It might just be a coincidence, but anyone fearing the departure of Chris Huhne from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) could result in a watering down of the coalition's green policy ambitions received their Exhibit A this morning, as the news emerged that the long-awaited Green Investment Bank will "play it safe" with its lending activities.

In an exclusive interview with The Times, Sir Adrian Montague, the financier tasked with overseeing the launch of the bank, insisted it will act in line with commercial lending principles, will not make risky investments in early-stage green technologies, will not offer preferential rates or other forms of support, will be tasked with delivering a dividend for the Treasury, and, finally, will emulate conventional development banks across Europe.

"We are not trying to give soft loans and grants," he told the paper. "We are not looking to give grants and support in areas where the private sector would not give support. We are looking at the technologies which need the leg-up to be commercial."

He added that the bank will follow "sound banking principles" that will ensure the "money is coming back" to the Treasury.

All of which sounds sensible enough, but it also begs the question as to why we need a Green Investment Bank with this remit at all? If the bank will only lend along commercial lines, should we not leave that lending to commercial banks? Are we not at risk of crowding out the likes of Triodos and the Co-operative, which already specialise in green financing – not to mention the countless clean-tech venture capitalists that make their money from identifying the "technologies which need the leg-up to be commercial"?

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) told me the bank will drive green investment through its "focus" on low-carbon projects and its ability to leverage further private sector investment. She also hinted that lending along commercial lines will be necessary if the bank is to comply with EU state aid rules.

Again, this sounds sensible enough. And yet, while it may seem churlish to complain about the government pumping £3bn of new investment into the sector, many green businesses will be justified in feeling the proposed bank has become such a pale imitation of its early ambitions that it is barely recognisable.

It may have secured a fair few victories elsewhere, but the green wing of the government has lost battle after battle over the structure of the Green Investment Bank. The Treasury blocked plans to let it raise additional finance from green bonds until 2015 at the earliest (and probably much later, given that it will not be able to borrow until the deficit is cleared) and control of the bank was handed to BIS, rather than DECC. Now, efforts to allow the kind of innovative lending and financing arrangements that would help de-risk green projects and drive private sector investment appear to have been strangled at birth in favour of commercial lending orthodoxy. Hopes that the bank could be used to offer more attractive financing to support the government's Green Deal scheme also look to have been pretty much extinguished.

The Green Investment Bank is bound to support plenty of admirable and effective green projects and will no doubt provide a significant boost to the UK's low-carbon economy. It is also to be hoped that Sir Adrian and the socially minded bankers he chooses to appoint can create a self-sustaining institution that may generate dividends for the cash-strapped Treasury.

But the scale of the ambition, compared to the original plans for the bank, is starting to look pretty woeful.

Imagine a Green Investment Bank that could offer Green Bonds to individuals and businesses, providing solid if unspectacular returns while allowing interested parties to play a proactive role in the UK's low-carbon economy. Yes, accounting rules may mean that it would end up adding to the deficit in the short term, but the boost in terms of jobs, tax receipts and low-carbon growth could be immense.

Imagine a Green Investment Bank that could take a punt on early-stage clean-tech projects currently unable to secure commercial financing. Yes, some money would be lost on failed projects, but such a move could also secure the UK's leadership in areas such as marine energy, carbon capture and storage, and offshore wind.

Imagine a Green Investment Bank that could offer government-backed insurance or loan guarantees to large-scale renewable energy projects that currently face high financing costs due to technology risks and policy uncertainty. Yes, the US government has its fingers burnt with such an approach when a guaranteed firm went bust, but countless other projects have prospered and the UK could easily repeat the approach for new offshore wind and biomass developments.

Imagine a Green Investment Bank that, like the Student Loan Company, could offer subsidised finance to the Green Deal scheme. Yes, the institution would no longer generate commercial rates of return, but it would suddenly make the Green Deal an attractive proposition capable of supporting a much larger array of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

Any one of these four scenarios would deliver significant emissions reductions, job creation and economic growth, and yet all the current evidence suggests none of them will happen.  

