Scruton’s trying to ride a line that keeps both neoliberals and “the left” on the side of evil, which is refreshing as it actually tries to carve out a niche for conservatism that isn’t just being the stooge of free market advocates. Unfortunately in his desperate paddling away from the left’s ownership of the climate issue he carries a lot of water for exactly the neoliberal globocorp types he says he disagrees with. He initially accepts their counterprogramming on climate change and repeats the usual garbage talking points trying to present the issue as entirely open, 50/50, “both sides”. Later in the book he meanders away from this and tries to present solutions on the premise that it is a real issue.
So the niche he wants to establish spirals around the word oikos and you’ll be hearing it A LOT. Like all classicist fans he takes a concept from ancient greece and molds it into something that suits current day issues, in this case he’s packaged the idea of community and civil society into this concept and will hammer it to death. Much like Niall Ferguson’s book [b:The Great Degeneration|16129479|The Great Degeneration|Niall Ferguson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1372541698l/16129479._SY75_.jpg|21954506], Scruton tries to make civil society the big solution to social problems. Big government can’t be trusted. Corporations can’t be trusted. (“The left” and “neoliberals” standins, respectively). We have to trust local rule and bottom up solutions. His strongest points surround the byzantine nature of global commerce and law, and how inflexibility and red tape circuses have stalled environmental solutions. Big globocorps get away with murder because they have the lawyers and spare cash to do it. Small business, and small farming (that in this view is more eco friendly, regenerative) can’t cope and dies on the vine. Nuclear energy is thwarted by stupid green politics. Of course he swerves around the NIMBYism of his bottom up solutions in civil society being a major stumbling block for placing a nuclear power plant somewhere.
He has a point about agreements not being worth the paper they’re printed on if parties like China do whatever they want. Similarly it’s true countries like China and India will dominate the climate outcomes regardless of what we do. But in observing this Scruton has no actual solution other than turning inward toward what we can control. We can organize to pick up trash in the forests and lakes. We can come together to fund solar panel installations. Scruton and Ferguson’s conservatism lamenting this part of environmentalism and the loss of a common cause have a core of truth. But in offering nothing but abdication on the global front he’s effectively just being a stooge for those globalist neoliberal forces that will then decide this issue, and not in his favour.
If he needs to first dismantle big government to get to a place where the bottom up solutions again reign supreme, he’s just buried the entire topic under a Sisyphean task of rewiring all of government so we can solve local ecological issues.
I’d love to see a conservatism that actually cares about conserving. This is only a half-baked attempt. ( )

A good book for those on the left politically to understand and work with those one the right concerning environmental issues. ( )

In his book, "How to Think Seriously About the Planet", Roger Scruton makes the case that when it comes to solving environmental problems, small is better. I found the book to be rather laborious, and did not finish. But I got far enough into the book to understand that Scruton is a proponent of local initiatives under local control to address environmental issues rather than rely on big government to solve problems. Too often, Scruton argues, large scale, top-down initiatives lead to unintended consequences.
( )

fantastisch boek met zeer interessante bedenkingen over onze maatschappij. Een must voor al wie houdt van wat de moeite is om te bewaren uit ons verleden. Ook mensen met een groen hart moeten dit lezen. Kortom, een conservatieve visie die ik in grote mate deel. Wat een verstandig man. ( )