TED2005
Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change
Bjørn Lomborg prioriterer globalt
Filmed:
Readability: 3.3
1,695,569 views
Hvis du fik $50 milliarder at bruge, hvilket problem ville du løse først, AIDS eller global opvarmning? Den danske politolog Bjørn Lomborg når frem til overraskende svar.
Bjorn Lomborg - Global prioritizer
Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg heads the Copenhagen Consensus, which has prioritized the world's greatest problems -- global warming, world poverty, disease -- based on how effective our solutions might be. It's a thought-provoking, even provocative list. Full bio
Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg heads the Copenhagen Consensus, which has prioritized the world's greatest problems -- global warming, world poverty, disease -- based on how effective our solutions might be. It's a thought-provoking, even provocative list. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:24
What I'd like to talk about is really the biggest problems in the world.
0
0
4000
Det jeg gerne vil tale om, er virkelig verdens største problemer.
00:28
I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" --
1
4000
2000
Jeg har ikke tænkt mig at tale om "Verdens sande tilstand" --
00:30
probably that's also a good choice.
2
6000
2000
det er sandsynligvis også en god idé.
00:32
(Laughter)
3
8000
1000
(Latter)
00:33
But I am going talk about: what are the big problems in the world?
4
9000
3000
Men jeg har tænkt mig at tale om, hvad er verdens største problemer?
00:36
And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you
5
12000
3000
Og jeg må sige, før jeg går videre, at jeg gerne vil have hver af jer
00:39
to try and get out pen and paper
6
15000
2000
til at prøve og tage blyant og papir frem,
00:41
because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that.
7
17000
3000
for jeg har faktisk tænkt mig at bede jer om at hjælpe mig med at se på, hvordan vi gør det.
00:44
So get out your pen and paper.
8
20000
2000
Så tag jeres blyant og papir frem.
00:46
Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world.
9
22000
2000
Sagens kerne er, at der er mange problemer derude i verden.
00:48
I'm just going to list some of them.
10
24000
2000
Jeg vil bare remse nogle af dem op.
00:50
There are 800 million people starving.
11
26000
2000
Der er 800 millioner mennesker, der sulter.
00:52
There's a billion people without clean drinking water.
12
28000
2000
Der er en milliard mennesker uden rent drikkevand.
00:54
Two billion people without sanitation.
13
30000
2000
To milliarder mennesker uden sanitet.
00:56
There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS.
14
32000
3000
Der er flere millioner mennesker, der dør af HIV og AIDS.
00:59
The lists go on and on.
15
35000
2000
Listen bliver ved og ved.
01:01
There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on.
16
37000
5000
Der er to milliarder mennesker, der vil blive alvorligt ramt af klimaforandringer -- og så videre.
01:06
There are many, many problems out there.
17
42000
2000
Der er mange, mange problemer derude.
01:08
In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't.
18
44000
4000
I en ideel verden ville vi løse dem alle, men det gør vi ikke.
01:12
We don't actually solve all problems.
19
48000
2000
Vi løser faktisk ikke alle problemer.
01:14
And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves --
20
50000
4000
Og hvis vi ikke gør det, er spørgsmålet, tror jeg, vi må stille os selv --
01:18
and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say,
21
54000
3000
og det er derfor, det er på økonomisessionen -- er at sige,
01:21
if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves,
22
57000
3000
hvis vi ikke gør alle ting, må vi virkelig starte med at spørge os selv,
01:24
which ones should we solve first?
23
60000
2000
hvilke burde vi løse først?
01:26
And that's the question I'd like to ask you.
24
62000
2000
Og det er spørgsmålet, jeg gerne vil stille jer.
01:28
If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend
25
64000
5000
Hvis vi havde, lad os sige, 50 milliarder dollars til at bruge over de næste fire år
01:33
to do good in this world, where should we spend it?
26
69000
3000
på at gøre godt i denne verden, hvor skulle vi bruge dem?
01:36
We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world,
27
72000
3000
Vi identificerede 10 af verdens største udfordringer,
01:39
and I will just briefly read them:
28
75000
2000
og jeg vil bare kort læse dem op.
01:41
climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education,
29
77000
2000
Klimaforandringer, smitsomme sygdomme, konflikter, uddannelse,
01:43
financial instability, governance and corruption,
30
79000
2000
finansiel ustabilitet, regering og korruption,
01:45
malnutrition and hunger, population migration,
31
81000
3000
fejlernæring og hungersnød, befolkningsudvandring,
01:48
sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers.
32
84000
3000
sanitering og vand og pengehjælp og handelsbarrierer.
01:51
We believe that these in many ways
33
87000
2000
Vi mener, at disse på mange måder
01:53
encompass the biggest problems in the world.
34
89000
2000
indbefatter de største problemer i verden.
01:55
The obvious question would be to ask,
35
91000
2000
Det indlysende spørgsmål ville være at spørge,
01:57
what do you think are the biggest things?
36
93000
2000
hvad tror I, er de største ting?
01:59
Where should we start on solving these problems?
37
95000
3000
Hvor burde vi starte med at løse disse problemer?
02:02
But that's a wrong problem to ask.
38
98000
2000
Men det er et forkert problem at stille.
02:04
That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.
39
100000
3000
Det var faktisk det problem, der blev stillet i Davos i Januar.
02:07
But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems.
40
103000
3000
Men selvfølgelig er der et problem i at bede folk fokusere på problemer.
02:10
Because we can't solve problems.
41
106000
3000
For vi kan ikke løse problemer.
02:13
Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die.
42
109000
3000
Det største problem, vi har i verden, er vel, at vi alle dør.
02:16
But we don't have a technology to solve that, right?
