Bruce Anderson: The Conservative leader may yet succeed in harmonising blue votes and green concerns

Thus far, not bad. Back in July, some thoughtful Tories were worried that their party would lose control of its policy reviews. Almost as soon as he became leader, David Cameron commissioned the most extensive independent policy-making exercise which any opposition party has ever undertaken. Teams of strong-minded characters were recruited. Although a lot of them were Tories, they were not chosen for docile loyalty: John Redwood is an obvious example.

Nor would the word "docile" come to mind as a description of Pauline Neville-Jones, the most truculent and intellectually spiky senior diplomat of her generation. Next came Bob Geldof. Who would have expected him to turn up on a Tory group?

Related articles

• Tories bite tax bullet in battle for the green vote

To begin with, it was exciting. Then the doubts started. These groups were independent. The Party leadership neither dictated their conclusions nor agreed to be bound by them. That was the theory. But the risks were obvious. It would not be easy for Mr Cameron to escape the taint of unpopular proposals. It would be easy for Labour to blur the distinction between a policy group and a party policy, while rummaging through the small print in search of useful suggestions to steal.

Up to now, however, the dangers have been avoided. The reports have received a respectful hearing; the whole process has endowed the party with some necessary intellectual substance. This week, attention moves to the environment. A huge text – nearly 1,000 pages in a recent draft – has been prepared by John Gummer, Zac Goldsmith, Tim Eggar and others. Such a long document creates an awful lot of room for controversy, especially in such an intellectually contested area.

There are still a few brave souls who refuse to be convinced that human behaviour is the major factor in climate change. The manner in which they are assailed by their opponents makes me think that they must have a case. The climate change debate is not conducted as a dispassionate intellectual discussion of complex scientific evidence. It is more like a heresy trial conducted by religious fanatics, who would not mind expending some carbon on a few burnings at the stake. The sceptics are treated as if they were Holocaust-deniers: as if they were personally determined to wring the planet's neck.

Yet it is undeniable that the history of the earth's climate is long and complicated, and that dramatic events took place well before man could influence them. Alterations in the sun's behaviour can have profound consequences.

Even so, common sense may be on the side of the environmental fundamentalists. It does not seem unreasonable to believe than an eco-system which worked well in earlier millennia might now be under strain. There is also the matter of the burden of proof.

The Stern Report argues that environmental precautions need not hobble the world economy. Much could be done by reducing energy waste: not an undesirable objective. If there were no environmental worries, there would still be good geopolitical reasons for reducing dependence on fossil fuel. So even if the environmentalists are exaggerating, not much is lost.

Suppose, however, that the alarms are justified. In a few decades' time, it would be much harder to repair the damage. There might be a major threat to the world economy and indeed to our civilisation. Put in those terms, commonsense environmentalism is not a concession to anti-capitalist protestors who hate western affluence. It is merely an insurance policy.

David Cameron is convinced of its necessity. But he is also aware of the need to turn good environmentalism into good politics. This does not only mean an appeal to those who are already committed to environmental causes. It means working to persuade the average voter that environmental aspirations can be reconciled with economic ones.

Although they do not control the report, Mr Cameron's team are clear about the message which they wish to project. They believe that much of the text can be summarised in traditional Tory terms: choice, incentives and markets. Mr Cameron does not want to use the language of bans and prohibitions. He merely wants to make it easier and cheaper for people to make green choices, while brown ones become harder and dearer. In this, information is critical. It does seem absurd that the UK produces 335 million tons of rubbish a year, that surplus packaging adds £470 to the average household's annual food bill, and that the Dutch recycle 70 per cent of their domestic waste while we only manage 27 per cent. It also seems odd that there are 60 fights to Paris a day from Heathrow. Who would want to catch a plane to Paris when Eurostar is available?

Around 20 per cent of the flights leaving Heathrow fly to destinations which are easily served by rail. It would seem sensible to encourage travellers to choose the train. By relieving the pressure on Heathrow, this might also help to re-civilise that airport. I suspect that a secret deal recently took place in which Greenpeace bought Heathrow, intending to run it with a new marketing slogan: "So you still think that air travel is glamorous? Come to Slumrow and see."

The report also deals with another difficult scientific question: nuclear power. Here, the recommendation is that the market should prevail. If investors believe that nuclear power is a viable proposition, let them proceed, but without relying on the state to fund the eventual costs of decommissioning.

Even on these major energy questions, the document reflects some traditional Tory prejudices. It points out that large-scale energy distribution is often wasteful. The national grid expends a great deal of electricity in moving current around its system. Power stations often produce far more heat than they use, as will be apparent to anyone who has watched the immense steam emissions from the cooling towers at Didcot. The more power generation can be localised, the less waste will occur.

Although this report could hardly expect to win universal agreement, it will make an important contribution to a vital debate. It will also have significant political consequences. It ought to be hard for the opposition parties to criticise the Tories concern for the environment; we are all green these days. But this will not prevent Mr Brown and his friends from using their body language to convey the message that Tory greens are rich men who want to make foreign travel and other desiderata more expensive for ordinary people.

That is no part of Mr Cameron's purpose. He is merely trying to insist that a thrifty approach to energy could cut family bills while also protecting the environment. The Tory leader has always believed that it is possible to harmonise green concerns and blue voting. The next few days may well prove him right.

More from Bruce Anderson