Yes, it is possible to be anti-Woke and an environmentalist.

Introduction

I am always deeply soothed by Frutiger Aero aesthetics. These aesthetics, popular from the mid 2000s to the early 2010s, represent the beauty and serenity of ecological wonders like coral reefs, the unique colours and diversity in the natural world, and the harmonisation of nature with technology to create a clean, sustainable future. The Frutiger Aero aesthetic heavily overlaps with solarpunk, a reversal of the cyberpunk aesthetic (Blade Runner) which intended to present a dystopian future.

I grew up with this aesthetic and was always highly excited about the future. Upset about the destruction of natural habitats and vanishing of species from the Earth, my love of being in the countryside and forests, surrounded by nature, made my fear of climate change and ecological destruction one of my earliest political instincts.

Yet green technology always gave me hope, and the promise that caring for the environment did not need to be incompatible with the progression of the human species towards enhanced living standards and space exploration, as I was also heavily interested in science fiction.

I will confess and say that my parents were instrumental in forming these values. My father would often tell me how fossil fuel companies, who sought to enrich themselves whilst destroying the beautiful environment we all loved, was the reason why people denied climate change.

I remember getting a children’s book called ‘Our Wonderful Earth’, which had cardboard flaps and interactive structures for very small children, as one of the earliest books I remember.

At the end of this book, you could pull a wheel, which would show a pristine Earth compared to a polluted, destroyed Earth, which even had the bones of animals. I had to do some digging to remember what this book was called, but I remembered it vividly.

As a child that was barely able to read, this was no doubt extremely traumatic to me. I loved animals and I loved the natural environment, and I was terrified by environmental destruction and the sense that we were racing against the clock.

But, just as somebody who was raised as a Christian and is also a Christian, the fact they got their beliefs from their parents, does not make those beliefs insincere. Indeed, parents instilling values in their children is how values have been maintained for generations.

As it happens, I disagree with my parents on most issues, who are far more Woke than myself. But that basic instinct of cherishing the natural environment is something which has been maintained. It is not an intellectual thing as much as it is a base, emotional instinct, a drive to appreciate nature.

By the late 2010s there was even more awareness of environmental destruction. David Attenborough, a British ‘national treasure’, did a whole documentary series about climate change, ‘A Life on Our Planet’. Often the climate change issue can get people to avoid it due to its relentless negativity, but by dedicating his life to getting people to cherish the wonders of the natural world, it made the documentary far more powerful, as talk of the destruction was always contrasted with both passion for the Earth’s natural beauty and the possibility of us repairing the damage.

I always held out hope for the ‘technological solution to the climate change issue’, an instinct many who prioritise environmental issues disagreed with. These people wanted to prioritise reducing consumption and living a more primitive life, but this always seemed to me like rejecting the human promise of technological progress and space exploration, and the idea that we could become a greater species.

By the late 2010s, it seemed that the environmental movement had increasingly answered my call. They were no longer blatantly anti-nuclear, an issue which I had always taken issue with (1). They were also orienting their plans for ‘net zero’ in a more optimistic, rather than catastrophic, way.

It wasn’t just cosmopolitan leftists who were doing this either. I was solidly anti-Woke, yet was always repulsed by the climate change denial and blatant subservience to the fossil fuel industry that characterised figures like Donald Trump. Climate change denial was probably one of the primary reasons why I stayed on the left for as long as I did, even though I loathed Wokeism.

But the fact that Boris Johnson, somebody I perceived to be a strong anti-Woke figure, also endorsed net zero, seemed to me like an indication that one could be anti-Woke and conservative. This was also echoed in America, for instance, Republican Governor Brian Kemp is very pro-renewables and EVs for bringing jobs to his state of Georgia. This made me hopeful that, as renewable energy became cost competitive with fossil fuels, nominally ‘conservative’ figures could be encouraged to get behind the green transition.

But this all came crashing down for several reasons.

