TED2005
Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change
Filmed:
Readability: 3.3
1,695,569 views
Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming? Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg comes up with surprising answers.
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
00:28
I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" --
1
4000
2000
00:30
probably that's also a good choice.
2
6000
2000
00:32
(Laughter)
3
8000
1000
00:33
But I am going talk about: what are the big problems in the world?
4
9000
3000
00:36
And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you
5
12000
3000
00:39
to try and get out pen and paper
6
15000
2000
00:41
because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that.
7
17000
3000
00:44
So get out your pen and paper.
8
20000
2000
00:46
Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world.
9
22000
2000
00:48
I'm just going to list some of them.
10
24000
2000
00:50
There are 800 million people starving.
11
26000
2000
00:52
There's a billion people without clean drinking water.
12
28000
2000
00:54
Two billion people without sanitation.
13
30000
2000
00:56
There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS.
14
32000
3000
00:59
The lists go on and on.
15
35000
2000
01:01
There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on.
16
37000
5000
01:06
There are many, many problems out there.
17
42000
2000
01:08
In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't.
18
44000
4000
01:12
We don't actually solve all problems.
19
48000
2000
01:14
And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves --
20
50000
4000
01:18
and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say,
21
54000
3000
01:21
if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves,
22
57000
3000
01:24
which ones should we solve first?
23
60000
2000
01:26
And that's the question I'd like to ask you.
24
62000
2000
01:28
If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend
25
64000
5000
01:33
to do good in this world, where should we spend it?
26
69000
3000
01:36
We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world,
27
72000
3000
01:39
and I will just briefly read them:
28
75000
2000
01:41
climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education,
29
77000
2000
01:43
financial instability, governance and corruption,
30
79000
2000
01:45
malnutrition and hunger, population migration,
31
81000
3000
01:48
sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers.
32
84000
3000
01:51
We believe that these in many ways
33
87000
2000
01:53
encompass the biggest problems in the world.
34
89000
2000
01:55
The obvious question would be to ask,
35
91000
2000
01:57
what do you think are the biggest things?
36
93000
2000
01:59
Where should we start on solving these problems?
37
95000
3000
02:02
But that's a wrong problem to ask.
38
98000
2000
02:04
That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.
39
100000
3000
02:07
But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems.
40
103000
3000
02:10
Because we can't solve problems.
41
106000
3000
02:13
Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die.
42
109000
3000
02:16
But we don't have a technology to solve that, right?
43
112000
2000
02:18
So the point is not to prioritize problems,
44
114000
3000
02:21
but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems.
45
117000
4000
02:25
And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated.
46
121000
3000
02:28
To climate change that would be like Kyoto.
47
124000
2000
02:30
To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets.
48
126000
3000
02:33
To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on.
49
129000
3000
02:36
The point that I would like to ask you to try to do,
50
132000
5000
02:41
is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense
51
137000
3000
02:44
an impossible task -- write down what you think
52
140000
2000
02:46
is probably some of the top priorities.
53
142000
2000
02:48
And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil --
54
144000
3000
02:51
to put down what are the things we should not do, first.
55
147000
3000
02:54
What should be at the bottom of the list?
56
150000
2000
02:56
Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor,
57
152000
3000
02:59
and just figure out what should be the top priorities
58
155000
2000
03:01
and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have
59
157000
2000
03:03
to the world's biggest issues.
60
159000
2000
03:05
The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean,
61
161000
3000
03:08
I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes,
62
164000
2000
03:10
I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right?
63
166000
2000
03:12
I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process,
64
168000
4000
03:16
and that's actually what we did.
65
172000
2000
03:18
And I also strongly encourage you,
66
174000
2000
03:20
and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards,
67
176000
2000
03:22
to think about, how do we actually prioritize?
68
178000
2000
03:24
Of course, you have to ask yourself,
69
180000
2000
03:26
why on Earth was such a list never done before?
70
182000
2000
03:28
And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable.
71
184000
5000
03:33
Nobody wants to do this.
72
189000
2000
03:35
Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list.
73
191000
3000
03:38
But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list.
74
194000
3000
03:41
And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list
75
197000
4000
03:45
than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense
76
201000
3000
03:48
not to want to do such a list.
