In a slightly silly New Statesman article, Edward Skidelsky writes: "Environmentalism is, in truth, a conservative ideology. The passion that animates it is one of return, not progress. Its current association with the political left is mere window dressing". Is the trendy neologism - that the Greens are the new home of true-blue conservatives - correct? Not at all, to think so is to completely misunderstand Green political philosophy.

Skidelsky builds his case by discussing Ludwig Klages and Martin Heidegger, two early "environmentalists" who held far-right views (Klages was an anti-Semite and Heidegger was a Nazi). What they both shared was in fact a desire to conserve the natural world, to prevent man from subjecting life to our "unlimited greed" (Klages) and to "let Being be" (Heidegger). But to suggest that this aim is the central tenet of environmentalism, and worse of Green politics, is misleading.

It is true that Greens acknowledge the truth of conservatism, which challenges us to move more slowly, to ask tough questions in the face of radical reform, and to respect and refer to the wisdom of our past. Since the Conservative Party in the UK have all but abandoned this principle, except in reactionary policies on crime and society, the "Green is the new Blue" neologism contains an element of truth. Greens do indeed pay more respect to the conservatism of Edmund Burke than the radical neo-liberals like Thatcher. No matter how many overtures David Cameron might make towards green consumers, the Conservatives remain a pro-corporate party. Such a party can never truly conserve the environment.

Greens aren't constrained by this one-dimensional thinking, which previously provided clear parameters for party politics in the UK. Whilst the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have sought to break free from those constraints in a haphazard manner, we Greens base our political philosophy on the integration of supposedly conflicting dimensions of politics. For example, here are four social dimensions:

• Conservatism - The family is the basic social unit, with interests that social policy must protect and serve.
• Liberalism - The individual is the basic social unit, so self-interested individuals should decide any social policy by common compact, or not at all.
• Socialism - Societies, communities or classes are basic social units, upon which social reality, shared interest and the political landscape is shaped.
• Environmentalism - All the above social units are derived from, embedded within, and dependent upon nature.

The twisted doctrine of Thomas Malthus' population principle, which the likes of Paul Ahrlich would use to justify illiberal policies of population control, is an example of environmentalism being given too much due; it ignores the reality of the individual, the family and the collective, and there can be no social truth without understanding each of the dimensions and the relations between them. What is a family without individuals, but what is an individual without family? We can most fully realise ourselves by integrating each dimension, and reflecting this in social policy.

So, returning to Skidelsky's article, environmentalism will involve a relationship with conservatism, though it will never itself be conservative. The confusion arises from the fact that environmentalism as a movement began to transcend the uni-dimensional thinking of political parties, which in the case of Klages and Heidegger seems (if Skidelsky's portrayal is accurate) involved the integration of environmentalism with conservatism. But most Green Parties, which I would say are the closest we have to a complete articulation of Green political policy, are far from being conservative parties, nor are they simply concernred with the environment alone. Societies, families and individuals can hardly integrate themselves with nature, and maintain a balanced relationship with their environment, if they fail to conserve certain ecosystems, that much is obvious. But Klages was right that capitalism's rapacious consumption in the name of the supremacy of the individual is a big problem for conservation. So this conservation cannot be achieved without radical economic, political and social reforms, something Cameron's Conservative Party are never going to seriously entertain.

Green politics isn't just about saving the whales and stopping pollution. It is about education, health and wellbeing, peace, justice, security, community, human and animal rights, and democracy. Even supposedly "environmental" issues like transport, energy, agriculture and food have conservative, liberal and socialist dimensions. Fuel poverty, to pick one example, affects individuals and families, it is a class issue of sorts and it has a definite environmental impact.

The Green Party can't ever be the new Blue, though Conservatives may integrate certain environmental concerns. They like to pretend to defend "the countryside" (even though their neo-liberal economics destroys the rural way of life by turning the countryside into a giant processed food factory, subjected to the clock and the car). Cameron clads his house with a wind turbine, cycles to work and calls for more recycling because none of these conflict with his neo-liberal economics or his conservative family values. But until he also calls for significant redistribution of wealth, a reconfigured economy that massively reduces carbon dioxide emissions, and other policies that seek to develop a decentralised, glocalised nation, his will remain a hybrid Liberal/Conservative party, picking and choosing ideas from each dimension of politics with little coherence, whilst barely paying lipservice to socialism and environmentalism to gain votes.

The same conclusion arises with Labour and the Liberal Democrats. New Labour couldn't countenance integral politics because it holds neo-liberal economics as a supreme good, an unassailable economic fact. Nor can the "old left" represented by the likes of Respect really be Green until they recognise the necessary synthesis between socialism and environmentalism - do they not know, for example, that the poor suffer from environmental catastrophes the most, or that fuel poverty is an environmental issue? Once they understood that, they'd also have to acknowledge and integrate the truth to be found in liberalism and conservatism.

So forget the "Green is the new Blue" claptrap, the Green Party will retain it's association with the left but remain independent of relics like Labour and Respect, and Skidelsky's smear will remain a case of mistaken identity :).