The elusive Zac Goldsmith arrives late at the party at which I have been promised an audience with him. Goldsmith is the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park, and a rising figure within the Conservative party.

As ex-editor of environmental journal The Ecologist, his role seems to be to strengthen the new eco-friendly face of conservatism. On joining the party in 2005, he famously declared, “A Conservative who is not also in his heart an environmentalist cannot legitimately be described as a Conservative.”

Goldsmith is also famous due to his personal life, having inherited a vast fortune from his late father, which he has put to good use in funding both his journalism and his political career. Given his ample celebrity, I am disappointed, and not a little embarrassed, when he charmingly declines to be interviewed, citing the continued tendency of journalists to misinterpret his comments.

I assume he is referring to the furore surrounding his financial management: Goldsmith recently admitted to claiming non-domicile tax status despite growing up in southwest London. I assure him ingratiatingly that I, for one, believe him to be an honest politician. He promises to answer any questions I may have via e-mail, and responds promptly.

One would be forgiven for thinking that Goldsmith occupies a paradoxical role in influencing Conservative environmental policy. In the ‘Gummer-Goldsmith’ report, he recommended such measures as capping flight numbers and banning night flights from Heathrow.

He was also instrumental in persuading BAA to scrap plans for a third runway if the Conservatives come to power. Yet he also takes great pains to point out that the main aim of Tory environmental policy is, “reconciling the market with the environment.”

Surely reducing the number of flights will have a negative impact on airliners’ profit margins? He responds with an air of economic sensibility: “Green policy shouldn’t be about punishment or stealth taxes. It needs to incentivise the right behaviour, for example through tax breaks, and that needs to be paid for by disincentives on polluting behaviour.”

I suspect that Conservative policy towards airliners may also have something to do with noise pollution – an attempt to cater to the middle-class suburban voters who form their principal support base, at least in Goldsmith’s constituency of Richmond.

These constituencies are also likely to react positively to the Conservatives’ proposed measure of de-centralising energy provision. Conservative Party Policy is apparently committed to “developing and expanding renewable forms of energy” such as wind turbines and combined heat and power, as well as promoting measures such as improved insulation of houses.

Energy is to be increasingly generated on a small scale within the local community, encouraged by a system of “feed-in tariffs” which Goldsmith elaborates on thus: “The Feed-in-Tariff is a mechanism for fixing the price of energy generated by renewables, so that homeowners can know exactly how long it will take them to earn their initial cost back.”

He does, however, stress that Labour have proposed a similar policy, but one on which apparently “the levels are to be set very low”. Conservative policy, he says, will be “at a much more ambitious level.”

Although Goldsmith is clearly dedicated to combating climate change, there has been some uncertainty as to whether the majority of the Conservative party are as committed. Recent concerns over published material from the East Anglia Climate research unit which suggests that evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been exaggerated have reinforced the sceptical position.

Not only this but many of the proposed measures, regardless of Goldsmith’s best attempts, will be costly, and the Conservative old guard especially hate unnecessary expense. When asked about this, Goldsmith minimises a possible rift in the party, but admits that the leaked emails are a “real problem. Scientists should never seek to manipulate data for political reasons.”

His own view, however, has not changed: “There is as close to a consensus as science allows that we have a problem, and that we ought to take the precautionary approach.”

Another controversial issue for environmental campaigners is that of the increasing interest and investment in nuclear power. Official Conservative doctrine states that “Nuclear power will be part of the energy mix if it is economically viable,” a suitably ambiguous position.

Goldsmith’s view, however, is that “nuclear power cannot deliver that value for money.” He adds, “don’t forget there has never been a nuclear power plant that wasn’t constructed and run at the public’s expense. In a free market, nuclear wouldn’t exist.”

I also have a chance to ask him about economic policy. Conservatives have proposed a number of measures to solve the current crisis: working with councils to freeze council tax for two years by cutting spending on government advertising; cutting government spending; introducing a £50 billion National Loan Guarantee Scheme to encourage banks to lend to small businesses again.

Although Goldsmith is keen to stress the necessity of a “combination of policies”, spending cuts are the first thing he emphasises, using the example of the criminal justice system, the cost of which has “nearly doubled in 10 years,” without obvious improvements. Both parties, however, have avoided targeting the NHS for cuts.

A less obviously conservative proposal is the freeze on council tax, intended to “help struggling families”. Finally, the Loan Guarantee scheme, according to Goldsmith, is based on the sound economic science for which the party are reputed. Labour’s VAT cut he dismisses as “nonsense.”

There you have it. Zac Goldsmith, a rare example of a green campaigner with a sound grasp of economics. Long may he continue to act as a force for innovation in the Conservative party.