43
112000
2000
Men vi har ikke en teknologi til at løse det, vel?
02:18
So the point is not to prioritize problems,
44
114000
3000
Så pointen er ikke at prioritere problemer,
02:21
but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems.
45
117000
4000
men pointen er at prioritere løsninger på problemer.
02:25
And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated.
46
121000
3000
Og det ville være -- selvfølgelig bliver det en smule kompliceret.
02:28
To climate change that would be like Kyoto.
47
124000
2000
På klimaforandringer ville det være noget som Kyoto.
02:30
To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets.
48
126000
3000
På smitsomme sygdomme kunne det være sundhedsklinikker eller moskitonet.
02:33
To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on.
49
129000
3000
På konflikter ville det være FN's fredsbevarende styrker og så videre.
02:36
The point that I would like to ask you to try to do,
50
132000
5000
Pointen, jeg gerne vil bede jer forsøge at gøre,
02:41
is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense
51
137000
3000
er på bare 30 sekunder -- og jeg ved, det her er på en måde
02:44
an impossible task -- write down what you think
52
140000
2000
en umulig opgave -- skrive ned, hvad I tror,
02:46
is probably some of the top priorities.
53
142000
2000
der sandsynligvis er nogle af topprioriteterne.
02:48
And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil --
54
144000
3000
Og også -- og det er selvfølgelig, hvor økonomi bliver ondt --
02:51
to put down what are the things we should not do, first.
55
147000
3000
at skrive ned, hvilke ting vi ikke burde gøre først.
02:54
What should be at the bottom of the list?
56
150000
2000
Hvad burde være i bunden af listen?
02:56
Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor,
57
152000
3000
Vær venlige, bare brug 30 sekunder, tal måske med jeres nabo,
02:59
and just figure out what should be the top priorities
58
155000
2000
og bare find ud af, hvad burde være topprioriteterne
03:01
and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have
59
157000
2000
og bundprioriteterne af løsningerne, som vi har
03:03
to the world's biggest issues.
60
159000
2000
på verdens største problemer.
03:05
The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean,
61
161000
3000
Den fantastiske del af denne proces -- og selvfølgelig, jeg mener,
03:08
I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes,
62
164000
2000
jeg ville elske at -- jeg har kun 18 minutter,
03:10
I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right?
63
166000
2000
jeg har allerede givet jer en ret væsentlig mængde af min tid, ikke?
03:12
I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process,
64
168000
4000
Jeg ville elske at gå ind i og få jer til at overveje denne proces,
03:16
and that's actually what we did.
65
172000
2000
og det er faktisk, hvad vi gjorde.
03:18
And I also strongly encourage you,
66
174000
2000
Og jeg opmuntrer jer også stærkt,
03:20
and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards,
67
176000
2000
og jeg er sikker på, at vi også har disse diskussioner bagefter,
03:22
to think about, how do we actually prioritize?
68
178000
2000
til at overveje, hvordan prioriterer vi egentlig?
03:24
Of course, you have to ask yourself,
69
180000
2000
Selvfølgelig er I nødt til at spørge jer selv,
03:26
why on Earth was such a list never done before?
70
182000
2000
hvorfor i alverden er sådan en liste aldrig blevet lavet før?
03:28
And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable.
71
184000
5000
Og en grund er, at prioriteringen er utroligt ubehagelig.
03:33
Nobody wants to do this.
72
189000
2000
Ingen vil gøre det her.
03:35
Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list.
73
191000
3000
Selvfølgelig ville enhver organisation elske at være på toppen af sådan en liste.
03:38
But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list.
74
194000
3000
Men enhver organisation ville også hade ikke at være på toppen af listen.
03:41
And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list
75
197000
4000
Og eftersom der er mange flere ikke-nummer-et-pladser på listen,
03:45
than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense
76
201000
3000
end der er nummer ettere, giver det god mening
03:48
not to want to do such a list.
77
204000
2000
ikke at ville lave sådan en liste.
03:50
We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years,
78
206000
2000
Vi har haft FN i næsten 60 år,
03:52
yet we've never actually made a fundamental list
79
208000
3000
men vi har faktisk aldrig lavet en fundamental liste
03:55
of all the big things that we can do in the world,
80
211000
2000
over alle de store ting, som vi kan gøre i verden,
03:57
and said, which of them should we do first?
81
213000
3000
og sagt, hvilke af dem burde vi gøre først?
04:00
So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing --
82
216000
3000
Så det betyder ikke, at vi ikke prioriterer --
04:03
any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing,
83
219000
4000
enhver beslutning er en prioritering, så selvfølgelig prioriterer vi stadigvæk
04:07
if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good
84
223000
3000
om end kun indirekte -- og det er usandsynligt, at det er lige så godt,
04:10
as if we actually did the prioritization,
85
226000
2000
som hvis vi faktisk prioriterede
04:12
and went in and talked about it.
86
228000
2000
og gik ind i og talte om det.
04:14
So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have,
87
230000
2000
Så det, jeg foreslår, er egentligt at sige, at vi har
04:16
for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices.
88
232000
4000
i meget lang tid været i en situation, hvor vi har haft en menu af valg.
04:20
There are many, many things we can do out there,
89
236000
2000
Der er mange, mange ting, vi kan gøre derude,
04:22
but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes.
90
238000
3000
men vi har ikke haft priser eller størrelserne.
04:25
We have not had an idea.
91
241000
2000
Vi har ikke haft en anelse.
04:27
Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card,
92
243000
3000
Forestil jer at I går ind på en restaurant og får det her store menukort,
04:30
but you have no idea what the price is.
93
246000
2000
men I har ingen anelse om, hvad prisen er.
