Solving the top problems
The Copenhagen Consensus has made a list of the worlds top problems in order of priority. Their question is if we had 50 billion dollars to solve a problem, where would we be able to affect the biggest change.
This is one of those ideas that strike you as obvious once you’ve seen it but took genius to invent (and act on). This is their list:
I found this on Classically Liberal who also linked to a video of Bjorn Lomborg, the founder of Copenhagen Consenus speaking at TED.
The implications of this list are provocative. If you agree with the order of the categorization then to focus on any of the projects that are lower on the list would mean (conservatively) that your money and energy could be better used elsewhere or if you look at it in a different light, it could mean that to ignore the higher ranked problems by diverting attention to those ranked lower (the obvious being global warming) is actually causing a higher number people to suffer and die.
Lomberg has also written a book – “Global Crises, Global Solutions” (Cambridge University Press). I haven’t read it yet but I’m excited by the prospect of researching this more.
Filed under: Environment, Research, Science | 4 Comments
You ought to know a bit more about his background. A focus on malnutrition but not the ecology of the Earth is a little like a doctor giving clot-busters to heart attack patients but failing to provide advice on exercise and diet to younger generations.
Here’s an article on Bjorn Lomborg from Sourcewatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg
What Lomborg is saying isn’t that problems such as climate change should be ignored, he’s saying that there is more good that could be done elsewhere. Fundamentally though it comes down to a belief that global warming isn’t as big of a crisis as it’s made out to be by the ‘consensus.’ Obviously we’re not going to solve that problem in the comments to this blog post, but I happen to agree with him on that point.
The Sourcewatch attempt at discrediting Lomberg is all too typical, it’s exactly what I expected it to be before even reading it. A couple comments on the Sourcewatch article:
Maybe that’s because if you apply the 6 models to the past and compare it to known data, only the lowest scenario even comes close to predicting what actually occurred.
Right. Only environmental scientists can contribute to the debate. That’s convenient, especially coming from someone who has a Ph.D. in BOTANY.
Is that to suggest that we can’t attack many problems at once? Maybe I’m like you. My wife always complains that men can only do one thing at a time. And what if several of the problems on his list have a common root cause. Is it better to tackle the cause (I’m being a little vague but this principle is important). If he lists climate as “bad projects” then that sounds a lot like he thinks it should be ignored.
Discussion should not exclude concerned citizens anywhere. But I would suggest that climate experts views be given a special weighting over a botanist and even more so over an economist or a plummer. I also hold post-grad qualifications in the biological sciences but wouldn’t like the worlds leaders to make decisions based only on my understandings of the world’s climate. Lets not create a false debate. Debate is now about policy and the effects of global warming but is no longer about the inherent reality or otherwise of man-made global warming. You’ll reach your own conclusions but it is important you understand the Bjorn Lomborg is a fringe figure, and important you appreciate the arguments against his conclusions. The hardest thing in life is to intentionally expose yourself to views that you disagree with, but its also one of the most important.
Bye for now.
To some degree, yes! There are limited financial resources in the world. Ideally we could get everyone to focus on 15 different problems at once, but I think history (and the present) indicates otherwise–people have limited resources, a limted attention span and focus.
Yeah. I agree. It’s not Lomborg who has the degree in Botany, it’s Raven, the guy who says “…he’s not an environmental scientist and he doesn’t understand the fields that he’s talking about so in that case…” How can someone be so hypocritical?
Interesting that you’ve seen fit to relegate him to the fringe. I read the campaign to discredit him on Sourcewatch and found nothing substantial. If later I find something that proves me wrong then fine, I’m wrong, but at this point I see nothing to indicate that.