I couldn’t think of anything useful from President Trump, so I turned to Barack Obama for inspiration. On the campaign trail last week, when faced with some hostile questioning about supporting a candidate with whom he had previously disagreed, he said the following:

“Disagreeing on means is entirely different to disagreeing on ends.”

Just pause for a moment and reflect on that short statement. In terms of the daily battle our industry is immersed in, we should keep President Obama’s response in our minds. And it is something our friends in Whitehall should also embrace.

As a trade body, we absolutely understand that climate change is real; that human activity contributes to it; that reducing carbon in the atmosphere is something we need to do. It is how, the means, that we offer a critical opinion of Whitehall’s plans not the eventual goal.

And perhaps we should also now point out another useful management tool. Obama gives us the distinction between “means” and “ends,” industry should help Whitehall understand the difference between “inputs,” “outputs” and “outcomes.”

We often hear announcements of £xx billion to be spent on a policy, as if spending money in itself was success. If we are lucky, we sometimes hear what that cash will buy, such as ZZZ number of appliances subsidised. Again, buying some kit, an output, doesn’t solve the problem or challenge. Rarely, if ever, in the fight against climate change do we hear that the £xx billion will reduce carbon emissions by Y tonnes.

And there’s a reason for that – firstly, there is always an uncertainty that the outcome will be as forecast, and which Whitehall official wants policy to be judged on such a basis, compared to measuring inputs or even outputs. There’s also another reason.

If outcomes (or ends) become the focus of policy, then the debate over means, or how to get there, becomes more sharply focussed, open to more scrutiny, and yes, debate and disagreement.