Transcript: Bjorn Lomborg on the Copenhagen Consensus | Feb 05, 2005

[Applause]

Bjorn Lomborg appears on screen standing in front of a podium, speaking into a microphone, with a laptop at his side. Bjorn is in his forties, has short, light blond hair, is clean-shaven, and wears a black shirt.

Bjorn Lomborg says THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME I'M GOING TO BE
PRESENTING A COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS IN THIS VERY DETAILED
WAY, SO I HOPE YOU'LL ALSO BEAR
WITH ME IF I SOMETIMES RUN OUT
OF WORDS OR IF THERE ARE SOME
OF THE THINGS I FIND HARD TO
EXPLAIN.
OF COURSE, THIS IS, IN MANY
WAYS, AS YOU ALSO MENTIONED,
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THAT WELCOME, A HUBRISTIC
ENTERPRISE.
IT REALLY IS A VERY DARING
PROJECT, BUT I HOPE THAT BY THE
END OF THE EVENING, WE'LL AT
LEAST BE ABLE TO AGREE THAT
IT'S ALSO SOMETHING, AND A
QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO ASK,
EVEN IF, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THIS IS NOT THE FINAL ANSWER.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TRY
TO TAKE YOU THROUGH WHAT IS IT
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE OF
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS, ALSO TRY
TO TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE
OBJECTIONS OF COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF
WHAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY GOING ON
IN THE INDIVIDUAL PAPERS OF ALL
THESE DIFFERENT CONCERNS THAT
WE MIGHT HAVE FOR THE PLANET,
AND THEN COME BACK TO THE FINAL
RANKING.
OF COURSE YOU'VE GIVEN THE
WHOLE THING AWAY BY SAYING WHAT
CAME UP.
I GUESS IT'S ALSO BEEN OUT FOR
A WHILE.
AND ALSO I SHOULD JUST
APOLOGISE THAT I'M NOT REALLY
GOING TO TALK ABOUT MY BOOK.
I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT SOME
PEOPLE HAD ACTUALLY COME
BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT I WAS
GOING TO TALK ABOUT MY BOOK.
I REALLY JUST-- SO NOT TO
DISAPPOINT THOSE PEOPLE, AT
LEAST, I JUST WANT TO SAY, THE
ONLY REASON WHY THOSE TWO
THINGS ARE REALLY CONNECTED,
WAS THAT MY POINT WITH "THE
SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST,"
THEN, AND I THINK THE REASON,
OR AT LEAST, PART OF THE REASON
WHY IT'S BECOME A CONTROVERSIAL
DISCUSSION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA, WAS BECAUSE I CAME OUT
AND SAID WE NEED TO PRIORITISE,
WE CAN'T DO ALL GOOD THINGS IN
THE ENVIRONMENT, AND WE NEED TO
GET A SENSE OF WHAT IS MORE
IMPORTANT, PARTICULATE
POLLUTION OR PESTICIDE
RESIDUES.

A caption reads "Bjorn Lomborg, Author, ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist.’"

The caption changes to "Copenhagen Consensus 2004."

The caption changes to "International Development Research Centre, Ottawa October 7, 2004."

Bjorn Lomborg continues THEY'RE BOTH
BAD THINGS, WE'D LOVE TO GET
RID OF BOTH OF THEM, BUT IF WE
CAN'T DO EVERYTHING, WHICH ONE
SHOULD WE DO FIRST, AND THE
BANAL POINT IN "THE SKEPTICAL
ENVIRONMENTALIST" IS THAT IF
PESTICIDE RESIDUES KILL ABOUT
20 PEOPLE IN THE U.S., AND
PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION KILLS
138,000 PEOPLE, AND WE CAN DO
EQUALLY MUCH OF BOTH OF THEM AT
EQUAL COSTS, THEN MAYBE WE
SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE
138,000 BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE 20.
NOW THAT'S,
IN MANY WAYS A VERY OBVIOUS
ARGUMENT, BUT ALSO A VERY
CONTROVERSIAL ONE, BECAUSE IT
SUDDENLY STARTS TELLING US, AND
PUTTING IN OUR FACE, THAT WE
CAN'T DO EVERYTHING, AND THAT
MAKES A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL
UNCOMFORTABLE.
IF YOU'RE THAT KIND OF PEOPLE,
YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO BE
UNCOMFORTABLE TONIGHT, BECAUSE
BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO ASK
THE VERY SAME QUESTION, NOT
JUST IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA,
NOT JUST SAYING, YES, THE
ENVIRONMENT, WE HAVE TO
PRIORITISE BETWEEN DIFFERENT
ISSUES OF THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT
ALSO REALLY ON A BROADER SCALE,
BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY THE
SAME THING THAT WE DO, SAYING
ENVIRONMENT IS NOT THE ONLY
GOOD THING OUT THERE,
ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE GLOBE AS A
WHOLE.
ONE OF THE POINTS YOU MIGHT
MAKE, IS TO SAY THAT PERHAPS
THE MOST IMPORTANT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM IN THE
THIRD WORLD IS INDOOR AIR
POLLUTION.
IT'S NOT OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTION.
ACTUALLY A LOT OF DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES, YOU SHOULD GO
OUTSIDE IN YOUR POLLUTED CITIES
TO GET FRESH AIR, AND IT'S
INDOOR AIR POLLUTION, BECAUSE A
LOT OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY KIDS
AND WOMEN, USE ALL KINDS OF
CRAPPY MATERIAL TO COOK THEIR
FOOD, AND VERY OFTEN, JUST DUNG
OR CARDBOARD OR WHATEVER THEY
CAN FIND, AND IT MEANS IT'S THE
EQUIVALENT OF SMOKING SOME FIVE
OR TEN PACKS OF CIGARETTES EACH
DAY.
IT MEANS, THE W.H.O. ESTIMATES,
THAT 2 POINT 6 MILLION PEOPLE EACH
YEAR, ABOUT 5 OF THE GLOBAL
DEATH RATE IS CAUSED BY INDOOR
AIR POLLUTION.
NOW THAT'S NOT A TERRIBLY HARD
PROBLEM TO ATTACK, IT'S SIMPLY
A QUESTION OF MAKING THESE
PEOPLE RICHER.
AND THEN OF COURSE THEY CAN GO
OUT AND ACTUALLY BUY KEROSENE
OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD
EASE THEIR LIVES AND LOOSE UP A
LOT OF THESE LIVES.
SO AGAIN, IT'S AN ISSUE OF
SAYING, WE CAN'T JUST TALK
ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ON THE GLOBAL SCALE, AND THAT
WAS REALLY THE BACKGROUND FOR
SAYING, WELL THEN MAYBE WE NEED
TO ASK, OF ALL THE DIFFERENT
GOOD THINGS THAT WE CAN DO OUT
THERE, NOT JUST ENVIRONMENT,
BUT ALL OF THESE -- WE CAN'T DO
THEM ALL, SO WHICH ONES SHOULD
WE DO FIRST, AND THAT IS REALLY
THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS.
I SHOULD REALLY SAY, BEFORE I
GO ON, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, OF
COURSE, ALWAYS THE CHEAP ANSWER
FROM ANY SPEAKER, BUT IF YOU
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN GO
TO OUR HOMEPAGE..... WHERE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO
FIND AND DOWNLOAD ALL THE
INDIVIDUAL PAPERS, AND WE
ACTUALLY ALSO HAD JOURNALISTS
REWRITE THE PAPERS, BECAUSE
YES, THEY ARE LONG, AND IF IT'S
NOT YOUR PRIMARY INTEREST,
MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO FIGHT
YOUR WAY THROUGH 70 PAGES OF
HARD STUFF, IF YOU COULD GET IT
IN FOUR INSTEAD, SO WE'VE TRIED
TO BOIL IT DOWN, AND OF COURSE
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, IS, I'M
GOING TO TRY TO BOIL THE FOUR
PAGES DOWN TO JUST FIVE OR TEN
SENTENCES TONIGHT, TO GIVE YOU
AN OVERVIEW.
BECAUSE, IN A SENSE, AND AGAIN,
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE,
IS TO COLLATE A LOT OF
INFORMATION FROM VERY MANY
DIFFERENT SOURCES, AND SAY,
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING ACROSS ALL
THESE AREAS, WHAT IS IT THAT WE
SHOULD DO?
SO BOTTOM LINE, COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, WHAT IS IT ABOUT?
WELL IT'S ABOUT SAYING AND
RECOGNISING THAT THERE ARE A
LOT OF PROBLEMS OUT THERE.
THERE ARE...

A slide appears on screen with a title that reads "Copehagen Consenus, what is it all about?"

Below, statistics read "Prioritizing, 800 million are starving, one billion lack clean drinking water, two billion lack sanitation, 175 million international migrants, 940 million illiterate adults, several billion people will be affected by global warming."

Below, a caption reads "If the world decided to spend say 50 billion dollars extra to improve lives… where should we start?"

Bjorn continues NOW ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE
SERIOUS ISSUES, AND OF COURSE
WE'D ALL LOVE TO BE ABLE TO WIN
THE WAR AGAINST MALNUTRITION,
MAKE SANITARY-- MAKE CLEAN
DRINKING WATER AVAILABLE TO
EVERYBODY, MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY GOT SANITATION, MAKE
SURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DEAL
WITH ALL THE PROBLEMS, AND
FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING AT THE
SAME TIME.
BUT REALISTICALLY, IT'S NOT ALL
GOING TO HAPPEN FIRST.
SO WE REALLY NEED TO ASK
OURSELVES, WHAT, OF ALL THESE
DIFFERENT THINGS, AND MANY
MORE, SHOULD WE BE DOING FIRST?
SO REALLY, THE KEY QUESTION WAS
TO SAY, IF THE WORLD ONLY HAS A
LIMITED AMOU OF MONEY TO
SPEN WHERE SHOULD IT SPEND IT
FIRST?
SO THE KEY QUESTION THAT WE
TRIED TO FOCUS THE CONFERENCE
AROUND WAS, IF THE WORLD
DECIDED TO SPEND, SAY, ANOTHER
50 BILLION DOLLARS, TO IMPROVE LIVES,
WHERE SHOULD WE START?
AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE
SAYING 50 BILLION DOLLARS AS AN
EXAMPLE, AND WE'LL GET BACK TO
THAT, BECAUSE THAT HAS ACTUALLY
GENERATED A LOT-- I THINK OF
FAIRLY UNNECESSARY DISCUSSION.
PRIORITISATION, WHY ISN'T IT
HAPPENING?
BECAUSE IN MAY WAYS, OF COURSE,
WE COULD SAY, WE'RE ALMOST 60
YEARS FROM WORLD WAR II, WE
HAVE LOTS OF U.N. AGENCIES THAT
ARE ALL LOOKING AT DIFFERENT
ISSUES IN THE WORLD.

Bjorn Lomborg says HOW COME THAT
ALL THESE AGENCIES HAVE NOT,
SOONER OR LATER, THOUGHT THIS
FAIRLY SIMPLE THOUGHT OF
SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, WHAT
SHOULD WE FIRST?
AND THE PROBLEM, I WOULD AUE,
TO A VERY LARGE EXTENT, IS THE
ONE OF INSTITUTIONAL SELF
INTEREST.
IT'S JUST SIMPLY VERY, VERY
DIFFICT TO MAKE YOURSELF
BELIEVE, WELL SHOULD WE ENTER
INTO THIS PROGRAM, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY EVERY ORGANISATION
WOULD LIKE TO COME OUT NUMBER 1
ON SUCH A LIST.

Bjorn Lomborg says LIKEWISE, ALL
ORGANISATIONS WOULD DREAD TO
COME OUT ON THE BOTTOM OR ANY
OTHER NUMBER, INDEED, AND OF
COURSE THERE'S ONLY ONE NUMBER
1 SPOT, BUT THERE'S LOTS OF
OTHER SPOTS ON THIS LIST.
SO MOST AGENCIES WOULD PROBABLY
FEEL SOMEWHAT UNCOMFORTABLE
ABOUT GOING INTO THIS IDEA OF
SAYING, LET'S TRY TO
PRIORITISE.
SO WE HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FROM
THE U.N.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN AN ACTIVE
APPROACH AND ATTEMPT TO TRY AND
PRIORITISE BETWEEN ALL THESE
DIFFERENT ISSUES-- AREAS.

A slide appears on screen with a title that reads "Priorization is unpleasant."

Below, bullet points read "Strong vested interests, organizations like UN tend not to prioritize between programs, lots of feel-good talk, dislike of putting anything at the bottom of the list, politicians prioritize every day."

