The Treasury is at it again. **Angry Thread Klaxon**
20 businesses wrote to the Telegraph yesterday to call on the government to ensure the upcoming Environment Bill is "ambitious, well-designed and properly enforced". They argue such regulations are, in fact, good for business. businessgreen.com/bg/news/306568…
The reason? An unnamed Treasury Minister (I wonder who it is?) has let it be known they want to stop Michael Gove's efforts to include some clear, binding targets in the Bill. thesun.co.uk/news/7631044/c…
This follows the Treasury trying to ensure the new Green Watchdog was toothless (that one got defeated in the Lords), Liz Truss openly mocking Gove and slamming environmental regulations, and the decision to kill the proposed 'latte levy'.
Why is the Treasury doing this? The catch-all answer is the misguided fear that environmental action stymies the economy (they should speak to @MLiebreich) the more specific answer is cynicism (Hammond) and ideology (Truss).
In Hammond's case he has previously spoken on the importance of environmental action as a driver for growth, but now wants as much flexibility as possible to buy-off certain colleagues in the event of a 'no-deal' Brexit with a 'Singapore on Thames' tax cuts and deregulation model
In Truss's case she seems to genuinely believe in the 'laissez faire, all regulation is red tape, where's my copy of Ayn Rand gone' world view, which regards environmental protection as anathema.
So for reasons of cynicism and ideology all the evidence that decent environmental regulations can improve the economy and drive growth must be ignored, all the RW think tanks suggesting nonsensically that the economy would be motoring but for green policies must be believed.
It takes some nerve to argue that it is environmental regulation that dampens growth when asking people to celebrate UK growth figures that project sub-1.6% growth from now until the end of time thanks to a Brexit strategy you don't really believe in - but here we are.
As I argued earlier this year, what we have here is the Treasury proposing a course of action that will invite a Commons rebellion, undermine the Brexit talks, and signal the govt is relaxed about breaking the law and missing its own targets businessgreen.com/bg/blog-post/3… 
Again, the only reason you would want a toothless watchdog is to reserve the right to break the law. The only reason to want non-binding targets is if you want to miss them. businessgreen.com/bg/blog-post/3…
But that's not even the worst part. This is the worst part:
"There are better ways of achieving this". This is arguably true. You can deliver positive environmental outcomes without government targets and the threat of legal action. The problem is The. Government. Isn't. Doing. Them.
A tough watchdog and really ambitious Environment Bill with binding targets is being proposed because no-one, not even Ministers, believe the government will deliver on this stuff in the time required without such measures.
The Treasury has had decades to do this with market forces and innovation alone and, yes, emissions have fallen. But also biodiversity remains in precipitous decline, air quality remains dangerous, carbon budgets are set to be missed, etc, etc.
Philip Hammond once said this: businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/237…
He is now maneuvering to make it easier for the government to break environmental law, miss environmental targets, cut environmental budgets, and is still yet to present an alternative plan for how to address environmental challenges.
