No 10 Hammond slams a £ 1 trillion claim on net emissions cuts to zero
Downing Street reprimanded Philip Hammond very firmly, albeit indirectly, for having argued it A pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 would cost the country a trillion pounds., Which is money that could have been spent on public services.
In a leaked letter to Theresa May to the Financial Times, The advisor argued That the target might see some industries “economically uncompetitive”.
In a strong response, May’s spokeswoman rejected Hammond’s argument, while solemnly insisting that this was a general point, and not directed specifically at the counsel.
No.10 does not believe Hammond, in economic terms, compares apples and oranges by treating the entire cost of the economy as if it were just government spending, not taking into account the benefits such a policy would bring, or calculating the costs of inaction. Downing Street also says that any projected cost will decrease over time.
The spokeswoman said:
Obviously, I don’t go into the contents of the letter, but broadly there are a lot of personalities on the matter who don’t take into account the benefits or take into account the costs of not doing so. I would add that the costs involved in achieving this goal are overall economic costs, not financial costs, and so it is not really right to frame them as a public spending trade-off. I think it’s important to define that.
When asked whether Hammond was misleading in this way, she added:
You have just outlined how we think it should be framed. I will not talk about the details of the leak, but I think I was very clear about the position on the Prime Minister.
Here’s what a Downing Street spokeswoman said about how the government ruled out the start of the summer recess before the new prime minister was elected. She said:
I fully expect that the Council will ensure that it is seated upon appointing a new prime minister. Then it comes down to the home, then, what activity or action he chooses to do.
No 10 She backs down on a motion that would delay her resignation until she makes sure her successor has the confidence of the Commons