Bjorn continues AND AGAIN, VERY OFTEN WE ARE
LEFT WITH POLITICIANS GIVING US
A LOT OF FEEL-GOOD TALK.
THEY'RE BASICALLY TELLING US,
YES, WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH
ALL ISSUES, AND VERY OFTEN,
INDEED, WHAT WE SAW IN DENMARK,
WAS, THAT WHEN YOU PRESS THE
ISSUE OF PRIORITISATION, IT
MAKES A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND A
LOT OF POLITICIANS FEEL VERY
UNCOMFORTABLE, AND THEY
ACTUALLY CAME OUT, QUITE A
NUMBER OF THEM, AND SAID, NO,
NO, WE DON'T WANT TO
PRIORITISE, WE WANT TO GIVE
SOMETHING TO EVERYTHING, AND IN
A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, THAT
MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE,
BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE
SAYING, WE'LL MAKE EVERYONE A
LITTLE HAPPY, AND AT LEAST WE
WON'T MAKE ENEMIES OF ANY
PARTICULAR GROUP.
BUT OF COURSE IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY THE RIGHT WAY TO
GO.
SO THE POINT IS TO SAY WE DO
PRIORITISE, EVEN IF WE DON'T
TALK ABOUT IT, WE DO
PRIORITISE, SO WE NEED TO HAVE
THIS DISCUSSION IN ORDER TO
PERHAPS BETTER MAKE OUR
PRIORITIES IN THE FUTURE.
I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'M
ALSO A LITTLE UNSURE OF WHAT
THE AUDIENCE HERE TONIGHT IS,
AND I'M SURE SOME OF YOU ARE
PROBABLY SITTING AND SAYING, OF
COURSE WE HAVE TO PRIORITISE.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROBABLY
ECONOMISTS.
[Audience Laughter]
AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I KNOW
FOR A FACT THAT THERE ARE A LOT
OF YOU WHO ARE PROBABLY SAYING,
THAT'S A HORRIBLE THING, AND
YOU KNOW, SO IF I GO ON FOR TOO
LONG, I'M GOING TO BORE THE
ECONOMISTS, AND IF I DON'T GO
ON TOO LONG, I'M GOING TO LOSE
THE REST OF YOU, SO YOU KNOW,
YOU'LL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME IN
THE SENSE, I'M GOING TO KEEP ON
TALKING ABOUT PRIORITIES, AND
PROBABLY A LITTLE LONGER THAN,
AT LEAST SOME OF YOU WOULD
THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY
NECESSARY.
ANOTHER PART OF THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, ITS RATIONALITY,
SORRY ITS PRIORITISATION, BUT
IT'S ALSO RATIONALITY.
IT'S ABOUT SAYING WE NEED TO
USE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IS OUT
THERE.
IT'S ABOUT IDENTIFYING AND
ANALYSING ALL THE BIG PROBLEMS
IN THE WORLD, AND THIS IS ONE
OF THE IMPORTANT POINTS, TO SAY
THAT WE ARE PULLING TOGETHER
INFORMATION FROM MANY DIFFERENT
SOURCES, FROM MANY DIFFERENT
AREAS.
ONE OF THE POINTS I TRY TO MAKE
WAS EXACTLY THAT NONE OF US ARE
EXPERTS IN ALL THESE AREAS, SO
IN WHAT SENSE ARE WE ACTUALLY
GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL ALL
THESE THINGS TOGETHER, AND NOT,
IN A SENSE, BE AMATEURS IN ALL
THESE AREAS.
THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN BE
EXPERTS IN ALL OF THESE AREAS,
BUT WE STILL NEED TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION, AS A POLITICAL
SOCIETY, AS A DEMOCRACY, AND AT
THE END OF THE DAY, TO BETTER
THE WORLD.
WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION
AND SO IN A WAY YOU COULD ALSO
SAY THAT THE BY-LINE FOR
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS HAS NOT
BEEN ABOUT SAYING, NOW WE ARE
GOING TO MAKE THE PERFECT LIST,
NOW WE ARE GOING TO TELL IT
ONCE AND FOR ALL, AND THIS IS
HOW IT IS, AND IT'S BASED ON
ALL THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
PEOPLE KNOWING EVERYTHING ABOUT
THIS.
IT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING.
BUT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT
WE SHOULD USE ALL THE KNOWLEDGE
THAT WE DO HAVE, SO IN A SENSE
YOU COULD SAY COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS IS NOT ABOUT BEING
SMARTER THAN WE ARE, IT'S JUST
ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE
NOT STUPIDER THAN WE ARE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ABOUT USING THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT IS ALREADY OUT
THERE, AND TELLING US, WHAT ARE
THE EFFECTS OF SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
LOOKED AT.
AND SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO, IS TO ESTIMATE THE BENEFITS
AND THE COSTS OF DIFFERENT
ISSUES.
OF COURSE THAT IS WHAT
ECONOMISTS DO, AND TRY TO PUT
UP A PRIORITISED LIST OF ALL
THOSE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OUT
THERE, TO SAY WHAT, IF
ANYTHING, SHOULD WE DO ABOUT
ALL THESE DIFFERENT CHALLENGES?
THE TEN CHALLENGES THAT WE PUT
UP WERE ACTUALLY CULLED FROM AN
ORIGINAL LIST OF 32 CHALLENGES.
WE SET UP, BASICALLY, A
METHODOLOGY WHERE WE SAID, IF
WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO SCAN THE
WHOLE WORLD FOR PROBLEM AREAS,
IT'S LIKELY THAT ALL THESE
PROBLEM AREAS WILL, IN SOME WAY
OR ANOTHER, BE DEALT WITH BY
U.N. AGENCIES IN SOME FORM OR
ANOTHER.
SO WE WENT THROUGH ALL MAJOR
U.N. ORGANISATION WORKS,
REPORTS, YEARLY REPORTS, OVER
THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND
CULLED ESSENTIALLY 32 DIFFERENT
AREAS.
OF COURSE THERE IS NO WAY TO
SAY THAT THESE WILL ALL BE THE
EXACT RIGHT ONES, AND OF COURSE
THERE'S OVERLAP, BUT IN
ESSENCE, I THINK WE CAPTURED
PRETTY MUCH ALL THE IMPORTANT
ISSUE AREAS THAT ARE OUT THERE
IN THE WORLD.
OF COURSE THEY'RE ALSO
AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET, ON
OUR WEBSITE.
WE GATHERED TWO OTHER FOCUS
GROUPS, BOTH AN ECONOMIST AND A
NON-ECONOMIST FOCUS GROUP, TO
SEE IF WE MISSED ANYTHING, AND
ESSENTIALLY WE HAD NOT.
FROM THERE ON, SIMPLY BECAUSE
AT THE OTHER END OF THE UH...
THE SCHEME OF THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, WE REALLY HAD TO CUT
IT DOWN TO ABOUT TEN, SIMPLY
FOR PRACTICAL REASONS.
WE FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY
TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SMALLER
SUBSET, NOT THE 32, AND SO WE
ASKED THE EXPERTS, WHICH I'LL
GET BACK TO, TO ACTUALLY
WHITTLE THIS DOWN TO TEN
CHALLENGES.
AND THESE ARE THE TEN
CHALLENGES THAT WERE THEN
DEEMED.
WE ASKED THE EXPERTS, NOT TO
COME UP WITH THE BIGGEST
CHALLENGES, BECAUSE THAT
DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE.
OF COURSE THE BIGGEST
CHALLENGES IN THE WORLD ARE
PROBABLY THAT WE DIE OR
SOMETHING.
BUT YOU KNOW, THE POINT OF
COURSE, IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE
SHOULD PRIORITISE CHALLENGES,
BECAUSE HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT?
HOW WOULD YOU PRIORITISE, IT'S
A BIG PROBLEM, WE ALL DIE, YEAH
WELL, BUT WE DON'T KNOW--
WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY
RIGHT NOW TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT
IT, RIGHT?
SO THE IDEA WAS TO SAY THAT YOU
SHOULD RANK THEM ACCORDING TO
WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO
SOMETHING ABOUT.
SO WHERE DO WE HAVE SOLUTIONS
THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE SOME
OF THE BEST SOLUTIONS TO DO IN
THE WORLD, AND THESE ARE THE
TEN CHALLENGES THAT WE CAME UP
WITH...

A slide appears on screen with a title that reads "The 10 Challenges."

Below, the challenges read "Climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, population: migration, sanitation and water, subsidies and trade barriers."

Bjorn continues I FOUND THAT MOST PEOPLE FEEL
THAT THIS IS A LIST THAT FAIRLY
WELL COVERS MOST OF IT,
ALTHOUGH I OFTEN FIND THAT
PEOPLE TEND TO BELIEVE THAT AT
LEAST THEIR LITTLE PET THING
HAS BEEN LEFT OUT, OR THERE'S
ONE MISSING, BUT THERE'S SELDOM
VERY MUCH AGREEMENT ON THIS.
AGAIN, THOUGH, WHAT IS
IMPORTANT IS NOT THAT WE MISSED
OUT THE REAL NUMBER 9, WHAT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE GOT THE TOP
ONES, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE
THINGS I'M GOING TO START
FOCUSSING ON, BECAUSE THOSE ARE
THE THINGS WE HOPE THAT WILL
ACTUALLY GUIDE AND CHANGE
POLICY IN THESE AREAS.
THE PEOPLE THAT WE BROUGHT INTO
THE PROCESS WERE TEN WORLD
CLASS ECONOMISTS WHO WERE GOING
TO WRITE A CHALLENGE PAPER ON
EACH OF THESE TEN CHALLENGES,
AND ALSO, TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE WERE NOT JUST SORT OF
CAREENING OFF ON ONE OF THEIR
PET THEORIES, WE ASKED 20
OPPONENTS, TWO ON EACH
CHALLENGE, ALSO TO WRITE
OPPONENT PAPERS.

A slide appears on screen with a title that reads "People."

The points read "10 world-class economists examine the 10 challenges, 20 opponents, two per challenge, the dream team 8 experts met in Copenhagen May 24 through 28 to prioritize across topics.

Bjorn says ALL OF THIS IS, OF COURSE
AVAILABLE AS A DOWNLOAD ON THE
WEBPAGE.
SO BASICALLY FOR EACH
CHALLENGE, FOR CLIMATE CHANGE,
WE HAD A CHALLENGE PAPER, THAT
BASICALLY SET OUT THE
DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM, THE
TYPICAL, THE ANALYTICAL
SOLUTIONS TO THESE PROBLEMS,
THAT ARE TYPICALLY ANALYSED IN
THE LITERATURE, THAT ARE EITHER
POLITICALLY VIABLE, THAT ARE
ACADEMICALLY INTERESTING, OR
THAT HAVE BEEN ANALYSED.
HOPEFULLY THEY WILL VERY OFTEN
OVERLAP.
WE ASKED THEM TO COME UP WITH
MAXIMUM FIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EACH OF THESE AREAS, AND
ESTIMATE THEM.
THEN WE ASKED THE 20 OPPONENTS
OR THE TWO OPPONENTS FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE, TO GO IN AND
SAY, WHERE DO YOU DISAGREE WITH
THAT.

Bjorn Lomborg says WHERE DO YOU
THINK LITERATURE HAS BEEN LEFT
OUT, AND WHERE DO YOU THINK
THAT WE COULD GET OTHER
ESTIMATES?
WHAT ARE THE OTHER MODELS THAT
PERHAPS SHOULD BE IN THERE.
AND ALSO, OF COURSE, FEEL FREE
TO SAY THAT WHAT THE CHALLENGE
PAPER HAS DONE IS BRILLIANT.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, MOST OF
THESE PEOPLE CAME OUT AND SAID
IT WAS, IT WAS PRETTY GOOD.

Bjorn Lomborg says BECAUSE THESE
ARE SOME OF THE BEST PEOPLE IN
THE WORLD.
I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE,
WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE
INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, AND YOU WILL
ALSO BE PRESENTED WITH THEM,
THEY ARE SOME OF THE BEST IN
THE WORLD IN EACH OF THEIR
AREAS.
AND THEN WE HAD THE DREAM TEAM,
AS OUR PUBLISHER FROM CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS SAID.
AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE IN
LONDON, HE NAMED THEM THE RIO
MADRID OF ECONOMICS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT GOES DOWN
WELL HERE, BUT IN EUROPE, THAT
GOES DOWN VERY WELL.
[Audience Laughter]
THESE WERE THE EIGHT TOP
ECONOMISTS THAT WE PICKED OUT,
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE BRILLIANT
IN AN PARTICULAR FIELD, BUT
BECAUSE THEY ARE BRILLIANT IN
GENERAL AS ECONOMISTS,
REFLECTED ALSO BY THE FACT THAT
THREE OF THEM, AS YOU
MENTIONED, WERE NOBEL
LAUREATES, AND IN GENERAL,
THESE WERE VERY WELL RESPECTED
PEOPLE THAT WERE WIDELY
RECOGNISED AS AUTHORITIES IN
THE ECONOMICS AREA.
THESE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE
ACTUALLY GOING TO TRY TO LOOK
AT ALL THESE AREAS, AND SAY,
WE'RE NOT EXPERTS IN ANY
PARTICULAR AREA, BUT WE ARE
EXPERTS IN GENERAL, IN BEING
ECONOMISTS IN GENERAL, IN
TRYING TO WHET OUT WHAT IS THE
RIGHT ARGUMENTS, WHAT ARE THE
WRONG ARGUMENTS, HOW MUCH DO WE
BELIEVE IN THE ANALYSIS, AND A
BOTTOM LINE, HOW MANY--
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO ASSESS THE
COST AND BENEFITS OF THESE
DIFFERENT ISSUE AREAS TO BE.
SO THIS WAS THE APPROACH THAT
WE HAD, THE TEN CHALLENGES AS
PAPERS, AND THEN WE MET UP IN
COPENHAGEN IN MAY FOR FIVE
DAYS, EACH MORNING AND EACH
AFTERNOON, WE HAD THE EIGHT TOP
ECONOMISTS, THE DREAM TEAM OF
ECONOMISTS, SIT AND LISTEN --
OF COURSE THEY HAD ALREADY READ
THE PAPERS -- SIT AND LISTEN TO
SHORT PRESENTATIONS BY THESE
THREE PEOPLE, THE CHALLENGE
PAPER AUTHOR, AND THE TWO
OPPONENTS, AND THEN QUESTIONING
THEM.
BASICALLY SCRUTINISING THEIR
ARGUMENT, AND QUITE A FEW OF
THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE TOP
ECONOMISTS FROM HARVARD, AND
YALE, AND STANFORD, AND MANY
OTHER PLACES, AND MANY OF THEM
SAID THEY HADN'T FELT THIS
NERVOUS SINCE THEY WERE DOING
THEIR OWN PHD AND HAD TO DEFEND
THAT.
IT HAD A LITTLE BIT OF THAT
SENSE OF, NOW YOU HAVE TO--
NOW YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU
REALLY DO KNOW ECONOMICS.
AND THEY WERE PRESENT THERE, IT
WAS A CLOSED MEETING, EXACTLY
BECAUSE WE WANTED THIS TO BE
THE MOST FREE INTERACTION OF
IDEAS, AND WE DIDN'T WANT THEM
TO GRANDSTAND FOR TV, AND WE
DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO
COME UP AND USE ALL THE
ECONOMIC PARLANCE, IS THE WORD,
I THINK.
JUST USE ALL THEIR WORDINGS,
AND NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT
WHETHER OTHER PEOPLE COULD
UNDERSTAND IT.
THE ONLY POINT WAS THAT THEY
UNDERSTOOD AMONG THEMSELVES,
WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
AT THE END OF EACH SESSION,
THEY WOULD THEN MAKE THEIR OWN
RANKINGS, AND THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
WE DID NOT ASK THEM ALL TO COME
TO A COMMON GROUND, WE DID NOT
ASK ALL EIGHT TO BE IN
AGREEMENT ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD
RANK THESE ISSUES, WE JUST
SIMPLY ASKED THEM TO COME UP
WITH THEIR PERSONAL RANKING.
NOW, WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING,
AND THIS THEY AGREED ON IN
ADVANCE, WAS TO SAY THAT THE
OUTCOME OF THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS WOULD BE THE MEDIAN
RANKING OF ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL
RANKINGS.
SO IN ESSENCE, WHAT WE HAD WAS
A MECHANISM OF MAKING SURE THAT
FROM A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAD
VERY STRONG INTEGRITY AND VERY
STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SUBJECT MATTER, THEY WOULD BE
ABLE TO DRAW OUT THEIR
INDIVIDUAL RANKINGS, BUT WE
WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO MAKE A
COMMON RANKING.
OF COURSE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED IF TH
COMMON RANKING ESSENTIALLY
CONSISTED OF INDIVIDUAL
RANKGS THAT WERE ALL OVER THE
PLACE.
IT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE SO, AND
ACTUALLY AS YOU WILL ALSO SEE
WHEN THE BOOK IS BEING
RELEASED, IN ABOUT A COUPLE OF, THEIR INDIVIDUA
WEE
RANKINGS WERE ACTUALLY VERY,
VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
THERE IS, OF COURSE A FEW UPS
AND DOWNS, BUT BOTTOM LINE, IS
THAT THEY WERE VERY MUCH IN
AGREEMENT, AND SO THEY ALSO
SIGNED OFF ON THE--
ON THE FINAL PAPER FROM THE
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS, WHICH
CAME OUT WITH THE PRIORITISED
LIST.
SO IN ESSENCE, THIS WAS THE
SETUP OF THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, WE START OUT WITH A
LOT OF INFORMATION, WE HAVE A
DREAM TEAM OF ECONOMISTS THAT
VET ALL THIS INFORMATION, AND
COME OUT WITH THEIR PERSONAL
RANKINGS.
TOGETHER, ALL THOSE PERSONAL
RANKINGS WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE
VERY SIMILAR, WE GET A
PRIORITISED LIST, AND THE HOPE
IS, THAT THIS PRIORITISED LIST
ACTUALLY TELL US SOMETHING
IMPORTANT ABOUT WHERE WE GET
THE MOST BANG FOR OUR BUCK.
OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME
OBJECTIONS TO THIS WHOLE
PROCESS, AND I'LL JUST TAKE YOU
THROUGH A FEW OF THEM.
I'M SURE A LOT OF YOU WILL HAVE
MORE, AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS
AFTERWARDS.

