Ted Christie-Miller is a fellow at the think-tank Onward.
A few weeks ago, I was at lunch with a group of Conservative business leaders when climate change came up. One of them – a man who had spent decades in finance and is now on the brink of joining Reform – sighed and said, “Look, I know the climate is changing, but all this net zero stuff? It’s just woke nonsense.” A few others at the table nodded in agreement.
This reaction struck me as bizarre. Somehow, climate change has been bundled into the same ideological box set as trans rights activism, hating Israel, loving the IRA, and defunding the police. But why? Reducing reliance on foreign energy, cutting migration pressures, and fostering technological innovation – all of which are central to tackling climate change – are fundamentally conservative aims.
At its core, conservatism is about preserving what works – our institutions, our economy, and our communities.
It is about ensuring that future generations inherit a country that is safe, prosperous, and secure. The great conservative thinkers, from Edmund Burke to Roger Scruton, understood that protecting nature is about stewardship. Burke’s principle of the “social contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn” applies as much to our environment as it does to our institutions. We must ensure our children inherit a world that is not collapsing under the weight of neglect.
Yet beyond philosophy, the economic reality of climate inaction is devastating. In 2023 alone, natural disasters cost the world $380 billion. The US suffered the most billion-dollar climate disasters in its history – most recently in California where the bill is already at $250 billion and continues to rise. Insurers are increasingly excluding climate risk coverage altogether because it surpasses the insurability tipping point. In Florida and California, some insurers are pulling out entirely. The market understands what too many politicians do not: failing to act on climate is not conservative – it is reckless.
If there is one issue that consistently animates Conservative politics, it is migration. So why, then, are so many ignoring one of its biggest drivers?
The World Bank estimates that by 2050, 216 million people will be displaced by climate change. Droughts in Africa, rising sea levels in South Asia, and extreme weather across Latin America will force tens of millions to seek refuge elsewhere. Many will head north, toward Europe and the United States, overwhelming border systems and fueling political instability.
Conservatives argue for strong borders and controlled migration but ignoring climate change while worrying about migration is like leaving the bath running for days and then complaining that you have to mop it all up. If we want to reduce the pressures that drive mass migration, we must tackle the root causes.
That means investing in climate resilience, supporting sustainable development in vulnerable regions, and ensuring that our economy is not dependent on fragile global supply chains that will be disrupted by climate shocks.
Beyond these clear risks, many still believe that decarbonisation will wreck the economy. But the data tells a different story.
Since 1990, the UK has reduced emissions by 53 per cent while growing its economy by 82 per cent. The power sector, once reliant on coal, now runs largely on renewables and gas, delivering lower emissions without causing blackouts or economic decline. Globally, companies that have embraced clean technology are reaping the financial rewards. Tesla was mocked in its early days; today, it is one of the most valuable car manufacturers in the world, worth more than Ford, GM, and Volkswagen combined.
The UK is perfectly placed to be the great exporter of the green technologies of the future. We have the largest tech sector in Europe and some of the greatest universities in the world. The opportunity is clear: foster innovation, commercialise that innovation and use it to unleash that mysterious thing that ‘Rachel from Accounts’ is after: growth.
That said, the current government’s approach is flawed. These policies like the 2030 clean energy target and the shutting down of the North Sea play into the hands of our competitors and adversaries. Labour’s instinct is always to ban, constrain, and mandate. They prefer to suffocate rather than innovate. Instead of telling people to stop doing things, we should focus on whether the UK can create the next Tesla or Orsted and export it to the world.
A truly conservative approach to climate change harnesses the power of markets, innovation, and private enterprise. That means scaling carbon markets, using the tax system to unleash private capital, and providing consistent government support for nuclear and renewables.
This is also about security. For too long, Western nations have been dependent on energy sources controlled by unstable or adversarial regimes. The Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed just how vulnerable Europe was to energy blackmail, with gas shortages leading to skyrocketing prices and economic disruption. Energy independence is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of national security.
By investing in renewables, nuclear, and domestic energy production, Britain can protect itself from future crises. Wind and solar power, along with next-generation nuclear, reduce reliance on foreign imports and insulate the economy from price shocks. The UK’s vast coastline provides an opportunity to be a world leader in offshore wind, while advances in battery storage and grid technology make these solutions more reliable than ever.
In 1984, Margaret Thatcher addressed the Royal Society, warning about the dangers of man-made climate change. She was not pandering to activists; she was a scientist by training and understood that ignoring hard data is not a conservative trait but an act of folly.
Today, conservatives face a choice. They can continue dismissing climate action as a “woke” obsession and allow others to shape the future. Or they can reclaim the issue, applying conservative principles of free markets, innovation, and security to drive smart, pragmatic policies. Strong societies plan for the future, rather than reacting to crises. And strong nations lead, rather than follow.
