Please make it easier to print on a limited number of pages, and with a draft resolution.

Isn't much of the increase in "public support" due to the skyrocketing amount of fertilisers being bought across Africa, which is certain to ruin their already fragile soils and deoxygenate what little freshwater they have? Who is benefitting? A few large agrichemical companies in rich countries, keen to expand their markets in less technically proficient parts of the world while regions such as Europe get smarter about their use. The quality of public support matters more than the numbers. Nature-based solutions are cheaper, and better tailored to geographical specifics. Tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture and redirecting those fines to support non-polluting and biodiversity-enhancing farms will quickly change the behaviour that has been allowed to wreck ecosystems the world over.

Regard,

I have a great interest in this topic I worked on and published  articles the topic as follows;

1. Impact of Enabling / Disabling Technologies on Higher Education

2. Impact of climate change and higher education.

Now I am already writing on the topic of Green skills implementation in higher education. Kindly let me allow you to use some text in my project and if possible I need its framework or more articles. I shall be very thankful to You

High regards

Your' Sincirely 

Azra Abdul Majeed

University of Management and Tecnology Pakistan

In Germany, the government found a 'solution' to the overuse of packaging material and its processing. They introduced the so-called German Packaging Act, which obligates retailers shipping in and to Germany to license their packaging material. The money is used for waste processing and recycling purposes: https://www.lizenzero.de/en/blog/german-packaging-act-in-the-uk-obligations-when-shipping-to-germany/ As a consequence, retailers try to use less packaging material (the more packaging material, the more money they have to pay for it). In addition to that, less retailers from the US or other countries have shipped goods to Germany because they want to evade these costs. Thus, also emissions can be reduced. I think the law should or could be also introduced in the US.

Under "Send us your book ideas" I'd like to recommend 

Policy Press | The Richer, The Poorer - How Britain Enriched the Few and Failed the Poor. A 200-Year History, By Stewart Lansley (bristoluniversitypress.co.uk)

and 

David Graber, The Dawn of Everything (penguin.co.uk)

My book suggestions:

- Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform by Gary Teeple

- Covid-19 The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab

- The Death of Money by James Rickards

- Collusion by Nomi Prins

- The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brezinski

- Money Land by Oliver Bullough

- Dark Towers by David Enrich

- And the Weak Suffer What they must by Yanis Varoufakis

- The Silent Take Over - Noreena Hertz

The post is about an essential topic, and addressing the so-called "pandemic era" requires increasing people's resilience also in relation to their psychological strength, especially as regards the more frail people.
I find the words of Husseini Manji very interesting. Where is it possible to read his entire speech, and perhaps even find any supporting literature?

At least since David Ricardo, there can be no question that trade and investment are an important, even vital wealth generator. At least since Adam Smith, it is clear that, where the financial effects are more important than the external effects, it is more efficiently conducted by private enterprise than by governments. The exception of external effects is important and goes for other sectors of the economy also.

The upshot of the above is that transactions with large externalities are best regulated, executed and financially supported (including development aid) by governments, while the rest (including mainstream trade) needs a looser set of regulations for smooth operations only. Government's financial support will often be needed to finance the value of the externalities, since classical, transaction-based economic and financial measuring and statistics are unable to measure them, let alone well-being.

ODA is the prime tool to apply a correction for externalities, even if they are negative, such as arms, privacy infringement or tourism. OECD could work on that. There is low-hanging fruit in this area. Trade is a tool for development, but development is not a goal of private companies. Their overwhelming goal is profit or return on investment. Their prime restriction is risk. They do not need much support beyond the incidental education effort to find profit or return on investment. OECD should concentrate on risk.

The poorer the country, the higher the risk. Traders should be able to rely on a system of rule of law, with clear property rules. They need a reliable and fair payment system. They rightly consider corruption as a considerable risk. They consider weak or no consideration of ESG as risk.

More and more, they see non-activity (including no net zero targets, net zero targets after 2050, targets without credibility and targets linked to impossible demands) on climate change as very risky indeed in particular as it is clear already that laggard countries will eventually face prohibitive border controls for their goods and services. These risks, in particular climate change risks, are more important as the trade or investment project is longer term. Yet, longer term trade relations and long-term investments are exactly what most effectively drives development.

Taking risk mitigation as the central factor to stimulate trade and investment in the poorer countries would make OECD action significantly more effective. Such a policy would be an important argument towards the private actors in trade and investment and an impetus for co-operation between private and public parties.