Bjorn Lomborg says THE FIRST, I
THINK, OBJECTION FROM PRETTY
MUCH A LOT OF PEOPLE, WAS, WHY
ON EARTH ECONOMISTS?
WHY WOULD ECONOMISTS BE THE
ONES TO DO THIS.
AND OF COURSE THIS WAS THE
ESSENCE OF THE WHOLE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS.
IT WAS ABOUT SAYING THAT THIS
IS WHAT ECONOMISTS DO.
ECONOMISTS DO PRIORITISATION.

Bjorn Lomborg says IF YOU WANT
TO KNOW ABOUT MALARIA, YOU GO
ASK A MALARIA EXPERT.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE, YOU ASK A
CLIMATOLOGIST.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHICH
IS THE MORE IMPORTANT, CLIMATE
OR MALARIA, YOU CAN'T PUT A
MALARIA EXPERT AND A
CLIMATOLOGIST TOGETHER AND
EXPECT TO GET AN ANSWER.
THEY CAN PROBABLY BOTH AGREE
THAT BOTH OF THESE SUBJECT
MATTERS ARE VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT, BUT THEY HAVE NO
METHODOLOGY TO COMPARE THESE
TWO ISSUES, AND THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT ECONOMISTS DO.
ECONOMISTS' SPECIALTY IS
EXACTLY IN TRYING TO
PRIORITISE, AND COME OUT WITH
SAYING, ON ALL THESE DIFFERENT
MEASURES THAT ARE UNDOUBTEDLY
DIFFERENT, THE RANKING IS STILL
SUCH THAT ONE IS HIGHER THAN
THE OTHERS.
OF COURSE, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT
TO SAY WHY THESE PARTICULAR
ECONOMISTS, THE UH...
NOBEL PRIZE ECONOMISTS, IT WAS
ALSO IMPORTANT FOR US THAT
THESE HAVE BROAD AND LONG
EXPERIENCE, THAT THEY WERE
GENERALLY UNAPPROACHABLE--
NOT UNAPPROACHABLE, THAT SOUNDS
LIKE YOU CAN'T APPROACH THEM.

A woman says UNIMPEACHABLE.

Bjorn Lomborg says
UNIMPEACHABLE?
AND THAT'S NOT CLINTON.
[Audience Laughter]
ANYWAY, BUT YES, YOU KNOW WHAT
I MEAN, AND THEY WERE
IMPARTIAL, THAT THEY WERE
ACADEMICS.
AND BELIEVE ME, I WAS THE
MODERATOR OF THIS MEETING, AND
MY MAIN TASK REALLY WAS ABOUT
TRYING TO MAKE THEM NOT WANDER
OFF TOO MUCH FROM THE SUBJECT.
I MEAN THEY WERE VERY, VERY
MUCH ACADEMICS, AND THEY JUST
LOVED TO GO OUT THOSE TANGENTS
AND SAY, WHAT IF WE--
NO, NO, NO, GET BACK TO THE
SUBJECT MATTER.
SO THAT WAS WHAT I WAS DOING,
BASICALLY, TRYING TO GET THEM
TO--
TO FULFIL THEIR ROLE.
THE OTHER OBJECTION THAT HAS
BEEN FEATURED FAIRLY
PROMINENTLY, IS WHY ONLY 50
BILLION DOLLARS?
AND I THINK THAT WAS ALSO, AS I
MENTIONED, THAT IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS
WAS A FOCUSING PROBLEM.
THIS WAS A FOCUSING STATEMENT.
WE SAID, WHAT IF THE WORLD HAD,
SAY, ANOTHER 50 DOLLARS BILLION?
WE NEVER SAID THIS WAS THE ONLY
AMOUNT IMAGINABLE.
AND I THINK THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
WE THOUGHT OF THIS AS A WAY OF
MAKING PEOPLE SEE THE
CONUNDRUM.
IF YOU ONLY HAD 50 BILLION DOLLARS,
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
IT MAKES PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT
IT'S A LIMITED BAG OF MONEY,
THAT I CAN'T HAND OUT SEVERAL
TIMES, SO I REALLY HAVE TO
START THINKING ABOUT HOW I DO
THIS CONSCIENTIOUSLY.
OF COURSE OUR SECOND PART OF
THE REASON WHY WE CAME UP WITH
50 BILLION DOLLARS RATHER THAN SOME
OTHER NUMBER WAS BECAUSE WE
ACTUALLY THOUGHT OF IT AS, AS
IT SAYS IN THE SLIDE, AN
OPTIMISTICALLY REALISTIC
EXAMPLE, THAT IT WAS SOMETHING
THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY HOPE IN
OUR MOST OPTIMISTIC FRAMEWORK,
THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY ACHIEVE
50 BILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT FOUR
YEARS, SINCE THE CURRENT
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AID IS
ABOUT 60 BILLION DOLLARS, IT
REPRESENTS ABOUT A 20PERCENT INCREASE
IN YEARLY TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
AID.
THAT WOULD BE PLAUSIBLE.
AGAIN, WE ALSO HAVE TO BE
CAREFUL ABOUT -- AND SOME
ECONOMISTS, JEFFREY SACHS IN
"NATURE," FOR EXAMPLE, POINTED
OUT, THAT THE U.N. HAS
COMMITTED TO DOUBLING THE
SPENDING, ACTUALLY SINCE 1970,
THEY HAVE COMMITTED ALL
COUNTRIES TO GO UP TO 0.7PERCENT OF
THEIR GDP IN SPENDING.
BUT OF COURSE SINCE THEN,
SPENDING HAS GONE DOWN SO I
WOULD BE SOMEWHAT SCEPTICAL
THAT WE CAN SUDDENLY GET THAT
DOUBLING UP THERE.
BUT AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING
WRONG WITH IMAGINING THAT WE
COULD GET A LOT MORE MONEY.
AND MY ANSWER WAS ALSO, TO MOST
OF THESE CRITICS, WHEN THEY
CAME OUT AND TOLD US -- WHY
JUST 50 BILLION DOLLARS?
ISN'T THAT JUST WAY TOO
UNAMBITIOUS?
WHY NOT 100?
AND VERY QUICKLY IT BECAME A
GAME OF WHO COULD SAY THE
BIGGEST NUMBER.
WHY NOT 200 BILLION DOLLARS, 500 DOLLARS
BILLION, OR 1,000 BILLION DOLLARS?
TAKE THE WHOLE MILITARY BUDGET
OF THE WORLD.
AND OF COURSE, I'M TOTALLY FOR
THAT, AND MY ARGUMENT WAS
SIMPLY TO SAY, IF SOMEBODY CAN
COME UP WITH YOU KNOW, FOR
INSTANCE CONVINCE GEORGE BUSH
TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER 100
BILLION DOLLARS FROM THE MILITARY
BUDGET, I'M ALL FOR THAT, BUT
YOU'D STILL WANT IT TO BE
PRIORITISED RIGHT.
SO THE ARGUMENT HERE IS SIMPLY
A QUESTION OF SAYING IF WE MAKE
THE LIST, THE ONLY ISSUE IS,
HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE, HOW
FAR DOWN CAN YOU GO ON THE
LIST?
BUT IT'S NOT AN ISSUE REALLY,
OF SAYING THAT IT'S JUST 50
BILLION DOLLARS.
ANOTHER THING THAT'S PERHAPS
IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, IS THAT
THE 50 BILLION DOLLARS UNDERSCORE
ANOTHER PART OF THE POINT THAT
THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS DEALS
WITH.
IT IS A MARGINAL DISCUSSION.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY, LET'S
CHANGE THE WHOLE WORLD AND SEE
HOW IT SHOULD BE.
WE ARE ONLY SAYING, GIVEN THAT
WE ARE HERE TODAY, WHAT IF WE
SPENT A MARGINAL AMOUNT, 20PERCENT
MORE, HOW SHOULD WE SPEND THAT
EXTRA MONEY?
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
MARGINAL CHANGE, BECAUSE IF WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE
WHOLE NATURE OF THE SETUP,
OBVIOUSLY WE COULDN'T JUST GET
AWAY WITH DEALING WITH IT
INDIVIDUALLY, SO I THINK IT'S
ALSO IMPORTANT TO STRESS THAT
THIS IS AN INCREMENTAL OR A
MARGINAL APPROACH.
ONE OF THE OTHER OBJECTIONS IS
THE COMPARING APPLES AND
ORANGES, RIGHT?
BASICALLY WE ARE COMPARING
VASTLY DIFFERENT THINGS, AND
AGAIN, YES, THAT IS EXACTLY THE
POINT.
YOU KNOW, POLITICS AND
PRIORITISATION IS ABOUT
COMPARG APPLES AND ORANGES.
I'M ALWAYS SURPRISED THAT
PEOPLE ACTUALLY MAKE THIS
OBJECTION, BECAUSE BOTTOM LINE,
THAT'S WHAT WE DO AT
SUPERMARKETS EVERY DAY AS
CONSUMERS.
WE DO ACTUALLY MAKE CHOICES OF
SHOULD I BUY MORE APPLES OR
MORE ORANGES, OR MORE OF ALL
THE OTHER THINGS, I MEAN GOD
KNOWS THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS
JUST IN SUPERMARKETS, RIGHT?
AND LIKEWISE FOR POLITICIANS,
THEY'RE MAKING CHOICES, SHOULD
I HAVE MORE ROUNDABOUTS, MORE
HEALTH CARE, MORE CARE FOR THE
ELDERLY, A NEW NUCLEAR POWER
PLANT, MORE FOR GLOBAL WARMING,
WHATEVER.
THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT
THINGS, AND WE DO MAKE THOSE
COMPARISONS, BECAUSE IT ALL
COMES FROM THE SAME BUDGET.
SO IT REALLY IS THIS
PRIORITISATION DEBATE THAT IS
ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES AND
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND ALL
THESE OTHER THINGS.
AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
THAT IS EXACTLY THE NATURE OF
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS.
AND OF COURSE, NOT TAKING THIS
DISCUSSION UP ABOUT GLOBAL
PRIORITISATION, DOESN'T MEAN IT
GOES AWAY.
WE DO MAKE THE PRIORITISATION
VERY DAY, AND EVERY YEAR, BUT
IF IT BECOMES IMPLICIT, IT'S
UNLIKELY THAT IT'S GOING TO
BECOME A BETTER DEBATE.
SO OUR ARGUMENT WITH COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS IS ALSO ABOUT GETTING
THIS DISCUSSION OUT IN THE
OPEN.
AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE
PRIORITISATION, I'M ALL FOR
THAT, THAT'S FINE, BUT SUDDENLY
WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH
ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHY IT SHOULD
BE A DIFFERENT LIST, WHY IT
SHOULD BE DIFFERENTLY MADE OR
DIFFERENTLY SET UP, AND I
ACTUALLY ALSO THINK THAT WILL
IMPROVE OUR DECISION MAKING
DRAMATICALLY, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY
ONE OF THEHINGS I HOPE IS
THAT COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS, AS
WE'RE GOING TO REPEAT IT IN
2008, 2012 AND SO ON, IT WILL
ACTUALLY BE AN IMPETUS FOR ALL
THE PEOPLE WHO IN SOME WAY FEEL
THAT WE LEFT OUT SOMETHING,
THAT THEY WILL COME AND SAY,
NO, NO, YOU NEED TO PUT THIS IN
THERE AS WELL.
AND IT WILL ACTUALLY BE A SPUR
FOR MORE RESEARCH AND MORE
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT ARE
THE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL.
SO BOTTOM LINE, AND I'LL JUST
TAKE ONE QUOTE FROM ONE OF THE
DREAM TEAM PARTICIPANTS, THE
EUROPEAN PROFESSOR BRUNO FREY,
BASICALLY POINTED OUT, AND I
THINK IT'S A GOOD QUOTE, YOU
KNOW HE SAID...
SO BOTTOM LINE, IT'S NOT AN
EASY THING TO COMPARE ALL THESE
DIFFERENT THINGS, NOT HAVING
ALL THE TOOLS, NOT HAVING ALL
THE KNOWLEDGE, BUT WE DO THIS
EVERY DAY, WE STILL DO THIS
PRIORITISATION, SO WE WANT TO
TRY ACTUALLY TO GET IT ON A
MORE SOUND FOOTING.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS
TO TAKE THE TIME TO GIVE YOU A
PRESENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
AREAS AND TALK YOU THROUGH
THEM, AND TALK YOU THROUGH THE
DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS, AND THEN
GET YOU TO THE SOLUTIONS AT THE
END AND THE PRIORITISED LIST.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE
FIRST ONE, AND AS YOU MIGHT
HAVE NOTICE, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY
MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON THESE, WE
JUST SIMPLY LISTED THEM
ALPHABETICALLY AND CLIMATE
CHANGE IS THE FIRST ONE.
BOTTOM LINE IS, GLOBAL WARMING
IS GOING TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT,
BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHAT CAN
WE DO.
AND THE UH... CHALLENGE PAPER
AUTHOR, WILLIAM CLINE CAME UP
WITH, WAS WE CAN EITHER DO
CARBON TAXES, WE CAN DO A
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH, OR WE
CAN, INDEED, DO THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL, WHICH IS THE
POLITICALLY FEASIBLE ONE.
ALL THREE EXPERTS ACTUALLY
AGREED THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY
THE LEAST SCIENTIFICALLY GOOD
APPROACH, BUT WE ALSO THOUGHT,
AND WE HAD ASKED THEM
EXPLICITLY NOT JUST IN CLIMATE
CHANGE, BUT IN GENERAL, TO ALSO
TAKE IN THE POLITICALLY VIABLE
OR REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES,
BECAUSE WE DON'T JUST WANT THIS
TO BE A SORT OF ACADEMIC LIST
WERE WE COME AND SAY TO THE
POLITICIANS, YEAH, YOU DID
KYOTO, BUT YOU SHOULD REALLY DO
SOMETHING ELSE.