Ted Christie-Miller is a fellow at the think-tank Onward.
A few weeks ago, I was at lunch with a group of Conservative business leaders when climate change came up. One of them – a man who had spent decades in finance and is now on the brink of joining Reform – sighed and said, “Look, I know the climate is changing, but all this net zero stuff? It’s just woke nonsense.” A few others at the table nodded in agreement.
This reaction struck me as bizarre. Somehow, climate change has been bundled into the same ideological box set as trans rights activism, hating Israel, loving the IRA, and defunding the police. But why? Reducing reliance on foreign energy, cutting migration pressures, and fostering technological innovation – all of which are central to tackling climate change – are fundamentally conservative aims.
At its core, conservatism is about preserving what works – our institutions, our economy, and our communities.
It is about ensuring that future generations inherit a country that is safe, prosperous, and secure. The great conservative thinkers, from Edmund Burke to Roger Scruton, understood that protecting nature is about stewardship. Burke’s principle of the “social contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn” applies as much to our environment as it does to our institutions. We must ensure our children inherit a world that is not collapsing under the weight of neglect.
Yet beyond philosophy, the economic reality of climate inaction is devastating. In 2023 alone, natural disasters cost the world $380 billion. The US suffered the most billion-dollar climate disasters in its history – most recently in California where the bill is already at $250 billion and continues to rise. Insurers are increasingly excluding climate risk coverage altogether because it surpasses the insurability tipping point. In Florida and California, some insurers are pulling out entirely. The market understands what too many politicians do not: failing to act on climate is not conservative – it is reckless.
If there is one issue that consistently animates Conservative politics, it is migration. So why, then, are so many ignoring one of its biggest drivers?
The World Bank estimates that by 2050, 216 million people will be displaced by climate change. Droughts in Africa, rising sea levels in South Asia, and extreme weather across Latin America will force tens of millions to seek refuge elsewhere. Many will head north, toward Europe and the United States, overwhelming border systems and fueling political instability.
Conservatives argue for strong borders and controlled migration but ignoring climate change while worrying about migration is like leaving the bath running for days and then complaining that you have to mop it all up. If we want to reduce the pressures that drive mass migration, we must tackle the root causes.
That means investing in climate resilience, supporting sustainable development in vulnerable regions, and ensuring that our economy is not dependent on fragile global supply chains that will be disrupted by climate shocks.
Beyond these clear risks, many still believe that decarbonisation will wreck the economy. But the data tells a different story.
Since 1990, the UK has reduced emissions by 53 per cent while growing its economy by 82 per cent. The power sector, once reliant on coal, now runs largely on renewables and gas, delivering lower emissions without causing blackouts or economic decline. Globally, companies that have embraced clean technology are reaping the financial rewards. Tesla was mocked in its early days; today, it is one of the most valuable car manufacturers in the world, worth more than Ford, GM, and Volkswagen combined.
The UK is perfectly placed to be the great exporter of the green technologies of the future. We have the largest tech sector in Europe and some of the greatest universities in the world. The opportunity is clear: foster innovation, commercialise that innovation and use it to unleash that mysterious thing that ‘Rachel from Accounts’ is after: growth.
That said, the current government’s approach is flawed. These policies like the 2030 clean energy target and the shutting down of the North Sea play into the hands of our competitors and adversaries. Labour’s instinct is always to ban, constrain, and mandate. They prefer to suffocate rather than innovate. Instead of telling people to stop doing things, we should focus on whether the UK can create the next Tesla or Orsted and export it to the world.
A truly conservative approach to climate change harnesses the power of markets, innovation, and private enterprise. That means scaling carbon markets, using the tax system to unleash private capital, and providing consistent government support for nuclear and renewables.
This is also about security. For too long, Western nations have been dependent on energy sources controlled by unstable or adversarial regimes. The Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed just how vulnerable Europe was to energy blackmail, with gas shortages leading to skyrocketing prices and economic disruption. Energy independence is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of national security.
By investing in renewables, nuclear, and domestic energy production, Britain can protect itself from future crises. Wind and solar power, along with next-generation nuclear, reduce reliance on foreign imports and insulate the economy from price shocks. The UK’s vast coastline provides an opportunity to be a world leader in offshore wind, while advances in battery storage and grid technology make these solutions more reliable than ever.
In 1984, Margaret Thatcher addressed the Royal Society, warning about the dangers of man-made climate change. She was not pandering to activists; she was a scientist by training and understood that ignoring hard data is not a conservative trait but an act of folly.
Today, conservatives face a choice. They can continue dismissing climate action as a “woke” obsession and allow others to shape the future. Or they can reclaim the issue, applying conservative principles of free markets, innovation, and security to drive smart, pragmatic policies. Strong societies plan for the future, rather than reacting to crises. And strong nations lead, rather than follow.