"Key to that change would be concerted policy action from governments as well as technological advances to help hard-to-abate sectors decarbonise, it added.
"Our clients' portfolios – which reflect the global economy – cannot reach net zero without sustained and consistent government policy, accelerated technological breakthroughs, and substantial adaptation in corporate business models," it said.
"These portfolios will reflect the regulatory and legislative choices governments make to balance the need for reliable and affordable energy, and orderly decarbonisation."
Question: How is the zero-carbon investments transition going to happen if the U.S. and Australia keep on dragging their feet on net-zeroing their economies?
This is good news, of course. But I'm giving Reuters' editors one demerit for the ambiguous headline. Instead of "net zero aligned," they might have said "net-zero emissions aligned" so dummies like me would know what they're talking about.
When it comes to climate change it is vital to determine if the jargon means what you think it means. Like 'renewable' can entail greenwashing. That is, they say it is good to cut down trees for industry and fuel, then replant them, destroying ecosystems, and then try to call it renewable when it is actually 'greenwashing' another form of propaganda or brainwashing.