If we can't agree to save the planet what can we agree on?

IN Solihull just six years ago the Conservative-run council passed a motion to declare a climate emergency.

The then leader of the local authority applauded the consensus the chamber had come to, with all parties present having voted in favour.

In a direct swipe at the suggestion that the UK needn't fret about its comparatively lowly contribution to global emissions, he insisted  "we all have a responsibility to take action."

The borough's environmentalists were, as it turned out, lucky to have a Green Party in opposition and a green party in power. One was probably fonder of lentils than the other, but there was enough agreement to get on with.

In partnership with the region's Tory Mayor, another strong supporter of net zero, the council set about various schemes to cut pollution.

A district heat network, to provide low-carbon electricity to key buildings around the town centre, started construction. Electric car charging started to arrive alongside parking bays. Solar panels were installed on the local leisure centre's roof. 

All this was done by true blue communities not simply because conserving life on Earth was seen as a fairly key part of conservatism, but because Tories have traditionally been fond of making money

The Mayor revealed that no investment into the West Midlands was growing more quickly than that flowing into the low-carbon economy. 

Nor was it the view locally that net zero would pile unacceptable costs on ordinary people.

The local  Tory MP fiercely defended the national government's plan to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.

"Ending our contribution to climate change needn’t mean higher costs for people and businesses," he insisted, while talking up the opportunities for the region's automotive industry.

Fast forward to today and suddenly everything that was said before is, at least in the eyes of this year's Tory party leader Kemi Badenoch, patent nonsense.

The UK's pioneering Climate Change Act - which the Tories supported through 14 years in government, and in fact strengthened significantly in 2019 - is suddenly a recipe for economic disaster, higher bills and a waste of time in a world where China exists.

Such thinking is no surprise from Reform UK - which like UKIP before it has always been a gathering place for  people who think solar power is what those black blokes did at the 1968 Olympics - but its emergence in Conservative ranks shows the collapse of any sense of rational thought among our once natural party of government.

No credible report suggests that tackling climate change will be more costly than doing nothing - on the contrary they all say the opposite and the projections for how much public money will be spent have in fact fallen since the Solihull meeting.

No sensible analyst thinks fracking Lancashire will ease energy bills, chiefly because the sharp rise of recent years is down to a spike in gas prices - which, given the role of global markets, will not alter an iota whether we are getting it from the Pennines or Pennsylvania.

The fact renewables bore barely any blame for the recent energy crisis was calmly explained to Badenoch during an appearance on ITV's Peston earlier this year. She sat there unblinking while the information was relayed - clearly puzzled that data didn't follow what all those nice people at Shell and BP had suggested.

It was presumably the same information relayed to Theresa May when she enshrined net zero in law - with not a single one of her MPs objecting - or Boris Johnson, who once declared ambitions to make Britain the "Saudi Arabia of wind power".

The problem is that acting on evidence is increasingly objectionable to the modern right; far better to stoke culture wars and frame Labour's Ed Miliband as an eco-zealot (even as the Energy Secretary purses policies which in many cases were constructed by Tories in government.)

It is no surprise that groupings which would have once been at the core of Tory support have castigated Badenoch's announcement; the notorious cultural marxists at business body the CBI said it would damage the economy (green industries support more than half a million jobs). 

Elsewhere The Church of England, once famously described as the Conservative Party at prayer, warned that politicians could not abandon future generations. But then Jesus was always pretty woke.

What of the Conservative grandees? People who unlike Badenoch actually had past experience

of critical thinking and leading the opinion polls.

A "catastrophic" change in direction warned May, who in characteristic style was keen to emphasise that nothing had changed. Not the economics, not the science, not the majority support from the public. 

Even one of Margaret Thatcher's former ministers suggested the Iron Lady herself  - whose ghost still hangs over the party like a particularly stubbon methane plume - would not have countenanced Badneoch's bad faith protests. Unlike society there was such a thing as climate change -  the former PM had even spoken at the UN to say so. 

The consensus among scientists that the issue is in fact existential has only grown in the 35 years since the summit at which she spoke. Which makes Badenoch's claim that she doesn't argue with the science even less coherent.

The press at least were rather more sympathetic to the Tories' new-found enthusiasm for rendering the planet uninhabitable. But not without betraying their only ignorance of all matters environmental. A Times leader writer warned that Miliband's ambitions were being frustrated by a notable drop in investment in turbine-powered energy (which means precious little, given gas, coal, nuclear and tidal - as well as wind - require turbines). 

There was also a suggestion the most recent renewable energy auction had failed to attract any interest, which is rather remarkable given the results are yet to be announced. With facts like these who needs arguments?

More broadly it is sad to see once feted papers of record and our oldest political party continue their descent into false claims and fundamentally flawed assumptions. 

Much is made about the polarisation of politics, but on so many issues the division comes down to many on the right breaking down decades-old consensus. And for what? Some useful cash from fossil fuel firms? A rave review from some fringe podcast? Or the simple fact of wanting to call your opponents wrong, even if what they're saying is what you were saying yourself five minutes earlier?

I rather prefer the judgement of the former council leader, who felt that on problems which were simply facts politicians of all stripes should try to work together to set out a way forward. Agreement is desirable, agreement in the face of huge and terrifying challenges is imperative.