The faint hope remains that Montague and the government are playing to the Brussels gallery, offering reassurance the bank will be entirely compliant with state aid rules, while investigating innovative lending approaches that meet EU regulations and provide support for projects and technologies that cannot secure commercial financing.

Failing that, the Green Investment Bank will provide a welcome addition to the ranks of banks already committed to investing in the low-carbon economy – and represent a massive missed opportunity that will make new energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey's  job considerably harder.

The surprising thing is that people are surprised.

It has long been suspected that organisation's such as the Heartland Institute are funded by vested interests and tasked with promoting climate scepticism through any and all means, fair and foul. And yet the leaked documents that appear to lay bare the inner workings of the self-styled free market think tank retain the capacity to shock.

The Heartland Institute has dodged the opportunity to deny the authenticity of the documents, allowing green campaigners to declare open season on an influential organisation that has long been the mother ship for a lot of climate sceptic thinking around the globe. (Update: The Heartland Institute later issued a statement insisting that one of the documents was a fake and the others may have been tampered with. However, the DeSmog Blog countered that several of the projects mentioned in the contested climate strategy document also appear in the think tank's budget documents.)

You do not need to resort to the favourite climate sceptic trick of quoting people out of context to make these documents look utterly damning. A project to develop an alternative curriculum for school children has the goal of "dissuading teachers from teaching science", funding is set aside for climate sceptic commentators - "at the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found" - the non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change is sponsored to "undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports", and the aim to "keep opposing voices out" of influential media titles is explicitly stated. (Update: Heartland has insisted these quotes from the strategy document have been faked. However, several of those climate bloggers originally handed the documents insist the organisation has provided them with no evidence that they have been faked.)

I'll leave it to environmental commentators to express the appropriate levels of outrage at these nefarious activities and the extent to which they have undermined progressive green policies in the US and overseas (assuming of course that mainstream media outlets have the decency to give this scandal due prominence). What I am interested in is the lessons this shameful episode contains for businesses.

One of the most shocking aspects of the documents is the list of high profile companies that have joined the mysterious "anonymous donor" in providing financial backing to the Heartland Institute.

They include many household names, several of which have either touted their environmental credentials or signed up to green business groups and initiatives. The documents suggest Diageo provided $10,000 in 2010 and is expected to provide $10,000 in 2012, Bayer Corporation was projected to stump up $25,000 in 2012, the General Motors Foundation provided $30,000 over the last two years, GlaxoSmithKline shelled out $30,000 in 2010 and $20,000 last year, Microsoft paid $59,908 in 2011, Pfizer provided $130,000 in 2010, and the US Chamber of Commerce handed over £25,000 in 2010. This is just a sample from an extensive list.

I don't doubt many of these organisations will claim they were funding other aspects of the Heartland Institute's libertarian, free market agenda, and that they remain committed to tackling climate change and reducing their environmental impact (Update: GSK has done pretty much exactly that, issuing the statement: "GSK absolutely does not endorse or support the Heartland Institute's views on the environment and climate change. We have in the past provided a small amount of funding to support the Institute's healthcare newsletter and a meeting". Others have subsequently released similar statements).

But what this scandal reveals is that if you are going to commit to developing greener business models, you cannot pick and mix which parts of your business get involved. Failure to enact genuinely company-wide change programmes means you are always at risk of seeing otherwise admirable green initiatives undermined by less progressive activities elsewhere in the business.

Several high profile US firms, including Apple, Pacific Gas & Electric, Exelon, learnt this lesson in 2009 when they quit the US Chamber of Commerce over its lobbying against climate change legislation. Now it looks like several more firms are about to learn the exact same lesson.

Any business that is publicly committed to a greener future needs to know who it is working with, who it is funding, and how its lobbying activities are managed. Failure to undertake this due diligence and ensure all lobbying activities are in line with the company's wider green commitments leaves an organisation facing the risk that one day a conscientious individual will reveal their support for anti-environmental campaigns. In one swoop, any hopes of establishing a company as a green leader can be lost for a generation. And that is the kind of surprise no green executive wants to face.