04:32
You know, you have a pizza; you've no idea what the price is.
94
248000
2000
I ved, I har en pizza, I har ingen anelse om, hvad prisen er.
04:34
It could be at one dollar; it could be 1,000 dollars.
95
250000
2000
Den kunne være på en dollar, den kunne være 1.000 dollars.
04:36
It could be a family-size pizza;
96
252000
2000
Den kunne være en familie-størrelse pizza.
04:38
it could be a very individual-size pizza, right?
97
254000
2000
Det kunne være en enkeltperson-størrelse pizza, ikke?
04:40
We'd like to know these things.
98
256000
2000
Vi ville gerne vide disse ting.
04:42
And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do --
99
258000
2000
Og det er, hvad Copenhagen Consensus egentlig prøver at gøre --
04:44
to try to put prices on these issues.
100
260000
3000
at forsøge at sætte priser på disse problemer.
04:47
And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process.
101
263000
3000
Og helt grundlæggende har det været Copenhagen Consensus' arbejde.
04:50
We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area.
102
266000
4000
Vi fik 30 af verdens bedste økonomer, tre inden for hvert felt.
04:54
So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change.
103
270000
3000
Så vi har tre af verdens topøkonomer til at skrive om klimaforandringer.
04:57
What can we do? What will be the cost
104
273000
3000
Hvad kan vi gøre? Hvad vil prisen være?
05:00
and what will be the benefit of that?
105
276000
1000
Og hvad vil fordelene af det være?
05:01
Likewise in communicable diseases.
106
277000
2000
På samme måde med smitsomme sygdomme.
05:03
Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do?
107
279000
3000
Tre af verdens topeksperter, der siger, hvad kan vi gøre?
05:06
What would be the price?
108
282000
1000
Hvad ville prisen være?
05:07
What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome?
109
283000
3000
Hvad burde vi gøre ved det, og hvad vil udfaldet være?
05:10
And so on.
110
286000
1000
Og så videre.
05:11
Then we had some of the world's top economists,
111
287000
2000
Så vi fik nogle af verdens topøkonomer,
05:13
eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates,
112
289000
4000
otte af verdens topøkonomer, inklusive tre Nobelpristagere,
05:17
meet in Copenhagen in May 2004.
113
293000
3000
til at mødes i København i maj 2004.
05:20
We called them the "dream team."
114
296000
2000
Vi kaldte dem drømmeholdet.
05:22
The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them
115
298000
3000
Cambridge Universitys præfekter besluttede sig for at kalde dem
05:25
the Real Madrid of economics.
116
301000
2000
økonomiens Real Madrid.
05:27
That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here.
117
303000
2000
Det virker meget godt i Europa, men det virker ikke rigtigt herovre.
05:29
And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list.
118
305000
4000
Og det, de rent faktisk gjorde, var at lave en prioriteret liste.
05:33
And then you ask, why economists?
119
309000
2000
Og så spørger I, hvorfor økonomer?
05:35
And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) --
120
311000
2000
Og selvfølgelig er jeg meget glad for, at I stillede det spørgsmål -- (Latter) --
05:37
because that's a very good question.
121
313000
2000
fordi det er et meget godt spørgsmål.
05:39
The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria,
122
315000
3000
Pointen er selvfølgelig, at hvis man vil vide noget om malaria,
05:42
you ask a malaria expert.
123
318000
2000
spørger man en malariaekspert.
05:44
If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist.
124
320000
2000
Hvis man vil vide noget om klimaet, spørger man en klimatolog.
05:46
But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first,
125
322000
3000
Men hvis man vil vide, hvilken af de to man skal håndtere først,
05:49
you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do.
126
325000
3000
kan man ikke spørge nogen af dem, for det er ikke, hvad de gør.
05:52
That is what economists do.
127
328000
2000
Det er, hvad økonomer gør.
05:54
They prioritize.
128
330000
1000
De prioriterer.
05:55
They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first,
129
331000
5000
De gør det på nogen måder afskyelige stykke arbejde at sige, hvilken man burde håndtere først,
06:00
and which one should we do afterwards?
130
336000
2000
og hvilken burde man håndtere bagefter?
06:02
So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you.
131
338000
3000
Så det her er listen, og det er den jeg gerne vil dele med jer.
06:05
Of course, you can also see it on the website,
132
341000
2000
Selvfølgelig kan man også se den på hjemmesiden,
06:07
and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on.
133
343000
3000
og vi vil også tale mere om den, er jeg sikker på, som dagen skrider frem.
06:10
They basically came up with a list where they said
134
346000
2000
De lavede simpelthen en liste, hvor de sagde,
06:12
there were bad projects -- basically, projects
135
348000
3000
der var dårlige projekter -- simpelthen projekter,
06:15
where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back.
136
351000
3000
hvor hvis man investerer en dollar, får man mindre end en dollar tilbage.
06:18
Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects.
137
354000
4000
Så er der fair projekter, gode projekter og meget gode projekter.
06:22
And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing.
138
358000
2000
Og selvfølgelig er det de meget gode projekter, vi burde komme i gang med.
06:24
I'm going to go from backwards
139
360000
2000
Jeg vil gå fra nederst,
06:26
so that we end up with the best projects.
140
362000
2000
så at vi ender med de bedste projekter.
06:28
These were the bad projects.
141
364000
2000
Disse var de dårlige projekter.
06:30
As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change.
142
366000
4000
Som I måske kan se, var bunden af listen klimaforandringer.
06:34
This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things
143
370000
4000
Dette fornærmer en masse, og det er sandsynligvis også en af de ting,
06:38
where people will say I shouldn't come back, either.
