For much of the past decade one of the most common complaints about the UK political landscape has been the utter absence of any ideological and sometimes even policy differences between the two main parties.
This blandness has been particularly acute, if that's not a contradiction in terms, in the field of green policy where it has often been difficult to draw any distinction between Labour and the Tories.
Which is what makes the launch today of the Conservative's green strategy and its continued opposition to Heathrow expansion so interesting, and, more importantly, influential.
There had been reports that the Tories would can much of the green messaging that Cameron used to re-launch the party as soon as the recession began to bite, but while some of the "let the sunshine in" rhetoric has been shelved the ultimate goal of positioning the Tories as a greener alternative than the government remains.
In truth, the differences between the much of the government's low carbon strategy and that put forward by the Tories are not as pronounced as the Conservative's positioning would have you believe.
The eye-catching plans for a £1bn smart grid may look impressive, even if the price tag the Conservatives have put on the project looks absurdly optimistic, but the government is also investigating major grid upgrades, has said it will introduce feed in tariffs and recently mandated the roll out of smart meters to all homes.
Similarly, Cameron's talk of investing in renewables and other forms of green infrastructure to create jobs, stimulate the economy and enhance energy security could have come directly from any number of the prime minister's recent speeches. While proposals for an increased focus on tidal energy and biomass, simply pre-empt government plans that are bound to feature in its upcoming renewables strategy to be published this summer.
Proposals for a loan guarantee for households investing in energy efficiency and an incentive scheme for those businesses that help their employees improve domestic energy efficiency arguably offer an interesting alternative to the government's plans to directly subsidise house insulation. But again there will be questions over whether or not the Tories could afford such a wide-reaching loan guarantee scheme in the current economic climate, while the government can claim that it too is looking at pushing the banks to deliver green loan schemes along similar lines.
Equally, Cameron's plan to give councils greater freedom to approve local renewables projects may fit with his vision for more decentralised power, but you have to ask how effective it will be when it is these same local councils who tend to be one of the main obstructions to renewables projects.
So given the fundamental similarities between Labour and Tory policy, what actually has changed?
The answer can be found in one word: Heathrow.
In a remarkably brave move Cameron has effectively locked up the green vote at the next election. If he has read the public mood right, and at the moment it looks like he has, then it might just prove decisive.
The increasingly influential greens within the cabinet - the splendidly monikered Milibenn axis - may have actually won huge environmental concessions from the department for transport in the form of tough rules on carbon emissions, a cap on flights at half the level requested by BAA and plans for new high speed rail.
But these sweeteners look pretty feeble against the Tories commitment to scrap the whole thing and build a far wider high speed rail network than the one being proposed by the government.
What makes Cameron's move so clever (and brave) is that it is the Tory old school business lobby that has been campaigning most vociferously for the new runway.
Cameron, however, is confident his base will always vote Tory, particularly after over a decade of Labour government, and as such he is free to reach out to a raft of new voters, many of whom will not be natural Conservative supporters, by opposing Heathrow expansion.
It is hard to envisage a general election becoming a simple referendum on Heathrow expansion, but it will mark one of the major differences between the two parties and Cameron will plausibly be able to say that if you want airport expansion stopped and care about climate change then you should vote Tory.
The government, of course, will point to its climate change bill and argue, with some validity, that it has a strong record on tackling carbon emissions. While it will also argue, with even more validity, that the Tories plans for more restrained public spending is incompatible with building a low carbon economy and that the costs it has attached to its proposed green infrastructure projects are completely unrealistic.
But whenever the government does attempt to attack the Tories over the environment, Cameron will simply be able to point at Heathrow and slam Labour for its hypocrisy on climate change.
If a week is a long time in politics, a year can be counted in aeons. But barring a major shift in the government's policies and fortunes, Cameron might just have already wrapped up the green business vote.
Oil firm grilled over carbon emissions, but defeats motion calling for tougher targets
The UK government has published its latest plan to cut air pollution, focusing on wood burning stoves, farming and car tyres - BusinessGreen rounds up all the reaction
But latest plan to tackle UK's illegal air pollution levels faces fierce criticism from green campaigners and Labour
Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts EVs to dominate global auto market, as costs continue to tumble