Firstly, Boris Johnson’s strong environmental record, rather than being an expression of ‘green conservatism’, actually just showed a general tendency for him to sell-out to the socially liberal cosmopolitans. His imposition of Covid lockdowns, his opening the floodgates to mass Third World immigration, and his lack of vigour in the crusade against Wokeism and it being reduced to merely public statements, seemed to discredit the position of ‘green conservatives’. His ejection from office seemed to signal the end of a credible ‘green conservatism’ that was not merely the work of a ‘wet Cameronite trying to appeal to cosmopolitan liberals’, but an ideology justified in explicitly conservative terms.

What motivated me to write this article was the announcement of Reform UK’s new net zero policy.

This went beyond simply slowing down the green transition and focusing on lowering bills that I had accepted and to a degree supported, even if I found their denial of anthropogenic climate change dumb. I thought that ‘well, you may not be able to convince everybody of anthropogenic climate change, but when these technologies start to become cheaper than fossil fuels, then there will be a rapid green transition.’

But no, Reform UK, in order to ‘own the libs’ (and spite Rupert Lowe according to Pimlico Journal) have decided to implement policies designed to purposely destroy and reverse the green transition in this country, by putting ‘windfall taxes’ on renewable installations.

They say this is to ‘recover the costs’, but whilst renewables do need to be competitive without subsidies and operate on a free market basis, the investment in renewables in the 2000s and 2010s was entirely rational, allowing the scaling up of the technology.

Just when it is starting to pay off, Reform, vindictive and chuddish, want to pull the rug out.

Another thing is the absurd suggestion that battery storage, something that will allow the intermittency problems of renewables to be solved, are ‘dangerous’, something Pimlico Journal suspects is built on petty jealousy from Farage towards Lowe, who has investments in energy storage yet has outshined Farage, something which is entirely the fault of the pathetic Nigel Farage, for endlessly selling out his base.

There was absolutely no evidence to support this wild claim which could easily have been made by David Icke. ANYTHING in order to enrich the fortunes of fossil fuel companies, even when it is actively harming British energy security and technological innovation.

‘Destroying the planet and being stupid in order to own the libs’ were personified in this retarded policy.

This was a dealbreaker for me. I was willing to compromise on environmental issues, but it was because I had the understanding that once renewables and other clean technologies like nuclear became the cheapest options, there would be no problem.

But opposing net zero out of ideological spite and financial interest, even when it is only a benefit and costs the population nothing, I resolved that was a dealbreaker. If Reform has that as their policy going into the next election, I will vote for a different minor party (with no chance of winning), spoil my ballot, or not vote.

My reason for writing this article is that, as I mentioned on Notes, I realised the majority of my followers didn’t agree with me on this issue, and thought that what they call the ‘green agenda’ was part and parcel of either Wokeism itself, or a locus of managerial control which was also spreading Wokeism.

Yes, it is true that the main voices supporting action on climate change through decarbonisation and renewable energy also support transgenderism and mass immigration. But I believe the evidence warrants separating these issues.

The rest of this essay will discuss why I think the science supports anthropogenic climate change, the history of ‘right-wing’ environmentalism and how environmentalism came to be seen as an exclusively ‘left-wing’ cause, what environmental policies I would like to see, and how I reconcile my environmentalism on a political ‘side’ that usually opposes environmental policies.

Why Climate Science Can Be Trusted

I am not going to justify all claims high profile environmental activists make. Al Gore famously said in 2009 that ‘the Arctic will be ice free by 2013’ and it never happened and still hasn’t happened as of 2025, and groups like Extinction Rebellion are constantly doom mongering, saying that we have ‘5 years left’ or whatever their latest pronouncements are. The ‘wonderkid’ Greta Thunberg was a cringe psych-op which appealed to the feminised boomer world elite (and naturally, she is now just a general Woke activist, showing the ‘omnicause’, and alienating many potential allies).

But, in general, climate scientists have not made these kinds of statements. Being an environmental activist incentivises you to catastrophize, and whilst it’s true that the effects of climate change will be dire, making natural disasters more likely and also destroying the Earth’s biodiversity we should all cherish, making such extreme claims only erodes the trust of the public.