I must admit I am with those who felt a smidgen of sympathy for recently de-knighted Fred Goodwin.

Not because he didn't deserve to lose his knighthood, he did; nor because the opprobrium heaped upon him is not justified, it is. But because his role as scapegoat nonpareil is so explicitly unfair.

If Goodwin has brought the honours system into disrepute - and remember, bringing the honours system into disrepute is a bit like bringing football into disrepute, it is pretty difficult to tarnish something that has already been dragged through the mud - then there are countless others who deserve to be stripped of their titles alongside him.

If you'll excuse another footballing analogy, who is culpable when, towards the end of an ill-tempered local derby, a player breaks another player's leg? Obviously the player (banker) who has behaved recklessly and inflicted said fracture is ultimately responsible for their actions. But the referee (or regulator) is also culpable for losing control of the game, and it could even be argued the crowd (society as a whole) is responsible for taking such enjoyment in the spectacle, up to the point where someone got hospitalised.

Goodwin undoubtedly played a key role in the financial crash that brought the global economy to its knees, but as extensive investigations into the collapse of RBS have proven he was guilty of spectacular misjudgements, reckless lack of foresight, and staggering greed, rather than any specific illegality. Moreover, he was not acting in a vacuum. As a number of papers have already pointed out there are plenty of other ennobled bankers, regulators and politicians who were complicit in the crash and guilty of similar recklessness. If Fred should be stripped of his honour, so should a fair few others.

All of which brings me - via a rather circuitous route - to how Goodwin's fate contains a stark warning to those businesses that shun the green economy.

For years, Fred Goodwin, as we must now call him, was feted for his work. Operating in a manner that was entirely routine for the industry in which he worked, he was knighted for his to services banking. Yes, some commentators warned that he and his peers were behaving in a reckless fashion, that their actions were not adding to the social weal and may even be damaging it. But these critics were on the margins of mainstream thinking. Conventional wisdom dictated that we needed innovative financial practices, aggressively expansionist financiers, and the wealth they generated.

And then the crash came. And overnight values and judgements changed. Goodwin and his ilk went from being the Masters of the Universe to very naughty boys. Those who had warned that the model pioneered by the financial sector was unsustainable were vindicated, countless others joined them in condemning the bankers they used to praise, and Goodwin and co were strapped to the media ducking stool. Only time will tell if legal action follows public ignominy, as lawyers and investigators on both sides of the Atlantic edge forward with efforts to pin some form of legal retribution on those institutions that caused the crash.

You can probably see where I am going with this. Any business leader at the helm of a carbon intensive firm who cannot hear the alarm bells set off by Goodwin's fall from grace urgently needs a hearing test. The parallels are so precise as to be genuinely shocking.

Currently, fossil fuel based business models are still largely regarded as a routine part of our economy, no more or less unusual that fast-expanding banking powerhouses. Building a successful carbon intensive business is as sure a way to secure praise, honours, and immense financial riches, as building a successful bank. Again, it is possible to ignore the commentators who warn carbon intensive businesses models are reckless, that in the long term they are not in the national interest.

Although, unlike the financial crisis, these warnings are not confined to the margins of society, they are increasingly mainstream and are broadly supported, in theory if not in action, by countless political and business leaders. When the crash comes for carbon intensive businesses - and climate science, the direction of environmental policies, the steady increase in public concern, and most importantly the rapid emergence of viable clean alternatives, dictate that the crash will come - the defence that "no one saw it coming" will prove even hollower than the banker's protestations.