Bjorn Lomborg says WE ALSO
WANTED TO MAKE IT REASONABLE,
SO THAT THE POLITICALLY LIKELY
OBJECTIVES MADE IT INTO THE
LIST.
WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH, AND I
HOPE ALL OF YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
SEE THIS, BUT I WILL TAKE YOU
THROUGH THIS, WAS THAT IT VERY,
VERY MUCH DEPENDS ON THE
DISCOUNT RATE.

Bjorn Lomborg says THAT IS,
BASICALLY, HOW MUCH DOES THE
FUTURE MATTER.
AND OF COURSE THIS REALLY IS A
DISCUSSION AMONG ECONOMISTS,
WHAT IS THE RIGHT WAY OF
PRIORITISING THE FUTURE?
AND MOST ECONOMISTS AND ALL
EIGHT OF THE ECONOMISTS PRESENT
THINK THAT, AT LEAST TO MAKE IT
CONSISTENT DISCUSSION, YOU NEED
TO HAVE THE SAME RATE OF
DISCOUNT FOR ALL PROBLEMS, THAT
IS, FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT
AREAS.
YOU CANNOT HAVE DIFFERENT
DISCOUNT RATES FOR DIFFERENT
PROBLEMS.
AND THEY FELT THAT IT WAS
IMPORTANT THAT IT WAS A FAIRLY
HIGH DISCOUNT RATE, SIMPLY
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MOST OF
THE DEVELOPED WORLD -- SORRY,
THE DEVELOPING WORLD IS FACED
WITH.
AND THEN WHAT YOU SEE IS,
BASICALLY BOTH THE OPTIMUM
CARBON TAX, THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
AND THE VALUE AT RISK, THE
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH.
BASICALLY COST MORE THAN IT HAS
BENEFITS AND THAT'S WHY IT
ACTUALLY GETS NET BENEFITS THAT
ARE NEGATIVE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT THE
LOW DISCOUNT RATE GETS MUCH,
MUCH HIGHER NUMBERS, BOTH AT
COSTS AND BENEFITS, AND THAT'S
OF COURSE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
FUTURE VALUE HAS MUCH MORE
EMPHASIS.
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO
KEEP ON DOING, AND KEEP ON
HAVING TO DO.
IT'S IMPORTANT ALSO TO SAY THAT
ALL EXPERTS ACTUALLY EXPRESSED
A WISH THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME
MUCH MORE MARGINAL ATTEMPTS,
BECAUSE THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY
HAVE BEEN WILLING TO IMPLEMENT
THOSE, AND THAT'S ALSO I THINK,
A SLIGHT PROBLEM IN THE SETUP
OF THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS,
THAT IT'S HARD TO GET IN EXTRA
PROPOSALS AT THIS FAIRLY LATE
STAGE.
WE WOULD HAVE LIKED THAT THERE
WOULD BE, FOR INSTANCE, A
CARBON TAX, NOT AS THEY
PROPOSED, AT 150 DOLLARS, WHICH IS THE
GOING RATE FOR THE VERY WORRIED
ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, BUT
PERHAPS A CARBON TAX OF 2 DOLLARS OR
4 DOLLARS OR THEREABOUTS, WHICH MIGHT
BE WHAT THE MODELS INDICATE ARE
THE COST EFFICIENT PLACE TO
PLACE THE CARBON TAX, AND THEN,
MAYBE THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS
WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE COME OUT
AND SAID, THAT'S AN OKAY
INVESTMENT.
I DOUBT WHETHER THEY WOULD HAVE
SAID MUCH MORE THAN THAT, BUT
AT LEAST THAT WOULD HAVE
ENABLED US TO HAVE A MORE
GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THIS
ISSUE.
LET ME GO FURTHER, AND AGAIN, I
REALISE THAT THERE'S LOTS OF
QUESTIONS, THERE ARE LOTS OF
COMMENTS YOU CAN HAVE ON EACH
OF THESE ISSUES, BUT OF COURSE,
THE POINT HERE IS TO SORT OF
WITHDRAW AND SAY, WE NEED TO
LOOK AT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT
AREAS, AND GET TO THE POINT OF
BEING ABLE TO COMPARE THEM.
SO I AM GOING TO BE A LITTLE
UNREASONABLE AND JUST SIMPLY
JUMP THROUGH THESE TEN AREAS
AND GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT
WERE THE ARGUMENTS AND WHAT
WERE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
THEY WERE FACING IN HERE.
COMMUNICABLE DISEASES,
OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR MUCH OF
THE DEVELOPING WORLD.

A slide appears on screen with a title that reads "Communicable Diseases, nine of ten avoidable deaths are caused by disease."

Below, bullet points read "What can we do? Control malaria, control HIV slash AIDS, Strengthen basic healthcare services."

Bjorn continues NINE OUT OF TEN AVOIDABLE
DEATHS ARE ACTUALLY CAUSED BY
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, AND WHAT
WAS FOCUSSED ON, AND AGAIN, YOU
COULD SAY THAT THIS WAS A
CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, FOR
INSTANCE, WHERE IS TB, BUT
AGAIN, WE ASKED THE CHALLENGE
PAPER AUTHORS TO COME UP WITH
WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE THE BEST
PROJECTS THAT YOU COULD COME UP
WITH, OR THE MOST POLITICALLY
LIKELY, OR THE ONES THAT ARE
TYPICALLY DISCUSSED THE MOST.
AND THE EXPERT IN THIS AREA,
ANNE MILLS, CAME UP WITH,
CONTROL MALARIA, CONTROL HIV-
AIDS, AND STRENGTHENING BASIC
HEALTHCARE SERVICES.
AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY TURNED
OUT, AGAIN, WAS THAT CONTROL OF
MALARIA HAS A FAIRLY HIGH NET
BENEFIT, AND ACTUALLY I'M SORRY
I DON'T PRESENT YOU WITH THESE,
BUT OF COURSE, WHAT WE ASKED
THEM TO RANK THEM FROM, WAS THE
BENEFIT COST RATIO, BECAUSE
IT'S NOT REALLY INTERESTING
THAT YOU CAN GET A HIGH
BENEFIT, NET BENEFIT IF IT ALSO
COSTS A LOT OF MONEY.
IT REALLY IS A QUESTION OF THE
BENEFIT COST RATIO.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS
THE NET BENEFITS.

A slide with a title reads "Communicable Diseases."

Below a chart shows "Fighting Disease pays off" with statistics.

Bjorn continues CONTROL OF MALARIA HAS A FAIRLY
HIGH ONE, CONTROL OF HIV-AIDS
HAS A SURPRISINGLY HIGH NET
BENEFIT IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS
PUT FORTH, AND I'LL GET BACK TO
THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE
RESULTS, AND THEN, SCALE UP
BASIC HEALTH SERVICES, ALSO
HAVE A HUGE NET BENEFIT, BUT
NOTICE THAT IT ALSO HAS A HUGE
COST.
IT STILL IS A POSITIVE, BUT IT
IS A MUCH LOWER BENEFIT COST
RATIO, SIMPLY BECAUSE, AND THIS
IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL
COME BACK TO, DOING A LOT OF
STUFF, IMPLEMENTING A LOT OF
TECHNOLOGY OR ORGANISATIONAL
STRUCTURE TO GET BENEFITS,
SIMPLY MEANS THAT YOU GET LESS
BACK OF IT, WHEREAS SOME OF THE
OTHER THINGS, SUCH AS THE
CONTROL OF HIV-AIDS, IS SIMPLY
BUYING UP AN AWFUL LOT OF
CONDOMS IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT
IT VERY, VERY BRIEFLY.
OF COURSE IT'S SOMEWHAT MORE
COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
BUT IT SIMPLY CONVEYS THE
ISSUES OF SAYING THAT WE ALSO
NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW
MUCH ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO
INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE.
THERE WAS ALSO A WHOLE,
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION
THAT I'LL GET BACK TO A LITTLE
BIT ON THE CONFERENCE, OF, HOW
LIKELY ARE THESE THINGS TO BE
IMPLEMENTED?
AND AGAIN, THEY WERE ALSO
TALKING ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL
STRUCTURES, THE PROBLEMS,
PERHAPS OF IMPLEMENTING IT, AND
WHAT WERE THE SUCCESS RATES,
AND THAT WAS OF COURSE WHERE
THE EXPERTS WERE BEING QUIZZED
BY THE DREAM TEAM ON THESE
INDIVIDUAL AREAS TO GET A
BETTER SENSE OF HOW MUCH IS IT
LIKELY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT WE
CAN ESTABLISH SCALED UP BASIC
HEALTH SERVICES?
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT WE CAN DO
CONTROL OF HIV-AIDS, AND SO ON.
THE THIRD ONE WAS CONFLICTS.
TO ME, THIS WAS ONE OF THE
PLACES WHERE WE WERE VERY, VERY
SURPRISED THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY
ABLE TO GET COSTS AND BENEFIT
ESTIMATES.
I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO
SAY THAT THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS SIMPLY SUCCEEDED BY
MAKING A LOT OF PEOPLE START
THINKING IN COST AND BENEFIT
TERMS.
AND WE ACTUALLY TALKED TO ONE
OF THE FEW PEOPLE IN THE WORLD
WHO HAVE DONE COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS ON CONFLICTS, PAUL
COLLIER OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY,
WHO DID-- HAD A MODEL THAT HAS
BEEN PUBLISHED IN MANY, MANY
DIFFERENT FORMS, WHERE HE
ACTUALLY POINTS OUT, BASED ON A
LOT OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, FOR
INSTANCE, A CONFLICT IN ONE
COUNTRY TYPICALLY COSTS THE
COUNTRY 20 YEARS OF ECONOMIC
GROWTH, SO IT HAS HUGE IMPACTS.
NOW AGAIN NOTICE, THIS IS ONE
OF THE PLACES WHERE WE SEE WHAT
ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF USING
COSTS AND BENEFITS?
IT MEANS THAT WE DO SOME OF THE
SUMS, BUT OF COURSE THERE ARE
OTHER THINGS THAT ARE LEFT OUT.
I THINK THAT THIS IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT IN PROVIDING NEW
INPUT INTO THE NEXT COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, IF PEOPLE COME UP
AND SAY, YES, SURE, THIS MIGHT
BE THE RIGHT MODEL, BUT PAUL
COLLIER IS CLEARLY LEAVING OUT
SOMETHING THAT IS MUCH, MUCH
MORE IMPORTANT.
I WOULD FIND THAT VERY
CHALLENGING.
IT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD END
UP BY BEING WISER BY 2008, AND
THAT'S ALL, WHAT WE ARE FOR, SO
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS IS ALSO
ABOUT STIMULATING AND SPURRING
RESEARCH TO GET INTO THE NEW
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS IN 2008.
BUT OF COURSE IT DOESN'T
RELIEVE US OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO ALSO
PRIORITISE TODAY, AND TODAY, IN
2004, WELL THIS IS WHAT WE
KNOW.
THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS.
SO WE CAN REDUCE THE RISK OF
STARTING WARS, THAT'S BASICALLY
FOR INSTANCE, INVESTING IN AID,
WHAT TURNS OUT ON THE
REGRESSION ANALYSES, IS THAT
RICHER COUNTRIES HAVE LESS WAR,
SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY, BY MAKING
THEM RICHER, REDUCE THE RISK OF
WAR STARTING.

A slide with a title reads "Conflicts, a country in conflict loses 20 years of economic growth."

Bullet points read "What can we do? Reduce the risk of wars starting, shorten wars, decrease the risk of conflict restarting in the post-war period."

