Bjorn Lomborg为全球问题订定先后次序

================================
http://dotsub.com/view/6ae3855d-1653-42ab-8a32-8f51d9c04aca
Bjorn Lomborg为全球问题订定先后次序
我今天想和大家谈的都是地球上最严重的问题。 我不会谈到《持怀疑论的环保分子》这本书 虽然那未尝不是一个好选择。
（笑声）
我要说的， 是地球上最严重的问题是什么？ 在我继续之前，我想请在座每一位朋友， 拿出纸和笔， 因为我将会请大家和我一起试试，看我们是怎样找出答案的。 所以请你拿出纸和笔。 我们的底线，是我们这个世界有很多问题。 让我列举其中一些： 全球有八亿人处于饥饿之中； 有十亿人没有清洁食水； 二十亿人没有基本卫生设施； 几百万人死于爱滋病毒及爱滋病； 这个清单可以一直数下去， 二十亿人会受到气候改变的严重影响 -- 等等， 等等。 这个世界有很多很多的问题。
在一个完美的世界， 我们会解决所有的问题，可是实际上我们不会， 在现实世界，我们不会解决所有的问题。 既然我们不会解决所有的问题，那我们便要问问自己 -- 这就是为什么这场演讲被安排在经济时段-- 既然我们不会应付全部问题，我们就应该开始问自己， 我们应该先解决那些问题? 这就是今天我要问大家的问题。 设想如果我们有五百亿元，可以在未来四年， 用来为世界做点事，我们应该把钱花在哪儿？ 我们找出地球面临的十项最大挑战， 让我很快的念出来。 气候变化，传染病，冲突， 教育， 金融波动，政府管治，贪污 营养不良及饥荒，人口迁移， 卫生及水源，经济资助及贸易壁壘。 我们相信在很大程度上， 它们涵盖了世界最严重的问题。 很明显，我们要问的问题是 哪些才是这些问题当中最重要的？ 我们该从哪个问题着手解决呢？ 不过，这个问题其实问得不对， 今年一月在瑞士达沃斯， 有人就确实提出过这个问题。
当然， 把注意力集中在问题上，本身就是一个问题， 因为总有我们解决不了的问题。 我们都知道这个世界面对的最大问题就是我们都会死， 还没有一种科技可以解决这个问题，对不对？ 所以最重要的，不是为问题订出先后次序， 而是为解决方法订出先后次序。 那就是说 -- 当然真正的情况没有那么简单， 气候变化的解决方法可能是京都协议， 传染病的解决方法可能是医疗诊所和蚊帐， 冲突的解决方法可能是联合国维持和平部队等等。 我想大家一起尝试做的是， 请你在三十秒之内 – 我知道这几乎是 不可能的 – 写出你认为 应该最优先着手的项目。 还有 -- 这就是为什么经济考虑教人那么为难 -- 请你也写出哪些项目无须即时处理， 请你也写出哪些项目无须即时处理， 应该放到清单的最后。€ 请你试试，在三十秒之内，你可以和旁边的人商量， 想想哪些解决方法应该最优先进行， 用来解决世界上最严重的问题。
这个过程最美妙的地方是 – 当然我很想 多给大家时间 – 但我只有十八分钟， 我已经给了大家相当多的时间，对不对？ 我想引导大家经历这个过程，思想这个过程， 因为那是我们实际上经过的过程。 我很想大家认真地想想， 当然以后我们还要加以讨论， 我们的缓急先后次序，实际上是怎样订出来的呢？ 当然，你要问问自己， 为什么这个次序从来没有人订出来？ 原因之一是这个次序会使人感到极度不快， 没有人想这样做。 很明显，每个组织都想成为清单上的优先项目， 都不想排在清单的后面。 正因为清单上的非首要项目， 远远比首要项目多，理所当然地 没有人想订定这张清单。 联合国成立了差不多六十年， 但我们从没有确实地订出一张基本的选单， 列出我们可以为世界做的所有重要事情， 哪些我们应该优先处理？ 这不是说我们没有决定先后次序 -- 任何决定都包含了先后次序， 所以我们仍然是决定了， 只是没有说出来 – 但这却很可能 没有真正订出先后次序， 认认真真的说出来那么好。