There is growing evidence to suggest the most reckless polluters will face a fate very similar to that of Fred Goodwin. We have seen prequels to this condemnation in the shellacking former BP chief executive Tony Hayward took over his handling of the Gulf oil spill and the periodic bouts of public anger directed at the energy industry over its environmental impacts and more dubious business tactics. Meanwhile, led by the growing band of sustainable investors, warnings over the financial risks carbon intensive firms are storing up through their reliance on fossil fuel assets that cannot be safely burned are becoming ever more vocal. Similarly, campaigns such as the push to have ecocide recognised as an international crime and the efforts by some low-lying island states to determine whether they can sue the polluters they hold responsible for rising sea levels provide an illustration of how carbon intensive firms could one day find themselves in the dock.

It might not be fair, but Goodwin's experience demonstrates that while courts are wary of retrospective justice, the court of public opinion has no such concerns. In extreme circumstances, and environmental catastrophe is nothing if not extreme, politicians can even adopt policies and legislation that at best demand unexpected rapid change from businesses and at worst impose retrospective standards on those parties deemed responsible for the crisis.

As countless respected and influential voices have argued there are now enormous environmental, legislative, reputational and financial risks attached to carbon intensive business models, all of which means those polluters who do not at least make an effort to decarbonise are in danger of sharing Goodwin's fate. Given the number of high profile warnings over the unsustainable nature of carbon intensive business models, the absence of sympathy for reckless polluters stripped of their knighthoods will make Goodwin look popular.

And so, the saga continues. Any hopes the government may have that the latest wave of proposed reforms to the feed-in tariff incentive scheme would bring to an end the controversy surrounding the UK's solar sector are proving entirely unfounded.

The whole sorry tale of how the solar sector has been knee-capped by crippling policy uncertainty and unresolved tensions between admirable long term green ambitions and short term political battles has simply entered a new chapter - again providing a living and breathing parable for wider concerns about the seriousness of the government's green agenda.

Climate Minister Greg Barker last night predicted there would be a "sharp intake of breath" across the solar industry when the proposals were published, and indeed there was. It took a few minutes, because while the press release and ministerial statement spoke of "improvements" to feed-in tariffs that would put "transparency, longevity, and certainty" at the heart of the reformed scheme, the real news was found in the official consultation document.

It was once people reached page 10 and the news that tariffs for standard solar installations could be cut to as little as 13.6p/kWh from July, that breaths were snatched. Yes, the proposed cuts would only come into effect if there is a surge in installations over the next two months, and yes, the cuts may end up being more modest, but if 13.6p/kWh is adopted that would constitute another 35 per cent cut on top of the halving of tariffs that will come into effect from next month.

As people read on it also became apparent that further cuts could come into effect from October, taking the level of support down to 12.9p/kWh. And then there was the new "regression mechanism", supposedly modelled on that used in Germany, which could result in cuts being imposed at two month's notice. Oh, and the payment period could be reduced from 20 to 25 years, and the index linking of payments could be ditched.

At that point, the collective intakes of breath were in danger of asphyxiating some of the solar industry's finest.

But before we get into the justification for and implications of such deep cuts, let's look at the good news.

There is no doubt that it could have been a lot, lot worse. The government's decision to relax proposed energy efficiency requirements for installing solar panels so that an estimated 50 per cent of buildings can access the scheme is a vast improvement on plans that would have restricted the market to 14 per cent of properties.

Moreover, while solar industry insiders such as Solarcentury's Jeremy Leggett are right to suggest the prospect of changes to incentives every two to six months will dampen demand and make planning extremely difficult, the new regression mechanisms should represent an improvement on the chaotic round of consultations and delays that have led to the current crisis. Assuming DECC gets its sums right (and I admit that is a pretty big assumption) businesses and households should be able to make a decision to install solar panels on the understanding that a well placed array will deliver a return on investment of at least five per cent - not a stellar return, but enough to attract domestic and commercial customers keen to cut emissions and limit exposure to rising energy prices.

Best of all, Climate Minister Greg Barker today set the most ambitious target yet for the UK's solar industry, pledging to deliver 22GW of capacity by 2020, a 22-fold increase on current levels. Significantly, he also predicted that the market will continue to grow over the next three years, attempting to assuage fears that the government would back load all the promised growth until the second half of the decade.