144
374000
2000
hvor folk vil sige, jeg ikke bør komme tilbage.
06:40
And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious.
145
376000
2000
Og jeg vil gerne tale om det, for det er virkelig underligt.
06:42
Why is it it came up?
146
378000
2000
Hvorfor er det, det kom op?
06:44
And I'll actually also try to get back to this
147
380000
2000
Og jeg vil faktisk også forsøge at komme tilbage til dette,
06:46
because it's probably one of the things
148
382000
2000
for det er sandsynligvis en af de ting,
06:48
that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.
149
384000
2000
som vi vil være uenige med på listen, som I skrev ned.
06:50
The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto --
150
386000
3000
Grunden til, at de endte med at sige, at Kyoto --
06:53
or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal
151
389000
2000
eller at gøre noget større end Kyoto -- er en dårlig handel,
06:55
is simply because it's very inefficient.
152
391000
2000
er simpelthen fordi, det er meget ineffektivt.
06:57
It's not saying that global warming is not happening.
153
393000
2000
Det er ikke at sige, at global opvarmning ikke sker.
06:59
It's not saying that it's not a big problem.
154
395000
2000
Det er ikke at sige, at det ikke er et stort problem.
07:01
But it's saying that what we can do about it
155
397000
2000
Men det er at sige, at hvad vi kan gøre ved det,
07:03
is very little, at a very high cost.
156
399000
3000
er meget lidt til en meget høj pris.
07:06
What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models,
157
402000
4000
Hvad de grundlæggende viser os, gennemsnittet af alle makroøkonomiske modeller,
07:10
is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year.
158
406000
5000
er, at Kyoto, hvis alle gik med til den, ville koste omkring 150 milliarder dollars om året.
07:15
That's a substantial amount of money.
159
411000
2000
Det er en væsentlig mængde penge.
07:17
That's two to three times the global development aid
160
413000
2000
Det er to til tre gange den globale udviklingsstøtte,
07:19
that we give the Third World every year.
161
415000
2000
som vi giver den Tredje Verden hvert år.
07:21
Yet it would do very little good.
162
417000
2000
Og alligevel ville den gøre meget lidt godt.
07:23
All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100.
163
419000
4000
Alle modeller viser, det vil udskyde opvarmning med omkring seks år i 2100.
07:27
So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106.
164
423000
4000
Så fyren i Bangladesh, der bliver offer for en oversvømmelse i 2100, kan vente til 2106.
07:31
Which is a little good, but not very much good.
165
427000
2000
Hvilket er en lille smule godt, men ikke ret meget godt.
07:33
So the idea here really is to say, well, we've spent a lot of money doing a little good.
166
429000
5000
Så idéen her er virkelig at sige, altså, vi har brugt en masse penge på at gøre lidt godt.
07:38
And just to give you a sense of reference,
167
434000
2000
Og bare for at give jer et referencepunkt,
07:40
the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount,
168
436000
2000
estimerede FN faktisk, at for halvdelen af det beløb,
07:42
for about 75 billion dollars a year,
169
438000
2000
for omkring 75 milliarder dollars om året,
07:44
we could solve all major basic problems in the world.
170
440000
3000
kunne vi løse alle større basale problemer i verden.
07:47
We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare
171
443000
3000
Vi kunne give rent drikkevand, sanitering, basal sundhedspleje
07:50
and education to every single human being on the planet.
172
446000
3000
og uddannelse til hver eneste menneske på planeten.
07:53
So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount
173
449000
4000
Så vi er nødt til at spørge os selv, vil vi bruge det dobbelte beløb
07:57
on doing very little good?
174
453000
1000
på at gøre meget lidt godt?
07:58
Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good?
175
454000
3000
Eller halvdelen af beløbet på at gøre ufatteligt meget godt?
08:01
And that is really why it becomes a bad project.
176
457000
3000
Og det er egentlig derfor, det er et dårligt projekt.
08:04
It's not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't want to do it.
177
460000
3000
Det er ikke at sige, at hvis vi havde alle penge i verden, ville vi ikke gerne gøre det.
08:07
But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.
178
463000
4000
Men det er at sige, når vi ikke har, er det simpelthen ikke vores førsteprioritet.
08:11
The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these --
179
467000
3000
De fair projekter -- læg mærke til, at jeg ikke har tænkt mig at kommentere alle disse --
08:14
but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it,
180
470000
4000
men smitsomme sygdomme, bedre basal sundhedspleje -- klarede den lige,
08:18
simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing.
181
474000
3000
simpelthen fordi, ja, bedre basal sundhedspleje er en god ting.
08:21
It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly.
182
477000
3000
Det ville gøre en masse godt, men det er også meget, meget dyrt.
08:24
Again, what it tells us is suddenly
183
480000
2000
Igen, hvad det fortæller os er, at pludselig
08:26
we start thinking about both sides of the equation.
184
482000
2000
begynder vi at tænke over begge sider af ligningen.
08:28
If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in.
185
484000
4000
Hvis I ser på de gode projekter, kom en masse saniterings- og vandprojekter ind.
08:32
Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important,
186
488000
2000
Igen, sanitering og vand er utroligt vigtigt,
08:34
but it also costs a lot of infrastructure.
187
490000
3000
men det koster også en masse infrastruktur.
08:37
So I'd like to show you the top four priorities
188
493000
2000
Så jeg vil gerne vise jer top fire prioriteterne,
08:39
which should be at least the first ones that we deal with
189
495000
3000
der skulle være i det mindste de første, som vi håndterer,
08:42
when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.
190
498000
3000
når vi taler om, hvordan vi burde håndtere verdens problemer.