Climate deniers that will say ‘in the 1980s they predicted this would happen and it didn’t’, are typically only referring to the worst case models. The average models have been remarkably on point (2).

And yes, models have their limitations. They cannot predict everything accurately, as we saw with Covid, particularly with the scare around the Omicron variant. What models can do is give a range of scenarios and then leave it to policymakers.

I’m not a huge Friedrich Hayek fan, as I am not a libertarian, but one of his greatest works is ‘The Counter-Revolution of Science’ (3), which alongside Karl Popper’s falsificationism (of whom he was acquainted), is very good at telling the fundamental difference between hard science and soft science.

Hard sciences are scientific disciplines which leave a much narrower scope for human interpretation, for instance physics, chemistry, and biology. Soft sciences are ‘sciences’ that are more prone to human bias, more reliant on interpretation, and are less replicable or indeed do not utilise experiments at all, such as psychology on the ‘harder’ end, and then sociology, economics, and political science which can justifiably not be considered ‘scientific’ at all.

As an economist, Hayek did not believe hard sciences were ‘better’ than soft sciences, but merely that their distinction should change the way we approach things.

Whilst my friend

made the point that the fact that transgenderism infiltrated biology means that this distinction does not stop pseudoscience from infiltrating, what he fails to note is that transgenderism did not start in the biology departments, but psychology and sociology departments. You had the ‘medical angle’ engineered by people like Alfred Kinsey and John Money, who we now know performed highly unethical experiments and had a clear ideological agenda, and the humanities side, seen with the development of Queer Theory and Judith Butler. The disconnect between the two lines is why transgenderism is so disjointed, with trans identity simultaneously being fluid and ‘non-binary’ gender identity possible, and it also being ‘life saving healthcare’ which justifies performing these mutilating procedures on children.

It was in social sciences and psychology, both soft sciences (though psychology is slightly ‘harder’, though its replication rate is exceptionally poor), that transgenderism was mainstreamed BEFORE medical departments. The medical institutions were mostly infiltrated by talking about ‘civil rights’ and being on the ‘right side of history’, using the network gay rights activists built to enforce total ideological conformity in regard to transgenderism. This also happened particularly in the 2010s, when opponents of Woke would say ‘look, it’s a scientific fact there are only two genders’, so scientific credentials had to be weaponized and subverted, and they had been by the end of the decade.

This has thrown society into an epistemological crisis. It has left people wondering if they can trust anything, if anything they thought was ‘science’ is true, if something as obviously false as ‘a man can become a woman’ is accepted by credentialed experts.

But one needs to recognise that the source of trans ideology is NOT biology departments, but social science and psychology departments.

Climate science should be trusted because it was recognised as fact long before Woke ideology started bleeding into all academia, which started to happen by the 2010s. It is also a pure matter of chemistry and meteorology, that does not have subjective variables which change according to political convenience. Sure, climate scientists tend to value nature and don’t want it to be destroyed, an instinct I agree with, but it still deals with hard scientific data.

Anthropogenic climate change is a hypothesis that CAN be empirically falsified. It’s just that climate sceptics have not come up with a plausible alternative explanation, and the Principle of Parsimony suggests that the explanation which involves making the least assumptions is probably the correct one, especially if the consequences of ‘not’ acting are considerably worse than the consequences of acting and then it later being disproved, with energy security outside of hydrocarbon reserves being an additional advantage that would be justifiable even if anthropogenic climate change was proven to be false.

This NASA graph shows all of the other explanations for the Earth’s rising temperatures, and why they don’t stack up. For those who are suspicious of the lack of metrics in this video, click on the ‘download the video’ link in the description, which will take you to the datasets.

I know people will be suspicious of a government agency like NASA. But this data was primarily sourced prior to the Obama administration, when Wokeism in the federal government became turbocharged, and it is also talking about issues of chemistry, not anything which is subjective.

Why You Should Be Sceptical of the Sceptics

There is also the question of the climate change sceptics? Should we trust them?

