The Green Bank's scope is narrowed and badly directed
You may remember that one of the good things George Osborne did when in opposition was to propose a Green Investment Bank.
He believed that it was crucial to the development of green energy projects such as clean coal plants and offshore wind farms in Britain.
George is now thinking that maybe it should be scaled back and simply end up as another “green fund” which of course will really jeopardise its lending ability
However not content with that now Vince Cable has decided that new nuclear reactors are going to be a target investment for the fund.
Justine Greening MP, the economic secretary to the Treasury, appeared before the Commons environmental audit committee yesterday and denied that financial backing from a publicly funded bank would amount to a subsidy for the nuclear power industry. So that’s all right then!
When asked if this was still a bank or a fund Greening said
"I am not going to be hung up on semantics,"
Maybe she should be told the difference between a bank and a fund is not just semantics.
Since Chris Hulme ( The energy and climate change secretary) told the Guardian last month that there will be “ no support for nuclear for the very simple reason that it is an old and mature technology The economic rationale for providing extra subsidy for something relies on it being an infant technology which has not come yet to commercial scale” one wonders if the departments are talking to each other.
Ernst & Young estimates that traditional sources of capital such as energy companies and infrastructure finance could only provide up to £80bn of the £450bn investment needed by 2025, arguing that only a fully operational bank can fill the gap.
