Harrabin: Now will the Treasury go green?on November 24, 2020 at 10:43 pm

Last week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled his 10-point plan to create jobs and cut carbon emissions.

It included investment in wind and solar power, carbon capture, hydrogen and nuclear.

But here’s a question – as Mr Johnson is driving emissions down, is his chancellor preparing to drive them back up?

It’s a key issue as the PM strives for green credibility as he prepares the ground for the climate summit he’ll host this time next year.

So far his plans have raised only two cheers.

Campaigners starved of positive climate news applauded his 10-point approach to driving down emissions across society – from cars, to industry, power generation and home heating.

But they complained that the sum allotted was paltry – just £4bn – way lower than “green” measures imposed by France and Germany to create jobs while cutting emissions.

A Downing Street source told me the Treasury’s spending review would not increase that figure.

That’s bad news for people concerned about the climate – but here’s worse…

The Treasury has long been planning a £27bn programme of road-building that will actually increase emissions by attracting more cars on to the roads.

It’s part of a long-term £90bn roads investment that appears to run contrary to the wish of even the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps for people to drive less to combat global heating.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has stated that his priority is creating jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

But recent analysis suggests that the labour-intensive task of insulating homes, which reduces emissions, creates at least four times more jobs than highly mechanised road building.

Using government data, the think tank e3g calculated that every job created in highly-mechanised road building costs the taxpayer £250,000, whereas a job in home insulation costs £59,000.

So, is Mr Sunak backing the PM’s stated “green” agenda – or is he making his own path?

BBC News asked the Treasury if it has even calculated the amount of carbon that would be emitted as a result of its spending programme.

So far, after many hours and phone calls, we’ve had no reply… not even a “no comment.”

The pressure group WWF demanded greater transparency behind the decision-making.

The group’s head, Tanya Steele, said: “We need the chancellor to live up to the ambition expressed (by Mr Johnson), through a spending review that tests every line of public spending to ensure it’s compatible with meeting our climate goals.”

So far there’s no evidence that’s happening. And the absence of Treasury commitment would make the the PM’s aspiration towards global leadership very difficult indeed.

Follow Roger on Twitter @rharrabin