in hygiene, the barrier to participation in the food economy is raised enormously. Large corporations become the only ones with the means to follow (or evade) the strict regulations. They squeeze out local businesses. Above a certain size, they divest themselves of all motives apart from their own profit and growth, and no longer have a reason not to externalise costs where they can. Now that society comes to rely on supermarkets to supply the necessities of life, more goods must be transported over longer distances. Urban planning must start with the needs of the car, another hidden subsidy for the large corporations. The overall result is to incentivise everyone—producer and consumer—towards more petrol and plastics.
When it comes to conserving a natural resource, a top-down approach might involve the state administering it on behalf of individuals, perhaps with quotas limiting the overall amount that can be taken. However, this results in a tragedy of the commons: every individual has a motive to take what is theirs from the common fund, but no single person has the motive to protect that fund, nor to prevent other individuals from depleting it below the point of replenishment.
What is common to top-down solutions is that they make sweeping changes to large, complex systems comprising many independent actors combining in unpredictable ways. We can never know precisely what the effects of a top-down solution will be; their implementation is slow; their inflexibility means they tend to squander the precious “social capital” on which they depend.
Instead of trying to change the world, Scruton implores us to look at existing systems of resource management around the world. The successful stories, he argues, have occurred bottom-up, where access to the resource was managed through a system of property rights transferable in a market, circumscribed by a “moral economy”, the parameters of which are ultimately determined by local custom and community.
Take the United Kingdom’s fisheries. Before the United Kingdom’s accession to the European Union, rights to fish in certain areas were recognised by common-law courts and could be transferred from one owner to another. The fisherman’s entire way of life—both the pride he took in his work and his literal ability to put food on the table—depended on him maintaining his fishing grounds. A system of Tort law ensured that the cost of social harms were returned to those who produced them. Producers and consumers were both directly responsible for the environment’s health in a cooperative, adaptive system of “voluntary restraint and conflict resolution.” (ch. 5)
Much of Scruton’s argument builds on Elinor Ostrom’s empirical studies. Her research illustrated many examples from around the world where resources had been successfully conserved by systems of management rooted in local communities, without the need for top-down directives. Scruton typifies the successful cases thus:
… they are managed by a local community; those with a right to them are clearly identified and others clearly excluded; there is a system of sanctions in place to punish misappropriation and abuse; there is a collective decision-making process with easily accessible procedures for resolving conflict; and the rights of the community are recognized by higher-level authorities. (ch. 5)
If customary systems succeed where the global think-thanks do not, they owe it to the bonds of solidarity out of which they were grown. Going back to Scruton’s ideal of the local food economy—in which food is partly grown, partly shared with friends, partly bartered with strangers—we can imagine that a household (oikos) might have more motives than mere profit. It is bound by the human scale of its interactions. The individuals are constrained by personal inclinations and social responsibilities and legal requirements that cannot be simply ignored or bought off. Identification with the community—and the attendant need to conform and belong to it—discourages the individual from putting his desires before the common wealth.
When we demand the world change its ways, we address everyone, but speak to no-one. But when we demand that we change our ways, speaking in the first-person plural to those like us, we affirm and assimilate the decisions of the community as our own, and take responsibility to act within the boundaries and imperatives laid out by our own collective decision-making. Given the right incentives from above, the local community forms a self-correcting homeostatic system. Despite the flux of individual decisions and inconstancies, the whole thing tends towards balancing out the contending risks and rewards across the whole of society with a sense of proportion and harmony. The solutions emerge organically. They are not planned or designed; they are often not even recognised as solutions, for they exist only within durable customs and traditions persisting beyond any one lifetime:
[Traditions] contain the residues of many trials and errors, and the inherited solutions to problems that we all encounter. Like those cognitive abilities that pre-date civilization they are adaptations, but adaptations of the community rather than of the individual organism. Social traditions exist because they enable a society to reproduce itself. Destroy them heedlessly and you remove the guarantee offered by one generation to the next. (ch. 7)
What motive rallies the members of a community to protect their home? Scruton calls it oikophilia.
