For those with sensitivities around net zero, turn the page. And for those who believe the Whitehall machine will always do what is best for the country, whoever the political masters are, go and make a cuppa.

I want to raise a genuine concern, first put to me by a senior former Cabinet Minister, that whatever challenge politicians make around policy (in the energy space) the same answer is given. If concerns are raised around value for money on subsidies, they are brushed aside with the same comment. When choosing where government spend taxpayers’ money, the Whitehall begging bowl reaches DESNZ and they simply write the same few words on it and job done. When I asked a current Treasury Minister how they make decisions on where to cut spending, from subsidies to well-off individuals or overseas aid to the world’s poorest, they suggested if the justification given is a certain phrase, that’s the trump card.

So, what is this key phrase that will unlock spending?

“Legally binding carbon budgets”.

Now I’m more than happy to make the case for acting on climate change, I have been doing so for decades, but as the transition gets more difficult, I find it hard to justify meeting targets set by unelected “advisors” on their pathway to net zero. If it skews genuine progress, then its bad practice. If it allocates resources to those who don’t need it from those who do, then questions should be asked. If it is used as a threat to win Whitehall battles over cash allocations, then there are serious questions about whether this sword of Damocles should hang over the heads of government. Yes, politicians voted for it but perhaps didn’t realise just how it would be used against them now.

Afterall, you can still advocate for climate action; still work towards net zero; invest in a just energy transition but on the terms set by those who are accountable to the people, not jumping to the tune of those that aren’t.