The government said it
would cut carbon emissions by 78 per cent from their 1990 level by 2035,
instead of 2050 as previously intended. I wonder whether the PM has been inspired
by Princess Nut Nuts and her coterie? Anyway, it’s a great idea, and who could
possibly object to a policy of saving the planet except for one important
detail: who pays? I am sure our
Government will get round to telling us what it will cost, not just the impact
on our outgoings but on our future way of life. Perhaps we shall be treated to a
solemn announcement from the spanking new, and now, apparently, unnecessary
Downing Street media centre? When we are
let into the secret and the political machine has measured the reaction, I suspect
an element of electoral pragmatism will be injected into further climate virtue
gestures. Meantime, they may care to start
with a scan of Roger Scruton’s superb Green Philosophy subtitled, how to think
seriously about the planet. Scruton
argues, convincingly, that top-down solutions to climate problems are destined
to fail. It is public spirit that will
carry us forward:
“But
whence comes public spirit? It comes from patriotism, from love of country,
from a sense of belonging and of a shared and inherited home. It comes from
believing that this problem is our problem, and therefore my problem, as a
member of the group. That belief disappears when anonymous bureaucracies
confiscate our risks, and pretend that they can regulate them to extinction.”
But telling people what
is good for them seems fashionable these days, just look at the incessant diatribe
from the Archewell Foundation, “uplifting communities.” Come to think of it, whoever is driving the headlong
rush to green virtue may already be finding the Downing Street policy straitjacket
too constraining and might and feel, like Megan and Harry, that they should
strike out on their own. How about “The
Greenswill Foundation” as a megaphone?