所以我现在要建议的， 是我们长久以来，已经有一张清单供我们选择。 我们可以为地球做很多很多事情， but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes. 没有作出决定的依据。 设想我们走进一所餐厅，拿着一张大大的菜单， 却不知道价格。 你想要一客薄饼，却不知道售价。 那可能是一块钱，也可能是一千块， 可能是一个家庭的分量， 也可能只够一个人吃。 我们需要知道这些事情，
这就是“哥本哈根共识”想做的， 就是为全球性问题订出价格。 简单来说，以下就是达至“哥本哈根共识”的过程。 我们找来三十位世界最出色的经济学家，每一个范畴三位。 这就是说，三位世界最佳经济学家，为我们就气候变化提供建议： 我们可以做什么？所需费用又是多少？ 能带来什么效益？ 同样，在传染病的范畴上， 我们有世界顶尖的三位专家，告诉我们可以做什么， 所需费用如何？ 我们应该怎让做？又有什么果效？ 如此类推。
我们又请来世界最出色的经济学家， 八位世界最佳经济学家， 包括三位诺贝尔奖得主， 在2004年5月云集哥本哈根。 我们叫他们做梦幻队， 剑桥大学的级长称他们为 经济学的皇家马德里队 -- 这名称在欧洲很合适，但在这里似乎就不很行得通。 他们做的基本上就是订出一张列明缓急次序的选单。 你可能要问，为什么是经济学家？ 而我当然很高兴你提出这个问题，--（笑声）-- 因为那是一个十分好的问题。 重点是，如果你想认识疟疾， 你会找个疟疾专家； 如果你想认识气候，你会找个气候学家。 可是如果你想知道二者之间，何者应该优先处理， 你不能问他们任何一方，因为那不是他们的工作， 那是经济学家的工作， 他们订定优先次序。 经济学家做的，就是那在某些方面被认为是厌恶性的工作，他们决定哪些项目应优先处理， 那些该稍后进行。
这就是我想和大家分享的清单， 你当然也可以在我们的网站看到这份清单， 而等一会我们也会再详细说说。 基本上他们完成了一份选单， 上面包括一些不良项目 – 简单来说，如果你投资一坏钱到这些项目， 你的回报会比一坏钱少； 也有表现一般的项目，良好项目和优秀项目。 我们应该首先开展的，当然是那些优秀项目。 我会从清单的末尾开始， 把优秀项目留到最后。
这些是不良项目。 可以见到排在清单最末的是气候变化。 这冒犯了很多人，那可能就是为什么有些人说 我不应该再来。 这个我需要解释一下，因为这看来很奇怪。 为什么会是这样呢？ 这个我往后还要再谈一下， 因为这可能是我们的清单跟你的清单 其中一个不同的地方。
为什么我们的专家认为执行京都协议， 或者做得比京都协议更多，并不是一个好主意？ 原因很简单， 因为这样做缺乏果效。 这不是说全球暖化没有发生， 也不是说问题并不严重。 乃是说，我们可以为这个问题做的 并不多，而且所费不菲。 这些专家告诉我们，根据所有宏观经济模型平均计算， 如果各国都执行京都协议，每年要花费大概一千五百亿美元。 这笔庞大的数目， 大概是我们每年援助第三世界发展所费 两至三倍， 可是回报却很少。 所有模型都显示， 这只可以把暖化问题推迟大约六年至二一零零年， 也就是说，本来於二一零零年在孟加拉发生的水灾， 可以延至二一零六年。 这是有一点好处，却不是很大的成效。 这个例子的意思是，我们用了很多钱，却只带来一点利益