77
204000
2000
03:50
We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years,
78
206000
2000
03:52
yet we've never actually made a fundamental list
79
208000
3000
03:55
of all the big things that we can do in the world,
80
211000
2000
03:57
and said, which of them should we do first?
81
213000
3000
04:00
So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing --
82
216000
3000
04:03
any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing,
83
219000
4000
04:07
if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good
84
223000
3000
04:10
as if we actually did the prioritization,
85
226000
2000
04:12
and went in and talked about it.
86
228000
2000
04:14
So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have,
87
230000
2000
04:16
for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices.
88
232000
4000
04:20
There are many, many things we can do out there,
89
236000
2000
04:22
but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes.
90
238000
3000
04:25
We have not had an idea.
91
241000
2000
04:27
Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card,
92
243000
3000
04:30
but you have no idea what the price is.
93
246000
2000
04:32
You know, you have a pizza; you've no idea what the price is.
94
248000
2000
04:34
It could be at one dollar; it could be 1,000 dollars.
95
250000
2000
04:36
It could be a family-size pizza;
96
252000
2000
04:38
it could be a very individual-size pizza, right?
97
254000
2000
04:40
We'd like to know these things.
98
256000
2000
04:42
And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do --
99
258000
2000
04:44
to try to put prices on these issues.
100
260000
3000
04:47
And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process.
101
263000
3000
04:50
We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area.
102
266000
4000
04:54
So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change.
103
270000
3000
04:57
What can we do? What will be the cost
104
273000
3000
05:00
and what will be the benefit of that?
105
276000
1000
05:01
Likewise in communicable diseases.
106
277000
2000
05:03
Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do?
107
279000
3000
05:06
What would be the price?
108
282000
1000
05:07
What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome?
109
283000
3000
05:10
And so on.
110
286000
1000
05:11
Then we had some of the world's top economists,
111
287000
2000
05:13
eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates,
112
289000
4000
05:17
meet in Copenhagen in May 2004.
113
293000
3000
05:20
We called them the "dream team."
114
296000
2000
05:22
The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them
115
298000
3000
05:25
the Real Madrid of economics.
116
301000
2000
05:27
That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here.
117
303000
2000
05:29
And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list.
118
305000
4000
05:33
And then you ask, why economists?
119
309000
2000
05:35
And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) --
120
311000
2000
05:37
because that's a very good question.
121
313000
2000
05:39
The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria,
122
315000
3000
05:42
you ask a malaria expert.
123
318000
2000
05:44
If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist.
124
320000
2000
05:46
But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first,
125
322000
3000
05:49
you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do.
126
325000
3000
05:52
That is what economists do.
127
328000
2000
05:54
They prioritize.
128
330000
1000
05:55
They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first,
129
331000
5000
06:00
and which one should we do afterwards?
130
336000
2000
06:02
So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you.
131
338000
3000
06:05
Of course, you can also see it on the website,
132
341000
2000
06:07
and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on.
133
343000
3000
06:10
They basically came up with a list where they said
134
346000
2000
06:12
there were bad projects -- basically, projects
135
348000
3000
06:15
where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back.
136
351000
3000
06:18
Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects.
137
354000
4000
06:22
And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing.
138
358000
2000
06:24
I'm going to go from backwards
139
360000
2000
06:26
so that we end up with the best projects.
140
362000
2000
06:28
These were the bad projects.
141
364000
2000
06:30
As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change.
142
366000
4000
06:34
This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things
143
370000
4000
06:38
where people will say I shouldn't come back, either.
144
374000
2000
06:40
And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious.
145
376000
2000
06:42
Why is it it came up?
146
378000
2000
06:44
And I'll actually also try to get back to this
147
380000
2000
06:46
because it's probably one of the things
148
382000
2000
06:48
that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.
149
384000
2000
06:50
The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto --
150
386000
3000
06:53
or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal
151
389000
2000
06:55
is simply because it's very inefficient.
152
391000
2000
06:57
It's not saying that global warming is not happening.
153
393000
2000
06:59
It's not saying that it's not a big problem.
154
395000
2000
07:01
But it's saying that what we can do about it
155
397000
2000
07:03
is very little, at a very high cost.