This pledge was supported by a commitment from DECC that additional budget had been identified that will cover recent over-spend and allow for £460m to be spent on new installations during the current spending period - enough, according to one expert I spoke to - to deliver moderate growth for the industry through to 2015.

The government is now on the record with a commitment to the rapid expansion of the solar sector over the next eight years, handing green campaigners a stick with which to beat it if the industry does falter and it looks like the target will not be met. There have even been whispers that the government could from the summer include solar in an updated version of its renewable energy roadmap, having shamefully opted to exclude the technology from its list of renewable energy priorities in the original version.

The problem - the all-consuming, over-arching problem - is that the scale of the cuts that are being proposed mean many people in the solar industry are deeply sceptical the sector can continue to grow in the short to medium-term. Emotions are running high, but you cannot simply shrug off descriptions of the proposed cuts as "disastrous", "catastrophic", and "Armageddon" for the industry as idle scare-mongering. A lot of otherwise sober voices are convinced the sector will see a contraction over the next couple of years, making it all but impossible to scale up again to reach the 22GW target by 2020.

Why is there such a massive discrepancy between the prediction of DECC and some solar firms that the new rates and regression mechanism will deliver sustainable growth, and rival industry warnings that the proposed changes spell disaster for a previously expanding sector?

The answer apparently lies in a report from consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff that analyses the recent reduction in the cost of different solar technologies, providing data that officials were then able to use to calculate the five per cent rates of return they want to see from the new lower tariffs.

However, the report was apparently commissioned and delivered within three days and was based on information from just 13 firms. One extremely disgruntled solar industry source described it as a "shambles" and one of the worst government reports he had ever seen.

Others are warning that the rapid recent reduction in solar panel costs that has been experienced over the last 12 months and informs the scale of the proposed cuts will not be maintained. All experts are agreed that costs will continue to fall in the long-term, but plummeting prices over the past year were caused by a global supply glut that is rapidly disappearing. Key material costs are now rising and some solar firms fear they will struggle to deliver the reductions in costs that will enable them to offer a five per cent rate of return at the proposed new tariff rates.

However, there is considerable disagreement and confusion on this crucial point. Estimates from JDS Associates reckon that if the government opts for its mid-range scenario of 15.6p/kWh then modest improvements taking the cost of a 2.6Kw array down to around £7,000 would allow firms to offer the promised five per cent rate of return. But, others reckon another gold rush will occur over the next couple of months as people try to take advantage of the 21p/kWh rate, prompting the government to opt for a 13.6p/kWh tariff that slash rates of return and make solar installations unattractive to all but the most committed environmentalist.

The solar industry is once again split. Optimists believe cost reductions can be delivered that would make the new tariff rates attractive and as such the sector will continue to grow over the next two years at a steady and sustainable rate. Pessimists (judging by my in-box, they are the more numerous group) fully believe in solar's long term viability, but insist the scale of the cuts will make it all but impossible for them to offer an attractive rate of return to customers anytime soon.

Intriguingly, the government's own impact assessment appears to partially side with the pessimists (realists?), revealing that while calendar year 2011 saw 205,000 installations and 15,000 full time employees working in the sector, 2012/13 will see 120,000 installations and 10,000 employees. The sector will contract by a third over the next 12 months, before apparently bouncing back to 15,000 employees and 190,000 installations in 2013/14. 

Some solar supporters have an explanation for the gap between the government's rhetoric and its apparent willingness to pursue policies that could cripple the sector. They complain that the proposals have the fingerprints of the Big Six energy companies all over them and the solar sector is falling victim to a concerted campaign to strangle potentially game-changing microgeneration technologies at birth.

Paranoid conspiracy theory? Perhaps, but there is some evidence to fuel it. The solar industry remains furious that a promise last year to allow it to provide one secondee to DECC has still not been honoured, while Big Six employees can often be found working within the department.
Moreover, under the proposals feed-in tariff rates for larger solar farms and rooftop installations could be cut to as little as 4.7p/kWh, well below the rate of 9p/kWh that is equivalent to the support handed to offshore wind. Previous promises to put solar farms on an even footing with other large scale renewables look set to be revoked, once again tilting the market in favour of the kind of gargantuan projects favoured by large utilities.