I find it extremely hard to because the biggest financial backers of climate sceptical voices are those who would have the most financial benefit in it not being real. This includes ExxonMobil which was a major pusher of climate change denial in the 1990s and 2000s, and the Koch Brothers, who have substantial investments in coal and polluting industries, which fund groups like the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

A basic principle of inquiry and investigation is not to trust those with a direct financial interest in a certain course and version of events, this is the clearest example of a ‘conflict of interest’.

Are the other sides ALSO funded by big corporations? Yes, they are. However, many of these corporations do not have nearly as direct an incentive in climate change being real, as the climate sceptics have for climate change not being real, often being computer technology companies which, at least not initially, did not have major financial interest in climate change being true. There is the renewable energy industry, but for a long time renewables were a tiny portion of the energy mix and these technologies were developed BECAUSE of concern about climate change, not independently of it.

If any industry would have had incentive to push climate change, it would have been the nuclear industry, but yet they remained opposed to each other for many decades, and it is only recently when there has been something of a reconciliation between nuclear and the environmental movement, though the German Greens still haven’t got the memo and are actively harming their nation’s economy and the support for green measures.

But for a long time, and to an extent still to this day, it was the deniers that had the money behind them. Of course activists also have interests of their own, and some things they advocated, like ending nuclear energy, were catastrophic for their own cause. But the direct conflict of interest of the vast majority of financial backers of climate denialist narratives is more severe than the occasional exaggerations, groupthink, and bad solutions of environmental activists.

Why Environmentalism Wasn’t Always Woke-Coded

The environmental movement being associated with left-wing causes is actually a very new thing (4). For a good portion of the movement’s history, it was more right-wing figures that were overrepresented in the movement. This makes instinctive sense, as it is about ‘conserving’ natural wildness and a reaction against industrialisation and modernity polluting natural landscapes.

When environmentalism began in the 19th century, it was very tied in with the romanticist movement, which glorified certain animals and natural landmarks as part of national heritage, as well as pre-industrial, agricultural ways of living. It was inherently tied to ‘blood and soil’ notions of nationalism, believing that the people of a nation were inherently connected to the lands they inhabited, and therefore living in a sustainable, harmonious way was the best way to honour their ancestors and preserve said natural heritage over generations.

One such early environmentalist included John Ruskin, the romanticist Victorian artist and writer, who led a successful campaign against the construction of railways that would have ruined the unspoiled valleys of Newlands and Ennerdale, today known as the Lake District.

Henry Williamson was another example, an English novelist who glorified wildlife and rural living, was an acquaintance of Oswald Mosley and a well known Nazi sympathiser. I am not praising Nazi Germany here, only to once again point our high profile counterexamples to the idea that environmentalism is Woke.

J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, in both of their novel series Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia respectively, have heavy environmentalist undertones, and both were conservative christians. Tolkein especially was a supporter of the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.

In the United States, Theodore Roosevelt needs no introduction, being responsible for the creation of millions of acres of national parks. Even though I am reluctant to call him a ‘conservative’ figure, as he is often lumped into that category even though ‘Republican’ did not mean ‘conservative’ in the early 20th century, and on average nationally was still probably the more progressive party at this stage, he certainly was not in any sense ‘Woke. He was the ‘cowboy president’, somebody who valorised strength and manliness, who even left the Presidency to go on a hunting expedition.

Madison Grant, known for his famous work the ‘Passing of the Great Race’, which talked about the inherent supremacy of Nordic peoples and worried that the United States was being swamped by alien races (these were mostly Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, which show that he was a ‘racist amongst racists’) and was also a key supporter of eugenics, justified his nordicism and eugenicism on expressly environmental grounds. Along with John Cambell Merriam, he set up the ‘Save the Redwoods League’ campaign, a highly successful campaign which prevented the redwood trees from going extinct. He also was behind the conservation of numerous species like whales, bald eagles, and pronghorn antelopes. Of course, in this day and age, this is less well remembered than the fact he was a ‘racist bigot’, but it once again shows that the modern linking of environmentalism and Wokeism is historically illiterate.

