The Daily Telegraph, the journal of conservatism, has been arguing about the merits of net zero this week, with two main articles in favour and two against. Each of the authors is distinguished and worth reading, especially as in the case of Tim Stanley when writing something unexpected.
Lord Frost made the case against net zero with, to my mind, clinical efficiency, Ambrose Evans Pritchard returned to the fray with verve, while Allister Heath was uncharacteristically optimistic. In light of this I thought I should join the discussion and start with a basic principle of conservatism.
There is a strong argument that the origins of the two-party system are to be found in the 17th century civil war between the Royalists, who were the founding Tories, and the Parliamentarians, who were the original Whigs (in spite of Dr Johnson’s quip that the Devil was the first Whig). The Whigs subsequently became the socialists, and the net zero argument fits neatly within their worldview.
The Royalists accepted the imperfect world as it was, while the Parliamentarians believed they could create a new city upon a hill. In theological terms, it may perhaps simplistically be seen as a divide between Thomists and Augustinians.
Conservatives recognise the limitations of mankind’s ability to change the world. There are forces that are stronger, be they divine or natural, which mock man’s efforts. An example of this is that one of the consequences of reducing pollutants in the air is that more sunshine comes through, and this has made Europe hotter than the parts of the world that have not cleaned up their atmospheres.
This is not to oppose the reduction of pollutants in the air; it has been a thoroughly good thing to do, as dirty air was responsible for killing people, or at least bringing about early death. Yet this well-intentioned and good effect has led to more intense heat waves, which is clearly not something the advocates of clean air wanted.
It is a reminder that man is not as powerful as he sometimes thinks, and is certainly not omniscient. “Man proposes, God disposes”, as Thomas à Kempis said.
This limitation of capability is an essential part of the Tory makeup. Realising that it will not be possible to do certain things, therefore there is no point in trying. Often this has been moral rather than ecological. In the 17th century the Puritans thought that godly living would ensure that a perfect world would be created. Many of them also expected that the second coming would occur and they needed to be ready for it. With the Restoration in 1660, all of this piety was washed away in a sea of licentiousness.