Bjorn continues YOU CAN SHORTEN WARS IN MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS, AND YOU CAN
ALSO DECREASE THE RISK OF
CONFLICT STARTING AGAIN, AND OF
COURSE, THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO
BE THE BEST OF OPTIONS, SIMPLY
BECAUSE THERE, WE ALREADY KNOW
WHICH COUNTRIES TO DO WORK IN.
TYPICALLY THE RISK OF RECURRING
CIVIL WAR, OVER A TEN YEAR
PERIOD IS MUCH HIGHER FOR
COUNTRIES THAT HAVE ALREADY
BEEN IN CIVIL WARS.
AGAIN, WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH
IS, AID AS A CONFLICT
PREVENTION JUST DOESN'T WORK
OUT.
AGAIN, YOU COULD GO IN AND
CRITICISE IT AND SAY, THIS IS
CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY THING
THAT WE ACHIEVE, AND I THINK
THAT WOULD BE A FAIR CRITICISM
OF THIS.
THEY WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT
NATURAL-- OR CONFLICT DIAMONDS
AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
ARE THESE PROFITABLE SCHEMES?
THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT, OR NOT
VERY EFFECTIVE.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
ACTUALLY WOULD DO A LOT, THING
IS TO GO INTO COUNTRIES THAT
ACTUALLY UH, ALREADY HAVE HAD
CIVIL WARS, TO REDUCE THE
THREAT OF CONFLICT SPREADING
AGAIN, BASICALLY BY
PEACEKEEPING FORCES.
THEY'RE FAIRLY CHEAP, AND THEY
WOULD OBTAIN AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT
OF BENEFIT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM
THE LAST LINE IN THE OVERVIEW.
THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THE EXPERTS ENDED UP COMING OUT
SAYING, WE DO NOT FEEL
SUFFICIENTLY COMFORTABLE, WE
DON'T FEEL SUFFICIENTLY
CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE
RIGHT NUMBER.
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LOT
OF POSSIBILITY OF RESEARCH THAT
COULD IMPROVE THIS NUMBER, AND
IF SO, MAYBE WE WILL PUT IT ON
THE LIST THE NEXT TIME, BUT WE
JUST DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS, AT
THE CURRENT TIME IS SOMETHING
THAT WE KNOW ENOUGH OF TO BE
ABLE TO SAY, YES, THAT'S A
GREAT INVESTMENT FOR THE WORLD.
AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO AGAIN,
ONE OF THE POINTS.

Bjorn Lomborg says WE'RE COMING
UP WITH ARGUMENTS SAYING IT'S
NOT EVERYTHING WE KNOW, SO
LET'S DO THE THINGS THAT WE DO
KNOW RIGHT NOW, BUT ALSO TO
SPUR RESEARCH SO THAT WE ARE
BETTER ABLE, TO PERHAPS GET
THIS ON THE LIST IN 2008, AND
SEE WHERE IT BELONGS.
LIKEWISE WITH EDUCATION.
THE SURPRISING THING HERE -- I
THOUGHT EDUCATION WAS A NO-
BRAINER, THAT EVERYONE WOULD
COME UP AND SAY, SURE WE SHOULD
DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, AND
THAT IT WOULD END UP VERY, VERY
HIGH ON THE LIST.

Bjorn Lomborg says ACTUALLY WHAT
BARRY EICHENGREEN FROM BERKELEY
UNIVERSITY THE CHALLENGE PAPER
AUTHOR, CAME UP WITH THREE MAIN
WAYS TO IMPROVE EDUCATION,
RAISE THE QUALITY OF SCHOOLING

- AS IT TURNS OUT, THAT HAS
VERY, VERY BEARING ON THE
ACTUAL SCHOOL EXPERIENCE,
SURPRISINGLY IN THE DEVELOPING
WORLD.

A slide with a title reads "Education, reforms more needed than money."

Below, bullet points read "What can we do? Raise the quality of schooling, increase demand for schooling, reduce the cost of education."

Bjorn continues TO INCREASE THE DEMAND FOR
SCHOOLING IS A GREAT THING, BUT
IT'S BASICALLY CAUSED BY OTHER
EXTERNAL FACTORS, LIKE GETTING
RICHER PARENTS, OR GETTING
PARENTS WHO ARE ALREADY WELL
EDUCATED.
THAT IMPROVES THE DEMAND FOR
SCHOOLING DRAMATICALLY, BUT OF
COURSE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE
DON'T KNOW VERY WELL HOW TO DO,
OR THINGS THAT ARE ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT ISSUES FROM THE
SCHOOLING AND EDUCATION POLICY,
AND THE LAST ONE WAS REDUCE THE
COST OF EDUCATION, FOR INSTANCE
THROUGH SCHOOL VOUCHERS AND
OTHER BASIC SCHEMES.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT SOME OF
THE PANEL MEMBERS THOUGHT WAS A
GOOD IDEA TO INVESTIGATE
FURTHER, BUT THEY DID NOT FEEL
COMFORTABLE ABOUT THESE ISSUES,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE ALL THE
EXPERTS, THAT IS, BOTH THE
CHALLENGE PAPER AUTHOR AND THE
TWO OPPONENTS CAME OUT
BASICALLY SAYING, WE DON'T
THINK ANY OF THESE THINGS WILL
WORK VERY WELL.
WHAT WILL WORK IN EDUCATION, IS
A CHANGE IN THE INCENTIVE
STRUCTURE, BASICALLY STRUCTURAL
CHANGE, AND THEN OF COURSE THE
NOBEL PEOPLE ASKED THEM, WELL
HOW DO YOU DO THAT, AND THEY
SAID, WE DON'T KNOW.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT
INFORMATION, BECAUSE BASICALLY
WE'VE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE
EDUCATION IS A GREAT WAY TO
MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE
DON'T KNOW HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT,
AND SO THAT IS WHY COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS ACTUALLY DECIDED TO
LEAVE OUT EDUCATION, NOT SAYING
THAT IT'S UNIMPORTANT, BUT
SAYING, AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE
HAVE VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF
ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD THIS
ISSUE.
AGAIN, WE NEED MORE RESEARCH.
MOVING ON TO FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY, WHICH OF COURSE
HAS HAD LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH
INDONESIA, THE WHOLE SOUTHEAST
ASIA REGION, AND MOST OF
SOUTHERN AMERICA.
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS THAT FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY HARMS GROWTH IN
POOR COUNTRIES, AND SO IT'S
IMPORTANT TO SEE IF THERE ARE
ACTUALLY ANY THINGS THAT CAN BE
DONE ABOUT THIS, AND THIS IS
BARRY EICHENGREEN FROM BERKELEY
UNIVERSITY, WHO DID THE
ESTIMATES OF THE FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY.
AND HE BASICALLY SAID THERE ARE
FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN
REDUCE FINANCIAL INSTABILITY,
RE-REGULATING FINANCIAL MARKETS
WOULD BE A BETTER WAY OF
AVOIDING BANK CRISES,
UNFORTUNATELY IT WOULD ALSO
IMPEDE GROWTH, AND IT WOULD
IMPEDE COMPETITION, SO THE
BENEFITS WOULD ACTUALLY NOT
OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.
REIMPOSE CAPITAL CONTROLS WOULD
BE A WAY OF AVOIDING CURRENCY
VOLATILITY, BUT NOT A WAY OF
AVOIDING VERY LARGE COSTS,
AGAIN, ON THE IMPORT AND EXPORT
SECTOR, AND AGAIN, PROBABLY
LEAD TO TOTAL NET DISBENEFITS.
CREATING A SINGLE WORLD
CURRENCY WOULD OF COURSE BE A
GOOD THING FOR MANY DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES, OF COURSE THERE'S
THE LITTLE PROBLEM OF WHETHER
IT'S FEASIBLE.
EUROPE IS SHOWING THE WAY THAT
IT'S ALREADY PRETTY HARD TO DO
A SINGLE CURRENCY IN 15
COUNTRIES, LET ALONE 25, SO
SINGLE WORLD CURRENCY IS
PROBABLY A LITTLE OFF OF THE
CHART RIGHT NOW.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S AN ACADEMICALLY
INTERESTING POINT TO SHOW THAT
THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO DEAL
WITH GETTING LESS FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY.
AND THEN FINALLY THE
EICHENGREEN SOLUTION WAS
ACTUALLY TO GET A POSSIBILITY
FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO
BORROW, NOT IN THEIR OWN
CURRENCY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD
LEAD TO INFLATIONARY
CONSIDERATIONS, BUT TO LOAN IN
CURRENCIES THAT ARE LINKED TO
THEIR OWN CURRENCIES, AND THAT
WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE HUGE
POSITIVE BENEFITS.
THE EXPERT PANEL, AND ALSO THE
TWO OPPONENTS FOUND THAT THAT
SOUNDS LIKE AN INTERESTING
IDEA, BUT THEY HAD A HARD TIME
BELIEVING THAT THERE ACTUALLY
WERE THESE HUGE BENEFITS THAT
NOBODY HAD THOUGHT OF IT
BEFORE, AND WHY BARRY
EICHENGREEN DIDN'T JUST PATENT
IT INSTEAD.
[Audience Laughter]
THAT, OF COURSE BEING THE
TYPICAL MODE OF MOST
ECONOMISTS, SAYING THERE ARE
NOT REALLY LIKELY TO BE 100 DOLLAR
BILLS FOUND ON THE STREET, BUT
ALSO, IN A SENSE, SAYING, WE
CERTAINLY DO NOT FEEL
COMFORTABLE ENOUGH RECOMMENDING
THIS, AND THERE WAS A LARGE
NUMBER OF THEORETICAL
DISCUSSIONS ALSO ON THE
FEASIBILITY OF LINKING THE
INDIVIDUAL CURRENCY IN ANY
MEANINGFUL WAY, TO A BUNCH OF
CURRENCIES WITHOUT ACTUALLY
JUST LEADING TO A WIDER REGION-
WIDE OF INSTABILITY OF
INFLATIONARY.
SO, BOTTOM LINE WAS, ALL OF
THESE FOUR WERE ACTUALLY, THE
THREE FIRST WERE CONSIDERED
IRRELEVANT.
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN
PRIORITISED THEY ACTUALLY CHOSE
NOT TO, AND THE LAST ONE, THEY
DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT
PRIORITISING IT AT THE CURRENT
TIME, SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING,
IF ANYTHING, THAT WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT TO DO MORE RESEARCH
ON.
GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION --
THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT
CORRUPTION COSTS A LOT OF
MONEY.
THERE'S ALSO NO DOUBT THAT WE
HAVE VERY POOR MODELS TO DEAL
WITH THESE ISSUES AS OF RIGHT
NOW.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE
CAN DO, AND ROSE-ACKERMAN CAME
UP WITH A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS AS
TO HOW WE COULD DO BETTER ON
THESE AREAS.
CREATE GREATER TRANSPARENCY,
BASICALLY MAKE SURE THE
POSSIBILITY OF CORRUPTION
BECOMES LESS IF BOTH PARTIES OF
THE POSSIBLE CORRUPT
TRANSACTION ARE MORE
TRANSPARENT, IT'S MORE EASY FOR
GOVERNMENT OR CITIZEN GROUPS TO
SEE THAT CORRUPTION IS TAKING
PLACE.
REFORM GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT,
BASICALLY, BUY SIMPLE, EASILY
AVAILABLE OFF THE SHELF
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S MUCH EASIER
TO SEE WHETHER YOU PAY
OVERPRICE FOR THAT, RATHER THAN
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT.
REFORM TAX AND DUTY COLLECTION.
THAT'S BOTH A WAY OF SAYING
LOWER TAXES, LOWER DUTIES, THAT
MEANS THAT THERE'S LESS
INCENTIVE TO DO CORRUPTION, AND
ALSO MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE.
THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S LESS
POSSIBILITY OF CORRUPTION.
REDUCE BRIBERY IN PRIVATE
SECTOR, BASICALLY BY GETTING
RID OF A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT
POLICY OF-- SORRY, A LOT OF THE
LEGISLATION THAT MAKES IT
NECESSARY FOR A LOT OF PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS TO DO BRIBERY.
IT SIMPLY MINIMISES OR LOWERS
THE INCENTIVE TO DO BRIBERY AND
FINALLY ALSO THE CURRENT
PROPOSED CONTROL OF
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS THAT
WOULD ALSO HAVE SOME IMPACT.

Bjorn Lomborg says THE PROBLEM
AGAIN WAS, THAT THIS WAS ONE OF
THE PAPERS THAT HAD THE LEAST
COST AND BENEFIT ESTIMATES AND
BASICALLY THESE ARE ALL THINGS
WE'D LOVE TO DO, BUT AGAIN, WE
HAVE VERY LITTLE IDEA OF HOW WE
WOULD DOT, AND HOW MUCTHEY
WOULD ACTUALLY COST AND HOW
MUCH GOOD THEYOULD DO.
ALL OF THESE WERE DEEMED
INTERESTING THINGS, BUT
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK
A LOT MORE ON, BEFORE WE CAN
ACTUALLY COME UP WITH A LIST
AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD
DO.

