With one month to go before the Budget, the debate is hotting up about the desirability of the chancellor announcing some kind of ‘green recovery’ initiative.

There are all sorts of signals coming from the Treasury that there’s nothing left in the pot – but all sorts of initiatives urging the chancellor to seize hold of this opportunity to demonstrate that behind all this talk about a low-carbon Britain there is some real substance.

The eloquence of the talk reaches ever greater heights. Get this lot:

“This transition to low-carbon is an environmental and economic imperative. It is also inevitable. There is no high-carbon future. Low-carbon is not a sector of an economy - it is an economy.” (Lord Mandelson, BERR)

“The science says we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to avoid the most catastrophic and irreversible effects of climate change. We’ll have 20% of current emissions, with an economy that we want to be three times bigger. It’s not just a change, it’s a transformation.” (Ed Miliband, DECC)

“We can now build a new green economy. Rise to one of the greatest peacetime challenges of all, that will not only help our country prosper, but will build a better, more secure and more sustainable world.” (prime minister Gordon Brown)

On that basis, you’d expect something more than another dribble of stuff along the lines we had in the 2008 pre-Budget report. To do that, the chancellor has first to persuade himself that some further stimulus package is both necessary and desirable. Then he has to determine the overall scale of such a package (the eminent US economist Paul Krugman has urged all OECD countries to commit up to 4% of annual GDP – which for the UK would be around £60 billion). Then he must determine what share of the total package should be devoted to ‘sustainability-specific’ investments.

And that’s where it gets really interesting. The NGOs are getting increasingly vocal about green tokenism: if the low-carbon, sustainability elements come in at less than 10%, say, then the 90% is, almost by definition, going to be “high carbon and unsustainable”. That would hardly seem to fit with the green words from the Low Carbon Industrial Summit above.

According to the new HSBC report (A Climate for Recovery – the colour of stimulus goes green), the current sustainability percentage here in the UK is less than 7%. Compare that with China or South Korea.

Country/Region	Fund $b	Period	Green Fund $b	% Green
Asia Pacific
Australia	26.7	2009-12	2.5	9.3%
China	586.1	2009-10	221.3	37.8%
India	13.7	2009		0%
Japan	485.9	2009 -	12.4	2.6%
South Korea	38.1	2009-12	30.7	80.5%
Thailand	3.3	2009		0%
Subtotal Asia Pacific	1,153.8		266.9	23.1%
Europe
EU	38.8	2009-10	22.8	58.7%
Germany	104.8	2009-10	13.8	13.2%
France	33.7	2009-10	7.1	21.2%
Italy	103.5	2009 -	1.3	1.3%
Spain	14.2	2009	0.8	5.8%
UK	30.4	2009-12	2.1	6.9%
Other EU States	308.7	2009	6.2	2.0%
Subtotal Europe	634.2		54.2	16.7%
Americas
Canada	31.8	2009-13	2.6	8.3%
Chile	4.0	2009		0%
US EESA	185.0	10 years	18.2	9.8%
US ARRA	787.0	10 years	94.1	12.0%
Subtotal Americas	1.007.8		114.9	11.4%
TOTAL	2,796		436	15.6%

Source: A Climate for Recovery – the colour of stimulus goes green (HSBC, February 09)

So if the chancellor is going to do something in the Budget, it needs to be big. And that’s what the Sustainable Development Commission is going to be recommending in our forthcoming Sustainable New Deal paper.

This really is the moment. If not now (with only a year or so before the next General Election), then one really has to ask when. I’d hate to think of all those fine words just left hanging in the wind.