Green Philosophy: How to Think Seriously About the Planet [Hardcover]

This book is very important because it gives a "right-wingers" view on how to save the environment. It rejects global agreements as being socialistic in nature, and suggests that environmental policy should go with human nature rather than against it, if we want it to be successful. Scruton identifies the love of home and respect for ancestors and (thereby) our descendents as that instinct which can be harnessed to get people to protect nature. He doesn't go much further than that - it is about the philosophy rather than the politics of the problem, so it does not say how to turn that philosophical grounding into an alternative political approach.

I think there are some simplifications and there is definitely a lot more that could be said on the topic, but it lays out the groundwork for a right-wing philosophy. Perhaps if right-wing climate change deniers were to read this book, they would feel less uncomfortable about accepting the science of climate change. For it would give them a basis, consistent with their own beliefs, for addressing the predicament.

Scruton exaggerates the difference between right and left wing in this matter. A more germane distinction comes out from his book if you persevere: the distinction between people who want to think big and global, and people who want to think small and local. He favours the latter, for many sound reasons which I agree with. There is a strong tradition (Steiner, Kohr, Schumacher) which describes the folly of big schemes and the wisdom of local ones. Scruton unfortunately does not examine thoroughly whether the small and local approach is adequate in the urgent situation we find ourselves in with climate change.

Even if you don't agree with everything in the book, it is an important read for anyone interested in environmental philosophy and politics. Moreover, because it is written in appealing and natural English it is enjoyable to read. The wide spacing of lines means that the reading is easy and not a struggle, unlike many philosophical books.

Is Roger Scruton a friend of the earth?

In his new book Green Philosophy the conservative thinker supports decentralised energy, local farmers markets, carbon taxes, publicly-funded research into clean energy and careful consumption through, for example, taking holidays that "we can reach without burning up the planet". He dislikes large-scale agribusinesses that destroy wildlife and soil, the carelessness of multinationals that lead to environmental disasters like the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the willingness of governments to do corporate bidding.

He decries the uglification of our towns and cities through advertising hoardings, out of town shopping, and a throwaway society that has created the scourge of plastic pollution across the globe. He passionately calls for greater consideration for the needs of future generations, recognition of the beauty of our landscapes and for politics guided by morality rather than attempts to put an economic price on everything.

In all these things I am in agreement with him.

I also agree with his desire to localise decision-making as much as is possible and appropriate, reignite and support people coming together to protect their local environment, and his recognition that "what is needed may not be more growth but less."
But I'm not convinced his approach is fit for purpose, for the following reasons.

He rejects a global treaty on climate change as "useless" because he doesn't think other countries will deliver on promises. He rejects the development of long-term plans. He is disparaging about the European Union's efforts. He rejects setting goals to reduce global inequalities.

In short, he doesn't particularly like government. And certainly not big government.

He points to the disasters caused by communist governments in Eastern Europe and elsewhere as an example of the failings of state control, which are indisputable. Instead he looks to local land-ownership, individuals and communities to be the bedrock of environmental stewardship - without totally rejecting a limited role for the state.

My experiences differ from his.

Businesses tell me they need long-term government plans to give them confidence to invest in new technologies. Our beaches, rivers and drinking water are cleaner because of the European Union, not despite it.

If we fail to reduce global inequalities then efforts to protect the global commons are probably doomed to fail. And while there are free-riders in any global treaties, many countries take their responsibilities as seriously as the UK does - although we're not necessarily always an angel.

Roger Scruton is an influential thinker, at least to part of the Conservative Party. His love of home, tradition and the British countryside is shared by many. By writing down his philosophy in such detail, he makes it easier for others to understand his thinking. This helps begin to increase our understanding of the increasing left-right split on environmental thinking.

In my view, his version of a `friend of the earth' has much to be said for it - if you leave out his nastier elements such as his dislike of multiculturalism, traveller communities, and what he calls the "parasite class" by which he presumably means people on benefits. But I think it is of a different age when environmental problems were predominately local, regional or national.

Today's problems are global. We absolutely need people to stand up to protect our green and pleasant land. We all need to guard against centralised decision-making where it is unnecessary. But we must, I believe, recognise that we can only prevent tragedies of the commons if we work together as a community of nations, with respect for each other, and with a common goal to ensure everyone can live dignified lives within the planet's limits.

Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth (twitter: mikechilds1)

Green philosophy is clearly a neglected topic, but, articulate and learned though he is, Roger Scruton adds little to the debate. His central thesis is that the current focus on transnational organisations and multinational e.g. EU legislation to solve the problems of the environment is doomed to fail , since it ignores the fact that ordinary people will not be engaged by this, and will evade regulations in which in which they have no stake. This premise seems open to debate.

He rejects the international movements like "Green Peace" which tend to make environmentalism seem like a left-wing cause, and which often take steps that make people feel uncomfortable. Instead, recalling how Odysseus sacrificed much to return to his beloved home or "oikos", Scruton calls for a move to encourage people to take care of their homes, in the broadest sense, and work to maintain them through local associations. He cites the example of his father, who despite being left-wing, was so appalled by the top-down socialist-inspired destruction of the communities of the Manchester "slums" to make way for concrete tower blocks, that he formed a local society to preserve the environment of his new "oikos" of High Wycombe. However, all this seems a very parochial view and a very partial consideration of a complex issue. Even in this narrow field, Scruton does not address issues like "nimbyism" or the problems of maintaining communities which are subject to great change through, say immigration.

Scruton's points could be contained in one essay, leaving space for others on a philosophical "green approach" to, for instance, the development of scarce resources to meeting growing demand worldwide without triggering excessive pollution. He seems to feel that some of these problems are too vast for us to grasp, so the solution is to "start small" on a local scale that we can handle. This appears to be a cosy, complacent approach to major problems which may have implications for concepts like "individuality" so fundamental to western thought.

The main value of this book is to inspire debate, but it only scratches the surface. A series of essays by a range of philosophers, economists and related disciplines might have made for a more useful contribution to this important theme.