New at Reason: Bailey Reports on the Copenhagen Consenus Conference of 2008, an Attempt To Prioritize Aid to Global Problems

May 26, 2008

All this week, reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey will be filing dispatches from the Copenhagen Consenus Conference of 2008. Spearheaded by "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg, CCO8 is an attempt to rank 10 major challenges facing the planet (ranging from air pollution to conflict to global warming) and prioritize which areas should be receive what sort of aid based on sound science and benefit-to-cost analysis rather than political and media hysteria.

Read all about it in Bailey's first dispatch.

Comments

SIV|5.26.08 @ 12:06PM|#

....prioritize which areas should be receive what sort of aid based on sound science and benefit-to-cost analysis rather than political and media hysteria.


Good luck with that.........

Neu Mejican|5.26.08 @ 12:16PM|#

Danish taxpayers are voluntarily paying Ron Bailey to report on this?

;)

|5.26.08 @ 12:29PM|#

Denmark has a top 60% tax rate plus a 25% VAT. So no, the taxpayer is not voluntarily paying for this, because the taxpayer doesn't have any Kroner left!

|5.26.08 @ 12:31PM|#

I don't understand why institutional impediments aren't built into the cost effectiveness calculation. If you know that sending medical supplies to a certain region will cost double and have less impact because of corruption, wouldn't you attempt to account for that corruption in the cost-benefit calculation?

Neu Mejican|5.26.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Lamar,

I'm with ya on that one.

bill|5.26.08 @ 1:57PM|#

Of course the best and easiest solution for the worlds problems would cost nothing and would actually work. That is the immediate implementation of full blown, radical Capitalism. Maybe you should bring that up to some of the conferees Ronald.

|5.26.08 @ 2:17PM|#

So instead of hearing a bunch of heretics run around telling us the world is going to end based on an argument that hinges on Pascal's Wager we have a rational voice in the wilderness looking at opportunity costs and ROI? I guess for the simpletons it is much easier to have faith that we can avert disaster if we just pay plenary indulgences to say GE or FSLR.

|5.26.08 @ 2:18PM|#

For disclosures purposes: I own GE stock (less than 1% outstanding) and I do not own FSLR nor are there other conflicts of interest.

vbc|5.26.08 @ 2:21PM|#

Obama Speaks to Veterens in Puerto Rico
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me

This and more on…

http://sensico.wordpress.com/

Neu Mejican|5.26.08 @ 2:31PM|#

the immediate implementation of full blown, radical Capitalism

Here's a nice manual on how to do that...
http://www.natcap.org/

Neu Mejican|5.26.08 @ 2:32PM|#

Of course, bill probably has a different idea of "radical."

|5.26.08 @ 2:33PM|#

Looks like vbc is spamming -- not even attempting to respond to anything in the article or the comments, just promoting an unrelated website. Shouldn't this be blocked by Reason.

Naga Sadow|5.26.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Bill,

I agree but it will never be implemented. To many people would lose importance, i.e. power over others.

Side question: What is "radical" capitalism?

Mike Laursen|5.26.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Of course the best and easiest solution for the worlds problems would cost nothing and would actually work. That is the immediate implementation of full blown, radical Capitalism.

Would it actually cost nothing? Let's assume that you don't even need to deal with the problem of convincing the world's population that they want to make the switch to a radical free market system. There are costs in setting up the minimal set of laws, property rights, and courts to provide a framework for those markets.

Take straightening out the commons problem of world-wide over-fishing. Turning that everybody-owns-it-but-nobody-owns-it into something more orderly would cost real money -- for enforcement and administration of property rights.

Did you really mean that, although there would be costs, that the cost vs. benefits would work out in the end? I totally agree with that, if that's what you meant.

Kolohe|5.26.08 @ 3:23PM|#

Lomborg responded that of course institutions are important, but the Copenhagen Consensus was focusing chiefly on "what can money do to help."

'conflicts' shouldn't even be considered. If Iraq has taught the world anything, 'money alone' is worse than useless.

I think you can most bang for your buck with sanitation/clean water. I remember in one of O'Rourke's books a anecdote that death from dysentery can be solved for pennies a person. Even the best gold plated first world water systems only result in a retail marginal cost of about 2 bucks per 1000 gallons.

Plus, the downstream benefits, so to speak, touch on nearly every other issue presented.

Ben Kalafut|5.26.08 @ 5:15PM|#

Has Lomborg assembled a team of experts this time, or is he once again settling for people working in merely related fields?

And is the conclusion once again pre-determined?

Ben Kalafut|5.26.08 @ 5:23PM|#

It would be very easy, by the way, to pretend that the mainstream is somehow not considering costs and benefits of policy changes, because that's not what the popular press gives attention to.

However, it would also be incorrect. Lomborg is duplicating the mainstream effort, for reasons about which we can only speculate.

Conservationism|5.26.08 @ 5:36PM|#

Reduce overpopulation down to 1 billion, cut all foreign aid, simplify lifestyle, cut down on technology + industrial growth.

And there you have it.

|5.26.08 @ 6:17PM|#

The Womyn's Critical Studies professors only talked about creating alternate modalities of science.

Slackers.

Obviously|5.26.08 @ 11:03PM|#

Just shilling for Big Danish.

|5.27.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Lomborg responded that of course institutions are important, but the Copenhagen Consensus was focusing chiefly on "what can money do to help."

Given our experience in Africa over the last couple of generations, I would say that, in most cases the answer is "nothing."

Money poured into bad institutions just entrenches and perpetuates them, extending the suffering.

Mike Laursen|5.27.08 @ 11:18AM|#

Reduce overpopulation down to 1 billion

Can you go into just a little more detail of how you would go about this?

|5.27.08 @ 12:23PM|#

"Can you go into just a little more detail of how you would go about this?"

We could shoot lighting bolts at all the overpopulators.

|5.27.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Reduce overpopulation down to 1 billion

What is the current level of overpopulation? Just how big a RIF are we talking about here?