08:45
The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria.
191
501000
4000
Det fjerdebedste problem er malaria -- at håndtere malaria.
08:49
The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year.
192
505000
4000
Hyppigheden af malaria er, at omkring et par [millioner] mennesker bliver smittet hvert år.
08:53
It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP
193
509000
4000
Det kan endda koste op imod et procentpoint af BNP
08:57
every year for affected nations.
194
513000
2000
hvert år for påvirkede lande.
08:59
If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years,
195
515000
4000
Hvis vi investerede omkring 13 milliarder dollars over de næste fire år,
09:03
we could bring that incidence down to half.
196
519000
2000
kunne vi bringe den hyppighed ned til det halve.
09:05
We could avoid about 500,000 people dying,
197
521000
3000
Vi kunne undgå, at omkring 500.000 mennesker dør,
09:08
but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a [million] people
198
524000
3000
men måske vigtigere kunne vi undgå, at omkring en milliard mennesker
09:11
getting infected every year.
199
527000
1000
bliver smittet hvert år.
09:12
We would significantly increase their ability
200
528000
2000
Vi ville væsentligt forbedre deres evne
09:14
to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with --
201
530000
3000
til at håndtere mange af de andre problemer, som de er nødt til at håndtere.
09:17
of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.
202
533000
3000
Selvfølgelig, i det lange løb også håndtere global opvarmning.
09:21
This third best one was free trade.
203
537000
3000
Denne tredjebedste var fri handel.
09:24
Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade,
204
540000
3000
Dybest set viste modellen, at hvis vi kunne få fri handel
09:27
and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe,
205
543000
3000
og især skære pengestøtte i USA og Europa fra,
09:30
we could basically enliven the global economy
206
546000
4000
kunne vi rent faktisk oplive den globale økonomi
09:34
to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year,
207
550000
4000
til en forbløffende størrelse af omkring 2.400 milliarder dollars om året,
09:38
half of which would accrue to the Third World.
208
554000
2000
hvoraf halvdelen ville tilfalde den Tredje Verden.
09:40
Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull
209
556000
3000
Igen er pointen at sige, at vi kunne faktisk trække
09:43
two to three hundred million people out of poverty,
210
559000
3000
to til tre hundrede millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom
09:46
very radically fast, in about two to five years.
211
562000
3000
meget radikalt hurtigt på omkring to til fem år.
09:49
That would be the third best thing we could do.
212
565000
2000
Det ville være den tredjebedste ting, vi kunne gøre.
09:51
The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition.
213
567000
4000
Den næstbedste ting ville være at fokusere på fejlernæring.
09:55
Not just malnutrition in general, but there's a very cheap way
214
571000
3000
Ikke bare fejlernæring generelt, men der er en meget billig måde
09:58
of dealing with malnutrition, namely, the lack of micronutrients.
215
574000
3000
at håndtere fejlernæring på, især mangel på mikronæringsstoffer.
10:01
Basically, about half of the world's population is lacking in
216
577000
3000
Dybest set er omkring halvdelen af verdens befolkning i underskud af
10:04
iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A.
217
580000
2000
jern, zink, jod og A-vitamin.
10:06
If we invest about 12 billion dollars,
218
582000
2000
Hvis vi investerer omkring 12 milliarder dollars,
10:08
we could make a severe inroad into that problem.
219
584000
3000
kunne vi lave et seriøst indhug i det problem.
10:11
That would be the second best investment that we could do.
220
587000
3000
Det ville være den næstbedste investering, vi kunne foretage.
10:14
And the very best project would be to focus on HIV/AIDS.
221
590000
5000
Og det allerbedste projekt ville være at fokusere på HIV/AIDS.
10:19
Basically, if we invest 27 billion dollars over the next eight years,
222
595000
4000
Dybest set, hvis vi investerer 27 milliarder dollars over de næste otte år,
10:23
we could avoid 28 new million cases of HIV/AIDS.
223
599000
4000
kunne vi undgå 28 nye millioner tilfælde af HIV/AIDS.
10:27
Again, what this does and what it focuses on is saying
224
603000
4000
Igen, hvad det her gør, og hvad det fokuserer på, er at sige,
10:31
there are two very different ways that we can deal with HIV/AIDS.
225
607000
3000
der er to meget forskellige måder, vi kan håndtere HIV/AIDS.
10:34
One is treatment; the other one is prevention.
226
610000
3000
Den ene er behandling, den anden er forebyggelse.
10:37
And again, in an ideal world, we would do both.
227
613000
3000
Og igen i en ideel verden ville vi gøre begge dele.
10:40
But in a world where we don't do either, or don't do it very well,
228
616000
3000
Men i en verden, hvor vi ikke gør nogen af dem, eller ikke gør det særlig godt,
10:43
we have to at least ask ourselves where should we invest first.
229
619000
4000
er vi nødt til i det mindste at spørge os selv, hvor vi burde investere først.
10:47
And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention.
230
623000
3000
Og behandling er meget, meget dyrere end forebyggelse.
10:50
So basically, what this focuses on is saying, we can do a lot more
231
626000
4000
Så det, det dybest set fokuserer på, er at sige, at vi kan gøre meget mere
10:54
by investing in prevention.
232
630000
2000
ved at investere i forebyggelse.
10:56
Basically for the amount of money that we spend,
233
632000
2000
Grundlæggende for de penge, vi bruger,
10:58
we can do X amount of good in treatment,
234
634000
3000
kan vi gøre X mængde godt ved behandling
11:01
and 10 times as much good in prevention.
235
637000
3000
og 10 gange så meget godt ved forebyggelse.