156
399000
3000
07:06
What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models,
157
402000
4000
07:10
is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year.
158
406000
5000
07:15
That's a substantial amount of money.
159
411000
2000
07:17
That's two to three times the global development aid
160
413000
2000
07:19
that we give the Third World every year.
161
415000
2000
07:21
Yet it would do very little good.
162
417000
2000
07:23
All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100.
163
419000
4000
07:27
So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106.
164
423000
4000
07:31
Which is a little good, but not very much good.
165
427000
2000
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
07:38
And just to give you a sense of reference,
167
434000
2000
07:40
the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount,
168
436000
2000
07:42
for about 75 billion dollars a year,
169
438000
2000
07:44
we could solve all major basic problems in the world.
170
440000
3000
07:47
We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare
171
443000
3000
07:50
and education to every single human being on the planet.
172
446000
3000
07:53
So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount
173
449000
4000
07:57
on doing very little good?
174
453000
1000
07:58
Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good?
175
454000
3000
08:01
And that is really why it becomes a bad project.
176
457000
3000
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
08:07
But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.
178
463000
4000
08:11
The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these --
179
467000
3000
08:14
but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it,
180
470000
4000
08:18
simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing.
181
474000
3000
08:21
It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly.
182
477000
3000
08:24
Again, what it tells us is suddenly
183
480000
2000
08:26
we start thinking about both sides of the equation.
184
482000
2000
08:28
If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in.
185
484000
4000
08:32
Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important,
186
488000
2000
08:34
but it also costs a lot of infrastructure.
187
490000
3000
08:37
So I'd like to show you the top four priorities
188
493000
2000
08:39
which should be at least the first ones that we deal with
189
495000
3000
08:42
when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.
190
498000
3000
08:45
The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria.
191
501000
4000
08:49
The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year.
192
505000
4000
08:53
It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP
193
509000
4000
08:57
every year for affected nations.
194
513000
2000
08:59
If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years,
195
515000
4000
09:03
we could bring that incidence down to half.
196
519000
2000
09:05
We could avoid about 500,000 people dying,
197
521000
3000
09:08
but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a [million] people
198
524000
3000
09:11
getting infected every year.
199
527000
1000
09:12
We would significantly increase their ability
200
528000
2000
09:14
to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with --
201
530000
3000
09:17
of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.
202
533000
3000
09:21
This third best one was free trade.
203
537000
3000
09:24
Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade,
204
540000
3000
09:27
and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe,
205
543000
3000
09:30
we could basically enliven the global economy
206
546000
4000
09:34
to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year,
207
550000
4000
09:38
half of which would accrue to the Third World.
208
554000
2000
09:40
Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull
209
556000
3000
09:43
two to three hundred million people out of poverty,
210
559000
3000
09:46
very radically fast, in about two to five years.
211
562000
3000
09:49
That would be the third best thing we could do.
212
565000
2000
09:51
The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition.
213
567000
4000
09:55
Not just malnutrition in general, but there's a very cheap way
214
571000
3000
09:58
of dealing with malnutrition, namely, the lack of micronutrients.
215
574000
3000
10:01
Basically, about half of the world's population is lacking in
216
577000
3000
10:04
iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A.
217
580000
2000
10:06
If we invest about 12 billion dollars,
218
582000
2000
10:08
we could make a severe inroad into that problem.
219
584000
3000
10:11
That would be the second best investment that we could do.
220
587000
3000
10:14
And the very best project would be to focus on HIV/AIDS.
221
590000
5000
10:19
Basically, if we invest 27 billion dollars over the next eight years,
222
595000
4000
10:23
we could avoid 28 new million cases of HIV/AIDS.
223
599000
4000
10:27
Again, what this does and what it focuses on is saying
224
603000
4000
10:31
there are two very different ways that we can deal with HIV/AIDS.
225
607000
3000
10:34
One is treatment; the other one is prevention.
226
610000
3000
10:37
And again, in an ideal world, we would do both.
227
613000
3000
10:40
But in a world where we don't do either, or don't do it very well,
228
616000
3000
10:43
we have to at least ask ourselves where should we invest first.
229
619000
4000
10:47
And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention.
