Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement

Treasury told to end short-termism and ‘green-check’ decisions

The decision to scrap funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) typifies the Treasury’s lack of long-term thinking, according to MPs.

A report by the environmental audit committee said the same failure to ‘green-check’ decisions could be found in its axing of the zero carbon homes policy.

By dropping CCS without any notice, the Treasury delayed its roll out and it could now cost an extra £30bn to meet 2050 carbon targets, the committee’s inquiry found.

MPs expressed similar concerns about the abolition of the zero carbon homes policy, a decision the report said had ‘surprised and in some cases angered many in the construction industry’ and would likely lead to higher costs to households and the economy in the shape of retrofitting.

‘Riding roughshod over departments’

‘The Treasury is highly influential and uniquely placed to ensure the whole of government works to promote sustainability,’ said committee chair Mary Creagh.

‘But we have seen considerable evidence that it fails to do this. The Treasury tends not to take full account of the long-term environmental costs and benefits of decisions which would reduce costs for taxpayers and consumers in the long run.

‘On the carbon capture and storage competition and zero carbon homes we saw the Treasury riding roughshod over departments, cancelling long-established environmental programmes at short notice with no consultation, costing businesses and the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.

‘With a week to go until the next autumn statement, we hope our inquiry will be a wake-up call to the Treasury.’

The report called on the Treasury to ensure future spending reviews provide strong incentives for collaboration between departments on environmental matters.

It said fresh evidence on long-term environmental risks and benefits should be incorporated into its frameworks for assessing the value for money of government interventions.

By providing ‘publically available justifications for its decisions’ the Treasury would enhance transparency and accountability, said the report.

MPs also urged it to work with other departments whose policies affect the environment ‘to ensure the government’s new industrial strategies promote sustainability’.

Austin Macauley
Editor, Environment Journal
Help us break the news – share your information, opinion or analysis
Back to top