Bjorn Lomborg says AND AGAIN, IT
FEEDS INTO THE WHOLE IDEA OF
SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ARE THE
COSTS AND BENEFITS, WE NEED TO
HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
FEASIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ISSUES AREAS BEFORE WE GO AND
DO SOMETHING ON THESE ISSUES.
ON MALNUTRITION AND HUNGER,
IT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY, VERY
NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT AREA.
THERE WERE FOUR DIFFERENT
PROPOSALS.
THERE WAS, PREVENT UNDERWEIGHT
BIRTHS, PROMOTE BREAST FEEDING,
BOTH ISSUE AREAS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY FAIRLY WELL FOLLOWED
AS OF RIGHT NOW, BUT ALSO ONES
THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC ONES AND
THEY ACTUALLY ALSO TURN OUT NOT
TO BE THE BEST WAYS TO ADDRESS
THE PROBLEMS.
THEN THERE ARE, PROVIDE VITAMIN
AND MINERAL SUPPLEMENTS THAT
ACTUALLY TURN OUT TO BE A VERY,
VERY GOOD INVESTMENT, AND THEN,
FINALLY, INVEST IN AGRICULTURE,
THAT IS, BASICALLY TRY AND TAKE
THE LONG TERM APPROACH TO THESE
ISSUES.
AND AS YOU CAN ALSO SEE HERE,
WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH, WITH
BENEFITS COST RATIOS WERE
FAIRLY LOW ONES FOR THE FIRST
TWO SOLUTIONS, BUT NOT BY ANY
STANDARDS BAD PROJECTS, AND
THEN THE VITAMIN AND MINERAL
SUPPLEMENTS WAS VERY HIGH, OR
POTENTIALLY VERY HIGH, AND THE
EXPERTS CHOSE, OF COURSE, JUST
TO TAKE SOME OF THESE ISSUES
THAT WERE THE HIGHEST PAYING
ONES, AND THEN INVESTMENT IN
AGRO-TECHNOLOGY, IT ALSO TURNS
OUT TO BE A FAIRLY GOOD
INVESTMENT, THAT IS FOR
INSTANCE, INVESTING IN GMOs,
AND OTHER POSSIBLE WAYS OF
INCREASING AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION, ESPECIALLY IN THE
THIRD WORLD.
POPULATION MIGRATION, THE
PROBLEM IS, MIGRATION BOTH
PROMOTES WEALTH -- IT CERTAINLY
MAKES THE PEOPLE WHO MIGRATE
RICHER, BUT IT ALSO CARRIES A
LOT OF PROBLEMS, AND THAT WAS
ALSO WHY MOST OF THESE
SELECTIONS WERE ACTUALLY NOT,
BOTH NOT WELL ENOUGH
UNDERSTOOD, AND WERE ALSO
RANKED FAIRLY LOW.
SELECT IMMIGRANT ACTIVELY,
THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF GETTING
PRODUCTION, BUT AGAIN, OF
COURSE IT HAS BOTH POSSIBLE
HOPES AND ALSO PROBLEMS, IF YOU
TAKE FOR INSTANCE THE I.T.
EXPORT FROM INDIA HAS ACTUALLY
TURNED OUT TO CREATE A HUGE
HOME MARKET FOR I.T. WORKERS IN
INDIA, WHEREAS THE EXPORT OF
NURSES AND DOCTORS, FOR
INSTANCE FROM SOUTH AFRICA, HAS
CREATED EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE,
AND IT HAS NOT CREATED NEW
JOBS, AND IT'S ONLY MADE THE
CURRENT HEALTH CRISIS IN SOUTH
AFRICA EVEN WORSE.
SO IT DOES HAVE BOTH PROBLEMS
AND PROMISES, AND WE DON'T KNOW
VERY WELL HOW TO DEAL WITH
THAT.
LIKEWISE, THERE'S ALSO A NEED
TO AT LEAST MAKE OUT HOW DO YOU
DEAL WITH TEMPORARY GUEST
WORKERS' STATUS, AND THE LEGAL
STATUS IN GENERAL, AND MANAGE
BASICALLY RECRUITMENT,
REMITTANCES AND RETURNS,
BASICALLY SAYING THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT BOTH NEEDS TO
EMPOWER THE DEVELOPED COUNTRY
THAT RECEIVES THEIR MIGRATION,
BUT ALSO THE ONES THAT-- OF THE
DEVELOPING WORLD THAT IS GIVING
OFF THE MIGRATION.
AND CERTAINLY WHAT SOME OF THE
ANALYSES SHOWED WAS THERE ARE
GREAT GAINS TO BE HAD, BUT WE
KNOW VERY LITTLE OF HOW TO
CONTROL IT, WE DON'T KNOW VERY
WELL HOW TO CONTROL THE
POLITICAL IMPACT OF THIS, AND
IT'S ALSO A VERY, VERY HARD
SELL IN THE DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES, VERY OFTEN TO GET
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
MIGRATION, CERTAINLY TO A
CERTAIN LEVEL AND WELL MANAGED,
CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT.
I THINK THIS IS ALSO WHY THESE
PROPOSALS ENDED UP TOWARD THE
LOWER PART OF THE FINAL RANGE.
ON SANITATION AND WATER,
THERE'S CLEARLY HUGE NEEDS.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE ONE OF THOSE
PLACES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT
LIKE SAYING DEATH IN GENERAL,
IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT
WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT.
AGAIN, WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT
WE CAN DO WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT SANITATION, WATER AND THE
CHALLENGE PAPER ACTUALLY, FRANK
RIJSBERMAN FROM SRI LANKA, FROM
THE WATER INSTITUTE,
INTERNATIONAL WATER INSTITUTE
THERE, CHOSE TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS, BOTH THE...

A slide appears with a title that reads "Sanitation and water, one billion people lack clean drinking water, two billion people lack sanitation."

Below, bullet points read "What can we do? Community-managed, low-cost water supply and sanitation, small-scale water technology."

Bjorn continues WHICH IS BASICALLY A SOLUTION
TO THE BASIC SANITATION AND
WATER PROBLEM, BUT ALSO THE
OTHER WAY OF MANAGING WATER IN
GENERAL TO MAKE SURE THAT LOW
INCOME FARMERS HAVE WATER
AVAILABILITY MORE READILY TO
THEIR PRODUCTION.
THAT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE
THEIR INCOMES DRAMATICALLY, AND
THEREBY ENABLE THEM TO MAKE
BETTER OF SOME OF THE MANY
OTHER PROBLEMS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE ARE
BOTH GOOD, BUT NOT STUNNINGLY
GOOD INVESTMENTS.

Bjorn Lomborg says AND AGAIN,
IT'S BASICALLY THE POINT IS,
SAYING, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT HUGE INVESTMENTS, IT DOES
MEAN THAT THE BENEFIT COST
RATION TENDS TO GO DOWN, AND IT
DOESN'T SHOW OFF THESE AMAZING
FREQUENCIES OF 40 OR
THEREABOUTS, BUT PERHAPS MORE
LIKE 4.
AND FINALLY SUBSIDIES AND TRADE
BARRIERS, BASICALLY KYM
ANDERSON, ONE OF THE GLOBAL
MODELLERS FROM AUSTRALIA,
POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE VERY
LOW COSTS.

Bjorn Lomborg says THERE ARE
SOME OF THESE THAT ARE MAINLY
POLITICAL COSTS, OF COURSE, AND
IT ALSO UNDERSCORES THE BASIC
WAY THAT THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS DIVIDED THE TWO
ISSUES.
THEY SAID, WE ARE NOT TALKING
ABOUT THE INITIAL POLITICAL
COST.
WE ARE SAYING, THIS IS A LIST.
IF POLITICIANS WERE WILLING TO
DO IT, JUST LIKE WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT THE POLITICAL
COST OF DOING KYOTO.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT
IS THE IMPLEMENTATIONAL COST,
AND WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ECONOMIC
COST.
AND THE IMPLEMENTATION COST
COULD STILL BE SOMEWHAT
SUBSTANTIAL IF SUBSIDIES AND
TRADE BARRIERS, BUT AGAIN,
THERE ARE ALSO AMAZING
BENEFITS, UP TO 2,400 BILLION DOLLARS,

A slide with a title reads "Subsidies and Trade Barriers, how to increase global wealth."

The bullets read "Very low costs, extremely high benefits, up to 2400 billion dollars a year, will benefit both rich and poor countries, we need political will, not big investments."

Bjorn says THAT'S U.S. DOLLARS, EVEN, A
YEAR, AND THIS WOULD BE A SPLIT
THAT WOULD NOT ONLY BE
ADVANTAGEOUS TO DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES, BUT ALSO TO A HUGE
AMOUNT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
BUT AGAIN, OF COURSE, IT IS
ALSO A QUESTION OF POLITICAL
WILL.
ONE OF THE POINTS, IT WAS
BASICALLY A MODEL DISCUSSION,
ON IF WE DID THE TOTAL, FULL
LIBERALISATION, WE WOULD GET UP
TO ABOUT 2 POINT 4 TRILLION DOLLARS, AS IT
SHOWS HERE, AND BASICALLY WE
WOULD GET EQUALLY LESS, IF WE
ONLY DID 50 PERCENT LIBERALISATION, OR
EVEN THE PESSIMISTIC
[Inaudible] ROUND OUTCOME OF
JUST 25 PERCENT LIBERALISATION OF
TRADE.
BUT AGAIN, STILL DRAMATIC
IMPROVEMENTS, AND DRAMATIC
POSSIBILITIES THAT THE WORLD
SHOULD ACHIEVE.
IT'S IMPORTANT, THOUGH, TO
POINT OUT THAT THIS OF COURSE
IS NOT ANYWHERE THAT THIS
CARRIES THE COST OF LIVES IN
ANY DIRECT WAY, BUT OF COURSE
INDIRECTLY IT HAS HUGE IMPACTS.
SO THIS WAS WHAT THEY WERE
BASICALLY PRESENTED WITH, OF
COURSE I'M GIVING YOU THE SHORT
VERSION OF IT, THEY GOT THE 600
PAGES, AND ACTUALLY READ THEM
QUITE A NUMBER OF TIMES.
MANY OF THEM CAME PREPARED WITH
SPREAD SHEETS, AND THEY HAD
ALREADY DONE THEIR HOMEWORK
BEFORE THAT.
AND WE ALSO HAD THE POSSIBILITY
OF HEARING ALL THE DIFFERENT
AUTHORS AT THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS.
WHAT CAME OUT OF IT WAS, AND
THIS IS THE LIST THAT YOU'VE
PARTIALLY GIVEN AWAY, BUT I'LL
JUST-- AND I'LL BRIEFLY GO
THROUGH.
BASICALLY, JUST BRIEFLY, THE
BAD PROJECTS, BECAUSE THEY TEND
TO TAKE SOME ATTENTION, AND
MAINLY ACTUALLY THE GOOD
PROJECTS.
THESE ARE THE BAD PROJECTS,
WHAT WAS ACTUALLY RANKED BAD IN
THE SENSE THAT YOU GET LESS
BACK THAN WHAT YOU PUT IN, YOUR
BENEFIT COST RATIO IS BELOW 1,
IF YOU INVEST A DOLLAR, YOU GET
LESS THAN 1 DOLLAR BACK.
AGAIN, THE EXPERTS DID NOT
ACTUALLY COME OUT AND SAY JUST
EXACTLY HOW MUCH.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY ALL THE
THREE CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGES
ENDED UP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
LIST, 17, 16, AND 15, WITH
KYOTO PROTOCOL BEING NUMBER 16.
ALSO MIGRATION, GUEST WORKER
PROGRAMS FOR UNSKILLED WORKERS
WAS PUT THERE, BASICALLY
BECAUSE IT HAS HUGE COSTS, AND
IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT IT REALLY
BENEFITS THE DEVELOPING WORLD
VERY MUCH, UNLIKE, AS YOU WILL
SEE, MIGRATION FOR SKILLED
WORKERS.
THE FAIR PROJECTS, THE ONES
THAT ARE GOOD, BUT NOT TERRIBLY
GOOD, ARE PROBABLY SOMEWHERE
FROM 1 TO 4 ON THE BENEFIT COST
RATIO, IS COMMUNICABLE DISEASE,
SCALE UP BASIC HEALTH SERVICES.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT
SURPRISING, BUT OF COURSE THE
POINT HERE IS TO SAY, YES, OF
COURSE WE WOULD ALL LOVE SCALED
UP BASIC HEALTH SERVICES, BUT
ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE
ALSO VERY, VERY COSTLY, AND
IT'S UNCLEAR IF THEY'RE
ACTUALLY GOING TO BE
IMPLEMENTED, OR TO WHAT EXTENT
A LOT OF THIS MONEY IS JUST
GOING TO BE WASTED.
LIKEWISE, WITH MALNUTRITION AND
SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT I WAS
DESCRIBING EARLIER ON, THAT ARE
GOOD, AND VERY OFTEN VERY
HIGHLY TOUTED, BUT JUST DO NOT
REALLY ATTACK THE MAIN ISSUES
AND THE PLACES WHERE WE CAN DO
THE MOST GOOD REDUCING BIRTH
WEIGHT AND IMPROVING INFANT
CHILD NUTRITION.
AND FINALLY THE MIGRATION ISSUE
OF SKILLED WORKERS, IT'S FAIR,
BUT IT'S NOT A BRILLIANT
INVESTMENT, BUT IT'S ONE OF
THOSE THINGS THAT YOU COULD DO.
ON GOOD PROJECTS, WE HAD
GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION,
LOWERING THE COST OF STARTING
NEW BUSINESSES, MIGHT BE ONE OF
THE PLACES WHERE YOU COULD
ACTUALLY GAIN POSSIBILITIES.
SANITATION, WATER COMES IN
HERE.
ALL OF THESE ARE STRONG BUT NOT
THE TOP CONTENDERS, AND FINALLY
MALNUTRITION, AND DEVELOPING
NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES,
AS I TALKED ABOUT.
MOST OF THIS IS REALLY RESEARCH
BASED.
IT'S TELLING US THAT DOING A
LOT OF THESE ISSUES ON BOTH, ON
NUMBER 8 AND NUMBER 5, AND
DOING FAIRLY HIGH INTENSITY
INVESTMENTS IN SANITATION AND
WATER ARE GOOD PROJECTS.
AND THAT, OF COURSE LEAVES THE
TOP FOUR ONES THAT I'M GOING TO
GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM,
NUMBER 4 WAS THE CONTROL OF
MALARIA, MOSQUITO NETS AND
EFFECTIVE MEDICATION COULD
HALVE THE INCIDENCE OF MALARIA,
AT THE COST OF ABOUT 13
BILLION DOLLARS OVER THE COMING 12
YEARS, I BELIEVE THAT IS, AND
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE NUMBER OF
MONEY THEY SAID, A WAY OF THE
50 BILLION THAT WERE ALL IN
ALL GIVEN THESE HYPOTHETICAL
50 BILLION.
THE BENEFITS ARE AT LEAST FIVE
TIMES THE COST, AND PROBABLY
MUCH MORE THAN THAT.
THIS IS A VERY GOOD INVESTMENT
INDEED TO DEAL WITH.
THE THIRD BEST WAS SUBSIDIES
AND TRADE BARRIERS.
AGAIN, THE COSTS WERE VERY LOW,
WITH VERY, VERY HIGH BENEFITS,
AND IT WILL BOTH BENEFIT RICH,
AND PERHAPS MUCH MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THE POOR COUNTRIES
AS WELL.
THIS WAS RANKED NUMBER 3 ON THE
LIST BY THE DREAM TEAM.
THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY, THAT
WAS MALNUTRITION, PROVIDING
MICRO-NUTRIENTS, BASICALLY MORE
THAN HALF THE WORLD IS FACED
WITH IRON DEFICIENCIES AND
OTHER DEFICIENCIES, AND AT A
FAIRLY LOW COST OF ABOUT 12
BILLION DOLLARS, WE COULD DO A DRAMATIC
DECREASE, I THINK IT'S ABOUT
HALVING, I'M NOT QUITE SURE
HERE, BUT WE COULD MAKE A
SEVERE INROAD ON THESE PROBLEMS
FOR THE COST OF 12 BILLION,
AND FIRST AND THE BEST PROJECT,
AS IT WAS DEEMED, WAS THE
CONTROL OF HIV-AIDS, AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS
NOT TREATMENT OF HIV-AIDS, IT'S
CONTROL, IT'S THE PREVENTION OF
NEW CASES OVER THE NEXT EIGHT
YEARS UP TILL 2010, FROM 2002,
SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE UP TO
2012 BY NOW.
WE COULD PREVENT 28 POINT 5 MILLION
NEW CASES FOR ABOUT 27
BILLION DOLLARS, WHICH WOULD BE AN
AMAZINGLY GOOD INVESTMENT, IT
BENEFITS ALMOST 40 TIMES THE
EFFECT THAT WE WOULD PUT IN
THERE.
SO BASICALLY WHAT THEY TOLD US
WAS, OF ALL THE GOOD THINGS TO
DO OUT IN THE WORLD, WE SHOULD
DO HIV-AIDS, WE SHOULD PREVENT
HIV-AIDS, WE SHOULD ENSURE
MICRO-NUTRIENTS, WE SHOULD DO
FREE TRADE, AND WE SHOULD STOP
MALARIA.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY ALL
THREE THINGS APART FROM FREE
TRADE ARE ACTUALLY VERY, VERY
SIMPLE THINGS, IT'S THINGS THAT
WE KNOW HOW TO DO.
IT'S GIVE OUT CONDOMS AND
INFORMATION, IT'S GIVE OUT
VITAMIN PILLS, AND IT'S GIVE
OUT CHEMICALLY TREATED BED
NETS.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, IT
REALLY IS SOMETHING THAT WE
COULD DO.
THE QUESTION OF COURSE, IS
IMPORTANT, AND THEN I'LL STOP
IN A LITTLE-- IN A SHORT WHILE.
BUT JUST TO ASK THE QUESTION,
IS THIS A CORRECT LIST.
WELL ACTUALLY,
OF COURSE, THERE IS
NO WAY I CAN INDEPENDENTLY
PROVIDE YOU WITH, YES, THIS IS
A CORRECT LIST.
BUT WE ACTUALLY HAD A PARALLEL
CONFERENCE WHERE WE INVITED 80
YOUNG PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE
WORLD, THEY WERE PRIMARILY NON-
ECONOMISTS.
WE WANTED ALL YOUNG PEOPLE TO
COME IN.
OF COURSE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS
IS, IF YOU WANT TO GET THE BEST
AND THE TOP ECONOMISTS IN THE
WORLD, YOU'RE GOING TO GET
WHITE OLD AMERICANS, MALE
AMERICANS, RIGHT?