让我给你一些参考资料， 根据联合国的估计，我们只需一半的价钱， 即每年大概七百五十亿美元， 便可以解决世界上所有重大基本问题。 我们可以为地球上每一个人， 提供清洁食水，卫生设施， 基本医疗和教育。 所以我们要问自己，是否要付出双倍代价， 来换取些少好处， 还是只用一半的价钱，就取得意想不到那么多的成效？ 这就是为什么气候变化是一个不良项目。 这不是说，如果我们拥有世界上所有的钱，我们不会进行这个项目， 这乃是说，当我们并不拥有所有的钱，就不应优先处理这个问题。
那些果效一般的项目 –我且不在此逐项评论 -- 好像传染病，基本卫生服务 – 尚可以进行。 原因很简单，基本卫生服务的规模庞大， 可以带来很大益处，不过也非常昂贵。 如上所言，这一下子告诉我们， 要开始考虑问题的两面。 接着下来我们可以看看果效良好的项目，包括许多卫生和食水项目。 卫生和食水项目极为重要， 但需要很多基本设施。 最后让我们一起看看为首的四项优先项目， 它们应该是我们谈及如何处理世界性问题时， 最优先要处理的。
第四个要优先处理的问题是疟疾 – 即消除疟疾的威胁。 每年有几百万人感染疟疾， 对受影响国家来说，每年所需的费用 可能多至国民生产总值百分之一。 如果我们投放大概一百三十亿美元，在未来四年用来控制疟疾， 就可以把感染的人数减半， 防止大概五十万人死掉。 更重要的，是每年我们可以防止大概十亿人 感染到这个病。 我们可以显著地提高 他们应付其他很多问题的能力。 当然，长远来说，这也会提高他们应付全球暖化的能力。
第三项要优先处理的问题是自由贸易。 基本上，我们的经济模型告诉我们，如果我们有自由贸易， 尤其如果我们在美国和欧洲取消贸易补贴， 我们可以从根本活化环球经济， 达至令人惊讶的二万四千亿美元一年， 而其中一半会来自第三世界。 那就是说，我们可以极速地在两至三年间， 把两至三亿人 带离贫困。 那是第三件我们最应做的事。
第二件我们最应做的事，是改善营养不良。 我们不是指一般的营养不良，而是指改善营养不良 一个非常便宜的方法，就是解决微量营养缺乏的问题。 基本上全球有一半人口缺乏 铁，锌，碘和维生素A。 要是我们投资一百二十亿美元， 就可以为这个问题带来重大的帮助， 那会是我们能做的第二最佳投资。
至于我们成效最佳的项目，就是打击爱滋。 基本上，要是我们在未来八年，投资两百七十亿美元， 便可以防止两千八百万个爱滋新症。 同样地，我们必须考虑解决问题的方法和效益。 对付爱滋我们有两种截然不同的方法， 一是治疗，一是预防。 如上所言，在一个理想的世界，我们两者都要做。 但如果我们不能两者兼顾，或者不能两者都做得很好， 就要先问自己，我们应该首先投资在哪里？ 因为治疗比预防昂贵得多， 所以基本上，如果我们投资在预防爱滋上， 所得的成效就会大很多。 基本上，我们用一笔钱预防爱滋， 相比把同样的数目用来治疗爱滋， 可以取得十倍的成效。 所以，我们首要注重预防， 而不是治疗。
这告诉我们，考虑缓急先后至为重要。 请你看看你的清单， 问问自己，优先次序订得对不对？ 和我们订定的是否相似？ 当然，我们要面对的其中一个问题是气候变化。 我知道很多人都不认同我们的看法。
他们以为，单凭这个问题的规模， 我们就应该处理气候变化。 但想深一层，我们不会解决所有的问题。 这个世界有很多问题， 我们必须针对性地对待它们， 把焦点放在正确的问题上， 就是那些可以取得重大果效，而非只带来微薄回报的问题。¼ 我们梦幻队的成员 Thomas Schelling说得非常好： 他说，人们往往忘记一百年后， 当我们讨论大部分气候变化影响的时候， 人们要比现在富有得多。 即使是联合国最悲观的预测， 在二一零零年，发展中国家的人 最低限度也和我们现在一样富有。 更可能的是，他们要比我们现在富有两倍至四倍。 当然，到时我们也会比现在更富有。
