Global warming! HIV! Drugs! Contaminated drinking water! Malaria! Terrorism! World hunger! Poverty!
We want to solve them all and we want them solved today. Unfortunately the world is made up of limited resources and uncoordinated efforts by peoples with different agendas are not the most efficient means to solve any of them.
This is what gave birth to the Copenhagen Consensus.
I first learned about the Copenhagen Consensus by watching a TED video of a presentation given by the CC’s founder, Bjorn Lomborg. I encourage you to take a look at it at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62. It is well worth your investment of 18 minutes. I think it will change the way you think about the world’s problems.
The basic concept is simple. We need to develop a list of the world’s problems using prioritization, a Pareto analysis so to speak. A group of experts develop this list by analyzing the cost/benefit relationship for solving these problems. It may not surprise you that in 2004 these experts placed Global Warming very low on the list because solving other problems would, in the long run, represent a larger return.
This may lead you to ask what could be more important than saving the word from climate change. They determined that there is little that can be done and it would cost a huge amount to have a slight impact. For example, it was determined that if $150 Billion was spent it would have a slight impact in 2100 (postpone it by 6 years) on global warming. The UN estimated that for half that amount, we could solve all the major problems in the world. Even if that is close to true, we could be saving the lives of the people that will come up with the most cost effective solution to climate change, if a solution is needed.
(From their web site) The Copenhagen Consensus exercise started as a simple but untested idea of prioritizing global opportunities. In 2004, the process was carried out for the very first time and ended with a successful list, compiled by some of the world’s top economists, attracting attention from all over the world. Since 2004, the
The ambition is to carry through a global Copenhagen Consensus exercise every fourth year similar to the Olympics. This ensures that new, important challenges and solutions are included in the process and that research is updated.
A new global Copenhagen Consensus will take place 25-30 May 2008. Once again it takes stock of the world’s biggest problems and their solutions. The basic idea is the same as used in Copenhagen Consensus 2004: Imagine you had $75bn to donate to worthwhile causes. What would you do, and where should we start?
An expert panel of 8 outstanding economists will, as in 2004, deliver a ranked list of the most promising solutions to ten of the most pressing challenges facing the world today.
Around 55 of the world’s leading economists and specialists in the ten challenges are involved in the project. For each of the ten challenges a group of three people (The Challenge Paper Authors), and two commentators (The Perspective Paper Authors), have compiled up-to-date analysis of the solutions. Altogether, the papers will ensure the best possible foundation, including costs and benefits estimates, for the prioritization of the solutions.
The conclusions from the roundtable are expected to be an eye-opener for policy-makers all over the world, and to act as a vehicle for improving decision-making on spending on global issues.
I encourage you to visit their web site at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=788
This is such a common-sense approach to problem solving that I am convinced it will have no discernable impact on future decision making. Regarding global warming, I read an interesting article by one of the 100 scientists who worked for the group that collectively won the Nobel Prize that Al Gore claims. He states that even assuming global warming is real a) we don't know that humans had anything to do with it, b) people foolishly assume that computer models that cannot predict weather in two weeks can accurately predict it 100 years hence, c) we don't actually know that a warming earth would be a net bad thing, and d) it's very doubtful we can significantly affect it anyway. That won't stop the Irrationalists from wailing that The Government needs to do Something! Always a euphemism for POMA (pissing our money away).
Did the UN really say we could solve the world's problems for $75 billion? That is about what the World Bank disburses every 5 years. Anyway, the idea the the World's Problems can be "solved" is only going to happen if human nature changes, which isn't on the horizon. It doesn't mean we stop trying, but it is a kind of blind conceit to think that we can "perfect" this world - we can only try to improve the lot of the most number of people. Human nature cannot be "cured" for $75 billion, just mitigated. Unless that $75 billion is enough to steer a comet into the earth's path.
Posted by: John Bonham | March 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM