The Green Futures interview: David Cameron

One year on from his election as Tory leader, David Cameron tells Martin Wright why blue went green, why he voted for war – and what love’s got to do with it…

Ask David Cameron about his strategy to tackle climate change, and his answers are full of phrases like: “It’s going to be difficult… there’ll be tough choices… painful decisions...”

“It’s going to be difficult... there’s going to be pain...”

Then rewind to the May 2005 election, when the environment barely rated a mention. Imagine if you’d insisted then that tough talk on climate change would be the key feature of a reinvigorated Tory party. Or that its leader would make great play of his green credentials. You wouldn’t have got any points for punditry then.

Yet just six months later, Cameron seized the leadership on precisely such a platform. Green groups met him and declared themselves impressed. The party shot ahead in the polls. All of a sudden, the environment was a battleground – and the Tories were winning.

In retrospect, putting the green into blue was the obvious strategy. At the time, it was anything but. So why do it?

“Well, a number of reasons… I do actually care personally about the issues, and always have done. I was working in the Conservative research department in the late ’80s, when Mrs Thatcher made her famous green speech [warning that we were conducting a risky experiment with the climate]. That had quite an effect on me.”

Were you surprised she said it?

“I was, actually. It was quite an educational moment for the Conservative Party! A lot of people thought: ‘What’s this? What’s she doing?’ But the more I read about it, the more I understood. It was the moment I began to ‘get’ climate change.”

Which all sounds fair enough – until you try to recall a single statement he made on the subject before becoming leader. A glance through Hansard suggests he barely mentioned it. Not really a high profile issue for you back then, was it? “Well, I didn’t really have a high profile on anything!” he responds, a touch disingenuously, then adds: “The great thing about being leader is you’re able to put your own mark on things – you can really set out your stall.”

“Norman Tebbit wondered if Cameron was the party’s Pol Pot, intent on purging the memory of Thatcherism.”

But Cameron and his advisers have a reputation as, among other things, canny PR guys. So isn’t this really an astute political calculation, softening the image of the party to appeal to wavering voters? Especially in those rural Lib Dem seats, ripe for recapture? Cameron makes no secret of his admiration for the present Labour leader; his strategy bears all the hallmarks of the Tony Blair Guide to Regaining Power After Years in the Wilderness. In particular, the bit which says: ‘Maximise your electoral chances by shifting the battle to the centre ground, confident that your troops will follow since they’ve nowhere else to go.’ So, just as Blair ditched Clause Four and got tough on crime, Cameron has dropped the rants about Europe and asylum and replaced them with warm words on greenery and wellbeing. At a stroke, the Nasty Party gets Nice. Fair comment?

He hesitates: “Errr… not entirely, no. Not entirely on this issue… What I’d say is that politicians actually need to have a balance of altruism and egotism. And [when it comes to the environment], you want people to react with a mixture of conviction and calculation.” They need to believe it’s the right thing to do, in other words, but to see that it’s in their interests, too. “It’s one of those classic issues where there’s big stuff we need to do as a country, but where we can all also play our own role. So if politics is about participation, then the environment’s a great way of connecting politics back with the public.”

For someone supposedly oozing spin and smoothness, Cameron in the flesh comes over as surprisingly unpolished. His unedited answers are rarely pat; they’re dotted with ‘errrrs’ and ‘umms’; he’ll start a reply, change tack, have another go. He doesn’t bludgeon you with stats and facts; doesn’t even have much of a pop at the enemy. At times, he seems to be thinking it all through even as he speaks. The overall effect is rather endearing.

Which probably wouldn’t be the word Norman Tebbit would choose to describe him. He surely spoke for many a Tory die-hard when he wondered if Cameron was “the party’s Pol Pot, intent on purging even the memory of Thatcherism, before building a New Modern Compassionate Green Globally Aware Party, somewhere on the left side of the middle ground?” Cameron can probably discount the odd dinosaur: less easy to ignore such straws in the wind as the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, when Tory voters stayed at home in droves. Is he in danger of alienating the faithful?

“The technology is there, the materials are there, prices are coming down. This really is exciting!”

“Well there are some who don’t think I’m doing the right thing, sure, but generally the party likes the green stuff. [Unlike some issues], it can actually unify people. It’s wrong to paint Conservative activists as only concerned with tax cuts, or crime, or immigration. There are a huge number who are members of the RSPB, for example, people who instinctively link conservatism with conservation…”. 

So can the Tories really become the natural party of the environment? Are there ways of linking sustainability to some of their traditional heartland issues: the countryside, enterprise culture, patriotism, parochialism, even?