我的意思是，当我们说要在二一零零年， 救助或者帮助孟加拉时， 我们面对的不是一个穷困的孟加拉人， 而是一个挺富庶的荷兰人。 归根到底，最重要的是我们是否想花一大笔钱， 为一个一百年以后相当富有的荷兰人， 带来一点儿的帮助， 还是以低廉的代价，帮助那些现时身在孟加拉， 真正需要帮助的穷人？ 又或者如Schelling所说，设想到了二一零零年，你是一个有钱的 中国人，玻利维亚人，或者是刚果人， 当你回想二零零五年，你会说，“为什么他们那么着紧， 要在应付气候变化上帮我一点儿， 却并不在意帮助 我那亟需援手的祖父和曾祖父， 虽然他们可以做的是那么多？
我让为这正正说明了 为什么正确地订明先后次序是那么重要， 虽然这跟我们一般看这个问题的方法不同。 当然，主要原因是气候变化有很多动人的影像， 我们有“明日之后”那样的电影 -- 那些影像真棒，对不对？ 那是一出好电影， 十分有吸引力。不过，不要期待Emmerich 会找Brad Pitt在他的下一部戏， 到坦尼亚挖厕所或是什么的，（笑声） 因为那没有什么看头。 所以从很多方面看来，“哥本哈根共识” 和整个有关先后次序的讨论， 是对沉闷问题的一场辩护， 叫我们认识到解决世界问题，不是要做令自己感觉良好的事， 不是要做最能吸引传媒的事， 而是做最能带来成效的事。
我也必须提及另一种反对的声音， 认为我 -- 或者我们 — 提出的抉择并无需要。 在一个完美的世界，我们当然应该解决所有问题， 我绝对同意。 我们应该做所有的事情，但事实上却不能。 在七十年代，发达国家估计我们需要花在发展中国家的钱， 是我们现在实质花费在这些国家的两倍。 自七十年代以来， 我们援助这些国家的金额减了一半。 由此看来，我们现在走的方向， 不会一下子解决所有重大问题。
同样，有些人会问，那美伊战争又如何？ 我们为这战争已经花掉了一千亿美元， 为什么不用这笔钱为世界做点好事？® 这个我完全赞成， 如果你们有人可以说服布殊那样做， 那就最好不过。 不过，我的论点还是一样： 如果我们有额外一千亿美元， 我们仍想把这笔钱花在最佳用途上，对不对？ 所以最重要的问题，是我们要回去细细思想， 正确订定缓急次序。 还有一点我要提一提，就是我们这张清单定得是否正确？ 当我们要找世界上最出色的经济专家， 无何避免地找来的都是上了年纪的美国白人， 然而他们却不一定能提供 看整个世界的最好方法。
所以我们又从世界各地请来八十个年青人， 请他们解决同样的问题。 他们只需符合两个条件：是大学生 和懂英语。 他们大部分来自发展中国家。 我们为他们提供同样的资料，但由得他们自由讨论，不受限制。 而他们也不时偏离原定的范围， 以定出他们自己的清单。 令人惊奇的是，他们订出来的清单都很相似， 为首的总是营养不良和疾病， 而气候变化总是在清单的最后。 这些讨论我们进行了很多次， 还有很多大学生之间的其他研讨会等等， 他们完成的清单都差不多。 这个发现叫我充满希望，我深信这是订定 缓急先后次序的方法。 什么是世界上最重要的事情？ 我重申，在一个完美的世界，我们会解决所有问题。 但既然在现实世界我们不会那样做，便要开始想想，该从哪儿着手？
我觉得“哥本哈根共识”是一个过程。 我们在二零零四年举办过一次， 我们希望可以在二零零八和二零一二， 聚集更多人，取得更好的资讯， 以期为世界订出正确的道路， 我们也要开始在政策上把问题分类， 要告诉人们：让我们不要做那些 代价高昂而果效不彰的事情， 也不要做那些我们不懂得怎样做的事情； 让我们现在就做那些我们能做， 作价便宜，而又带来庞大效益的事情，
到最后，你可以不同意 我们订定缓急先后的方法， 不过我们一定要老老实实地想， 如果我们能做某些事情，就一定有其他的事情我们不会做; 如果我们为一些事情过分操心， 就会忽略了其他的事。 我希望这对我们订定缓急先后有点帮助， 教我们可以为这个世界做得更好。 谢谢。

