But why would we subsidise a booming business sector?

We disagree with, but grasp the idea of, subsidising a business sector that’s not doing very well. But we’re gawpmouthed with incomprehension at the idea that a business sector that is grossly outperforming therefore requires subsidy and support. But this is the claim:

Opportunities to revive the UK’s flagging economy by boosting green industry were missed in one of the least green budgets of recent years, experts have said.

Several said this failure to recognise one of the fastest-expanding areas of business – the net zero economy grew by 9% in key areas last year, while the rest of the economy was stagnant, according to CBI estimates – would drag down the UK in the short and long term.

Alasdair Johnstone, of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said: “At a time when the US and EU are competing over investment in clean industries, there was little here to attract investment.”

Clearly, little to attract investment is wrong if the sector is growing by 9% as against no growth for the rest of the economy.

Now the idea that something needs to be done to support the green economy is not alien to us. We are aware of what externalities are - those things not included in market prices - and sometimes those externalities are important enough that something must be done. Could be subsidy, could be support, could be taxation or quotas, or licences or permits and all the rest to get those externalities into market prices. But that’s not the correct question here - that, the correct one, is whether more needs to be done or are we, umm, done here?

We have a large outperformance from that green economy. Therefore we do seem to be done in the interventions we need to be making to grow the green economy.

We suspect that the insistence is simply that the green economy would enjoy ever more of other peoples’ money and therefore the green economy should gain ever more of other peoples’ money. Which is something we find easy enough to reject.