(Oikophilia is a play on words on homo oeconomicus, the “rational man” postulated in economic science, who acts purely out of self-interest. Oiko- and oeco- both mean “home”, in Greek and Latin respectively.)
Oikophilia is a sense of belonging somewhere. It is a love of our entire human habitat: the natural world around us, the homes we make, the land we till, the people we deal with, the friends we meet, the family we are born into, the culture that expresses who we are, the ways of life that identify us as ourselves, and the common wealth we have inherited from the past, which must be preserved for the future. Oikophilia originates in “in our need for nurture and safety, but it spreads out across our surroundings in more mysterious and less self-serving ways.” It invites us “to look on things in our ‘homescape’ as we look on persons, not as means only, but as ends in themselves.” (ch. 8)
When we have a sense of belonging somewhere, we are hurt to see it destroyed. Because we love and respect that which is ours, we are willing to change our life in order to conserve and protect it. Oikophilia, argues Scruton, characterises good stewardship of the earth. It is an essential component of any environmentalism. From the “top-down” perspective, all we can do is set up the right incentives; it remains for communities, acting out of love and veneration, to develop the solutions.
So what are the right incentives? What can governments do? The book ends with a few suggestions. The de-centralization of energy, as in Denmark, might encourage local industries to search for more efficient sources of energy production, while also decreasing transmission leakage. The mandating of biodegradable packaging will reduce waste. Carbon and consumption taxes are needed to incentivise both producer and consumer to change their behaviour. Strict immigration laws will help to preserve the social capital out of which oikophilia grows. Raising the pension age will discourage the elderly from transferring the cost of their lives to the young. Lastly, the ending of all subsidies—especially agricultural ones—will stop hidden benefits accruing to large businesses at the expense of smaller ones.
Actually, on many of these points, Scruton doesn’t sound all that different from the global think-tanks he likes to criticise. Yet even if we set up the right incentives, what is the guarantee that the individual, having discovered his love of home, will actually live in harmony with the trees and the animals?
We are entering the province of nostalgia, a wistful realm from which you may gaze over the bucolic past, but remain powerless to do anything about its destruction. Most of us no longer live (if we ever did) in a world delimited by the horizons of our ancestral pastures. Our world is rather more hyperconnected and hyperkinetic, with loyalties and bonds as fickle and transient as our jobs and homes. How, in these circumstances, do we identify the first-person plural? How do we begin to look on our surroundings as something worth protecting?
Any solution must be highly personal, probably subjective. Yet on this point I find Scruton uninspiring. Despite the occasional example drawn from his life—which I am familiar with, and find very interesting—he is too avoidant or otherwise ignorant of the ways in which life has changed in the 20th century. People just don’t live in little self-contained villages any more. Any notion of belonging today owes less to geography than to shared values, ascriptive identities, and voluntary association.
Our economic life is also very different. The (post)industrial economy has overseen an historically unparalleled division of (wage) labour, animated by the promise that rising wages will allow us to satisfy our desires. Our desires multiply faster than ever. To satisfy them, our exploitation and destruction of the environment has risen in lockstep. If we ever want to live in harmony with nature, we will probably have to break this cycle—and perhaps roll back some of the conveniences we currently take for granted. Yet in an appendix, Scruton briefly dismisses “living frugally” as unnecessary and puritanical. Our fundamental resistance to this idea—our inability to say “no”—is exactly why a system of voluntary self-restraint wouldn’t work today.
Scruton also fails to defend localisation against any of its obvious criticisms. A typical argument goes that it is better for all the countries to invest their efforts into producing different kinds of goods as efficiently as possible, which entails minimising carbon emissions. What the countries lack they trade for on the global market using their comparative advantage. This is (in theory) better than re-inventing the same inefficient economies and markets the world over. There are many things one could say about this; Scruton doesn’t address it at all.
