Copenhagen Consensus: prioritering af globale investeringer

A city council has 10 million £ that they want to give for a great couse. Ten groups of people fight for the money, all with their own personal cause. Some of them want computers and others want a new park. They could have split the money in 10 different peaces, but they dont want the money to go to something stupid. They wants to find out which of the ten offers they get the most use of and the most profit. Instead of splitting the money and make everyone a little more happy they want the money to go to the popular subjects, talk about on social media, priorities. At the moment there has been a huge momentum to ensure governments commit to combating climate change.

But the economistis found out that spending $27bn on an HIV/Aids prevention programme would be the best possible investment for humanity by saving 28 million lives in six years.. More than half the world suffers from deficiencies of iron, iodine, zinc or vitamin A and that is their next highes priority. Third on the list was trade liberalisation. Although this would require politically difficult decisions, it would be remarkably cheap and would benefit the entire world. The economists would then focus on the huge benefits possible from controlling malaria with chemically treated mosquito nets. Next on their list would be agricultural research and improving sanitation and water quality for a billion of the world's poorest people. The panel examined proposals relating to climate change, including implementing the Kyoto Protocol and taxing carbon dioxide emissions. All ranked badly. Spending the world's limited resources combating climate change would achieve good, but would cost more than it would achieve. They chose to say that the world's top spending priorities should be around the areas of health, water, education and hunger In a world where politicians and voters are faced with ever-increasing and competing demands for time and money, the Copenhagen Consensus process can help decision-makers focus on those initiatives with the greatest benefits, rather than just the ones with the most vocal advocates.