Cody Butler: Why withdrawing from the ECHR would undermine Conservative environmentalism

Cody Butler is the Chair of the One Nation Conservative Network, a grassroots organisation dedicated to advancing pragmatic and compassionate conservatism.

In 2023, Sir Robert Buckland described talk of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as “foolish and rash.” Yet today the question seems not if we will withdraw, but when. That would be a profound mistake, particularly for conservatives who care about environmental stewardship.

The public debate so far has been shallow. Too often it has focused narrowly on the Good Friday Agreement, an argument since debunked by Policy Exchange. Far less attention has been paid to how withdrawal would affect one of the defining challenges of our age: the protection of the environment.

The ECHR was not designed as a green treaty, but it has become a crucial safeguard for environmental rights. By protecting life, health, and the right to a safe living environment, it reinforces the conservative principle of responsible stewardship.

In Steel and Morris v. UK in 2005, the Court upheld the right of small campaign groups to raise public awareness on health and environmental matters, protecting activists from being silenced by powerful interests. More recently, in the landmark Klimaseniorinnen case, the Court ruled that governments must shield citizens from the “serious adverse effects” of climate change. The judgment did not dictate policy but it did affirm a basic principle: states must act responsibly in protecting their people from environmental harm.

Critics argue that such cases overreach the Court’s mandate. In reality, the ECHR sets broad obligations while leaving national governments wide discretion on how to meet them. Parliament remains sovereign.

Conservatives should recall Edmund Burke’s warning about majorities becoming tyrannical, and Lord Hailsham’s fear of an “elective dictatorship.” Our constitution is built on scepticism about absolute power.

Imagine a future government, perhaps led by Reform UK, with a majority that denies climate change altogether. Without external checks, Parliament could legislate in ways that recklessly damage our environment and long-term prosperity. The ECHR is one of those checks. It does not dictate Britain’s Net Zero pathway but it does ensure accountability against destructive short-termism.

The Conservative tradition has always valued institutions that temper power: the House of Lords, the judiciary, and international agreements that root us in the rule of law. Withdrawal from the ECHR would strip away a useful safeguard at precisely the moment when climate and environmental challenges demand long-term, cross-border responsibility.

Membership of the ECHR also affirms our commitment to the rules-based international order. Far from being a utopian globalist project, the Convention is a practical expression of Britain’s historic leadership in shaping European law and international norms.

As conservatives, we should resist the siren call of isolation. Britain cannot solve climate change alone, but nor can we shirk responsibility. Having reaped the benefits of the Industrial Revolution, we have a moral duty to play our part in addressing its environmental costs. That means working with others, not retreating from institutions that promote shared standards.

Crucially, remaining in the ECHR signals to allies and trading partners alike that Britain is serious about environmental governance and the stability that underpins sustainable growth. In an era of global competition, influence depends not only on military and economic power, but also on the ability to lead by example.

Withdrawal from the ECHR would also call into question our membership of the Council of Europe. Beyond supporting the Convention, the Council has created fundamental treaties that underpin environmental protection.

The Bern Convention of 1979 was the first international treaty dedicated to biodiversity conservation. It legally requires parties to protect endangered species, prohibit harmful activities such as illegal hunting and trade, safeguard habitats, and coordinate efforts for migratory species.

In the United Kingdom these commitments were carried through into domestic law via the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That Act has since strengthened protections for bats and great crested newts, safeguarded Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and provided a legal basis to combat practices such as bird egg collection and the destruction of habitats.

The European Landscape Convention of 2000 is another achievement. It has been integrated into England’s planning and environmental policy. It inspired the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, which pledged to work with local communities on landscape planning as well as to update England’s National Character Area profiles with ecosystem services data to guide land-use decisions.

Even symbolic recognition can matter: the Sill Visitor Centre in Northumberland received special recognition from the Council of Europe as part of a competition, a moment consistent with the Conservative value of supporting local communities, echoing Burke’s idea of the “little platoons” through which people shape their surroundings.

Withdrawal from the ECHR would not only weaken Britain’s international standing. It would also erode the very checks and balances conservatives should prize, while jeopardising hard-won safeguards for environmental action. If we are to be the party of prudence, responsibility and stewardship, Conservatives should think very carefully before taking such a reckless step. Far from constraining Britain, the ECHR and the Council of Europe anchor us in a tradition of responsibility and restraint, ensuring that our nation remains a good custodian of both its liberties and its landscapes.