The chancellor’s priorities are not with the environment

Dave Powell is economics campaigner for Friends of the Earth

Tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry, millions of pounds for roads and the trumpeting of an "unashamedly" pro-developer planning system show where Osborne's heart lies.

If only we had more than a few years to get carbon emissions under control properly; if only we weren't facing stiff competition for green jobs and industry from other countries; if only we had the luxury of time. Then a Budget that gave a leg-up to dirty, expensive oil and gas and delighted in sacrificing protections for our green and pleasant land at the altar of growth wouldn't be quite so depressing.

After all, this was a Budget from a chancellor who in opposition - lest we forget, and I suspect he wishes we would - promised that the Treasury would lead from the front in the fight for green jobs, green industry, and decarbonising the UK economy. It was overseen by a prime minister who happily courted the green vote and, with the ink barely dry on his number 10 business cards, declared he would lead the "the greenest government ever".

Some say we should be thankful for small mercies. True, this time round the chancellor's speech wasn't outwardly hostile to the environment — merely deeply unenthusiastic. He caused uproar among NGOs and progressive business last autumn when he told the Conservative conference of his determination the UK would not go any faster than the rest of the EU in cutting carbon, despite the UK having a binding piece of legislation in the form of the Climate Change Act which at present obliges us to do just that.

In his autumn statement in November, Osborne bent over backwards to let us know what he really thinks of working towards a green economy: cutting carbon emissions is bad news for big industry, and protecting natural habitats places "ridiculous costs" on business. Amusingly, on this second point, the chancellor's already been proved firmly wrong by his own government. Defra concluded recently that EU rules to protect habitats, which Osborne singled out for attack, are mostly "working well".

So we could have been forgiven a momentary warm fuzzy feeling when this time Mr Osborne went out of his way to say what a "crucial" role renewable energy has in the UK's future. Had the ferocity of the reaction to his green-bashing provoked a reaction? Energy minister Greg Barker certainly implied so; suggesting Mr Osborne's words had been chosen to reassure green investors that he wasn't set against clean energy.

But one puddle of light doth not a sunny upland make, and in a heartbeat Osborne reverted to type. These renewables, he quickly clarified, are expensive, and he'll keep an eye on their costs: "Environmentally sustainable has to be fiscally sustainable too".

Logically that statement would have been more sensibly constructed the other way round. In the long term, economic stability entirely depends on a secure resource base and healthy environment. The emphasis speaks volumes, as does how quickly the chancellor felt the need to caveat his support for renewables by letting us know what he really thinks: this stuff is expensive, and we'll only do it if we can afford it.

So what can we afford? Fossil fuels, it seems. In contravention of the analysis of the government's economists at Decc, the chancellor claimed that "gas is cheap". In point of fact, gas is not cheap, as anyone who's recently stared in disbelief at their latest energy bill would have told him. Gas prices are the major factor behind prices that have soared over the last decade and, thanks to ever-rising international competition, will likely continue to do so into the future.

Hoisting ourselves further onto the fossil fuel hook isn't just bad news for our carbon emissions, but for our energy bills too. Nonetheless, Osborne added his heft to the 'dash for gas' investment strategy signed off by the energy secretary Ed Davey earlier in the week.

Elsewhere, the chancellor heralded the arrival of next Tuesday's all-out-for-growth new planning framework, spelling trouble for our green spaces and which Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith thinks will have the net result of making developers very rich indeed. £56 million was found for the construction of the highly controversial Bexhill to Hastings road, and — in another apparent U-turn on previously stated green commitments — Osborne committed to expanding airport capacity in the south east of England.

And although he deserves some credit for standing firm in the face of Michael O'Leary and the motoring lobby in not scrapping planned rises in air passenger duty and fuel duty, the lack of any justification means it's most likely because of the massive hole this would have left in the public finances.

I've saved the piece de resistance for last: at least £3 billion in tax breaks for the plundering of previously untapped oil reserves off Shetland. Amazingly, the fossil fuel industry — which has benefitted from over a century of direct and indirect government support, while renewable energy has to bend under the weight of criticism for every penny of development support it gets - was handed yet another brown paper bag full of cash.

With Osborne in charge, it seems we'd better get used to Budgets that steer a firm course towards a costly fossil fuel future. In climate terms, the gist of this Budget made the odd kind word about wind turbines seem like window dressing.