Cameron of the Arctic

Could the Arctic wander prove to be David Cameron's Notting Hill Carnival moment? Okay, so it’s probably not likely. When William Hague donned his baseball cap at the annual street party back in 1998, he was already struggling, having inherited a cracked and open sore of a party that was utterly without direction and fighting amongst itself over how, exactly, things had gone so wrong. The cap summed up his awkwardness. Whereas Hague was already a leader whose own MPs were disdainful of his chances of winning an election, Cameron has succeeded in at least making his party a little more interesting, for the time being.

His much-invoked ‘green’ credentials were the reason behind this photo-op, one that would have been hard for any politician to pull off with aplomb, let alone Cameron with his rubicund, fleshy face and upper-teethed smile. To give him his due, he didn’t come across as wholly ridiculous, mainly because he at least has form when it comes to self-ridicule in the name of the environment; his much-mocked bicycling image has now been lampooned by Labour, which – if anything – means that is likely to be the most firmly entrenched icon of the new Conservative leader.

But how much of his nature-loving ways is legitimate? As the man who crafted the Tory party’s 2005 manifesto, it is interesting to note how that document contained merely token references to climate change. This weekend’s Guardian contained an essay by Robert MacFarlane which examines how what Cameron says he wants to do is likely to bump heads, eventually, with traditional Conservative shibboleths of “free enterprise, consumer choice and market liberty”. It is likely that much of Cameron’s posturing is just that; presenting himself early in his reign as to the left of his party – much in the way that Blair did in his first year – before, gradually, tacking back to the right, something that many expected (in reverse) of Blair but which never truly materialised. While a cursory visit to the Conservative web site urges constituents to “Vote blue, go green!”, it is highly unlikely that most Party members are entirely happy with what this would in reality mean.

The Green party highlighted that Mr. Cameron’s trip to Norway resulted in some 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere; which, replied Conservative central office proudly announced, had been offset by contributing to a climate care initiative. These types of organisations, such as Climate Care, are really nothing more than salves to the conscience, comforters that offer the same hassle-free environment-friendly kudos as recycling; it may be a good thing in the particular, but it doesn’t address the reality of the problem, namely that the meteoric rise in airline travel over the past thirty years is one of the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions. Predictably Mr. Cameron’s party, just like Labour, has nothing to say about this; presumably their silence on such matters as the proposed fifth runway at Heathrow and the expansion of Stansted signifies their concurrence.

A recent New Statesman article discussed the implications of a significant surcharge – or even an outright ban – on flights for leisure purposes; while a measure like this would address the problem, the fact that it would be political suicide for whomever suggested it means that more realistic measures need to be taken. Only when politicians such as Cameron start addressing these kinds of pressing issues can they be said to be truly concerned about the environment.