Massive injections and the enabling of mechanisms to supply liquidity in different currencies were pivotal in containing the risk of such collapse. These measures were accompanied by official interest rate cuts that contributed to generating the necessary demand stimuli to counter, as far as possible, the adverse effects of the crisis on activity and employment. In the initial stages of the crisis, the measures of the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank essentially followed a common pattern. The differences between them had, above all, to do with the singular characteristics of their respective operational frameworks. Subsequently, differences have become apparent between the paths pursued. While cyclical positions continued relatively to coincide, the emerging divergences were linked to the specific structural features of the different economies, such as, for instance, the different weights of banks and capital markets in the intermediation of financial flows. Later, however, differentiation was increasingly more related to the differing pace of exit from the crisis in each economic and monetary area. The monetary policy of the US Federal Reserve Since the start of the crisis, the US Federal Reserve has been pursuing a strongly expansionary monetary policy. In this connection it has resorted to a wide array of both conventional and less conventional measures. The Federal Reserve cut its official interest rates successively until placing them at their natural lower bound, i.e. close to zero, and it embarked on massive securities purchase programmes that substantially expanded its balance sheet.

For example, the IEA estimates that the transition could require $ in energy sector investments a year for decades – twice the rate at present.11 By 2050 we will need nearly 95% of electricity supply to be low carbon, 70% of new cars electric, retrofitting of the entire building stock, and an 80% fall in the CO2 intensity of the building sector.12 With an estimated $ trillion of infrastructure investment expected between 2015 and 2030, smart decisions now can make sure that investment is both financially sound and environmentally sustainable.13 Investing in more sustainable agriculture could deliver an estimated $ trillion in economic benefits per year and generate millions of jobs, while also improving food security and reducing GHG emissions.14 Reducing air pollution could not only prevent millions of premature deaths per year, but avoid over  11  See IEA (2017), ’Perspectives for the Energy Transition - Investment Needs for a Low-Carbon Energy System.’ Ibid. 13 New Climate Economy (2018), ‘The 2018 Report of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.’ 12  7  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx  7  $ billion in lost productivity and health impacts.15 Getting climate disclosure right will mean that investment flows to firms which are managing the risks and seizing the opportunities. Ensuring our banks and insurers are resilient to climate-related risks will reinforce this process while keeping the financial system open for UK households and businesses in all types of weather.