Nick Stern had it right in his Review

One of the points in the Stern Review is that whatever it is that we do about climate change we’ve got to do it the efficient way. As is obvious about us humans, we do more of cheaper things, less of more expensive. So, if we want to deal with climate change then we’ve got to do it the cheap, efficient, way because that’s how we’ll do more of the dealing with climate change.

The logic there is inescapable. We also though need to mix into this not just the expense and inefficiency of planning by politicians but also the blind idiocy.

We like to think of wood burning as a climate neutral source of energy. This has led to subsidised wood burning for electricity generation and is part of the appeal of an evening around a roaring fire. This idea relies on the carbon released from wood burning being reabsorbed by forests and woodland. Reality is more complex.

Firstly, it takes time for new forests to regrow and absorb the carbon. For large-scale wood burning for power generation using wood imported from North America, it can take decades or perhaps more than a century for forests to reabsorb this additional carbon from our air. This means greater chances of irreversible climate tipping points before any possible benefits accrue.

Sticking American woodchip into Drax increases, not reduces, climate change. We’ve seen one estimate - which we simply mention, not insist upon the veracity of - that says the process, including transport, produces more emissions than simply burning the coal that Drax is built on top of.

We might also note the German idea of reducing emissions by retreating back to using more lignite. Or the EU insistence upon biofuels that produce more emissions in their growing than they save at the tailpipe.

The actual problem with planning to beat climate change is that our ruling classes aren’t competent to do so. By their works shall ye know them….