The spending review had narrowed the meaning of "green" to mean "low carbon" warns the Environmental Industries Commission which says the coalition's move away from regulation is a real concern to environmental industries.
The EIC's response to the review says it included many positive environmental measures but restricting green measures to low carbon risks losing the wealth of job and wealth creation the environmental sector offers.
While it welcomed plans for a green investment bank, it warned that its narrow, carbon-focused remit would forfeit the potential investment gains across the whole sector in areas like land, water and air.
"The comprehensive spending review includes many positive environmental measures which are to be encouraged - not least the Government's commitment to ensuring that the development of low carbon technologies remains a key player in the UK's economic recovery - but the coalition still has some way to go if they are to reach the lofty goal of being the ‘greenest government ever'," said EIC policy director Danny Stevens.
"The environmental industry has always lived and died by its regulatory framework, with Government intervention being a vital ingredient in the creation of the environmental markets of the future. It is disappointing that the coalition's rhetoric appears to be using the spending cuts as an excuse to move away from this approach towards greater deregulation, and this is a matter of real concern for the environmental industries. The Government must realise that green growth opportunities that will return a profit as well as protect the environment lie beyond carbon reduction, and that its ongoing involvement and market intervention is vital to make this happen."
The Green Alliance said it was a good start to the Government's commitment to a low-carbon economy but said green spending is very low compared to other sectors.
"Public spending has had a critical role in stimulating investment in green technology development, in delivering new public transport schemes, and in paying for wildlife and habitat protection," it said.
"Public spending on green outcomes is very low. Including public transport it constitutes less than 3% of public spending, or 0.3% without transport."
The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management warned that the scale of spending cuts prompts serious concerns for skills, knowledge and experience of those working in the environment and biodiversity.
"Whilst recognising the urgent need to ensure economic recovery, the
proposed scale of job losses in the two leading statutory agencies charged with protecting our environment, Natural England and the Environment Agency, undermines our profession's capacity to deliver the evidence-based advice and guidance on which Government policy must be based," said IEEM president Steve Ormerod.
"Furthermore the potential loss of ecologist posts from local authorities will hinder the involvement of, and advice to, local communities and NGOs in environmental action as part of the big society initiative."
The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment said that, although high-level spending plans have been announced, the implications for bodies and programmes like the EA, NE, WRAP and the Carbon Trust would only become apparent over the next two months. It said it would monitor the situation.
Campaign to Protect Rural England head of campaigns Ben Stafford said the Government had set a high bar with its claim to be the greenest ever and significant cuts to environmental departments would not make clearing it any easier.
He welcomed the success of lobbying to save environmental stewardship schemes which enable farmers to look after their land, but ministers would face significant challenges ensuring initiatives like the natural environment white paper deliver real improvements.
"The task will be for Government to make the most of local communities to help deliver this, making the ‘big society' a reality," he said.
Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said that £200m to support low-carbon technology and the green investment bank were good news but it would need significantly more than £1bn to be effective.
