Posted by & filed under Biodiversity, Economics, Society, Trees.

How conservatism turned into an orgy of destruction.

by George Monbiot: journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist, United Kingdom.

There was a time when conservatism meant what the word suggests. It was an attempt to keep things as they are: to arrest economic and social change, to defend the position of the dominant class. Today conservatism has become a nihilistic festival of destruction: a gleeful Bullingdon dinner party of upper class anarchists, smashing other people’s crockery and hurling the chairs through the windows. Yet its purpose is still to secure the position of the dominant class.

It is no longer enough to own the land and most of the capital, to own the media and – through the corrupt system of party funding – the political process. To reinstate Edwardian levels of inequality, the feral elite must seek to reverse the political progress that has been made since then. This means dismantling the tax system, which redistributes wealth. It means ditching the rules which prevent the powerful from acting as they please.

Both are being consumed in what British Conservatives proudly describe as a bonfire(1,2). Nowhere is deregulation more destructive than in its treatment of the natural world.

If ash die-back takes root in Britain, it could be as damaging as Dutch elm disease was. This fungus is now raging across the Continent, consuming almost all the ash trees in its path(3). Few ashes – among which are some of the oldest and best-loved trees in Britain(4) – are expected to survive if the disease becomes established here.

The only way the fungus can arrive in this country is through imports of infected saplings. In February the first case in the UK was reported, at a tree nursery in Buckinghamshire. The disease has now been found in ten places, and foresters are desperately trying to contain it(5).

But – and this is the extraordinary thing – the government still refuses to ban imports of ash saplings. Instead, it has put the issue out to consultation, as if it had all the time in the world. It’s like spraying one side of a burning house with water while allowing petrol to be sprayed on the other. The government’s commitment to deregulating business outweighs the likely consequences. If ash dieback spreads through Britain, Cameron’s administration will be solely and unequivocally to blame.

It cares just as little about what’s happening to the bees. A new study published this week in Nature provides yet more evidence of the devastating impacts of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids(6,7.8). But, unlike other European nations, Britain refuses even to suspend their use.

The same politics inform the planned mass slaughter of badgers, which seems mystifying until you understand that it’s an alternative to effective regulation. Far from controlling tuberculosis in cattle, it could, as Professor John Bourne (who led the previous government’s £49m scientific trial) says, “make TB a damn sight worse.”(9) In the 1960s, strict quarantine rules and the rigorous testing of cattle almost eliminated the disease from the UK(10). But farmers complained, so the rules were relaxed, and TB returned with a vengeance. Killing badgers creates an impression of action, without offending landed interests.

In March the government published its kill list of environmental regulations(11). Among those being downgraded are the rules controlling hazardous waste, air pollution, contaminated land, noise, light and the use of lead shot(12,13). Ministers describe this as the shrinking of the state. In reality it’s the shrinking of democracy. Regulation is the means by which civilised societies resolve their conflicts. It prevents the selfish and the powerful from spoiling the lives of others.

But this isn’t about only economic dominance. It is also about cultural hegemony. Uniquely perhaps, in Britain the right-wing culture war is waged largely in the countryside. Tory culture revolves around land owning: battle lines are drawn around the issue of who represents rural Britain.

Writing in the Telegraph last month, Fraser Nelson, a reliable guide to the current state of thinking in the party, maintained that people who live in the countryside don’t care about “newts, trees and bats”: these are of interest only in London(14). He went on to describe David Cameron as “at heart, a rural Tory”, who “still grumbles to his wife about what, for him, are ‘banned activities’ – notably shooting”. Authentic rural people spend their adult lives in Notting Hill and drive out to their second homes for a shooting party at the weekend. Inauthentic rural people are those who live in the countryside and care about wildlife. They are, “at heart”, Londoners. The rural-urban divide, as formulated by Tory theorists, is nothing to do with location. It’s about class.

Those who wish to restrain destructive activities are characterised – by the minister Greg Barker(15) and, apparently, George Osborne(16) – as “environmental Taliban”. Their attempt to associate democratic debate with people who shoot girls in the head tells you all you need to know about their sense of political entitlement.

This conservatism does not care what it destroys. It does not care whom it hurts. It will sacrifice entire species rather than contemplate the slightest check on its own self-interest. All else can burn.

References:

  1. http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/politics/tory-mp-david-davis-calls-for-bonfire-of-regulations-to-boost-growth/1057246.article
  2. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-02-21b.832.1
  3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/disease-killing-denmarks-ash-trees
  4. http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/12/heart-rot/
  5. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/chalara
  6. Richard J. Gill, Oscar Ramos-Rodriguez and Nigel E. Raine, 21st October 2012. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11585
  7. See also Penelope R. Whitehorn, 20th April 2012. Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Science.Vol. 336, no. 6079, pp 351-352. doi:10.1126/science.1215025
  8. and Mickaël Henry et al. 20th April 2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Science. Vol. 336 no. 6079, pp 348-350. doi: 10.1126/science.1215039
  9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/badger-cull-government-accused
  10. John Bourne, 13th November 2010. pers comm.
  11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/16/environmental-regulations-slashed-red-tape
  12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/mar/16/environment-red-tape-challenge
  13. For some background to the lead shot issue, please read this: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/26/lead-soldiers/
  14. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9525542/Shale-the-hidden-treasure-that-could-transform-Britains-fortunes.html
  15. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0aa4d08-2d9f-11e1-b5bf-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz29fAwOv2q
  16. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-environmental-taliban-george-osborne-slams-parliamentary-climate-change-campaigners-as-treasury-fights-to-water-down-energy-bill-commitments-8215495.html

2 Responses to “Ash Cloud”

  1. Arian I.

    A classic case of holding on to the past at the expense of the future. The ideal, in my opinion, would be for the future to build upon the past. I wonder if the social élite are aware of just what factors must be in place to facilitate the preservation of their social status and its attendant privileges. Personally, I can understand the desire to preserve one’s own social status, but find it odd to ignore the processes that make the same possible.

    Reply
  2. Wayne Fleming

    Further to Adrian’s last comment, I would like to add that the same problem is exasperated by an impotent justice system. By that I mean that there being none or very difficult legal processes involved to bring punity to the faceless arch-villains of our biosphere.
    I would like to see heavy criminal charges handed out to culprits who use their positions of authority to sabotage our free-commons and sell it back to us as a commodity.
    This includes politicians who may not be directly invoved in environmental-sabotage but are complicite by sheer dismissiveness of these impending dooms which will effect generations long after their demise.
    Case in point, we have seen recently ruthless penalties handed down to a female pop group in Russia for a musical satire of Putin, but we have the BP CEO during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, still at large living in luxury with a big fat redundancy cheque for punishment.
    Furthermore, just handing out prison terms would be slim compensation for the crimes that George Monbiot is commenting about, but compulsory seizure of estate and assets to fund reparations, much like the RICO powers implemented in the 1960’s to incriminate US Mafia bosses.
    Rather than the endless tin-rattling (well meaning) charities that the poor compassionate few have to endure, with the “Save-the-This and “Save-the-That, which we all feel we should dig into our pockets for to repair their mess.
    I would love to see a new generation of youngsters encouraged into environmental-law, in thew hope that in the near future, they will use the same wit and cunning against these ‘so-called’ pillars of society, that they have used, to achieve their orgy of gluttony.
    I hope it will not be too long coming.
    Anyway that’s my little tirade!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)