------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg sets global priorities
What I'd like to talk about is really the biggest problems in the world. I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" -- probably that's also a good choice. (Laughter)

But I am going talk about, what are the big problems in the world? And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you to try and get out pen and paper because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that. So get out your pen and paper. Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world. I'm just going to list some of them. There are 800 million people starving. There's a billion people without clean drinking water. Two billion people without sanitation. There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS. The lists go on and on. There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on. There are many, many problems out there.

In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't. We don't actually solve all problems. And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves -- and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say, if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves, which ones should we solve first? And that's the question I'd like to ask you. If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend to do good in this world, where should we spend it? We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world, and I will just briefly read them. Climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, population migration, sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers. We believe that these in many ways encompass the biggest problems in the world. The obvious question would be to ask, what do you think are the biggest things? Where should we start on solving these problems? But that's a wrong problem to ask. That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.

But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems. Because we can't solve problems. Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die. But we don't have a technology to solve that, right? So the point is not to prioritize problems, but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems. And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated. To climate change that would be like Kyoto. To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets. To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on. The point that I would like to ask you to try to do, is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense an impossible task -- write down what you think is probably some of the top priorities. And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil -- to put down what are the things we should not do, first. What should be at the bottom of the list? Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor, and just figure out what should be the top priorities and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have to the world's biggest issues.

The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean, I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes, I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right? I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process, and that's actually what we did. And I also strongly encourage you, and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards, to think about, how do we actually prioritize? Of course, you have to ask yourself, why on earth was such a list never done before? And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable. Nobody wants to do this. Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list. But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list. And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense not to want to do such a list. We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years, yet we've never actually made a fundamental list of all the big things that we can do in the world, and said, which of them should we do first? So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing -- any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good as if we actually did the prioritization, and went in and talked about it.

So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have, for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices. There are many, many things we can do out there, but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes. We have not had an idea. Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card, but you have no idea what the price is. You know, you have a pizza, you've no idea what the price is. It could be at one dollar, it could be 1,000 dollars. It could be a family-size pizza. It could be a very individual-size pizza, right? We'd like to know these things.

And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do -- to try to put prices on these issues. And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process. We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area. So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change. What can we do? What will be the cost? And what will be the benefit of that? Likewise in communicable diseases. Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do? What would be the price? What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome? And so on.

Then we had some of the world's top economists, eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates, meet in Copenhagen in May 2004. We called them the dream team. The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them the Real Madrid of economics. That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here. And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list. And then you ask, why economists? And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) -- because that's a very good question. The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria, you ask a malaria expert. If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first, you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do. That is what economists do. They prioritize. They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first, and which one should we do afterwards?

So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you. Of course, you can also see it on the website, and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on. They basically came up with a list where they said there were bad projects -- basically, projects where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back. Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects. And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing. I'm going to go from backwards so that we end up with the best projects.

These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn't come back, either. And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious. Why is it it came up? And I'll actually also try to get back to this because it's probably one of the things that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto -- or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal is simply because it's very inefficient. It's not saying that global warming is not happening. It's not saying that it's not a big problem. But it's saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That's a substantial amount of money. That's two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we've spent a lot of money doing a little good.

And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It's not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't want to do it. But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.

The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these -- but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it, simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing. It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly. Again, what it tells us is suddenly we start thinking about both sides of the equation. If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in. Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important, but it also costs a lot of infrastructure. So I'd like to show you the top four priorities which should be at least the first ones that we deal with when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.

The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria. The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year. It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP every year for affected nations. If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years, we could bring that incidence down to half. We could avoid about 500,000 people dying, but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a billion people getting infected every year. We would significantly increase their ability to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with. Of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.

This third best one was free trade. Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade, and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe, we could basically enliven the global economy to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year, half of which would accrue to the Third World. Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull two to three hundred million people out of poverty, very radically fast, in about two to five years. That would be the third best thing we could do.

The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition. Not just malnutrition in general, but there's a very cheap way of dealing with malnutrition, namely, the lack of micronutrients. Basically, about half of the world's population is lacking in iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A. If we invest about 12 billion dollars, we could make a severe inroad into that problem. That would be the second best investment that we could do.

And the very best project would be to focus on HIV/AIDS. Basically, if we invest 27 billion dollars over the next eight years, we could avoid 28 new million cases of HIV/AIDS. Again, what this does and what it focuses on is saying there are two very different ways that we can deal with HIV/AIDS. One is treatment, the other one is prevention. And again, in an ideal world, we would do both. But in a world where we don't do either, or don't do it very well, we have to at least ask ourselves where should we invest first. And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention. So basically, what this focuses on is saying we can do a lot more by investing in prevention. Basically for the amount of money that we spend, we can do X amount of good in treatment, and 10 times as much good in prevention. So again, what we focus on is prevention rather than treatment, at first rate.