Bjorn Lomborg says YES, WE DID
HAVE A CHINESE, WE DID HAVE A
WOMAN, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW
IT IS.
THE AVERAGE AGE WAS 71 YEARS,
YOU KNOW.
[Audience Laughter]
AND WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT?
YOU KNOW, WE HAD YOUNG 50 YEAR
OLDS, BUT YOU KNOW.
BUT SO THE POINT IS, IT WAS
VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO SAY,
WE WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING
THAT'S ACADEMICALLY
UNIMPEACHABLE.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE ALSO WANTED TO
SAY, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THIS
IS NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT
WHITE AMERICANS BELIEVE IN, ALL
RIGHT?
AND OLD MALE AMERICANS BELIEVE
IN.
SO LET'S ACTUALLY TRY TO ASK
YOUNG PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE
WORLD.
THEY CAME TO COPENHAGEN AT
EXACTLY THE SAME TIME, THEY
HEARD EXACTLY THE SAME
EVIDENCE.

A slide appears with a title that reads "Is the list ‘correct’?"

Bullet points read "Alternative approach, Copenhagen consensus youth forum, parallel conference to the expert meeting, 80 university students from 25 countries, mostly students from developing countries, an open debate on prioritization."

Bjorn says THEY ACTUALLY CROSS EXAMINED
ALL THE EXPERT WRITERS, THAT
IS, THE CHALLENGE PAPER WRITERS
AND THE TWO OPPONENTS.
MANY OF THEM SAID THAT, YOU
KNOW, IF THEY FEARED THE
MEETING UP WITH THE NOBEL
PEOPLE, THE YOUNG PEOPLE WERE
EVEN WORSE.
AND THEY WERE REALLY, REALLY
TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY.
THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, 70PERCENT-- THEY
REPRESENTED 75PERCENT OF THE WORLD.
70PERCENT OF THEM CAME FROM THE THIRD
WORLD.
THEY WERE VERY, VERY
ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT IT, AND TOOK
IT REALLY SERIOUSLY.
AND TWO THINGS CAME OUT.
ONE WAS THAT THEY ACTUALLY
ENDED UP WITH A STRIKINGLY
SIMILAR LIST, YOU CAN LOOK AT
IT AT THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS
WEBSITE, WHERE THERE'S A
REFERENCE TO THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS YOUTH FORUM WEBSITE.
MALNUTRITION AND DISEASES WERE
ON THE TOP, CLIMATE PANEL AT
THE BOTTOM.
AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY
WAS THAT THEY ALSO ALL AGREED.
WE ACTUALLY DID ANALYSES ON
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES AND DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES.
WE THOUGHT FOR INSTANCE
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MIGHT FEEL
MUCH MORE STRONGER ABOUT FOR
INSTANCE, CLIMATE CHANGE.
NOT SO.
THEY DID FEEL SLIGHTLY MORE.
THE YOUTHS ONLY RANKED 10
BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES OF
MAKING 80 PEOPLE GET TOGETHER
AND DO THE SAME RANKING.
SO THEY SIMPLY RANKED THE 10
ISSUES AND THE 10 CHALLENGES
AND THE BEST ISSUE WITHIN EACH
OF THESE CHALLENGES.
SO THEY HAD A RANKING OF 10,
GLOBAL WARMING CAME OUT 9th,
AND THIS WAS ALSO TRUE FOR THE
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, BUT FOR
THE DEVELOPED COUNTRY YOUNG
PEOPLE, IT CAME OUT 8th.
SO IT STILL WAS A VERY, VERY
SIMILAR LIST, AND ACTUALLY MOST
OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE ACTUALLY
HAD VERY, VERY SIMILAR VOTINGS,
AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY,
NOT MORE IMPORTANTLY, BUT I'LL
ALSO JUST MENTION, THE LIBERAL
DANISH PAPER, THE GLOBE AND
MAIL DANISH PAPER,
ALL OF THE PAPERS TOOK A GREAT
INTEREST IN THE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS, BUT THEY ACTUALLY
SENT A WHOLE TEAM OF
JOURNALISTS TO UGANDA, TO
INTERVIEW PEOPLE DOWN THERE.
EACH DAY WHEN CORRUPTION WAS ON
THE ISSUE, THEY INTERVIEWED
PEOPLE, SO HAVE YOU HAD
EXPERIENCE WITH CORRUPTION, HOW
DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS, TO GIVE
PEOPLE A FEELING, THIS IS NOT
AN ACADEMIC ISSUE, THIS IS
ACTUALLY REAL PEOPLE WHO ARE
HAVING THESE REAL PROBLEMS.
AND THEY ACTUALLY GATHERED --
AND I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
IT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT BASIS
THEY DID THIS ON, BUT THEY
ACTUALLY GATHERED A PANEL OF
UGANDAN EXPERTS, INCLUDING
[Inaudible] ENVIRONMENTAL
EXPERT, AND ASKED THEM TO COME
UP WITH A PRIORITISATION AND
THE SURPRISING THING IS THAT
THEIR PRIORITY LIST LOOKED
VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE
BOTH THE EXPERTS CAME UP WITH
AND THE YOUTH FORUM.
I ACTUALLY WENT TO ASPEN AND
PRESENTED THIS, AND ONE OF THE
GUYS SAID, WELL THIS JUST
ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY IN
GETTING NOBEL LAUREATES,
APPARENTLY YOU CAN JUST GET
YOUNG PEOPLE TO DO IT.
[Audience Laughter]
OF COURSE THAT IS A SLIGHTLY
NEGATIVE SPIN ON THAT, BUT THE
POSITIVE ONE IS REALLY TO SAY
THAT THIS IS NOT JUST OLD MALE
WHITE AMERICANS TALKING, THIS
IS REALLY APPARENTLY A LIST
THAT COMES UP WHEN YOU ASK
PEOPLE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY
THAT WE NEED TO PRIORITISE.
SO, BOTTOM LINE, THERE'S BEEN A
HUGE DEBATE, BUT WE NEED MUCH
MUCH MORE.
THERE HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION IN
MANY DIFFERENT PAPERS, BUT IT
IS A DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO
GET OUT THERE MUCH MORE.
WE ARE GETTING A BOOK OUT WITH
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
CALLED, "GLOBAL CRISES, GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS," AND WE'RE HOPING
THAT THIS WILL RESTIMULATE THE
DISCUSSION.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE
TONIGHT, I'M GOING TO TALK IN
WASHINGTON WITH SEVERAL
DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS,
INCLUDING THE WORLD BANK AND
SOME AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
WITH THE UNDERSECRETARY OF
STATE AND MANY OTHERS.
WE'RE TALKING TO THE BRITISH
PARLIAMENT AND MANY OTHER
INSTITUTIONS IN LONDON, BERLIN,
MADRID, ROME.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE
ENGAGED IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT
AREAS.
THE DANISH DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE
10th LARGEST DONOR IN ABSOLUTE
TERMS IN THE WORLD, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT WE'RE ONLY 5 MILLION
PEOPLE, HAS DECIDED TO
REEVALUATE ITS HIV-AIDS
DONATIONS IN LIGHT OF THE
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS.
AND WE'RE ALSO TALKING TO OTHER
DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, THE DUTCH
AND THE AUSTRIANS, AND WE'RE
CERTAINLY HOPING ALSO TO GET
EVERYONE ELSE'S ATTENTION TO
GET THEM STARTING AND THINKING
ABOUT THESE ISSUES.
SO BOTTOM LINE IS, THIS IS
POLITICAL TRIAGE.
IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE
DON'T DO THINGS WHERE WE CAN DO
VERY LITTLE, OR THAT ARE BAD
SOLUTIONS.
AND IT'S NOT THE TIME TO DO
THINGS THAT WE KNOW VERY LITTLE
HOW TO SOLVE.
THESE ARE NOT ON THE LIST.
IT'S ABOUT SAYING LET'S DO THE
THINGS THAT DO MUCH GOOD AT LOW
COST THAT WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW.
SO THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE OF
THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS, AND
PERHAPS NOT VERY SURPRISINGLY.
WE DON'T USUALLY THINK THIS
WAY, AND WE THINK THAT WE
SHOULD DO EVERYTHING.
BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU, AND
OF COURSE THIS IS WHERE THE
DISCUSSION SHOULD GO.
ISN'T IT TIME THAT WE FIRST DO
THE THINGS THAT DO A LOT OF
GOOD RIGHT NOW THAT WE KNOW WE
CAN DO.
SO THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE OF
THE COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS AND
I'M VERY HAPPY THAT YOU'VE
BEARED WITH ME THIS LONG, AND
I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE AN
INTERESTING AND OPEN
DISCUSSION.
YOU WILL TAKE OVER THE FLOOR
AND DIRECT THE QUESTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[Applause]

A man in his sixties with short, balding, white hair, with a white beard, wearing a gray collared shirt appears on screen, stands in the audience and says I WAS AT THE TORONTO
INSURANCE CONFERENCE EARLIER
TODAY, AND THE CONFERENCE WAS
ENTITLED, "RISK, REWARD AND
REGULATION," AND OF COURSE
INSURANCE AGENTS AND INSURANCE
EXECUTIVES ARE INTERESTED IN
RISK FROM TWO POINTS OF VIEW,
NOT ONLY THE OUTCOME, THE
POSSIBLE OUTCOME, BUT THE
LIKELIHOOD OF THAT OCCURRING.
AND IT WAS INTERESTING THAT
THEY INVITED IN TWO CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS, ONE FROM HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, AND ONE FROM
CARLETON HERE LOCALLY, AND WHAT
THEY SHOWED WAS THAT THE
LIKELIHOOD SIDE OF THE EQUATION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE, IS SO
UNCERTAIN THAT IT MAKES YOU
WONDER IF, IN FACT, IT'S A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF ISSUE
THAN LET'S SAY, CORRUPTION IN
POLITICS OR WAR.
THE ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS,
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THOSE
ISSUES -- THERE'S CLEARLY
SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO
INFLUENCE IT, BUT IT STRE
IN LOOKING AT THE LIST OF
ISSUES, THAT CLIMATE CHANGE,
BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS
CONTROVERSY IN THE SCIENCE,
WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT, OR
DISAGREE WITH IT, WHATEVER,
THAT IT REALLY FALLS INTO A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY, AND PERHAPS
DOESN'T BELONG ON THE LIST AT
ALL.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT
YOU THINK ABOUT THAT.