“Well, just as the environment can bring something to the Conservative party,” says Cameron, acknowledging the political dividend of his ‘blue green’ strategy, “so the party can bring something to the environment. We can rescue climate change from the pessimists. If it’s all about doom and gloom and taxes, we’ll never get anywhere. Take agriculture. There’s a real opportunity for joining up our worries about the future of British farming and climate change, with our commitment to the environment, and our search for food security and energy security. Farmers have had a miserable time – they haven’t had any good news for 20 years! But now, whether it’s coppicing for biomass; growing biofuels, growing food locally – there’s just a massive opportunity for more sustainable farming. It ticks an awful lot of boxes. But if it’s going to work, we need a totally new mindset on energy.”

He’s full of certainty now, chopping the air with enthusiasm. “We need to decentralise our energy supply. We’ll always need a robust national grid, because energy security is vital. But it’s a myth that it can only be provided from remote and inefficient power stations, or that electricity has to travel hundreds of miles to market. We need local generation, with people selling energy back to the grid, and a massive increase in combined heat and power. It’ll need some tax changes, some market changes, some deregulation to make it happen. But the technology is there, the materials are there, prices are coming down. Right now, we’re on the cusp of a major change. This really is a whole new exciting world!”

And it’s a world without much room for nuclear power, which Cameron dubs “a last resort”.

“I want to give every opportunity for green sources of energy to come through. If they do, well and good, if they don’t, and we have to keep the lights on, then nuclear might come into the picture.” The Tories’ current policy allows for energy security payments to generators, so they have enough capacity on standby to make sure the lights do indeed keep burning. Beyond that, the market will decide – always assuming carbon emissions stay within strict limits. But if you leave it to the market, it’ll be the kiss of death for nuclear, surely?

“Well the nuclear industry has said it’s perfectly happy with the ‘carbon plus security’ framework, and it will come through with a compelling offer. I’m not an energy economist, I’m just a practical politician. I think we should set the framework and then let the energy providers respond.” But he also says: “I was very interested in a DTI report which said that nuclear clean-up costs [which the industry would have to bear] are still around the £70 billion mark – that’s clearly a very large number indeed!”

“Businesses always say the one thing they can’t cope with is uncertainty.”

“Cameron’s much more upbeat on the prospects for ‘next generation’ renewables, such as offshore wave power. “There needs to be some government pump-priming for technologies [like that] which aren’t fully mature yet, but have huge potential. I’ve seen some exciting work going on with underwater turbines at Southampton University, for example. These aren’t huge research schemes; it’s just one or two scientists doing great work. A little support from government could create a big ripple.”

He paints a picture of a ‘green opportunity’ agenda, rich with win-wins, where tax changes and incentives create markets, unleash enterprise, encourage people to do the right thing. Heady stuff. But if he’s serious about tackling climate change, there have to be restraints too, surely. There have to be ways of stopping people doing things which damage the environment. And as soon as you talk like that, don’t you risk upsetting treasured Tory icons such as freedom of choice, low taxes, competitiveness…?

“It’s going to be difficult. There’s no doubt that when you talk about a long-term price for carbon, say, there will be painful decisions. Some of the actions we’ll need to take for the long-term interest may require tough and painful choices in the short term.”

But Cameron has a trump card up his sleeve: the goal of ‘taking climate change out of politics’, by building a cross-party consensus on essential steps. He’s calling for a Climate Change Bill, based loosely on a campaign by Friends of the Earth. This would put in place a framework for binding, year-on-year cuts in carbon emissions, with an independent ‘carbon audit office’ to check and verify progress – much as the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee does on inflation. So the government would set the framework, leaving business free to pick the best solutions under a ‘cap and trade’ approach to curbing emissions. It’s an object lesson in legislating for ends, not means, and it has been broadly welcomed by environmentalists.

It’s also Cameron’s rock in what’s widely seen as something of a policy vacuum; one of the few fixed points in a swirl of possibilities. So it’s no surprise he keeps returning to it when pushed – as he increasingly is – to come up with specifics. Set the framework first, he says: get that right, and the detailed policies will follow.

He dismisses claims that it will be a burden on business. “Normally I’m all for politicians keeping well out of the way of business. But it is quite clear that the business community is looking for strong political leadership on climate change, and I intend to give just that… Companies always say that the one thing they can’t cope with is uncertainty. So if we have [such a] system in place, with a clear framework, agreed by all the political parties, I’m sure they’ll respond positively.”

The CBI doesn’t seem so sure. It has warned that binding carbon cuts could threaten our ability to compete. “Yes, but I think they’re changing, now that Richard Lambert’s taking over. He’s going to be a lot more far-sighted. At least I hope he is! I hope he’ll see that the environmental space is full of opportunities for British industry, and they should go out and grab it.”

So how would you deal with an open revolt – a fuel protest, for example, like the one that paralysed the government back in 2000? “It’s very difficult. I mean, it was hard not to feel sympathy with motorists on low incomes, with struggling small family haulage businesses. There were some heart-rending stories out there…”

But? “But… well, all you can do is try to avoid having those sharp, unexpected spikes in fuel prices. And that’s where a long-term carbon price might just help. It wasn’t fuel tax that was the issue really, it was the sudden spike.”

