Thread by @James_BG

Full story on *that* letter and a bit of a thread on why it is so infuriating, given not going to have time to blog on it today... businessgreen.com/bg/news/307692…

First, the most significant thing is the report Number 10 could bring forward legislation as early as next week and Boris' tweet he supports net zero. Treasury warnings are not being ignored, but it doesn't look like they will stop this happening.

That would be an historic win for the green economy, the clearest investment signal yet that fossil fuels are on their way out, genuine leadership from the UK, and a proper serious legacy for @theresa_may @10DowningStreet

Hammond is also said to be broadly onboard with all of this and gets the wider case for climate action. So why the letter and why such a negative tone (which we can all see thanks to @PickardJE fantastic scoop?

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1136570729917493248

It looks like Hammond is simply doing what Treasury does - saying 'steady there, careful now, let's inject some realism, can we think about this'. That is fair enough. There is a tendency amidst the green hype to underplay quite how massively challenging the transition will be.

The problem is the staggering lack of nuance or balanced analysis in the letter. You can raise all the cost issues, you can 'inject realism' about the tough political choices. but if you do it in a one-eyed fashion you end up with yet more dumbed down, culture war BS.

Treasury should conduct a cost review (the CCC recommended it), it should ask where are the policies to deliver this, it should highlight challenges. But it makes overcoming those challenges (which Hammond says he wants) so much harder if it doesn't engage with the benefits.

We know what those benefits are because they are now extremely well documented and endorsed by the CBI et al:

- Improved health and air
- Competitiveness in 21st century industries
- Jobs and investment stimulus
- Oh, and a habitable biosphere

If the government has a different analysis, and it says it does, where is it? We've asked BEIS why its cost estimates are £20bn a year more than the CCC's. Answer has come there none.

Rather than 'inject realism' and spark a serious debate about how to deliver proper net zero policies, what Hammond and co has actually done is deepen divisions between two fantasies: 'net zero will be easy' v 'net zero is too expensive - let's not do it'.

He's just handed yet more ammunition to those who don't think we need to tackle climate change because they don't think it is a problem. Which is a strange thing for someone who insists we must lead on climate change to do.

And if one of his major concerns is we are not on track to meet current carbon targets, let alone stronger targets, perhaps he might consider why that is when he has been in government for nine years. He could close the mid-term emissions gap tomorrow if he was so minded.

None of this changes the fundamentals. Net zero transition will be supremely challenging, an unprecedented economic and technical undertaking. But like all transitions it is an economic gift from Mars (copyright Ambrose Evans-Pritchard).

Clean tech costs will keep falling. Heat pumps will not remain three times more expensive than boilers. Clean air will save lives and boost productivity. Exports will grow. R&D can and will help carbon intensive industries evolve. @theCCCuk analysis stands.

It is depressing in the extreme that rather than get on with all this we have to watch politicians fight the same tired old battles and cling to the same old short termism, rather than deliver the transformation they accept is both urgently required and remarkably affordable.

Meanwhile, again, every four months that passes is one per cent of the available time to deliver a healthy, modern, net zero emission economy.