Bjorn Lomborg says WE ACTUALLY
HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS, AND SOME
PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT
OFF THE LIST.
AND ESPECIALLY I'VE HEARD THAT
ARGUMENT PROMOTED MANY OTHER
PLACES.
OF COURSE THE
SLIGHTLY FLIP ANSWER IS, I CAN
UNDERSTAND WHY CLIMATE PEOPLE
WOULD KEEP IT OFF THE LIST.
BUT THE MORE RIGOROUS ANSWER IS
TO SAY I THINK BECAUSE THESE
ARE THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY DO
PRIORITISE, WE NEED TO HAVE
THEM ALL ON THE SAME LIST.
IT DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE TO HAVE DIFFERENT
LISTS.
HOWEVER I TAKE YOUR POINT IN
SAYING THAT IF CLIMATE CHANGE
IS SUCH A DIFFERENT THING,
BASICALLY I THINK THE GIST OF
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TO SAY,
MAYBE IT'S ON TOP, MAYBE IT'S
ON THE BOTTOM, AND WE DON'T
KNOW, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE
LINES, IS THAT CORRECT?

The man in the gray shirt says WELL WHAI'M SAYING IS
THAT BECAUSE THE QUESTION, WHAT
CAN WE DO ABOUT IT IS--
MAYBE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING
ABOUT IT.
AND THE FACT IS THAT THAT IS A
HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE,
UNLIKE THE BUSINESS ABOUT
CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT OR
WAR, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY HUMAN
CAUSED, IT STRIKES ME THAT
EITHER TWO THINGS, ONE IS, IT
EITHER IT SHOULDN'T BE ON THE
LIST, OR THE FACT THAT IT IS A
DEBATABLE ITEM AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT WE'RE CAUSING IT, AND CAN
DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, THAT
SHOULD SURELY COME INTO PLAY
WHEN DETERMINING PRIORITIES.

Bjorn Lomborg says WELL I WOULD
TEND TO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH
YOU, BECAUSE I WOULD SAY WE
DON'T KNOW VERY WELL WHAT WE
SHOULD DO ABOUT CORRUPTION, BUT
WE KNOW EMINENTLY WELL WHAT WE
SHOULD DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE,
IT'S JUST SIMPLY--
CLIMATE CHANGE, IN MANY WAYS,
IS JUST AS SIMPLE AS HIV-AIDS.
HIV-AIDS IS HANDING OUT
CONDOMS, CLIMATE CHANGE IS
ABOUT CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS.
IN THAT WAY, IT'S NOT REALLY
ROCKET SCIENCE.
THE POINT WHERE I THINK WHERE
YOUR ARGUMENT COULD COME INTO
PLAY, IS THE ARGUMENT OF
SAYING, IF THERE ARE RADICAL
FLIPS, LIKE THE GULF STREAM
SHUTTING OFF, OR THE WESTERN
ARCTIC ICE SHEET SLIPPING OFF
OR SOMETHING, THOSE ARE
INCIDENTS THAT ARE VERY HARD TO
CAPTURE IN A STANDARD COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
OF COURSE, I WOULD GO ON, AND I
DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT
FORMAT TO DO THAT, TO SAY THAT
THOSE ARE VERY, VERY SMALL
PROBABILITIES, AND I WOULD SAY
THAT MANY OF THE OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE,
FOR INSTANCE WITH HIV-AIDS,
ALSO HAVE THOSE POTENTIAL
FLICKS, IN THE SENSE THAT THEY
SAY, IF WE GET RAVAGING HIV-
AIDS, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A
GENERATION OF PEOPLE WITH NO
PARENTS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.
WE MIGHT GET A COLLAPSE IN SUB-
SAHARAN AFRICA.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WORLD
WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I DON'T KNOW IF MANY PEOPLE
ACTUALLY DO KNOW THAT.
OF COURSE THAT'S AN INCENTIVE
TO BUILD BETTER MODELS, AND
AGAIN TO COME UP WITH A SENSE
OF WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY OF
DOING THAT, AND WHAT COULD WE
DO ABOUT IT.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT
SAYING, WHAT WE KNOW TODAY MOST
RESEARCH ACTUALLY TELLS US THAT
GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO BE A
GRADUAL EXPERIENCE.
THAT'S WHAT VIRTUALLY ALL THE
IPAC MODELS DO, AND THE IPAC
HAS ONLY LOOKED AT THE WESTERN
ARCTIC ICE SHEET, AND PRETTY
MUCH DISMISSED IT, AND I THINK
THE GULF STREAM HAS AN EQUALLY
VERY, VERY LOW PROBABILITY, SO
MOST OF WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW,
IS, INDEED, ON A TREND SCALE,
SO IT IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO
SAY, WELL, IF WE CUT 1 TON, IT
WILL DO THIS MUCH GOOD, IF WE
CUT 2 TONS, IT WILL DO THIS
MUCH GOOD, SO WE ACTUALLY
PRETTY MUCH KNOW IT, JUST AS WE
DO THE TRANSMISSION OF HIV-
AIDS.

Another man in his sixties with short, side-parted, thin white hair, with glasses, a white moustache, and wearing a brown blazer and a black shirt stands and speaks to Bjorn.

The man with the brown blazer says AS I LISTENED TO YOUR
PRESENTATION, I WAS REALLY
STRUCK BY WHAT I HAD A SENSE
OF, WHICH IS THE LINKAGES
BETWEEN SO MANY OF THESE
ISSUES.
AND ALSO, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT
THE LINKAGES, IT OCCURRED TO ME
THAT, AS OPPOSED TO A COST
BENEFIT APPROACH, THAT TRIED TO
PRIORITISE EVERYTHING, THAT A
STRATEGIC APPROACH, GROUNDED IN
COMMON SENSE, MIGHT BE
SOMETHING WORTH CONSIDERING.
AND I'M WONDERING TO WHAT
EXTENT YOUR PANEL GAVE
CONSIDERATION TO A STRATEGIC
APPROACH.
THE PARTICULAR ONE THAT WOULD
OCCUR TO ME, IS INVESTING IN
THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN IN THE
THIRD WORLD.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU DID
THAT, YOU COULD REDUCE
ENORMOUSLY THE INCIDENCE OF SEX
WITHOUT CONDOMS, YOU COULD
INCREASE THE MICRO-NUTRIENTS
THAT THESE BETTER EDUCATED
WOMEN'S CHILDREN RECEIVE, YOU
COULD ENSURE THAT THEIR
CHILDREN DRINK MUCH MORE
SANITISED WATER THAN THEY ARE
NOW, WHICH CAN BE VERY COST
EFFECTIVELY PROVIDED WITH PILLS
BEING DISSOLVED IN WATER, AND
YOU COULD AS WELL, IMPROVE THE
INDOOR AIR QUALITY BY
REARRANGING WHAT THEY BURN IN
THEIR HOMES, SO THEY'RE NOT
SMOKING FIVE TO TEN PACKAGES OF
CIGARETTES A DAY.
IT JUST STRIKES ME THAT DOING
THIS ENTIRELY ON A COST
BENEFITS APPROACH WITHOUT
BRINGING SOME STRATEGIC
CONSIDERATIONS TO IT, MIGHT BE
A LIMITATION OF YOUR APPROACH
AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU'D
COMMENT UPON THAT.

Bjorn Lomborg says RIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD
QUESTION, BUT FIRST OF ALL I
WOULD SAY THAT YOU DON'T NEED A
GREAT EDUCATION NOT TO HAVE A
HOUSE THAT'S SO SMOKY THAT YOU
VIRTUALLY CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE
COOKING.
I THINK THE WOMEN ALREADY KNOW
THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUY
KEROSENE IF THEY HAD THE MONEY,
SO THAT'S MORE OF A POVERTY
ISSUE.
BUT YES, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT
IF WE COULD DO THESE THINGS
THERE MIGHT BE STRONG LINKAGES
BETWEEN SOME OF THE OTHER
ISSUES.
I WOULD PERHAPS, FIRST OFF, AND
AGAIN, I'M NOT THE EXPERT IN
THIS ISSUE AREA, BUT I WOULD
SAY, GIVEN THAT I HEARD THE
EXPERTS ON THE EDUCATION AREA,
THEY WOULD BASICALLY COME UP
AND SAY, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF
WE COULD GET THE WOMEN
EDUCATED, BUT WE JUST DO NOT
KNOW VERY WELL HOW TO IMPLEMENT
THOSE POLICIES THAT WILL
ACTUALLY LEAD TO DO THAT.
SO THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS, WE
DON'T KNOW IN THE SAME WAY WE
KNOW, IT'S CONDOMS OUT THERE
AND THEN WE'RE DONE.
IT'S MUCH MORE ABOUT STRUCTURAL
REFORM, POLITICAL REFORM,
MAKING SURE THAT THE INCENTIVE
STRUCTURE IS RIGHT, AND WE KNOW
FAIRLY LITTLE ABOUT WHAT WE
COULD DO IN THAT PARTICULAR
AREA.
THAT'S JUST A VERY SPECIFIC
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT I
WILL TAKE IT A LITTLE BROADER
AND SAY YOUR QUESTION IS REALLY
ABOUT, WHAT IF SOME OF THESE
THINGS ARE NOT JUST ABOUT DOING
THAT ONE THING, BUT THEY ARE
ACTUALLY INTERLINKED, AND THERE
ARE A LOT MORE GOOD THINGS THAT
WOULD HAPPEN OR COULD HAPPEN
COMING FROM, OR MOVING ON FROM
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THESE
INDIVIDUAL AREAS.
AND THAT IS A GOOD GENERAL
QUESTION THAT WE, OF COURSE
SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME
THINKING ABOUT.
AND OUR BASIC THOUGHT WAS TO
SAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS
AS A MARGINAL CHANGE, WHICH ALL
OTHER THINGS EQUAL IS MORE
LIKELY TO MEAN IT WILL ONLY
ADDRESS THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.
THAT IS, IF
YOU SAY THERE'S AN INTERLINKAGE
BETWEEN, F INSTANCE EDUCATION
AND HIV-AIDS, YOU KNOW, DOING
SOMETHING ABOUT HIV-AIDS--
I'M SORRY, DOING SOMETHING
ABOUT EDUCION IS NOT LIKELY,
IF IT'S RGINAL, TO DO MUCH
ABOUT HIV-AIDS.
NOW THIS MAY BE WRONG, THIS MY
BE RIGHT, BUWITH MARGINAL
CHANGE, IT'S MORE LIKELY.
THE SECOND PART OF THENSR
IS TO SAY THAT IF EDUCATION
REALLY HAS A STRONG SECOARY
EFFECT ON HIV-AIDS, THE HIV-
AIDS MODELS OUGHT TO PUT IT IN
THEM.
NOW THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT MOST
MODELS DON'T MODEL EVERYTHING.
NO MODELS MODEL EVERYTHING.
BUT THERE'S NO DOUBT EVEN THAT
MOST MODELS DON'T REALLY MODEL
ALL OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS.
IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE AGAIN,
THAT WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.
IN 2004, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ALL
THE RIGHT MODE.
SO IN THAT SENSE, IF THERE
REALLY ARE IMPORTANT SECONDARY
EFCTS THAT ARE LEFT OUT, IT'S
ALSO A PLEA FOR RESEARCHERS TO
MAKE BETTER MODELS.
BUT IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING, IF
SECONDARY EFFECTS ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT IN HIV-AIDS, SO IT'S
NOT JUST ABOUT CONDOMS, BUT
IT'S PERHAPS ALSO ABOUT
EDUCATION, IT SHOULD BE IN THE
HIV-AIDS MODELS.
AND OF COURSE THE SECONDARY
MODELS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE
SUGGESTING, ARE OVERWHELMING
THE FIRST ORDER EFFECTS, THEN
CLEARLY THEY SHOULD BE IN THESE
MODELS.
SO AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE SAYING, IS
NOT THAT THIS IS THE FINAL, AND
NOW WE'VE SAID IT ALL ON THESE
MODELS, IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE
SAYING THIS IS WHAT THE WORLD
KNOWS RIGHT NOW ON THE BEST
MODELS THAT WE HAVE ON HIV-AIDS
TRANSMISSION, AND ON THE COSTS
AND BENEFITS OF DOING SOMETHING
ABOUT IT.
IF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S FACED
AROUND HIV-AIDS IS SORT OF OFF
IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, IF
THEY'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT
CONDOMS, WHERE THEY REALLY ALSO
SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
EDUCATION, THIS IS WHAT WE NEED
TO GET INJECTED INTO THOSE
MODELS SO WE GET SMARTER.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST SAYING
WHAT 2004 KNOWLEDGE TELLS US,
NAMELY THAT CONDOMS IS THE
BIGGEST THING ON HIV-AIDS, BUT
HEY, MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER
THINGS OUT THERE, BUT IT SHOULD
BE PUT INTO THE MODELS.
AND WHAT I ALSO SEE COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS DOES, IS IT ACTUALLY
SPURS THAT KIND OF REACTION,
THAT KIND OF INTERACTION.
WE SAW A LOT OF RESEARCHERS WHO
CAME BACK AND SAID, WOW, YOU
KNOW, I'VE SEEN AREAS AND
PEOPLE I DON'T USUALLY TALK TO,
AND DON'T USUALLY THINK VERY
MUCH ABOUT, AND SO I'M HOPING
THAT THIS WILL ALSO PROVIDE THE
INPUT.
SO WHAT I'M MARKING HERE IS TO
SAY THAT MODELS IN THE
INDIVIDUAL AREAS SHOULD TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT STRONG
INTERLINKAGES, AND WE'RE HOPING
WE'RE PROVIDING THAT IMPETUS TO
MAKE THOSE MODELS BETTER, BUT
THAT ALSO DEFENDS THE FACT THAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY SEPARATING IT
AND NOT JUST MAKING INTO THIS
SORT OF-- THAT VERY EASILY
COMES OUT OF IT, WELL, THE
WORLD IS A COMPLEX PLACE, AND
WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING, BUT
REALLY SAY WELL LET'S STILL
KEEP FOCUS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL
THING, AND SAY, HIV-AIDS, WHAT
CAN WE DO THERE, AND MAYBE IT
IS EDUCATION, MAYBE IT'S
SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT AT LEAST WE NEED TO SEE THE
MODELS ACTUALLY COME UP WITH
THAT AS A STRONG INDICATOR THAT
THERE'S A SECOND ORDER EFFECT,
OR PERHAPS EVEN AN OVERWHELMING
SECOND ORDER EFFECT.

Watch: Bjorn Lomborg on the Copenhagen Consensus