Among the spending choices for governments of poorer nations, kick-starting the technological revolution may at first seem like a low priority. Compared with critical infrastructure, healthcare, or schools, improved digital access and less waiting times for birth certificates feel like luxuries that should come further down the road, or perhaps be left to private enterprise. But there is reason to rethink this.

Não existem remédios rápidos para a desigualdade de género, mas uma coisa é certa: nem todos os esforços são igualmente bons ou suportados por dados rigorosos.

Na lotaria da vida, nascer mulher num país pobre é uma dupla desvantagem. As mulheres dos países pobres têm a maior incidência global de pobreza entre todos os grupos demográficos, juntamente com as piores condições de saúde, o menor acesso à educação e a maior probabilidade de ser vítima de violência.

A carbon tax is much discussed as a solution to climate change. It is simple and straightforward: a climate price tag makes industry and consumers take into account the implicit negative effects of their actions, whether it is the aircraft fuel for a vacation, or fossil fuels for food fertilizers or to heat and cool a home.

I have argued for a well-designed carbon tax for more than a decade. But five important caveats, almost universally breached by politicians, affect the likelihood of such a policy working.

A new scorecard that purports to grade countries on development progress tells us little about how we are faring against humanity’s biggest challenges. Instead, it highlights the shortcomings of today’s unfocused global development agenda.

Discussions about development spending and reducing Bangladesh's climate vulnerability are often dominated—understandably—by politicians and donors. These are the decision-makers who affect how funds are spent.

"Tako je videti globalno segrevanje," so ugotavljali voditelji televizije CNN, ko so poročali o uničujočem orkanu Harveyju. Teden dni pozneje so mediji in politiki enako rekli za orkan Irmo. Prehitevanje pri povezovanju naravnih katastrof s podnebnimi spremembami je nevarno. Usmerja nas namreč k politikam, ki bodo imele pri preprečevanju prihodnjih opustošenj le majhen učinek ali pa sploh nobenega. Mnenje znanosti je jasno, vendar ima tudi veliko odtenkov: zaradi podnebnih sprememb bodo nekateri ekstremni vremenski pojavi še hujši, medtem ko bodo drugi milejši.

Recent weather disasters — flooding across Asia and hurricanes hitting the US and Caribbean — have only increased the volume from commentators and politicians who tell us: “This is what climate change looks like.” 

The destruction, they say, provides added reason to double down on the Paris Agreement, the climate pact adopted in December 2015. Those who don’t think this way are haters and wreckers, no different from Donald Trump, who cancelled US involvement in the treaty.

Así es como se ve el cambio climático”, declaró rápidamente CNN sobre el devastador huracán Harvey. Poco después, los medios de comunicación y los políticos decían exactamente lo mismo sobre los huracanes Irma y María.

Es peligroso precipitarse y relacionar los desastres con el cambio climático, porque nos orienta hacia políticas que tendrán poco o ningún efecto en la reducción de la devastación futura.

Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator’s Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore’s response: “Never heard of him — is he a denier?” Then he asked the journalist, “Are you a denier?”

When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn’t know how big, Gore declared, “You are a denier.”

The concept of trade-offs has become unfashionable. Politicians around the world like to pretend that their choices will bring us nothing but superlative benefits.

Nowhere is this whitewashing more pervasive or accepted than in climate change. There is a prevalent, comforting notion that we can have our cake and eat it too: that cutting carbon need not involve financial sacrifice.