230
623000
3000
10:50
So basically, what this focuses on is saying, we can do a lot more
231
626000
4000
10:54
by investing in prevention.
232
630000
2000
10:56
Basically for the amount of money that we spend,
233
632000
2000
10:58
we can do X amount of good in treatment,
234
634000
3000
11:01
and 10 times as much good in prevention.
235
637000
3000
11:04
So again, what we focus on is prevention rather than treatment,
236
640000
3000
11:07
at first rate.
237
643000
1000
11:08
What this really does is that it makes us think about our priorities.
238
644000
4000
11:12
I'd like to have you look at your priority list and say,
239
648000
4000
11:16
did you get it right?
240
652000
2000
11:18
Or did you get close to what we came up with here?
241
654000
2000
11:20
Well, of course, one of the things is climate change again.
242
656000
4000
11:24
I find a lot of people find it very, very unlikely that we should do that.
243
660000
3000
11:27
We should also do climate change,
244
663000
2000
11:29
if for no other reason, simply because it's such a big problem.
245
665000
3000
11:32
But of course, we don't do all problems.
246
668000
3000
11:35
There are many problems out there in the world.
247
671000
2000
11:37
And what I want to make sure of is, if we actually focus on problems,
248
673000
4000
11:41
that we focus on the right ones.
249
677000
2000
11:43
The ones where we can do a lot of good rather than a little good.
250
679000
3000
11:46
And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling,
251
682000
3000
11:49
one of the participants in the dream team, he put it very, very well.
252
685000
4000
11:53
One of things that people forget, is that in 100 years,
253
689000
3000
11:56
when we're talking about most of the climate change impacts will be,
254
692000
3000
11:59
people will be much, much richer.
255
695000
2000
12:01
Even the most pessimistic impact scenarios of the U.N.
256
697000
4000
12:05
estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100
257
701000
3000
12:08
will be about as rich as we are today.
258
704000
2000
12:10
Much more likely, they will be two to four times richer than we are.
259
706000
4000
12:14
And of course, we'll be even richer than that.
260
710000
2000
12:16
But the point is to say, when we talk about saving people,
261
712000
4000
12:20
or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100,
262
716000
3000
12:23
we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi.
263
719000
2000
12:25
We're actually talking about a fairly rich Dutch guy.
264
721000
2000
12:27
And so the real point, of course, is to say,
265
723000
2000
12:29
do we want to spend a lot of money helping a little,
266
725000
4000
12:33
100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy?
267
729000
2000
12:35
Or do we want to help real poor people, right now, in Bangladesh,
268
731000
5000
12:40
who really need the help, and whom we can help very, very cheaply?
269
736000
3000
12:43
Or as Schelling put it, imagine if you were a rich -- as you will be --
270
739000
5000
12:48
a rich Chinese, a rich Bolivian, a rich Congolese, in 2100,
271
744000
5000
12:53
thinking back on 2005, and saying, "How odd that they cared so much
272
749000
6000
12:59
about helping me a little bit through climate change,
273
755000
4000
13:03
and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather
274
759000
4000
13:07
and my great grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more,
275
763000
3000
13:10
and who needed the help so much more?"
276
766000
3000
13:13
So I think that really does tell us why it is
277
769000
3000
13:16
we need to get our priorities straight.
278
772000
2000
13:18
Even if it doesn't accord to the typical way we see this problem.
279
774000
3000
13:21
Of course, that's mainly because climate change has good pictures.
280
777000
5000
13:26
We have, you know, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- it looks great, right?
281
782000
3000
13:29
It's a good film in the sense that
282
785000
3000
13:32
I certainly want to see it, right, but don't expect Emmerich
283
788000
3000
13:35
to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie
284
791000
3000
13:38
digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter)
285
794000
2000
13:40
It just doesn't make for as much of a movie.
286
796000
2000
13:42
So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus
287
798000
2000
13:44
and the whole discussion of priorities
288
800000
2000
13:46
as a defense for boring problems.
289
802000
3000
13:49
To make sure that we realize it's not about making us feel good.
290
805000
4000
13:53
It's not about making things that have the most media attention,
291
809000
5000
13:58
but it's about making places where we can actually do the most good.