In addition, while solar and small scale wind face the prospect of deep cuts to feed-in tariff incentives the only microgeneration system that could see support increase as a result of the consultation is micro-CHP. Coincidentally or not, this is the one microgeneration technology that several of the Big Six have a significant stake in.

There are also credible whispers suggesting Barker has had to fight tooth and nail against ex DTI and Energy Department officials who remain ideologically hostile to anything other than large centralised energy projects. The minister has faced huge criticism from the solar industry over the past six months, but according to several well placed sources he has actually done a huge amount to protect the sector from those who would happily kill it off completely, delivering reforms that may allow the sector to survive in the long term, if not prosper in the short term.

Where does all this Whitehall intrigue leave the solar industry?

The answer is once again fighting for its life as it faces several more months of confusion and uncertainty. Installers are likely to enjoy a short term boost as people move to take advantage of the higher rates before they fall in July. But in the medium term it remains completely unclear whether the light contained in the consultation is the end of the tunnel or the proverbial on-coming train.

The best case scenario is that solar costs continue to fall, DECC's maths proves accurate, and companies can with confidence offer attractive rates of return of five to eight per cent. It is also to be hoped that the stated goal of 22GW of capacity means ministers will have to raise tariffs if costs do not come down as expected and the market stalls badly. However, even if the medium to long term prospects end up looking good, the government's own impact assessment suggests the market will contract next year and not return to last year's levels until 2015 at the earliest. A lot rests on whether responses to the consultation can convince DECC to go with the more modest proposed cuts - as such it is encouraging that ministers have not yet set out a preference for any of the proposed new tariffs.

For what it's worth, I have a more optimistic outlook for the solar sector than many of those solar firms still in shock at the latest round of cuts. Regardless of all the disruption it has faced, the solar market enjoys one fundamental advantage over many technologies - people love solar.

The technology is getting better all the time and it is rapidly moving into the mainstream as more and more households and businesses deploy it. A five per cent rate of return might not win over many financial directors, but growing numbers of businesses are still being attracted to a technology that promises to cut energy bills and carbon emissions, while enhancing brand equity.

The solar sector will survive and still has the potential to play a major role in the UK's low carbon energy mix, particularly if predictions that solar energy will soon compete with grid power on cost prove accurate. I have an inkling the best solar firms will find a way to continue their recent success. The technology remains highly attractive and if your company hasn't considered deploying solar it should at least investigate the option.

But sadly, regardless of how positive a spin you try to put on it, the solar industry is again focused on survival rather than building on the rapid growth that has created thousands of jobs and helped cut building related emissions that are again rising - and all for the want of a relatively small sum of money.

That is why, despite the government's encouraging words and the partial victory over those committed to killing solar off altogether, this sorry saga could still end up as a tragedy.

It is one of the toughest and most exciting jobs in government, combining long term existential issues about human nature and the kind of society we want to live in with complex short term policy considerations capable of confusing the most adept of policy wonks. As such few departments offer a more daunting in-tray than that faced by newly appointed Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey.

His predecessor, Chris Huhne, is widely held to have done a pretty good job, and yet the challenge presented by climate change and the transformation of the UK's energy infrastructure is so gargantuan that Davey still has a host of urgent questions that will need answering if the low carbon economy is to continue its recent success.

There are bound to be plenty more (please add your own questions in the comment box) but here are just 10 questions green business leaders will want answering over the next month:

What is going to happen to feed-in tariffs?

It is the issue that will be at the top of Davey's in-box and the issue that tarnished Huhne's otherwise broadly successful track record: what is to be done about feed-in tariffs?