What this really does is that it makes us think about our priorities. I'd like to have you look at your priority list and say, did you get it right? Or did you get close to what we came up with here? Well, of course, one of the things is climate change again. I find a lot of people find it very, very unlikely that we should do that.

We should also do climate change, if for no other reason, simply because it's such a big problem. But of course, we don't do all problems. There are many problems out there in the world. And what I want to make sure of is, if we actually focus on problems, that we focus on the right ones. The ones where we can do a lot of good rather than a little good. And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling, one of the participants in the dream team, he put it very, very well. One of things that people forget, is that in 100 years, when we're talking about most of the climate change impacts will be, people will be much, much richer. Even the most pessimistic impact scenarios of the U.N. estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100 will be about as rich as we are today. Much more likely, they will be two to four times richer than we are. And of course, we'll be even richer than that.

But the point is to say, when we talk about saving people, or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100, we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi. We're actually talking about a fairly rich Dutch guy. And so the real point, of course, is to say, do we want to spend a lot of money helping a little, 100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy? Or do we want to help real poor people, right now, in Bangladesh, who really need the help, and whom we can help very, very cheaply? Or as Schelling put it, imagine if you were a rich -- as you will be -- a rich Chinese, a rich Bolivian, a rich Congolese, in 2100 thinking back on 2005, and saying, "How odd that they cared so much about helping me a little bit through climate change, and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather and my great grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more, and who needed the help so much more?"

So I think that really does tell us why it is we need to get our priorities straight. Even if it doesn't accord to the typical way we see this problem. Of course, that's mainly because climate change has such good pictures. We have, you know, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- it looks great, right? It's a good film in the sense that I certainly want to see it, right, but don't expect Emmerich to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter) It just doesn't make for as much of a movie. So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus and the whole discussion of priorities as a defense for boring problems. To make sure that we realize it's not about making us feel good, it's not about making things that have the most media attention, but it's about making places where we can actually do the most good.

The other objections, I think, that are important to say, is that I'm somehow -- or we are somehow -- positing a false choice. Of course, we should do all things, in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree. I think we should do all things, but we don't. In 1970, the developed world decided we were going to spend twice as much as we did, right now, than in 1970 on the developing world. Since then our aid has halved. So it doesn't look like we're actually on the path of suddenly solving all big problems.

Likewise, people are also saying, but what about the Iraq war? You know, we spend 100 billion dollars. Why don't we spend that on doing good in the world? I'm all for that. If any one of you guys can talk Bush into doing that, that's fine. But the point of course, is still to say, if you get another 100 billion dollars, we still want to spend that in the best possible way, don't we? So the real issue here, is to get ourselves back and think about what are the right priorities. I should just mention briefly, is this really the right list that we got out? You know, when you ask the world's best economists, you inevitably end up asking old, white American men. And they're not necessarily, you know, great ways of looking at the entire world.

So we actually invited 80 young people from all over the world to come and solve the same problem. The only two requirements were that they were studying at the university, and they spoke English. The majority of them were, first, from developing countries. They had all the same material but they could go vastly outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did, to come up with their own lists. And the surprising thing was that the list was very similar -- with malnutrition and diseases at the top and climate change at the bottom. We've done this many other times. There's been many other seminars and university students, and different things. They all come out with very much the same list. And that gives me great hope, really, in saying that I do believe that there is a path ahead to get us to start thinking about priorities. And saying, what is the important thing in the world? Of course, in an ideal world, again we'd love to do everything. But if we don't do it, then we can start thinking about where should we start?

I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process. We did it in 2004, and we hope to assemble many more people, getting much better information for 2008, 2012. Map out the right path for the world. But also to start thinking about political triage. To start thinking about saying, "Let's do not the things where we can do very little at a very high cost, not the things that we don't know how to do, but let's do the great things where we can do an enormous amount of good, at very low cost, right now.

At the end of the day, you can disagree with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these, but we have to be honest and frank about saying, if there's some things we do, there are other things we don't do. If we worry too much about some things, we end by not worrying about other things. So I hope this will help us make better priorities, and think about how we better work for the world. Thank you.