11:04
So again, what we focus on is prevention rather than treatment,
236
640000
3000
Så igen, det, vi fokuserer på, er forebyggelse frem for behandling
11:07
at first rate.
237
643000
1000
i første omgang.
11:08
What this really does is that it makes us think about our priorities.
238
644000
4000
Det, det virkelig gør, er, at det får os til at tænke over vores prioriteter.
11:12
I'd like to have you look at your priority list and say,
239
648000
4000
Jeg vil gerne have jer til at se på jeres prioriteringsliste og sige,
11:16
did you get it right?
240
652000
2000
fik I det rigtige?
11:18
Or did you get close to what we came up with here?
241
654000
2000
Eller kom I tæt på, hvad vi kom frem til her?
11:20
Well, of course, one of the things is climate change again.
242
656000
4000
Altså selvfølgelig er klimaforandringer et af emnerne igen.
11:24
I find a lot of people find it very, very unlikely that we should do that.
243
660000
3000
Jeg møder mange mennesker, der finder det meget, meget usandsynligt, at vi skulle gøre det.
11:27
We should also do climate change,
244
663000
2000
Vi burde også håndtere klimaforandringer,
11:29
if for no other reason, simply because it's such a big problem.
245
665000
3000
om ikke andet så simpelthen fordi det er så stort et problem.
11:32
But of course, we don't do all problems.
246
668000
3000
Men selvfølgelig håndterer vi ikke alle problemer.
11:35
There are many problems out there in the world.
247
671000
2000
Der er mange problemer derude i verden.
11:37
And what I want to make sure of is, if we actually focus on problems,
248
673000
4000
Og det, jeg gerne vil gøre sikre, er, at hvis vi faktisk fokuserer på problemer,
11:41
that we focus on the right ones.
249
677000
2000
så fokuserer vi på de rigtige.
11:43
The ones where we can do a lot of good rather than a little good.
250
679000
3000
Dem, hvor vi kan gøre meget godt frem for lidt godt.
11:46
And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling,
251
682000
3000
Og jeg tror egentlig -- Thomas Schelling,
11:49
one of the participants in the dream team, he put it very, very well.
252
685000
4000
en af deltagerne på drømmeholdet, han sagde det meget, meget godt.
11:53
One of things that people forget, is that in 100 years,
253
689000
3000
En af tingene, folk glemmer, er, at om 100 år,
11:56
when we're talking about most of the climate change impacts will be,
254
692000
3000
hvor vi snakker om, de fleste af klimaforandringernes indvirkninger vil være,
11:59
people will be much, much richer.
255
695000
2000
vil folk være meget, meget rigere.
12:01
Even the most pessimistic impact scenarios of the U.N.
256
697000
4000
Selv de mest pessimistiske af FN's indvirkningsscenarier
12:05
estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100
257
701000
3000
vurderer, at den gennemsnitlige person i den udviklede del af verden i 2100
12:08
will be about as rich as we are today.
258
704000
2000
vil være nogenlunde så rig, som vi er i dag.
12:10
Much more likely, they will be two to four times richer than we are.
259
706000
4000
Meget mere sandsynligt er det, at de vil være to til fire gange så rige som os.
12:14
And of course, we'll be even richer than that.
260
710000
2000
Og selvfølgelig vil vi være endnu rigere end det.
12:16
But the point is to say, when we talk about saving people,
261
712000
4000
Men pointen er at sige, når vi snakker om at redde mennesker
12:20
or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100,
262
716000
3000
eller redde folk i Bangladesh i 2100,
12:23
we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi.
263
719000
2000
snakker vi ikke om en fattig bangladesher.
12:25
We're actually talking about a fairly rich Dutch guy.
264
721000
2000
Vi snakker faktisk om en ret rig hollandsk fyr.
12:27
And so the real point, of course, is to say,
265
723000
2000
Og derfor er den rigtige pointe selvfølgelig at sige,
12:29
do we want to spend a lot of money helping a little,
266
725000
4000
vil vi bruge en masse penge på at hjælpe
12:33
100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy?
267
729000
2000
om 100 år fra nu en ret rig hollandsk fyr?
12:35
Or do we want to help real poor people, right now, in Bangladesh,
268
731000
5000
Eller vil vi gerne hjælpe rigtigt fattige lige nu i Bangladesh,
12:40
who really need the help, and whom we can help very, very cheaply?
269
736000
3000
der virkelig har brug for hjælp, og som vi kan hjælpe meget, meget billigt?
12:43
Or as Schelling put it, imagine if you were a rich -- as you will be --
270
739000
5000
Eller som Schelling sagde det, forestil jer, at I var en rig -- som I vil blive --
12:48
a rich Chinese, a rich Bolivian, a rich Congolese, in 2100,
271
744000
5000
en rig kineser, en rig boliver, en rig congoleser i 2100,
12:53
thinking back on 2005, and saying, "How odd that they cared so much
272
749000
6000
der tænkte tilbage på 2005 og sagde, "Hvor underligt, at de bekymrede sig så meget
12:59
about helping me a little bit through climate change,
273
755000
4000
om at hjælpe mig en smule gennem klimaforandringer
13:03
and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather
274
759000
4000
og bekymrede sig så lidt om at hjælpe min bedstefar
13:07
and my great grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more,
275
763000
3000
og min oldefar, som de kunne have hjulpet så meget mere,
13:10
and who needed the help so much more?"
276
766000
3000
og som behøvede hjælpen så meget mere?"
13:13
So I think that really does tell us why it is
277
769000
3000
Så jeg synes, det virkelig fortæller os, hvorfor det er,
13:16
we need to get our priorities straight.
278
772000
2000
vi har brug for at få vores prioriteter på plads.
