The Conservatism of Environmentalism

– Gerard Manley Hopkins

 And I’m not talking the free market. See, I generally consider myself a conservative. I like old books, old people, and old food (as long as there’s a microwave around). Tradition has always appealed to me. I don’t just mean American conservatism. You know, Old Glory, apple pie, and worker-oppressing capitalism. I mean that I was raised in a relatively secular household and still found religion appealing; something about abortion seemed wrong to me.

But I also liked nature. I wasn’t much for exploring, rock turning, or bug eating, but the soft sound of the rain on my window before sleep was always soothing. And as effeminate as that love is, it exists. I say “nature” and not “the environment” because they connote two different things. Ignoring etymology, the former conjures up an image of a Dionysian playground, unkempt by man and yet worthy of appreciation. The latter makes me think of the conditions an organism lives in; it connotes a scientific worldview; it makes me throw up a little in my mouth. And so, I thought “why can’t I think about “nature” as a conservative.” So I did and the conclusions I’ve come to will probably only make “normal” conservatives hate me a little bit more than they already do.

It occurred to me that the difference between the aforementioned terms is indicative of the different paradigms they reflect. “Nature” can be called beautiful; it is something to be contemplated and ultimately that allows one to glimpse the eternal. Now, I’m no Transcendentalist. I pay my taxes and am a Trinitarian, but the point is that the word “nature” suggests an older worldview, one in which we did not ask phenomena to report before us and explain exactly how and why they occur. Mystery made it so impressive. Why do birds sings? What determines when a tree dies? Why does thunder jump out of the sky and kill my friends and family? It was a way to see God in his creation, to appreciate humanity as a part of something bigger and yet fundamental to its own being.

Let’s compare that to what “environment” conjures up. It makes me think of my freshman-year biology text book and the class when my teacher’s pet lizard, Scrub, defecated on my desk in the middle of a lecture (he was an awesome lizard). But seriously, it calls to mind a scientific paradigm. Its connotation is one of a set of circumstances in which an organism lives and dwells, not as a fundamental part of its being (insofar as science recognizes being), but as the explainable reasons it is what it is. There is nothing metaphysical, mysterious, or miraculous about it. This is not to say that it is not wondrous, but its wonder is no longer that of mystery, but that of knowledge. The songs of birds are phenomena, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the story goes that once, when George Grant commented on the beauty of a particular Canadian vista, his respected naturalist friend told him that no one still used words like “beautiful” in reference to nature.

So what does any of this have to do with conservatism? Well in my heart, the divine, the mystic, and the conservative are all intertwined. I know that private corporations like Monsanto, Exxon, and BP have been incredibly respectful of nature, but my burning “conservative” desire to make the rich richer can be subordinated in this case. Environmentalism, despite its mystique-shattering name, can be conservative because it can give us an opportunity to commune with the divine, to appreciate ourselves as more than individuals fighting our way through a meaningless existence. I predict that someone will say the free market would be more efficient than the government at destroying big coal, big agriculture, and global warming. That may be true. But even if it is, there are many “conservatives” who oppose environmentalism as some Marxist plot to overthrow Tsar Nicholas. And that is the spirit that is meant to be addressed here. I mean, as that wonderful little English Jesuit once said, “the world is charged with the grandeur of God.” And aren’t we conservatives supposed to like both grandeur and God?