This also continued to a lesser degree, but still rather considerable, in the post-WWII period.

Garrett Hardin was one of the most influential ecologists, who coined the term ‘tragedy of the commons’ (6) to describe the overuse of land that comes from it being held in common. He also blamed the welfare state for its malthusian effects.

Hardin was very concerned about overpopulation, which whilst with hindsight we can say was misguided, had a rational basis in the 1960s when China and India were causing a population explosion, and leading to increasing environmental damage. He also, very notably, was involved with immigration restriction, being on the board of Federation for American Immigration Reform, when such a position was much less common than today. He also was a supporter of race realism, signing the ‘mainstream science on intelligence’ editorial which acknowledged racial differences in IQ. This caused the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to condemn him as a ‘White supremacist’.

Whilst less common today, there are still some ‘right-wing’ environmentalists. They tend to come from a Christian or nationalist perspective. Wendell Berry is a very notable environmental writer who has been a foremost advocate for, and practitioner of, sustainable, agrarian living, firmly adhering to the Jeffersonian, decentralist, states rights tradition, though he emphasises the separation of these traditions from racism. Likewise, a major theme of Patrick Deneen’s ‘Why Liberalism Failed’ (5) is the destruction of the planet, as liberalism puts individual self-fulfillment above the common good, and since Francis Bacon, the natural world has been seen as a ‘force to be conquered’ rather than lived alongside harmoniously. Deneen condemns both the destruction of the environment AND the overturning of 32 state referendums on gay marriage by judicial fiat, seeing them as based on the same liberal principles that individual self-satisfcation and the ‘conquering of nature’ goes above both the human, and ecological, notions of the common good.

Some other people who have expressed support for climate change mitigation alongside anti-Wokeness include the late Roger Scruton, Rod Dreher (coiner of the term ‘Crunchy Con’ to describe himself), Ed West, Liam Stokes (writer for ‘The Critic’), Aris Roussinos (termer of ‘Anglofuturism’), and Elon Musk.

Why Environmentalism Came To Be Seen as a Woke-Coded Cause

The intertwining of environmentalism and the left began during the 1960s Counterculture.

The 1960s had seen an upsurge of environmentalism, with Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962 detailing the catastrophic effects of the DDT pesticide. But interest in environmental issues still remained mostly cross-partisan. Whilst the GOP wasn’t ‘conservative’ at this time, and such actions should also be seen in his civil rights executive orders, Richard Nixon did in fact pass the Clean Air and Water Acts and create the Environmental Protection Agency.

But at the grassroots, the composition of the environmental movement was becoming increasingly dominated by a similar demographic. The Hippies, the key component of the counterculture, were very into environmentalism and opposing the ‘military-industrial complex’, seeing opposition to war and opposition to environmental degradation as part of the same thing.

Green Parties that were established in the early 1970s, in places like Tasmania, Britain, Switzerland, and Germany, were not single-issue parties dedicated to protecting the environment, but also preached ‘social justice’, and ‘human rights’ from the very beginning.

Back in the 1970s, climate change wasn’t fully understood, and so these elements took more of a centre stage. Wikipedia even describes ‘social justice’ as a core component of ‘green politics’.

The reason why the green movement was opposed to nuclear power for so long, and still is to a considerable degree particularly in Germany, is due to the fact that the entire ‘green movement’ was not just concerned with environmental issues, but also being against nuclear proliferation, and they saw nuclear energy as a slippery slope towards creating nuclear weapons.

The 1960s is where ‘the omnicause’ starts to take shape, personified with Greta Thunberg now talking about Palestine. I use the term ‘the omnicause’ to describe Wokeism + environmentalism, rather than ‘intersectionality’, because intersectionality is a term used to describe the various allied Woke movements, related to group interests which oppose correctly functioning White male interests. Because I don’t consider environmentalism to be Woke, unless it has Woke elements explicitly added into it (‘climate reparations’), I don’t consider it part of ‘intersectionality’

Whilst this was happening, the conservative movement’s prioritisation of the fight against ‘socialism’ rather than for traditional values and conservation, particularly the dominance of libertarianism over other strands of right-wing thought, led to an increasingly opposition to environmentalism, that was seen as promoting ‘socialism’ through increased regulation.

