Yes, the sharp-eyed will have noticed the irony in their own committee’s name, but let’s move on.

Now I agree that words matter and if you haven’t read already, a book by the US pollster and political analyst Frank Luntz called “Words that Work” captures the essence of what communication teams across the world are trying to achieve – real cut through with their language; driving home their agenda and achieving the end result they want.

But back to that select committee report. I’m somewhat sceptical of the outcome, especially given polling that we have done for several years, which has consistently concluded that achieving net zero by 2050 has high levels of support. So why did the committee make this conclusion?

I suspect it is more likely that attaching blame to the term “net zero” is more convenient that accepting that the public might want to achieve the aim but aren’t willing to pay huge sums to do so. To put it more bluntly, finding £13,000 to pay for a heat pump (as one example) is more of a barrier to uptake that suggesting it helps achieve net zero.

Officials, in particular, are very sensitive to the use of language around net zero. They were most insistent that industry used the term “Clean Heat Market Mechanism” rather than the shorthand “boiler tax”. They implored us to stop using that phrase – even though as an economist I will tell you the CHMM policy has all the characteristics of a tax. I know they also lobbied industry to put pressure on us too. Why, because it had cut through. It resonated with the public and drew opposition to the policy.

Given what the select committee have concluded, I do think it is time to change how we refer to the CHMM. From now on it should be the “net zero boiler tax”!