FROM THE AUTHORS: In the piece we should have more clearly noted that Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement commits countries to undertake rapid reductions “so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals of sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of the century”. As several readers have correctly pointed out, this is technically the same as net-zero, and it is very important that this language was included in this historic agreement, which we fully support. It is important to note that in the long term, natural sinks of CO2 are too slow and small to matter, so the only way of balancing residual CO2 emissions is by artificial CO2 removal, which as we point out is both hard and unproven. Thus the point of our piece is that many people, including many business leaders, investors, media, politicians, and even experts, don’t realize that meeting the Paris goal of 1.5-2 degrees means getting to zero emissions. “Balance of sources and sinks” is a bit technical for most people, but “zero” is a number everyone understands. Post-Paris this needs to be made clear - an economy based on dumping CO2 into the atmosphere has to end and the clean energy economy must begin, not in some distant future, but in the coming decades.
- ERIC BEINHOCKER AND MYLES ALLEN
Rather than pursue more debt relief to help the developing world weather the COVID-19 crisis, rich countries should provide pandemic-related necessities directly. Debt relief is so imprecise a mechanism that it is as likely to benefit private-sector creditors as it is to help the poor.
points to a number of flaws in the prevailing strategy for supporting poor countries through the crisis.
Although some remain inclined to point the finger at the UK government’s missteps in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, the explanation for its evolving approach is more complex. It also holds important lessons for managing future crises.
argues that the UK government’s evolving response to the pandemic holds important lessons for future crises.