292
814000
3000
14:01
The other objections, I think, that are important to say,
293
817000
3000
14:04
is that I'm somehow -- or we are somehow -- positing a false choice.
294
820000
4000
14:08
Of course, we should do all things,
295
824000
2000
14:10
in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree.
296
826000
2000
14:12
I think we should do all things, but we don't.
297
828000
2000
14:14
In 1970, the developed world decided we were going to spend
298
830000
4000
14:18
twice as much as we did, right now, than in 1970, on the developing world.
299
834000
6000
14:24
Since then our aid has halved.
300
840000
2000
14:26
So it doesn't look like we're actually on the path
301
842000
3000
14:29
of suddenly solving all big problems.
302
845000
2000
14:31
Likewise, people are also saying, but what about the Iraq war?
303
847000
3000
14:34
You know, we spend 100 billion dollars --
304
850000
2000
14:36
why don't we spend that on doing good in the world?
305
852000
2000
14:38
I'm all for that.
306
854000
1000
14:39
If any one of you guys can talk Bush into doing that, that's fine.
307
855000
2000
14:41
But the point, of course, is still to say,
308
857000
2000
14:43
if you get another 100 billion dollars,
309
859000
2000
14:45
we still want to spend that in the best possible way, don't we?
310
861000
3000
14:48
So the real issue here is to get ourselves back
311
864000
2000
14:50
and think about what are the right priorities.
312
866000
2000
14:52
I should just mention briefly, is this really the right list that we got out?
313
868000
4000
14:56
You know, when you ask the world's best economists,
314
872000
3000
14:59
you inevitably end up asking old, white American men.
315
875000
3000
15:02
And they're not necessarily, you know,
316
878000
2000
15:04
great ways of looking at the entire world.
317
880000
4000
15:08
So we actually invited 80 young people from all over the world
318
884000
2000
15:10
to come and solve the same problem.
319
886000
2000
15:12
The only two requirements were that they were studying at the university,
320
888000
4000
15:16
and they spoke English.
321
892000
2000
15:18
The majority of them were, first, from developing countries.
322
894000
3000
15:21
They had all the same material but they could go vastly
323
897000
2000
15:23
outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did,
324
899000
3000
15:26
to come up with their own lists.
325
902000
2000
15:28
And the surprising thing was that the list was very similar --
326
904000
2000
15:30
with malnutrition and diseases at the top
327
906000
3000
15:33
and climate change at the bottom.
328
909000
2000
15:35
We've done this many other times.
329
911000
1000
15:36
There's been many other seminars and university students, and different things.
330
912000
3000
15:39
They all come out with very much the same list.
331
915000
3000
15:42
And that gives me great hope, really, in saying that I do believe
332
918000
4000
15:46
that there is a path ahead to get us to start thinking about priorities,
333
922000
5000
15:51
and saying, what is the important thing in the world?
334
927000
2000
15:53
Of course, in an ideal world, again we'd love to do everything.
335
929000
3000
15:56
But if we don't do it, then we can start thinking about where should we start?
336
932000
4000
16:00
I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process.
337
936000
2000
16:02
We did it in 2004,
338
938000
2000
16:04
and we hope to assemble many more people,
339
940000
1000
16:05
getting much better information for 2008, 2012.
340
941000
4000
16:09
Map out the right path for the world --
341
945000
2000
16:11
but also to start thinking about political triage.
342
947000
3000
16:14
To start thinking about saying, "Let's do
343
950000
2000
16:16
not the things where we can do very little at a very high cost,
344
952000
3000
16:19
not the things that we don't know how to do,
345
955000
2000
16:21
but let's do the great things where we can do an enormous
346
957000
3000
16:24
amount of good, at very low cost, right now."
347
960000
4000
16:28
At the end of the day, you can disagree
348
964000
2000
16:30
with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these,
349
966000
2000
16:32
but we have to be honest and frank about saying,
350
968000
3000
16:35
if there's some things we do, there are other things we don't do.
351
971000
2000
16:38
If we worry too much about some things,
352
974000
2000
16:40
we end by not worrying about other things.
353
976000
2000
16:42
So I hope this will help us make better priorities,
354
978000
2000
16:44
and think about how we better work for the world.
355
980000
2000
16:46
Thank you.
356
982000
1000
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