It is true that the environment affects everyone. Its good management should not be a matter of partisan politics. Yet while Scruton’s idea of oikophilia has a deep appeal to it, his development of the idea leaves us wondering how, exactly, it might be cultivated, and what application it has to the practical efforts of conservation. Transfixed by visions of a bucolic past that never was, Green Philosophy never connects lost traditions with present realities. The question of how we are to summon the love of home in a homeless world remains.
Read this review and others on my blog.
December 21, 2021
Moving in mostly left-liberal circles, I was not aware of much conservative environmental thinking before reading this book. Scruton presents a coherent worldview that is practical and anti-utopian, believing – probably correctly – that ever more exhortation to avoid apocalypse is likely to be counter-productive.
Scruton locates the motivation to act in good stewardship of our natural environment within what he calls oikophilia, that is to say, love for one’s own community, people and place. The sum of efforts across the globe for each community to look after itself ought to be enough to assure the best environmental deal we can make all else being equal (in his view).
You may disagree with that claim, though for me there is certainly a kernel of political truth within it in that globalisation has removed control from people’s everyday lives, and correspondingly global deals and governance is something that is something increasingly resisted in political cultures across the world.
But not everything in this book needs agreement for it to be valuable. Finding ways to engage and recruit natural conservatives to fight for the environment is an essential task for all those who would claim to want a habitable environment to pass on to our children.
Scruton locates the motivation to act in good stewardship of our natural environment within what he calls oikophilia, that is to say, love for one’s own community, people and place. The sum of efforts across the globe for each community to look after itself ought to be enough to assure the best environmental deal we can make all else being equal (in his view).
You may disagree with that claim, though for me there is certainly a kernel of political truth within it in that globalisation has removed control from people’s everyday lives, and correspondingly global deals and governance is something that is something increasingly resisted in political cultures across the world.
But not everything in this book needs agreement for it to be valuable. Finding ways to engage and recruit natural conservatives to fight for the environment is an essential task for all those who would claim to want a habitable environment to pass on to our children.
October 27, 2019
Conservative viewpoints on environmentalism don't get much mainstream coverage, so even if you do not share his worldview Scruton's suggestions on ways forward to looking after the planet are worth hearing. It's mostly based around transferring responsibilities from huge state-sponsored measures to individual efforts, civic organisations and responsible marketing; few could not agree, in 2019, that we need less plastic packaging of our food and more community organsiations to look after our immediate surroundings. It's when he takes the 'look after your own land' civic nationalism outlook into railing against immigration and multiculturalism that (whilst I would never suggest Scruton advocates such an outlook) these postions risk being taken to their extreme conculsion in eco-fascism (which is now gaining greater public awareness). There's also regrettably little advocacy for animal-free diets; nevertheless, appropriate reading if you're looking for another side to the most urgent conversation of our times.
May 21, 2014
Another outstanding book by philosopher Roger Scruton. He advocates a conservative environmentalism based on oikophilia, or a love of home and place. It is a love for the local, not the global, that will solve so many of our environmental problems. This calls for the localization of environmental and ecological concern. Those who love their home, their hunting grounds and their beaches will form associations to care for them. For this reason, the ordinary person, not only the bureaucrat, is vital for conserving the planet. But the centralizers of concern, the state, strip this power from the ordinary person and give it to the bureaucrat who is rarely held accountable for his disastrous unintended consequences. This centralization must be resisted and environmental responsibility diffused to the local.
There is much more to this important book. If you care for creation and want to be its servant-leader, then read this book.
There is much more to this important book. If you care for creation and want to be its servant-leader, then read this book.
July 10, 2021
I'm in two minds about this book. I am arguably of the left but was brought up in the little England that Scruton describes and see some value in his solutions being demonstrated every day in my local area. My challenge is that whilst these are necessary I suspect they are not sufficient.
