Many people, such as myself, want positive action to protect the environment from damage to essential ecosystems, want preservation of green spaces, protection of native species, and such like.
Saying "the videos aren't making policies to actively harm the environment and do they're not anti-environment"is to entirely miss the substance of the argument which is that they're not doing enough to protect it and are seemingly ignoring environmental issues when profits can be made.
One often finds councillors at odds with the party as they focus much more on local issues. Conservative councillors in rural areas will be inclined to protect green belt, counter village in-fill developments, oppose fracking, etc, despite these being things the Tories as a party support (because: profits).
Tories are strong on rhetoric wrt green belt, just weak on protection.
I never understand what people mean by this criticism. I'm debating people based on the words they use and what they mean by using those words... and that's a bad thing? What else you would like me to debate them on instead? Their syntax and grammar?
And my local Conservative councillors seems to Tweet mainly about school funding and how important is is to preserve the green belt for the sake of the environment, so there you go.