Davey has to decide whether to proceed with the government's cynical Supreme Court appeal against the two legal defeats inflicted against its attempt to rush through cuts to solar feed-in tariff incentives before the consultation on the proposed changes was completed. It is highly unlikely he will drop the case, although doing so would immediately send out a signal that he is his own man and would win huge amounts of good will from the solar industry, green campaigners, and Lib Dem voters.

Regardless of whether the appeal proceeds or not, Davey needs to bring forward promised reforms to a scheme that has become a victim of its own success and is in serious danger of breaching its long term budget even with the latest rounds of proposed cuts. Can the new Secretary of State secure a higher budget for a scheme that promises to normalise onsite renewable energy in the UK, and, if not, how does he plan to divide the remaining budget between different technology types? As importantly, can he repair the damage done by the mishandling of the proposed cuts and convince green investors that future government policies will remain stable and predictable?

Can you make the Green Deal work?

There is near universal agreement that the Green Deal is a great policy on paper - an elegant means of overcoming the upfront cost barriers that block otherwise sensible energy efficiency improvements, while driving a new job-rich home and office improvement programme.

The only problem is that legitimate concerns about its effectiveness in practice are coming thick and fast. The interest rates attached to the scheme are not low enough, the financial returns will not be attractive enough, and without a degree of compulsion too many homeowners and landlords will ignore the scheme. Even DECC's own officials acknowledge that the rate of installation for some forms of insulation will fall.

Huhne's response to these concerns boiled down to the promise of £200m worth of incentives to drive adoption and a "don't worry, it'll get sorted" attitude. But the scheme is due to be launched in October and the businesses that are being asked to determine its success or failure still have no details on what the government is going to do to drive the market. They need answers, and fast.

And while we're talking about energy efficiency, the government's focus on domestic energy efficiency means the corporate sector is too often ignored. Will the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary correct this oversight and put in place a more coherent approach for helping businesses cope with rising energy prices.

When can we expect a decision on mandatory carbon reporting?

The decision was expected last autumn, and then before the end of the year, and then early in the New Year, and still we wait.

The question is what for? The CBI and plenty of big name blue chips are in favour or mandatory carbon reporting rules that benefit investors and help firms identify areas to make savings, while the initial impact assessment suggesting the rules would impose a significant bill on businesses has been shown to be badly flawed.

The rumour is that political battles are stalling the final decision, which is code for an almighty scrap between deregulatory Tories who are instinctively opposed to the rules, and Lib Dems and more progressive Conservatives who see carbon reporting as a prime example of smart regulation.

The final decision lies with Caroline Spelman at Defra, but it would be a significant win for the green wing of the coalition if the reporting rules are approved.

Will the Electricity Market Reforms see further reform?

Their complexity means they do not get much media coverage, but businesses understand that the government's proposed electricity market reforms (EMR) represent the biggest shake up to one of the most important sectors of the economy since privatisation.

There is broad support for the basic principles of clean energy subsidies, a carbon floor price, an emissions performance standard, and a system of payments for back-up power plants and efficiency schemes. But as time has passed opposition has grown to some elements of the package.

Most notably, the Energy and Climate Change committee of MPs recently added their voice to warnings that the carbon floor price will lead to carbon leakage without action to the increase the carbon price at an EU level, while right wing opposition to renewable energy subsidies might be based on myths and half-truths but it is still gathering momentum.

Will DECC stick with the proposed reforms as they stand or will we see further changes with all the implications such a move would have to energy investor confidence?

Where are the green taxes you promised?

It is right there in the Coalition Agreement, a commitment to "increase the proportion of tax revenue accounted for by environmental taxes".

And yet, as this week's report from the Environmental Audit Committee has confirmed, progress on green taxes has been woeful and the Treasury appears to be trying to duck the issue by delaying the release of a clear definition on what constitutes a green tax. Fears are mounting that mandarins are simply looking for a way to redefine environmental levies in a way that allows ministers to argue that they have increased.

Yes, green taxes can increase the tax burden on some firms, but they remain the most effective means of pricing externalities and can provide a huge boost to those companies providing greener goods and services. Davey campaigned personally for a shift towards green taxes, and yet in government the Lib Dems have hardly won a green tax concession from the Treasury worthy of the name.