The tendency of conservative parties to be the ‘party of business’ also meant they were more vulnerable to capture by fossil fuel lobbies more than the left.

It was in this context which allowed lobbyists like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries to leveredge corporate donations to set the agenda. This ensured that by the 2000s, climate change denial was a major plank of the Republican Party platform.

However, unlike the pro-life and NRA movements, which are made up of grassroots activists deeply committed to their cause, the climate denial movement was for the most part completely astroturfed by corporate interests.

Correlation between IDW and climate denial (soft on most Woke issues, hardline on climate denial)

A strange thing to note, is that even though it is considered such a ‘left-coded’ issue to be concerned about climate change, the hardcore climate deniers don’t tend to be on the very far right.

As I say, nationalists parties, particularly when you go to the ethno-nationalist wing, and catholic traditionalist parties, have very little time for climate change denial, except as part of a pragmatic ‘fusionism’. The faction which is really obsessed with climate change denial are the ‘classical liberal’ outlets.

To give one example, Spiked Online.

Spiked Online, and similar organisations like Academy of Ideas/Living Freedom, are a ‘classical liberal’, ‘free speech’, milquetoast, wet organisation that will always gatekeep people who start to more seriously challenge left-wing cultural hegemony, with ‘free speech consistency’ being the argument they always use to ‘punch right’. For Americans to have an idea of what Spiked Online is like, think James Lindsay.

Yet, despite their ‘moderation’ on other issues, never advocating for White British people to retain sovereignty over their ancestral homelands and instead pushing ‘Boomer Truth’ ‘Martin Luther King’ colorblindness appeals, supporting gay marriage, and even pathetic figures like Andrew Doyle now saying ‘the TERFs are going too far’ because it risks ‘free speech’, when it comes to the issue of ‘net zero’, they are completely fanatical, always saying that net zero is ‘ideological’ and ‘tyrannical’, in a way that groups further to their right actually would not.

Spiked is to the cultural left of other British publications like UnHerd and The Critic, but you will very rarely get the level of zealous obsession with opposing net zero on either of those two publications than on Spiked.

Why is this the case? It’s actually very simple: the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers are avidly ‘classical liberal’, and support mass immigration, criminal justice reform, drug legalisation, gay rights, and free market fundamentalism alongside climate change denial. The Koch Brothers fund outlets like Spiked Online.

There’s also an ideological principle at play. Classical liberals believe that ‘reason’ and ‘The Enlightenment’ can ‘liberate humans from traditional bonds’, which involves small government. The opposition to climate change mitigation comes from a ‘I just want to be left alone’ ‘90s liberal’ impulse, that puts individual self-fulfilment above the notion of the common good. Of course, even if we are talking in an individual self-fulfilment terms, I think the destruction of the natural world is a tragedy as it brings such joy to people, but this is why they are so hostile to environmentalism.

Of course, if you are a nationalist, you are more likely to care about the natural fauna of our ancestors. There is the constant argument that Britain needs to build new homes to keep up with a growing population, so the ‘green belt’ needs to have houses built on it. But that’s only required because of the extreme amount of immigration we have seen in the past 20 years.

With an ageing population, the cost of homes in Britain SHOULD be stagnating and allowing people to move up the housing ladder, but because of immigration and such easy access to permanent residency and citizenship, it means ever more countryside has to be paved over.

The endless appetite for immigration which never seems to be satisfied, importing hundreds of thousands of people per year, is an extreme threat to the environment. It is for this reason that early environmentalists were very tied into the anti-immigration movement, as they could clearly see that an ever-greater demand for housing from an ever-repeating avalanche of immigration would require more and more land space until there was nothing left of the countryside, and is a major focus of parties like the Homeland Party.

What Environmental Policies Do I Support?

Many right-wing environmentalists accept my point about conservation and improving the local environment, but oppose international agreements to combat climate change.

