« The Democratic Platform: Withdraw from Iraq before we win... | Main | Cobb on the Real World vs. College... »
June 23, 2006
What would you do with 50 billion dollars?
I'm very sympathetic to Bjorn Lomborg. The Economist thinks well of him also. Here is another suggestion that some things are just not worth the money...
- Two years ago, a Danish environmentalist called Bjorn Lomborg had an idea. We all want to make the world a better place but, given finite resources, we should look for the most cost-effective ways of doing so. He persuaded a bunch of economists, including three Nobel laureates, to draw up a list of priorities. They found that efforts to fight malnutrition and disease would save many lives at modest expense, whereas fighting global warming would cost a colossal amount and yield distant and uncertain rewards.
That conclusion upset a lot of environmentalists. This week, another man who upsets a lot of people embraced it. John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said that Mr Lomborg's "Copenhagen Consensus" (see articles) provided a useful way for the world body to get its priorities straight. Too often at the UN, said Mr Bolton, "everything is a priority". The secretary-general is charged with carrying out 9,000 mandates, he said, and when you have 9,000 priorities you have none.
So, over the weekend, Mr Bolton sat down with UN diplomats from seven other countries, including China and India but no Europeans, to rank 40 ways of tackling ten global crises. The problems addressed were climate change, communicable diseases, war, education, financial instability, governance, malnutrition, migration, clean water and trade barriers.
Given a notional $50 billion, how would the ambassadors spend it to make the world a better place? Their conclusions were strikingly similar to the Copenhagen Consensus. After hearing presentations from experts on each problem, they drew up a list of priorities. The top four were basic health care, better water and sanitation, more schools and better nutrition for children. Averting climate change came last.
This comment from Pejman Yousefzadeh: And what is my reaction? My reaction is that once again, Palmerston is vindicated. Nation-states have no permanent friends, nor have they permanent enemies. They only have permanent interests. This article neatly lays those interests--those priorities--out for the reader to see. How policymakers and would-be policymakers like Al Gore respond will, of course, attract a great deal of interest and attention.
Posted by rakhier at June 23, 2006 10:34 AM