It is time for Davey to right that wrong.

How do you plan to move forward with the UK's CCS and nuclear programme?

While the renewable energy sector commands the headlines, the other two pillars of the government's strategy are too often ignored.

Ambitions to become a world leader in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology have stalled as the government has been forced to return to square one with its plan to provide up to £1bn of funding to a full scale demonstration plant. Meanwhile, the promised nuclear renaissance is moving forward at a snail's pace, hampered by safety concerns post-Fukushima and continued opposition from many green campaigners.

The UK should have the engineering expertise and stable policy environment necessary to lead the world in CCS and promising next generation nuclear technologies, but both sectors urgently need greater clarity on how the government wants them to develop.

What role can the UK play in international climate negotiations?

The UK is rightly proud of its track record at international climate change negotiations, repeatedly playing a progressive role in driving forward green policies and building links between industrialised and developing countries.

However, with the deal brokered in Durban setting a deadline of 2015 for a new international agreement there is a real risk that talks could now tread water for several years. What can the UK do to help ensure this does not happen, and at a regional level how can Britain play a role in convincing other EU member states to increase the bloc's carbon targets for 2020 and 2025?

On a more mercenary level how can the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary help the UK's green businesses punch above their weight in an increasingly competitive global market?

How will DECC work with other government departments?

Huhne was a very capable Secretary of State, but not even his biggest fan would describe him as a conciliatory politician. DECC has too often operated in a green ghetto, struggling to ensure that the progress it has made on green energy has been replicated in areas such as green transport, green buildings, green skills, and climate adaptation.

Can Davey improve relations with the Conservative-controlled Defra, Department for Transport, Department for Communities and Local Government, and most importantly the Treasury? Equally, can he work closely with his leader Nick Clegg and even the Prime Minister David Cameron to push the green economy higher up the agenda?

Can the government face down its green critics?

No sooner had Huhne cleared his desk than a group of around 100 Conservative MPs let it be known that they had written to the Prime Minister calling on him to drastically cut subsidies for onshore wind farms.

If he is not aware already, green NGOs will be lining up to inform Davey that the green economy has spent the past six months fending off a wave of orchestrated attacks from backbench MPs and right wing commentators. Some of these critics have asked legitimate and pertinent questions that the government must answer about the effectiveness of certain policies, but the vast majority have used dubious myths and half-truths to malign successful green policies, when their opposition really boils down to nimbyism, climate scepticism, and vested interest in the fossil fuel economy.

For various reasons the government has to date proved curiously ineffective at facing down these critics. Davey needs to quickly establish himself as fierce advocate of the green economy who is unafraid to repel the unjustified attacks the sector faces. He has made a good start with a commitment to "green growth", but green businesses cannot hear enough of this type of rhetoric if they are to deliver the long term investor confidence that is required.

Where does Davey stand on the big issues?

Policies are hugely important, but the challenges and opportunities that define the green economy demand that political and business leaders take a position on some pretty existential economic and social issues. They don't need to answer them exactly, no one can, but they need to demonstrate that they are willing to engage with them.

Is economic growth and genuine sustainability compatible or do we need a new circular economic settlement? How do you put a value on bio-diversity, and if you can should you do so? How do you make carbon emission reductions equitable? Do you really believe current emission reduction targets are sufficient? How do you make people aware of the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions without succumbing to doom-mongering nihilism? At what point should governments step up their focus on climate adaptation? How should investors deal with the potential "carbon bubble"? How do we re-skill for a low carbon economy? Should countries try to address booming population growth? Are current trade and copyright rules compatible with the accelerated roll out of clean technologies? Should geo-engineering be part of global efforts to address climate change? Should we ban certain carbon intensive activities?

No one is expecting Davey to have answers to these questions, but if he is to work effectively to promote the green economy then green business leaders will need to know where he stands on many of these big issues.