Chancellor Philip Hammond wrote to Theresa May about tackling the UK’s carbon emissions. But he didn’t throw his support behind large-scale efforts to fight one of the leading causes of climate breakdown. Instead, he warned that the cost would cut into funding for schools and hospitals.
The cost of climate breakdown
The Financial Times reported on 6 June that it had seen the letter. In it, Hammond told the prime minister that reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 would mean “less money available for… public spending”. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), an independent advisory body to the government, promoted the target. It said in a recent report that effective action on climate breakdown will require about £50bn each year. However, Hammond’s letter used a £70bn figure calculated by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As a result, Hammond said:
On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds.
Funding this would drain money from schools, hospitals and the police, Hammond “warned“. The chancellor also claimed that investing in action on climate breakdown could leave some of the UK’s industries “economically uncompetitive”. In his letter, Hammond agreed with a net zero target, but stressed the government must “fully [consider] the implications… before setting it in law”.
“Steady there, careful now”
As Business Green editor James Murray pointed out, despite supporting a net zero target, Hammond’s letter has widely been seen in a negative light. And it’s because of the chancellor’s middle-of-the-road tone. Murray described it as Hammond saying “steady there, careful now… can we think about this” on an issue that is imminently devastating. Furthermore, the editor also explained that the letter showed a “staggering lack of nuance or balanced analysis”.
Climate-focused news outlet Carbon Brief highlighted the lack of positivity in Hammond’s letter. It said that the chancellor left out the “large benefits” the CCC said would result from striving towards the 2050 target. It’s also clear from Hammond’s letter that he spends most of the three pages outlining why it’s nearly impossible, despite claiming to support the CCC’s goals. For example, in addition to draining public spending, Hammond also spoke of households being forced to buy “significantly more expensive” alternatives to gas boilers and hobs. He also mentioned the need for “significant changes” in industrial and agricultural practices, food consumption, and transport.
However, as a recent YouGov poll suggested, the public recognises the threat that climate breakdown presents. While Hammond claimed funding would need to be withdrawn from public services, 37% of people surveyed said they’d pay higher taxes towards decreasing carbon emissions. Meanwhile, 58% supported stronger taxes on the UK’s wealthiest 10% to fund these measures further. And, as some have noted, companies avoid billions of pounds in tax every year.
In October 2018, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that humanity has until 2030 to limit the worst effects of climate breakdown. Failing to act would “worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people”. Debra Roberts, co-chair of the group that produced the report, said the date is “a line in the sand… and we must act now”. With the IPCC and CCC’s warnings in mind, Hammond’s continued dithering is remarkable.
Environmentalists have previously criticised Hammond for his neglect of climate issues. Green MP Caroline Lucas, for example, pointed out the mess of contradictions in the chancellor’s Spring Statement. Announcing the statement in March, Hammond said that the “creativity of the marketplace” must be brought to bear on solutions for climate breakdown. But Lucas said that Hammond
announced energy efficiency standards for new homes, which his party scrapped in 2015. He wants travel providers to offer carbon offsets, while he builds new runways. And he paid lip service to biodiversity, without mentioning his devastating cuts to Natural England.
And once again, Hammond’s latest letter shows how limited capitalist ‘creativity’ really is. Profits remain an overriding concern at the highest levels, even as we stare into the face of climate disaster.
Featured image via Flickr – Raul Mee
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?