In one way this makes sense, as it is natural to be sceptical of international institutions and agreements, especially as organisations like the UN have taken it upon themselves to promote ‘human rights’ the code word for Wokeism, and believe they have jurisdiction over nation states with bogus concepts like ‘international law’ and the ‘international court of justice’. It is ineffective, sanctimonious, and manipulative, a perfect example of inherent US hypocrisy at best, and at worst, is a Trojan Horse for Wokeism.

But on the issue of environmentalism, international agreements are, in my opinion, necessary. Environmental issues are never nation-specific, and affect all nations. The biodiversity of Earth is the common heritage of all mankind, though particular people have evolved to live alongside different landscapes.

When it comes to what happens in regard to human beings, the differences in values between different civilisations necessitates national autonomy. However, because environmental problems that start in one nation do not stay in that nation, it is necessary for international agreements.

I therefore support initiatives like the Paris Agreement, and consider the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement that successfully fazed out CFCs to protect the Ozone Layer, to be a successful agreement that was extremely necessary for global human wellbeing.

Of course, talking about environmental issues as being a global concern can allow ‘global concern’ to bleed into other areas, but I maintain there is a crucial difference between human-level issues and environmental issues. Many will call this a contradiction, but I call it a qualified distinction, based on the differences between these issues.

A ‘Sensible Centrist’ environmental policy should seek to phase out fossil fuels using innovative technology that enhances, rather than decreases, quality of life.

Renewables should absolutely be a part of this energy mix, particularly solar and offshore wind, though onshore wind must have community buy-in to stop it spoiling landscapes.

Unlike left-wing environmentalists however, I am a huge supporter of nuclear energy, believing regulations and red tape should be loosened to allow growth in this sector, particularly new, safer designs that make events like Chernobyl impossible.

Small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear reprocessing, and Finnish-style deep vaults for expended fissile material can make nuclear highly safe, whilst allowing for the decrease in red tape to speed up licensing and production.

It is a tragedy SMRs are not able to be rolled out in Britain, despite the pleas of Rolls-Royce, due to draconian levels of red tape in this country. Genetically modified crops and incineration of waste, stupidly opposed by environmentalists, should also be embraced.

Alongside climate change, plastic pollution is a major problem. I believe in the phase-out of single-use plastic, and believe that supermarkets should move to a system where consumers are required to bring their own containers to cut down on waste. There should be a global plastics treaty akin to the Montreal Protocol. Wealthy countries should sponsor ocean cleanup initiatives, due to the catastrophic effect of microplastics on human health, particularly related to fertility, which affect all nations.

A smart net-zero policy does not require sacrifice on the part of the population of wealthy countries, but can be an unadulterated good.

I will describe the full list of policies regarding the environment in my next ‘What I Believe’ installment, but my views on this issue are more similar to those seen on the ‘centre-left’ than on the side of politics with whom I agree with on most issues.

The Struggle of Being an Anti-Woke Environmentalist

As climate change denial has become a major part of the anti-Woke movement, it has indeed been a struggle to hold simultaneously environmentalist and anti-Woke beliefs. The recent Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conferences have had climate denial front and centre and a major theme, again proving my point about how the ‘classical ;liberals’ are the most zealous anti-environmentalists.

It was his climate change denial that put me off supporting Donald Trump for so long, and arguably was what caused me to stay on the left for longer than I would have done otherwise. Virtually all right-wing populist parties, to greater or lesser degrees, have a climate change denialist platform, some more than others.

I have therefore needed to prioritise my values. I have accepted that, in exchange for anti-Wokeness, I will accept an ‘all of the above’ energy policy, focusing exclusively on reducing costs, and when the market deems renewables and nuclear the cheapest options, that’s what should be promoted. I don’t only support this only of coalition pragmatism, I think it genuinely important that these technologies become cost competitive, as it will be the only thing that makes the third world decarbonise, as they will not themselves sacrifice their economy.

My hope was that as renewable energy became cheaper, the right-wing would drop their opposition to it. This initially seemed to be happening.