Whilst he rails against big ticket global solutions he advocates small local based solutions based on a love of land and country. All well and good but I cannot see how these solutions need to be mutually exclusive. This book is admittedly over 10 years old now and it is utterly terrifying how thinking hasnt moved on but the scope of the climate crisis clearly has.
I read this to broaden my view on potential solutions available and to build a suite of arguments to use in my own advocacy. I think this is a book I need to take more time to consider.
Whilst he rails against big ticket global solutions he advocates small local based solutions based on a love of land and country. All well and good but I cannot see how these solutions need to be mutually exclusive. This book is admittedly over 10 years old now and it is utterly terrifying how thinking hasnt moved on but the scope of the climate crisis clearly has.
I read this to broaden my view on potential solutions available and to build a suite of arguments to use in my own advocacy. I think this is a book I need to take more time to consider.
October 19, 2014
In his book, "How to Think Seriously About the Planet", Roger Scruton makes the case that when it comes to solving environmental problems, small is better. I found the book to be rather laborious, and did not finish. But I got far enough into the book to understand that Scruton is a proponent of local initiatives under local control to address environmental issues rather than rely on big government to solve problems. Too often, Scruton argues, large scale, top-down initiatives lead to unintended consequences.
February 11, 2021
Roger Scruton builds an environmental philosophy from conservative principles. For his cornerstone he uses the concept of “oikophilia,” love of home. He discards centralized planning and top-down regulatory schemes and instead relies on the raw materials of local governance, stewardship, civic associations, small-scale farming, free markets, and the rule of law.
July 2, 2021
The author’s claim is that environmentalist should appeal and harness the natural disposition towards conservation of traditions by Conservatives by promoting local stewardship or “trusteeship” of their national homeland that relies on the social capital developed in in civil associations, a term Edmund Burke used “little platoons” verses the ineffectual top down solutions exemplified by the EU directed towards to his native Britain. Further he points out that centralized solutions are not only ineffective but historically the worst violators are socialist regimes such as China and the former Soviet Union since the state controls both the means of productions and the legal system that should keep it in check. It helped that I could vaguely recall the Kantian concepts of the categorical imperative and practical reasoning plus his intrinsic theories of aesthetics his The Critique of Judgment in chapters six and eight.
• From chapter one “Local Warming”
“There is another and better reason for thinking that conservatism and environmentalism are natural bedfellows…Conservatism and conservation are two aspects of a single long-term policy, which is that of husbanding resources and ensuring their renewal.” (9)
• From chapter four “Radical Precaution”
“Homeostatic systems respond to negative inputs by countering them as they arise. We too are homeostatic systems and our practical reasoning in terms of risk and uncertainty is one part of this… The implication is that in confronting the day-to-day problems of stewardship, resilience may often be more reasonable than interception.” (135)
• From chapter five “Market Solutions and Homeostasis”
“Public spirit has been confiscated by government, national and local, and those volunteer groups have disappeared. An environmental problem that once was solved by the small-scale wisdom of the human heart now stands unsolved and will soon be insoluble… The solution to the real environmental problems will always elude us, if we cast away the one human motive that is able to take over when markets fail, which is that of public spirit, But whence comes public spirit? It comes from patriotism from love of country, from a sense of belonging and of a shared and inherited home. It comes from believing that this problem is our problem” (170-171)
• From chapter six “Moral Economy”
We should replace domination by stewardship, recognizing that we are here to care for the world and not simply to exploit it… until we see nature as a source of intrinsic rather than instrumental values we will not refrain from pillaging it. (197)
• From chapter seven “Heimat and Habitat”
Sciences and pseudo-sciences, from Freudian psychoanalysis to the “neuro-nonsense” that influences psychology today, encourage us to see each other as automata, by-products of processes that we do not control. We are tempted by these theories because they simplify our commitments, void the world of responsibility, and enable us to drift without guilt on the current of our present appetites.”