Cameron’s enthusiasm for ‘cap and trade’ doesn’t yet extend to personal carbon trading – one issue on which Labour appears to have regained the initiative. “It’s interesting,” he concedes, “and we’ll certainly look at it. But trying to invent a carbon bank account could be hideously complicated.”

I’m curious as to how the man’s green enthusiasms play off against other policy areas – like his celebrated advocacy of ‘general wellbeing’, for instance. There’s a hint there that materialism isn’t everything…

“Well it’s more than a hint! We all know it’s true. We all say in our own lives that money isn’t everything. Love matters, friendships matter. My relationship with my kids matters. It shouldn’t be a giant leap to take that thought and introduce it into political dialogue. It’s as simple as that. There’s nothing more to it.”

Yes, but could it also be a tool to back up your green goals? Our pursuit of materialism is one of the factors driving environmental destruction, after all.

“Hmmm… You need an essay for an answer on that one! I suppose you could say that you have to get the right balance, between arguing that green priorities and economic growth can go together, while at the same time helping people to understand that you really shouldn’t measure everything in money anyway. It’s difficult – I can’t give a flip answer.”

What about foreign and security policy? Where does the environment sit in that? “Energy security,” replies Cameron promptly. “It has to be a central part of our foreign policy. We have to work out what is [environmentally] safe in the sense of one source of fuel, and then what’s safe in terms of the part of the world where that fuel’s coming from. And we have to help countries like India and China to develop more sustainably. I’m not too depressed by what’s happening in China – you can’t get a wind turbine in the UK at the moment because the Chinese have ordered them all!”

So what about the Iraq war? “It was the right thing to do,” he says bluntly. “It’s been incredibly difficult, but the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.”

Do you see any link between the invasion and American oil dependence? “No. I do not believe Iraq was all about oil, any more than the liberation of Kuwait was all about oil, any more than Afghanistan was all about oil... Some people think the international community only acts when there’s oil involved, and that’s not true. Kosovo wasn’t about oil – it was about people being butchered. Somehow we have to try to prove to people that the UN, the international community and American foreign policy is about democracy and the sovereignty of nation states, and not just about oil. But this is going to be a long road…”

Ironically, it’s this quasi-Blairite speech which offers the best evidence that Cameron isn’t just a political calculator, adding up votes. Consider the extent of opposition to ‘Blair’s War’ among many old-school Tories. Add to it the disgruntlement of vast swathes of Labour supporters. The numbers alone must have made it tempting to come out against involvement. As it is, anyone hoping for a more nuanced approach to American foreign policy will have to content themselves with Cameron’s insistence that he’s a “liberal conservative, not a neo-con…”.

So, one year into the job, and most environmentalists are still cautiously enthusiastic, pleased he has kept the momentum up on climate change.

But of course, it’s easy being in opposition…“Easy? God, no!”, Cameron interrupts – “it’s bloody murder!”… OK, but easy in the sense that, like Blair in the mid-90s, you can make all sorts of grand green commitments, knowing you won’t be held to account until you’re safely through the door of Number Ten.

“People are right to be sceptical about politicians, including me…”

“Well, people are right to be sceptical about any politician, including me, who comes along and says, ‘we’ll do this or that on the environment’,” responds Cameron. “But what I would say is that if we have that climate change bill, with binding annual targets, then the government will be judged every year on how we’re doing. We really will be held to account in terms of hitting those targets. And of course you should judge us now on how Conservative councils are performing on issues like school transport or recycling. The top recycling authorities are Conservative…”

He’s late for his next appointment, and suddenly looks tired. Hardly surprising perhaps – it’s a sultry late summer afternoon, and party conference is looming. It might have been a throwaway remark, but if leading the opposition is ‘bloody murder’, what would it be like running the country? If he does become prime minister, will he be able to match Tony Blair’s relentless, driven, punishing energy? And if he can’t, then, seeing where all that relentlessness has taken us, is that necessarily a bad thing?

As Green Futures goes to press, Labour’s floating the idea of introducing a Climate Change Bill itself, bearing some striking similarities to the Conservatives’ plan. That in itself speaks volumes as to the impact of Cameron’s green stance on the cut and thrust of political life. For Labour, the appeal of such a move is obvious. With a single tug, it might just pull the green rug out from under his feet.

It would, of course, only be doing precisely what he’s argued for – insulating a desperately needed long-term strategy to tackle climate change from the shifting winds of party politics. But it would be ironic indeed if Cameron won his single most powerful green objective, before even winning power. Or without ever doing so…

Greens on blue
Eco blues

 

Martin Wright is Green Futures editor-at-large.

8 November 2006

Martin Wright