13:18
Even if it doesn't accord to the typical way we see this problem.
279
774000
3000
Selv hvis det ikke stemmer overens med den sædvanlige måde vi anser dette problem.
13:21
Of course, that's mainly because climate change has good pictures.
280
777000
5000
Selvfølgelig er det hovedsagligt, fordi klimaforandringer har så gode billeder.
13:26
We have, you know, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- it looks great, right?
281
782000
3000
Vi har, I ved, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- den ser godt ud, ikke?
13:29
It's a good film in the sense that
282
785000
3000
Det er en god film på den måde, at
13:32
I certainly want to see it, right, but don't expect Emmerich
283
788000
3000
jeg bestemt har lyst til at se den, okay, men forvent ikke, at Emmerich
13:35
to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie
284
791000
3000
giver Brad Pitt rollen i sin næste film,
13:38
digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter)
285
794000
2000
hvor han graver efter latriner i Tanzania eller noget. (Latter)
13:40
It just doesn't make for as much of a movie.
286
796000
2000
Det lægger bare ikke op til så god en film.
13:42
So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus
287
798000
2000
Så på mange måder anser jeg Copenhagen Consensus
13:44
and the whole discussion of priorities
288
800000
2000
og hele diskussionen omkring prioriteter
13:46
as a defense for boring problems.
289
802000
3000
som et forsvar for kedelige problemer.
13:49
To make sure that we realize it's not about making us feel good.
290
805000
4000
At sikre, at vi indser, det ikke handler om at få os til at have det godt,
13:53
It's not about making things that have the most media attention,
291
809000
5000
det handler ikke om at lave de ting, der har mest medieopmærksomhed,
13:58
but it's about making places where we can actually do the most good.
292
814000
3000
men at det er om at finde steder, hvor vi faktisk kan gøre mest godt.
14:01
The other objections, I think, that are important to say,
293
817000
3000
De andre indvendinger, tror jeg, der er vigtige at sige,
14:04
is that I'm somehow -- or we are somehow -- positing a false choice.
294
820000
4000
er, at jeg på en eller anden måde -- eller vi -- opstiller et falsk valg.
14:08
Of course, we should do all things,
295
824000
2000
Selvfølgelig burde vi gøre alle ting
14:10
in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree.
296
826000
2000
i en ideel verden -- jeg ville i den grad være enig.
14:12
I think we should do all things, but we don't.
297
828000
2000
Jeg synes, vi burde gøre alting, men det gør vi ikke.
14:14
In 1970, the developed world decided we were going to spend
298
830000
4000
I 1970 besluttede den udviklede verden, at vi skal bruge
14:18
twice as much as we did, right now, than in 1970, on the developing world.
299
834000
6000
dobbelt så meget, som vi gjorde, lige nu i forhold til 1970 på udviklingslandene.
14:24
Since then our aid has halved.
300
840000
2000
Siden da er vores støtte blevet halveret.
14:26
So it doesn't look like we're actually on the path
301
842000
3000
Så det ser ikke ud som om, vi egentlig er på vej
14:29
of suddenly solving all big problems.
302
845000
2000
til pludseligt at løse alle store problemer.
14:31
Likewise, people are also saying, but what about the Iraq war?
303
847000
3000
På samme måde siger folk, men hvad med Irak-krigen?
14:34
You know, we spend 100 billion dollars --
304
850000
2000
Ved I hvad, vi bruger 100 milliarder dollars.
14:36
why don't we spend that on doing good in the world?
305
852000
2000
Hvorfor bruger vi ikke dem på at gøre godt i verden?
14:38
I'm all for that.
306
854000
1000
Det er jeg helt for.
14:39
If any one of you guys can talk Bush into doing that, that's fine.
307
855000
2000
Hvis en af jer kan overtale Bush til at gøre det, er det fint.
14:41
But the point, of course, is still to say,
308
857000
2000
Men pointen er selvfølgelig at sige,
14:43
if you get another 100 billion dollars,
309
859000
2000
hvis man får 100 milliarder dollars mere,
14:45
we still want to spend that in the best possible way, don't we?
310
861000
3000
vil man stadig ønske at bruge dem på bedst mulig vis, ikke?
14:48
So the real issue here is to get ourselves back
311
864000
2000
Så det egentlige problem her er at få os selv tilbage
14:50
and think about what are the right priorities.
312
866000
2000
og tænke over, hvad er de rigtige prioriteter.
14:52
I should just mention briefly, is this really the right list that we got out?
313
868000
4000
Jeg burde måske nævne kort, er det virkelig den rigtige liste, vi kom frem til?
14:56
You know, when you ask the world's best economists,
314
872000
3000
I ved, når man spørger verdens bedste økonomer,
14:59
you inevitably end up asking old, white American men.
315
875000
3000
ender man uundgåeligt med at spørge gamle, hvide amerikanske mænd.
15:02
And they're not necessarily, you know,
316
878000
2000
Og de er ikke nødvendigvis, I ved,
15:04
great ways of looking at the entire world.
317
880000
4000
den bedste måde at anskue hele verden.
15:08
So we actually invited 80 young people from all over the world
318
884000
2000
Så vi inviterede faktisk 80 unge fra hele verden
15:10
to come and solve the same problem.
319
886000
2000
til at komme og løse det samme problem.
15:12
The only two requirements were that they were studying at the university,
320
888000
4000
Det eneste krav var, at de studerede på et universitet,
15:16
and they spoke English.
321
892000
2000
og at de talte engelsk.
15:18
The majority of them were, first, from developing countries.
322
894000
3000
Størstedelen af dem var, først fra udviklingslande.