• From chapter eight “Beauty, Piety and Desecration”
Thoreau and Emerson, Muir and the Hudson River painters made hymns in word and pigment to the awe-inspiring landscapes that surrounded them, and were determined to awaken n their audience a sense of piety sufficiently strong to counteract the rapine that was being visited on the God-given wilderness…
• From chapter one “Local Warming”
“There is another and better reason for thinking that conservatism and environmentalism are natural bedfellows…Conservatism and conservation are two aspects of a single long-term policy, which is that of husbanding resources and ensuring their renewal.” (9)
• From chapter four “Radical Precaution”
“Homeostatic systems respond to negative inputs by countering them as they arise. We too are homeostatic systems and our practical reasoning in terms of risk and uncertainty is one part of this… The implication is that in confronting the day-to-day problems of stewardship, resilience may often be more reasonable than interception.” (135)
• From chapter five “Market Solutions and Homeostasis”
“Public spirit has been confiscated by government, national and local, and those volunteer groups have disappeared. An environmental problem that once was solved by the small-scale wisdom of the human heart now stands unsolved and will soon be insoluble… The solution to the real environmental problems will always elude us, if we cast away the one human motive that is able to take over when markets fail, which is that of public spirit, But whence comes public spirit? It comes from patriotism from love of country, from a sense of belonging and of a shared and inherited home. It comes from believing that this problem is our problem” (170-171)
• From chapter six “Moral Economy”
We should replace domination by stewardship, recognizing that we are here to care for the world and not simply to exploit it… until we see nature as a source of intrinsic rather than instrumental values we will not refrain from pillaging it. (197)
• From chapter seven “Heimat and Habitat”
Sciences and pseudo-sciences, from Freudian psychoanalysis to the “neuro-nonsense” that influences psychology today, encourage us to see each other as automata, by-products of processes that we do not control. We are tempted by these theories because they simplify our commitments, void the world of responsibility, and enable us to drift without guilt on the current of our present appetites.”
• From chapter eight “Beauty, Piety and Desecration”
Thoreau and Emerson, Muir and the Hudson River painters made hymns in word and pigment to the awe-inspiring landscapes that surrounded them, and were determined to awaken n their audience a sense of piety sufficiently strong to counteract the rapine that was being visited on the God-given wilderness…
July 12, 2023
Scruton’s trying to ride a line that keeps both neoliberals and “the left” on the side of evil, which is refreshing as it actually tries to carve out a niche for conservatism that isn’t just being the stooge of free market advocates. Unfortunately in his desperate paddling away from the left’s ownership of the climate issue he carries a lot of water for exactly the neoliberal globocorp types he says he disagrees with. He initially accepts their counterprogramming on climate change and repeats the usual garbage talking points trying to present the issue as entirely open, 50/50, “both sides”. Later in the book he meanders away from this and tries to present solutions on the premise that it is a real issue.
So the niche he wants to establish spirals around the word oikos and you’ll be hearing it A LOT. Like all classicist fans he takes a concept from ancient greece and molds it into something that suits current day issues, in this case he’s packaged the idea of community and civil society into this concept and will hammer it to death. Much like Niall Ferguson’s book The Great Degeneration, Scruton tries to make civil society the big solution to social problems. Big government can’t be trusted. Corporations can’t be trusted. (“The left” and “neoliberals” standins, respectively). We have to trust local rule and bottom up solutions. His strongest points surround the byzantine nature of global commerce and law, and how inflexibility and red tape circuses have stalled environmental solutions. Big globocorps get away with murder because they have the lawyers and spare cash to do it. Small business, and small farming (that in this view is more eco friendly, regenerative) can’t cope and dies on the vine. Nuclear energy is thwarted by stupid green politics. Of course he swerves around the NIMBYism of his bottom up solutions in civil society being a major stumbling block for placing a nuclear power plant somewhere.
