Why true conservatives are passionate climate advocates.

The most fervent advocates for climate measures are  progressive politicians, often with a liberal or social democratic background. Parties with climate change as raison d’être are generally post-materialistic in nature due to their strong focus on individual and idealistic values. Parallel themes for these politicians are often inequality, human rights, and liberal ethic values. Unsurprisingly, climate change is generally associated with these three issues. 

Is the progressive monopoly on the climate theme obvious? Rather the contrary! Climate change and its disastrous consequences are scientific facts. Everyone who reads the thick reports by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) would undoubtedly start worrying about the prospects for humankind. 

However, for some reason, right wing politicians tend to take a sceptical or hesitant attitude towards climate measures. Christian democrats, conservative liberals, national conservatives, nationalists: a broad right wing coalition stubbornly resists every proposal by progressive politicians to install solar panels or give nature space. The aggressive climate sceptical rhetoric of  right wing populists is useful for contrasting itself against the establishment. However, it is ideologically paradoxical.  

After all, conservatism is about protecting the existing. The concept of ‘protecting’ is consequently a highly conservative term. Conservative politicians are preaching for protecting traditions, existing power structures and conservative family values. Logically, protecting nature joins this list.   

The current conservative wave – with modernity being rejected and tradition embraced – requires a conservative response to climate change. Conservative politicians such as the Polish Jarosław Kaczyński and the Italian Giorgia Meloni are deeply disappointed in how the family is no longer society’s cornerstone. But the rejection of modernity is not consequently applied on climate issues, despite an easily made connection. As the phenomenon of green conservatism is rather quiet, an exploration of the concept can be useful. 

The connection between ‘Green’ and ‘Conservatism’

Green conservatism is about protecting and maintaining the Earth. It consists of three elements: stewardship, a rejection of modernity, and embracing tradition. For a good understanding of green conservatism, each of these elements will be discussed below. 

The core of stewardship is our position as link between previous and next generations. We are temporarily on Earth, and we need to leave it behind in a good state for future generations.  The Earth is not ours, we are “borrowing” it for living. This entails that we should also respect all other (future) beings on Earth. A main task for humans can be deduced from stewardship: the protection and maintenance of the Earth for all generations to come.  

The second element is a rejection of modernity. The spreading of modernity since the nineteenth century went paired with climate change: urbanisation, industrialisation, and ecological pollution have drastically changed the Earth. It is in this rejection of modernity that green conservatism differs most from current ‘green’ politicians. While this latter group generally has class struggle as the main motivator, this issue is irrelevant for green conservatives. Constant emancipation, let alone anti-racism, will not be prioritised by green conservative politicians. Current (hyper)individualism is considered a threat, as it makes people forget their main task (protecting and maintaining the Earth, see previous paragraph). Hyperindividualism leads to choosing the self above the community. 

Related to the rejection of modernity is the embracing of tradition. Green conservatism strives towards a modest lifestyle. The capitalist consumption society needs to be turned into an agricultural society, in which technology is used to better perform humanity’s main task. Green conservatives do not favour going back to the pre-industrial era. This would be a too romanticised image of the past, which was dominated by hunger and violence. Besides, it is unrealistic: existing technology is hard to forget. Green conservatism is obviously not for stopping the clock. After all, conservatism is open towards changes, as long as these are moderate and not at the expense of the main task.  

Broad sympathy from political right

With some minor adjustments to its rhetoric, green conservatism can be appealing for most of the political right. At the same time, it remains to be seen to what extent citizens are prepared to vote for a party motivated primarily by green conservatism. Reports on voters’ behaviour have repeatedly shown that ‘climate and nature’ is a barely prioritised theme by right wing voters. For that reason, a green conservative party does not have the potential to become a mass party. There are two alternative ways in which green conservatism can manifest itself: as factions within existing parties or as small ‘one issue’-party. 

Let’s first zoom in on the first option. A logical connection with existing parties can easily be made. Two large conservative party groups emerged after the Second World War: the historically dominant christian democrats (the Dutch CDA, the German CDU, the Polish Civil Platform, etc.) and the liberal conservatives (the Dutch VVD, the German FDP, the Belgian Open VLD, etc.). 

