Queen's Speech poses more green questions than answers

Well, that was underwhelming. Not the ceremony itself, which had all the usual pomp and ceremony beloved by tourists and loathed by republicans – more the contents of the Queen's Speech.

"Legislation will be introduced to improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses, to promote low-carbon energy production and to secure energy supplies," intoned the monarch. Twenty-three words to describe the Energy Security and Green Economy bill, which the self-styled "greenest government" has positioned as a centrepiece of its agenda.

We have come to expect brevity from Queen Elizabeth II, who delivered the speech with her customarily dejected demeanour – picture a kidnap victim reading out a ransom demand at gunpoint – before rushing back home to watch the racing.

The problem is that anyone looking for clarity in the government's statement on the Energy Security and Green Economy bill will be left sorely disappointed.

The only policy certain for inclusion in the final bill is the plan for a "Green Deal" loan scheme to help households and businesses cover the upfront cost of energy efficiency improvements. There is no detail on how big the loans will be, which households, businesses and technologies will be eligible, or how the scheme will be promoted to ensure uptake. But at least the green building and banking sector know that some form of home loan scheme is on its way, potentially within the next year.

For every other part of the low-carbon economy it's a case of watch this space.

Even low-carbon policies fully endorsed by both sides of the coalition, such as the ban on unabated coal-fired power, the accelerated rollout of smart grid technologies and the launch of a green investment bank, are stuck in limbo after the government confirmed they "may" be included in the bill.

Other policy proposals that will have a direct and significant impact on low-carbon investment decisions, such as the plans for a floor price on carbon and an overhaul of renewable energy subsidies, are not even mentioned in the official government statement on the bill.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change maintains that the uncertainty is simply the result of it trying to work out whether primary legislation is the most appropriate forum for the policies to be enacted or whether simpler mechanisms could be used. For example, an emissions performance standard for coal-fired power plants could be enforced through a change in Environment Agency licensing rules, while a green investment bank could be set up through the budget, and reforms to renewable incentives may be possible through secondary legislation.

"Give us time," pleads the government, "we've only been doing this for a few days." But if the government is serious about accelerating the low-carbon transition, it cannot leave green businesses waiting for too long. Investors in low-carbon projects urgently need to know how they will be affected by new legislation or incentive schemes – every day they have to wait further harms investor confidence.

If the government can't yet provide precise details on how a carbon floor price or emissions performance standard will be enforced, it needs to set out a clear timeline for reaching those decisions, and fast.

On the plus side, the coalition's green philosophy is beginning to take shape and the emerging nomenclature is, as always, highly revealing.

The bill's title – the Energy Security and Green Economy bill – confirms the government prefers the term "green" to "low carbon" and also reveals that " energy security" will be used as the overarching rationale for all its green (and some not so green) policy decisions. Newly appointed energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne has used the term "security" repeatedly since taking up his post, deploying it to justify plans to accelerate renewable energy development, extend North Sea oil and gas exploration and support new nuclear plants.

The outline of the bill and the contents of the coalition agreement also confirm that the new government intends to retain many of Labour's green policies while raising the level of ambition, providing a valuable sense of continuity at the same time as delivering the required step change in low-carbon development.

However, the coalition also seems set on retaining Labour's ineffective policy of targeting much of its carbon-cutting efforts on the domestic sector, while ignoring the deeper cuts in emissions that can be delivered by businesses, and in particular those businesses operating in unglamorous fields such as waste management, heavy industry and energy efficiency. It is highly symbolic – and slightly disappointing – that the top priority is obviously a domestic green loan scheme, which while welcome is unlikely to prove as effective at cutting emissions as tougher regulation and more generous incentives to address corporate carbon footprints.

It is still impossible to tell whether this is a good bill that will mark a step change in the UK's low-carbon transition, or a case of tinkering around the edges that will only deliver marginal improvements. For green businesses and investors, therein lies the problem.