He has a point about agreements not being worth the paper they’re printed on if parties like China do whatever they want. Similarly it’s true countries like China and India will dominate the climate outcomes regardless of what we do. But in observing this Scruton has no actual solution other than turning inward toward what we can control. We can organize to pick up trash in the forests and lakes. We can come together to fund solar panel installations. Scruton and Ferguson’s conservatism lamenting this part of environmentalism and the loss of a common cause have a core of truth. But in offering nothing but abdication on the global front he’s effectively just being a stooge for those globalist neoliberal forces that will then decide this issue, and not in his favour.
If he needs to first dismantle big government to get to a place where the bottom up solutions again reign supreme, he’s just buried the entire topic under a Sisyphean task of rewiring all of government so we can solve local ecological issues.
I’d love to see a conservatism that actually cares about conserving. This is only a half-baked attempt.
So the niche he wants to establish spirals around the word oikos and you’ll be hearing it A LOT. Like all classicist fans he takes a concept from ancient greece and molds it into something that suits current day issues, in this case he’s packaged the idea of community and civil society into this concept and will hammer it to death. Much like Niall Ferguson’s book The Great Degeneration, Scruton tries to make civil society the big solution to social problems. Big government can’t be trusted. Corporations can’t be trusted. (“The left” and “neoliberals” standins, respectively). We have to trust local rule and bottom up solutions. His strongest points surround the byzantine nature of global commerce and law, and how inflexibility and red tape circuses have stalled environmental solutions. Big globocorps get away with murder because they have the lawyers and spare cash to do it. Small business, and small farming (that in this view is more eco friendly, regenerative) can’t cope and dies on the vine. Nuclear energy is thwarted by stupid green politics. Of course he swerves around the NIMBYism of his bottom up solutions in civil society being a major stumbling block for placing a nuclear power plant somewhere.
He has a point about agreements not being worth the paper they’re printed on if parties like China do whatever they want. Similarly it’s true countries like China and India will dominate the climate outcomes regardless of what we do. But in observing this Scruton has no actual solution other than turning inward toward what we can control. We can organize to pick up trash in the forests and lakes. We can come together to fund solar panel installations. Scruton and Ferguson’s conservatism lamenting this part of environmentalism and the loss of a common cause have a core of truth. But in offering nothing but abdication on the global front he’s effectively just being a stooge for those globalist neoliberal forces that will then decide this issue, and not in his favour.
If he needs to first dismantle big government to get to a place where the bottom up solutions again reign supreme, he’s just buried the entire topic under a Sisyphean task of rewiring all of government so we can solve local ecological issues.
I’d love to see a conservatism that actually cares about conserving. This is only a half-baked attempt.
May 19, 2021
Em FILOSOFIA VERDE: COMO PENSAR SERIAMENTE O PLANETA, Roger Scruton afirma que os problemas ambientais são de responsabilidade de todos, e nos exorta a enfrentarmos questões ambientais diariamente. Ele acredita que pequenas soluções geradas por pessoas motivadas, trarão maiores resultados. O papel principal do governo seria tão somente o de criar condições gerais para motivar as pessoas. Scruton caracteriza o conjunto dessas motivações como Oikophilia - o amor que se tem pelo lar.
O livro traz uma perspectiva de ver o meio ambiente sob a luz dos conservadores, e quais, em sua opinião, seriam os caminhos a serem percorridos, de forma a atuar na preservação ambiental, e ainda assim, não atacar o sistema de livre mercado, como atuam os socialistas.
Em linha com um dito popular que diz: "de grão em grão a galinha enche o papo", notamos que o autor defende “as iniciativas locais contra os esquemas globais, a associação civil contra o ativismo político e as fundações de pequeno porte contra as campanhas de massa.” Ele se coloca como um crítico “às regulamentações de cima para baixo e os movimentos fixos e suas bandeiras” e vê “o problema ambiental como perda de equilíbrio, quando as pessoas cessam de compreender que compartilham um lar comum."