When DeSantis lost the nomination, and started downplaying his environmental credentials even before that point, I was still sceptical about Trump due to revulsion about his climate denialist stance.

But Elon Musk was a key figure in my political journey. In fact, my ‘red-pilling’ follows a similar timespan to his. Elon Musk was for a long time a hero to me due to both SpaceX and making electric vehicles marketable and ‘masculine-coded’, removing their hippie-ish vibe and actually focusing on creating a great vehicle that consumers would choose to buy out of quality over gasoline powered cars, rather than out of ‘social responsibility’.

With his increasing turn to the anti-Woke side, I was encouraged that this might get the GOP to abandon its opposition to EVs, and indeed it has, to a certain extent, even though they oppose the mandates they don’t disparage electric cars as an individual choice, and like with renewables, I do believe that in order to be successful, EVs need to be able to compete with gasoline powered cars without the mandates eventually, just like how it was not necessary to ‘ban’ the horse and carriage when motor vehicles had proven to be better.

But it hasn’t gone away completely. The GOP has this poisonous tendency to ‘spite’ environmental innovations to own the libs. The thing which did more than anything else to make me less passionate about Ron DeSantis was his pathetic, chuddish move to ban cultured meat, an innovation which has the potential to vastly improve agricultural productivity.

Reform’s policy was a bit more jarring, as environmentalism I believed was a commonly accepted value in British politics (unfortunately, as Boris Johnson showed, that was true only so far as Wokeism and mass immigration were also accepted values, and he had not separated the two as much as I had initially hoped).

But its policy of ‘net smart’, an approach of ‘we support the renewable sector but want the market to make these technologies competitive on their own terms’ was acceptable enough for me, even though when it comes solely to this issue, I am more of a mainstream Tory, compared to most issues where I’m far to the so-called ‘right’ of the Conservative Party (towards the Sensible Centre).

But actually, when it comes to ‘destroying the planet to own the libs’, Reform UK is now probably worse than the GOP, with this pathetic, destructive policy to destroy the immense progress Britain has made with expanding renewables, something this nation should be proud of, with a windfall tax, and spreading lunatic rumors about electric battery storage being ‘dangerous’. A policy this stupid is a compromise too far for me.

I might have been able to stomach it if their policies on immigration and Wokeness were absolutely fantastic. But they aren’t… their colorblind ‘net zero immigration’ would still lead to millions of non-White immigrants replacing the indigenous population. Nigel Farage has been squeamish about advocating for mass deportations of illegal immigrants, and seems very accepting of the idea that Muslims might replace us. They have no detailed policy proposals about how they will actually achieve the things they say they want to achieve, in fact a party with a fraction of the budget, the Homeland Party, has a vastly superior policy platform.

So, not only are their environmental policies a red line for me, they don’t have other policies that could mitigate it. Reform is yet another example of the more ‘moderate’ anti-Woke movements being the most fanatic about climate change denial, as environmental destruction is an inconvenience to their materialistic set of values.

Reform might drop this policy and include more detailed policies on immigration and Wokeism by 2029, and in that case I’ll vote for them, but as of present, I do not intend to vote Reform. I will either vote for a party like Homeland (if they stand in my constituency, which is unlikely), spoil my ballot, or not vote. It seems like Reform, in aggregate, will be no better than any of the other parties, destroying the planet and only slowing down the Great Replacement.

Conclusion

This was a long article, but I felt I needed to thoroughly explain my position, which is uncommon in this space, and address the numerous objections to it. It will also make upcoming articles make more sense.

I hope I may have been able to persuade a few people of the rightness of environmentalism and why, despite public perception, it is not a Woke issue. Wokeness will hopefully soon be forgotten by history, but environmental damage will last for far longer. Preserving the Earth’s biodiversity and natural beauty is among the most conservative of causes.

Bibliography

Recommend The Anglofuturist to your readers

A magazine promoting ‘Sensible Centrism’ across the Anglosphere. Discusses aesthetics, media, philosophy, history, politics, and living.