Cure HIV And Malaria Or Fritter Funds On Global Warming?

In 2004, the world's leading economists got together in Copenhagen to prioritize what the world should spend its money on in order to do the most good.

The resulting document, the Copenhagen Consensus, is interesting -- and not just because it shows that economists can have a united opinion. (I'm reminded of Truman's plea for a one-armed economist, so he would never again hear "But on the other hand....") And what they found was this: It's ridiculous to spend money "fighting" global warming.

After measuring scope of impact, immediacy of impact and the efficiency funds could be applied toward realizing a solution, here's what the ecomomists found, according to my favorite environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg:

They found that dealing with HIV/AIDS, hunger, free trade and malaria were the world's top priorities. This was where we could do the most good for our money.

On the other hand [oops, there's that phrase again!], the experts rated immediate responses to climate change at the bottom of the world's priorities. Indeed, the panel called these ventures -- including the Kyoto Protocol -- "bad projects," simply because they cost more than the good that they do.

Fighting global warming requires dialing back industrialization, something that will hurt the poorest people on the planet the most. The best thing we can do for them is to raise their standard of living, but the Kyoto treaty would do the opposite. It would take $150 billion a year out of useful production, for what Lomborg (and I) see as minimal purpose:

Yet, even if everyone (including the US) lived up to the protocol's rules, and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming for just six years in 2100.

Contrast this $150 billion debacle with the projection that for $27 billion, we could prevent 28 million people from getting HIV, and for another $12 billion we could cut malaria cases by more than 1 billion a year. And that would leave $111 billion to spend on other humanitarian purposes, lifting people out of poverty, which would help them to deal better with any negative effects of global warming.

And what should we do about global warming, anyway? Here's what Lomborg, an environmentalist who was moved from radicalism to pragmatism by mere statistics, says on the subject:

This does not mean losing sight of the need to tackle climate change. But the Kyoto approach focuses on early cuts, which are expensive and do little good. Instead, we should be concentrating on investments in making energy without carbon dioxide emissions viable for our descendants. This would be much cheaper and ultimately much more effective in dealing with global warming. The US and UK have begun to tout this message.

The parties in Montreal should rule out more Kyoto-style immediate cuts, which would be prohibitively expensive, do little good, and cause many nations to abandon the entire process. Rather, they should suggest a treaty binding every nation to spend, say, 0.1 percent of GDP on research and development of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies.

The reference to Montreal is to the conference going on there now and running through next Friday, when important matters of global policy on global warming will be discussed. Through all the hot air and fog they generate, let's hope the participants take a moment to read, and thing about, what Lomborg's saying.

Source: Taipei Times; h/t Greenie Watch; image Worth 1000