15:21
They had all the same material but they could go vastly
323
897000
2000
De havde alle det samme materiale, men de kunne gå meget
15:23
outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did,
324
899000
3000
uden for diskussionens rammer, og det gjorde de i den grad,
15:26
to come up with their own lists.
325
902000
2000
for at komme frem til deres egne lister.
15:28
And the surprising thing was that the list was very similar --
326
904000
2000
Og det overraskende var, at listen var meget lig --
15:30
with malnutrition and diseases at the top
327
906000
3000
med fejlernæring og sygdomme i toppen
15:33
and climate change at the bottom.
328
909000
2000
og klimaforandringer i bunden.
15:35
We've done this many other times.
329
911000
1000
Vi har gjort det her mange andre gange.
15:36
There's been many other seminars and university students, and different things.
330
912000
3000
Der har været mange andre øvelser og universitetsstuderende og forskellige ting.
15:39
They all come out with very much the same list.
331
915000
3000
De kommer alle frem til stort set den samme liste.
15:42
And that gives me great hope, really, in saying that I do believe
332
918000
4000
Og det giver mig stort håb, virkelig, når jeg siger, at jeg tror på,
15:46
that there is a path ahead to get us to start thinking about priorities,
333
922000
5000
at der er en vej foran til at få os til at begynde at tænke over vores prioriteter.
15:51
and saying, what is the important thing in the world?
334
927000
2000
Og at sige, hvad er den vigtigste ting i verden?
15:53
Of course, in an ideal world, again we'd love to do everything.
335
929000
3000
Selvfølgelig i en ideel verden ville vi elske at gøre alting.
15:56
But if we don't do it, then we can start thinking about where should we start?
336
932000
4000
Men hvis vi ikke gør det, kan vi begynde at tænke over, hvor burde vi starte?
16:00
I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process.
337
936000
2000
Jeg ser Copenhagen Consensus som en proces.
16:02
We did it in 2004,
338
938000
2000
Vi gjorde det i 2004,
16:04
and we hope to assemble many more people,
339
940000
1000
og vi håber at samle mange flere folk,
16:05
getting much better information for 2008, 2012.
340
941000
4000
at få meget bedre information til 2008, 2012.
16:09
Map out the right path for the world --
341
945000
2000
Skitsere den rigtige vej for verden.
16:11
but also to start thinking about political triage.
342
947000
3000
Men også at begynde at tænke over politisk visitation.
16:14
To start thinking about saying, "Let's do
343
950000
2000
At begynde at tænke over at sige, "Lad os gøre
16:16
not the things where we can do very little at a very high cost,
344
952000
3000
ikke de ting, hvor vi kan gøre meget lidt til en meget høj pris,
16:19
not the things that we don't know how to do,
345
955000
2000
ikke de ting, som vi ikke ved, hvordan vi skal gøre,
16:21
but let's do the great things where we can do an enormous
346
957000
3000
men lad os gøre gode ting, hvor vi kan gøre en enorm
16:24
amount of good, at very low cost, right now."
347
960000
4000
mængde godt til en meget lav pris lige nu.
16:28
At the end of the day, you can disagree
348
964000
2000
Til syvende og sidst kan I være uenige
16:30
with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these,
349
966000
2000
i diskussionen om, hvordan vi faktisk prioriterer disse,
16:32
but we have to be honest and frank about saying,
350
968000
3000
men vi er nødt til at være ærlige og oprigtige ved at sige,
16:35
if there's some things we do, there are other things we don't do.
351
971000
2000
hvis der er nogle ting vi gør, er der andre ting vi ikke gør.
16:38
If we worry too much about some things,
352
974000
2000
Hvis vi bekymrer os for meget om nogle ting,
16:40
we end by not worrying about other things.
353
976000
2000
ender vi med ikke at bekymre os om andre ting.
16:42
So I hope this will help us make better priorities,
354
978000
2000
Så jeg håber dette vil hjælpe os med at prioritere bedre
16:44
and think about how we better work for the world.
355
980000
2000
og tænke over, hvordan vi bedre kan arbejde for verden.
16:46
Thank you.
356
982000
1000
Tak.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Bjorn Lomborg - Global prioritizerDanish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg heads the Copenhagen Consensus, which has prioritized the world's greatest problems -- global warming, world poverty, disease -- based on how effective our solutions might be. It's a thought-provoking, even provocative list.
Why you should listen
Bjorn Lomborg isn't afraid to voice an unpopular opinion. In 2007, he was named one of the 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine after the publication of his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which challenged widely held beliefs that the environment is getting worse. This year, he was named on of the "50 people who cold save the planet" by the Guardian newspaper. In 2007 he published Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, further analyzes what today's science tells us about global warming and its risks. That same year, his next book Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems was released, which provided a summary of the greatest challenges facing humanity.
In 2004, he convened the Copenhagen Consensus, which tries to prioritize the world's greatest challenges based on the impact we can make, a sort of bang-for-the-buck breakdown for attacking problems such as global warming, world poverty and disease.
It begins from the premise that we can't solve every problem in the world, and asks: Which ones should we fix first? The Copenhagen Consensus 2004 tapped the expertise of world-leading economists, as well as a diverse forum of young participants; collectively, they determined that control of HIV/AIDS was the best investment -- and mitigating global warming was the worst. Lomborg summarized these findings in How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place. In spring of 2008, Copenhagen Consensus convened again, assembling over 55 international economists, including 4 Nobel laureates, to assess, prioritize and brainstorm solutions for the major global challenges of today, including conflicts, malnutrition, health, education and terrorism. In 2013, he published How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the Wolrd a Better Place.
Bjorn Lomborg | Speaker | TED.com