First up was the significant reduction (87% !) in subsidies for solar power, which is part of a general post-election thrust I welcomed when it first became apparent, and still do. Not many friends of subsidies hereabouts. But, set alongside news that DECC has been reduced to an administrative rump with all energy policy now emanating from the Treasury, I start to wonder whether in detailed terms it isn't part of a mini omni-shambles, perhaps brought about by the Treasury not actually being quite in a position to discharge this new responsibility. Or it could just be that Amber Rudd is stupid, which to be fair is getting more empirically plausible as the weeks go by.
In terms of immediate job losses, the precipitous solar-industry collapse is set fair to beat anything boasted for the job creation potential of the would-be nuclear revival and/or shale gas revolution. Since the nuke thing is (at best) every bit as much a Keynsian boondoggle as the solar thing, it's fair to put them side-by-side in that way. And of course solar is cheaper! - per job created, much cheaper. Much lobbying in evidence; and maybe a leedle U-turn just around the corner?
The other one is steel. Timmy reckons no-one needs those old blast furnaces at all, but in any case the lobby is out again. China is one of the bad guys this time - perhaps Corbyn will berate Xi for steel-dumping as well as human rights at the Buckingham Palace banquet - but the Grauniad fingers another issue:
Another of the complaints is soaring, and uncompetitively high, energy costs, that are an important part of the strategy for greening the economy. Yet if they drive up the cost of the domestic product, only for it to be replaced by imported steel with a bigger carbon footprint, more is lost than gained.Carbon leakage! - now there's a thing. Who could have anticipated that? Would the Guardian care to extrapolate that subtle conclusion to, errr, the whole European economy?