Guest election blog – Conservatives by Stephen Moss

I am an author, naturalist, university lecturer and former wildlife TV producer, originally from London but now living in Somerset. I have produced numerous TV programmes and written many books about the natural world and environmental issues, and feel passionately about the need to take urgent action to reverse global biodiversity loss and the climate crisis.

I first voted in the 1979 general election (when to my eternal shame, as a very politically naïve 19-year-old, I voted Conservative). Since then I have generally voted Liberal, but when I lived in North London in the late 1980s and early 1990s I voted tactically for Labour. I now vote Liberal in the Somerset constituency of Wells and Mendip Hills, a Conservative-Liberal marginal, where local resident Tessa Munt is standing against Meg Powell-Chandler, the former aide to Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. 

This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Conservative Party election manifesto.

Let’s start with the big picture: the absurdly low priority the manifesto gives to the environment – just over two pages out of almost 80. Even then, it is shoehorned into a section alongside ‘the rural economy’, which majors on more housing, better broadband and a craven appeal to the hunting lobby.

When they do finally get to the sub-section on ‘Enhancing nature and protecting our environment’ they say: ‘Our beautiful countryside, coastline, woods and rivers are a crucial part of what makes our country so special. We are committed to leaving the environment in a better state for future generations’. Given the current state of Britain’s rivers that is, quite simply, a lie.

The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘biodiversity crisis’ are nowhere to be seen – though the manifesto does – bizarrely – include a crackdown on XL Bully dogs, puppy-smuggling and livestock worrying, as well as holiday lets and home ownership – fringe issues when compared with the huge environmental problems we face.

Things I like:

I was tempted to leave this section blank, but taking the manifesto at face value, I would say:

• Energy Policy
  • ‘Introducing more efficient local markets for electricity, which expert analysis estimates would save £20 – £45 per household per year.’
  • ‘Giving households the choice of smart energy tariffs, which can save them £900 a year’.

• Environmental Protection
  • Targets to halt nature’s decline by 2030 (though there are no details on how they plan to achieve this in just over 5 years)Moratorium on deep-sea mining
  • Tackling illegal deforestation on a global scale

• Other
  • Supporting programmes to encourage disadvantaged children and young people to access green spaces (again, no detail as to what this actually means, and how it could be achieved)
  • ‘Continue to work with landowners, charities and others to open up more ‘access to nature’ routes’. (But not supporting a universal right to roam).

Things I don’t like:

Energy and net zero

• Misrepresentation of Net Zero as being a threat to our energy security, a drag on the UK economy, and a hit to people’s individual finances; instead of an opportunity to enhance energy security, boost our economy by becoming world-leaders in renewables and associated technology, and reduce energy bills by providing cheaper green energy and insulating homes.
• The delaying of the delivery of Net Zero to 2050, which all experts agree is far too late. (And the way they link this with higher home energy bills, when in fact bills would go down the faster we move).
• Boasting of leading the way in facing the existential challenges of global climate change, while their previous policies have put the brakes on this.
• The policy of lowering green levies on household energy bills – which are essential if we are to reach Net Zero in time’ and also of ruling out further ‘hidden green levies’. (Here, in another example of their skewed approach, they use the word ‘green’ as a negative instead of a positive!)
• The policy of ‘reforming’ the independent Climate Change Committee, which sounds very similar to the progressive neutering of the once-independent Natural England – with, so far, pretty disastrous consequences.
• The refusal to stop the issuing of oil and gas licences in the North Sea- again with the spurious defence of improving our energy security.
• The continuation of giving hugely expensive incentives to multinational fossil fuel companies

Housebuilding

• The abolishing of ‘the legacy EU “nutrient neutrality” rules’ – which sounds like a polluters’ charter to me.
• The aim of ‘Delivering a record number of homes each year on brownfield land in urban areas’. While some brownfield sites are right for development, I am concerned that the blanket term, will also lead to the destruction of edgeland sites which are often better for wildlife than the ‘green countryside’.

Transport

• ‘Backing Drivers’ – like many people I am a driver (though of an EV), but also a cyclist and a pedestrian. I firmly believe that as a driver I have responsibilities towards the environment as well as rights. This policy is designed to reverse any beneficial changes and increase accidents, pollution, and harm to human health and wildlife.

Agriculture

• Th obsession with food security and boosting domestic food production, which ignores the importance of soil, wildlife and sustainability

Things that appear to be missing:

• Any genuine policies to reverse the decline in the UK’s wildlife and the loss and degradation of habitats.
• A policy to use onshore wind generation to produce plentiful, cheap renewable energy.
• Any admission of blame for things being as bad as they are after 14 years of Conservative chaos.
• In Rishi Sunak’s opening letter, nor in the headline list of ‘Bold Actions to deliver a secure future’, none of the following words appear: ‘nature, ‘natural’, ‘environment’, ‘climate’.

Overall assessment:

The manifesto as a whole is packed with dog-whistle policies aimed at a small and rapidly dwindling minority of elderly, traditional conservatives, with no specific detail as to how any of the policies will be achieved. In any case, most are simply tinkering at the edges of our environmental crisis – more concerned with litter than climate change, for example.

Worst of all – and this is especially true of the section on restoring water quality – the manifesto takes no account of 14 years of neglect, wilful mismanagement, corruption and misguided policies. It reads like a wish list for a party who have never been in power and have no chance of being in power in the foreseeable future.

The bad news is that the Conservatives have been in power, and like a defeated army fleeing the battlefield are laying waste to our country (and especially the natural world) as they retreat.

The good news is that they will not be in power, and have the chance to put into practice these half-baked policies – in the foreseeable future; and perhaps for ever. 

Would I vote for these environmental policies? Not in a million years!