The rhetoric will be easily accepted by christian democrats. The term ‘stewardship’ is often already deeply entrenched in the vocabulary of christian democratic parties and will, thus, not be received as new. Some christian democratic parties already use the term for prioritising climate protection. For example, ‘stewardship’ is one of the cornerstones of CDA, with an explicit reference to climate, as the party describes on their website. This commitment is not limited to words. Party leader Henri Bontenbol already decided in 2006 to stop flying due to concerns about climate change. The link between stewardship and climate exists longer within the CDA. In 2005, the at the time Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende (CDA) said in a speech:

“Thomas van Aquino has written beautifully on the ‘bonum commune’; the harmonious coexistence of humans, animals and plants. The solidarity between human and nature. For me, stewardship is a core value. In civil society and in politics.”

A strict understanding of the human as “serving being” would also appeal to the more conservative christian democrats, or even the (often reformed) christians in politicis that identify themselves without the word “democrats” (SGP in the Netherlands). The rejection of individualism and the serving role of the individual to the community contribute to this logical connection. Choosing tradition over modernity would also be positively perceived among conservative christians. 

The case is different among (conservative)-liberals. Climate change is already often connected to liberalism: the freedom of the individual is limited by the freedom of others. The latter also regards future generations, leading to a connection with natural protection. However, the main perspective is the individual – not the community. This is contrary to green conservatism, in which the individual is in second place, after the Earth, because humans are primarily destined to take care of the Earth. Consequently, liberalism is harder to unite in tackling climate change. Libertarianism – which favours limiting the state to its absolute minimal tasks such as security – is even harder to connect to the climate, as libertarianism is contrary to societal mobilisation and a higher (serving) duty for individuals. 

By focusing on the limits of individual freedoms, green conservatism could still get acceptance. In the 1980s, former VVD-politician Ed Nijpels showed as minister how the conservative-liberal VVD can make a difference on environmental policies. As responsible minister, the National Environmental Plan was adopted in 1989 – at the time an international breakthrough in the field of environmental policy.

Attention also needs to be devoted to the third large wing within conservatism: national conservatism. This ideology is especially big in Catholic countries such as Poland, Italy, Spain and France (respectively PiS, Fratelli d’Italia, Partido Popular, Rassemblement National). Green conservatism’s connection to nationalism is rooted in nationalism’s love for the nation which cannot be disconnected from love for the nation’s nature. Such rhetoric can be found in statements by the leader of the extreme right Hungarian “Homeland”-party, in 2019. He even classified the party as a green party. However, the words were empty: the party has never actively advocated for measures against climate change. 

Green conservatism as ‘one-issue’ party

As stated earlier, a green conservative party is unlikely to become a mass party. The ‘issue’ is too specific and is far from the direct concerns of the electorate. However, it does have the potential to operate independently as a small party. Especially fragmented party landscapes, such as the Dutch one, where (new) small parties do stand a chance, could be fertile for a green conservative party. 

The electorate cannot be directly pointed out due to the absence of a direct interest group (such as farmers-, minority-, or senior parties). We need a closer analysis to assess which groups green conservatism can potentially appeal to. A green conservative party would be relevant for voters that are concerned about climate change but disagree with left-progressive stances. The voter rather identifies himself with other conservative parties than with green parties on the left, despite a shared raison d’être. 

Voters will generally have no (severe) financial concerns, as it is unlikely that climate measures will be preferred over bread and butter. Voters are from rural areas, where left-progressive ideas are less dominantly present. Concerns about nature rather emerges from a direct concern: their own environment is under threat. Growing up in nature also makes them extra concerned about any threat to their familiar habitat. The average voters are small (organic) farmers, members of environmental organisations, retirees and disappointed believers. Another potential voter bloc consists of people living in areas with an increased risk of floods – caused by climate change. 

Next to the challenge of identifying an electorate, campaigning will also be challenging. Recent new parties thank their success largely to social media. However, it is especially green conservatives who are sceptical about modern tools such as social media. Besides, the likely voters are probably significantly less active on social media. A true “grassroot”-party – a party strongly organised on the local level – seems to be the most logical format. The party will potentially first start on the municipal level, after which it will slowly scale up. 

Looking ahead

With a strong narrative, green conservatism could make the political right consider climate change as existential crisis. Green conservatism has the potential to be broadly shared on the right, but a possible pitfall is the absence of a concrete electorate. 

If creating an independent movement is successful, it will quickly find itself in the position to demand broad right wing consensus on green conservatism. Especially in a fragmented parliaments in which every seat can make the difference, will parties with a green conservative agenda be relevant for the right and trigger a normalisation of measures against climate change.

Indigo Tjan is student Political Science at the Central European University and he is mainly focusing on Central- and Eastern Europe. He is currently living in Vienna (Austria).

Image: Shutterstock