Scruton discorre sobre assuntos delicados, desde interesses políticos e financeiros, modo de vida das pessoas e o quanto essas pessoas estão dispostas a se sacrificarem pelas gerações futuras, consumo consciente, ação de lobistas, radicalismo de ONGs e guerra ideológica em torno do meio ambiente.
O autor deixa bem claro durante a leitura que ele não é contra a participação do governo na política ambiental, contudo o principal papel além da legislação seria como mencionado anteriormente, criar a motivação nas pessoas: "enfatizar essa motivação não significa defender a anarquia ou negar a necessidade de legislação trata-se de estabelecer o objetivo ao qual a legislação tem de visar. São muitos os problemas ambientais que necessitam do poder do Estado caso sejam enfrentados, mas esses problemas devem ser enfrentados de tal modo que a Oikophilia seja amplificada, e não extinta, durante o esforço da resolução... Ao atuar sempre para aperfeiçoar a Oikophilia, e não para confiscar sua esfera de ação legítima, o Estado preparará as pessoas para fazer os sacrifícios que se tornaram, hoje em dia, inadiáveis caso a terra seja o nosso lar, e não um lugar de exílio.”
Ao final da leitura, o leitor crítico verá ir por água abaixo, narrativas político-ideológicas, bem como, a falsa atuação de ONGs, membros do show business etc, como combatentes em prol do meio ambiente. Mais importante ainda, esse mesmo leitor crítico se vestirá de uma nova roupagem, assumindo seu compromisso com seu verdadeiro lar, lutando para preservá-lo, ainda que seja necessário alguns ajustes em sua própria conduta.
O livro traz uma perspectiva de ver o meio ambiente sob a luz dos conservadores, e quais, em sua opinião, seriam os caminhos a serem percorridos, de forma a atuar na preservação ambiental, e ainda assim, não atacar o sistema de livre mercado, como atuam os socialistas.
Em linha com um dito popular que diz: "de grão em grão a galinha enche o papo", notamos que o autor defende “as iniciativas locais contra os esquemas globais, a associação civil contra o ativismo político e as fundações de pequeno porte contra as campanhas de massa.” Ele se coloca como um crítico “às regulamentações de cima para baixo e os movimentos fixos e suas bandeiras” e vê “o problema ambiental como perda de equilíbrio, quando as pessoas cessam de compreender que compartilham um lar comum."
Scruton discorre sobre assuntos delicados, desde interesses políticos e financeiros, modo de vida das pessoas e o quanto essas pessoas estão dispostas a se sacrificarem pelas gerações futuras, consumo consciente, ação de lobistas, radicalismo de ONGs e guerra ideológica em torno do meio ambiente.
O autor deixa bem claro durante a leitura que ele não é contra a participação do governo na política ambiental, contudo o principal papel além da legislação seria como mencionado anteriormente, criar a motivação nas pessoas: "enfatizar essa motivação não significa defender a anarquia ou negar a necessidade de legislação trata-se de estabelecer o objetivo ao qual a legislação tem de visar. São muitos os problemas ambientais que necessitam do poder do Estado caso sejam enfrentados, mas esses problemas devem ser enfrentados de tal modo que a Oikophilia seja amplificada, e não extinta, durante o esforço da resolução... Ao atuar sempre para aperfeiçoar a Oikophilia, e não para confiscar sua esfera de ação legítima, o Estado preparará as pessoas para fazer os sacrifícios que se tornaram, hoje em dia, inadiáveis caso a terra seja o nosso lar, e não um lugar de exílio.”
Ao final da leitura, o leitor crítico verá ir por água abaixo, narrativas político-ideológicas, bem como, a falsa atuação de ONGs, membros do show business etc, como combatentes em prol do meio ambiente. Mais importante ainda, esse mesmo leitor crítico se vestirá de uma nova roupagem, assumindo seu compromisso com seu verdadeiro lar, lutando para preservá-lo, ainda que seja necessário alguns ajustes em sua própria conduta.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews