Who Decides The Priorities When Saving The World

What most people shrugged off as rubbishmost' bang for the buck' if spending was focused
twenty years ago, is now perceived to be theon this issue. With other words it would be the
gospel truth. And now there are such vitriolicmost effective way of spending the world's aid
evangelists in favour that one has to be superblyfunding.
courageous to even voice an opinion against it.The second world problem the experts decided
This truth is the global warming issue. There, I canshould receive funding was malnutrition. Number
already see the hackles rising. What now, you askthree in terms of importance, they felt, was the
yourself.principle of offering Fair Trade to countries outside
Bearing this in mind then, one has to give thethe North Americas and Europe, as this would
Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg anenable areas such as the sub-Sahara to earn a
especially large medal for bravery for speakingmore sustainable living through trade. And the
out on the subject. This does not mean that Mrfourth issue that should be addressed was malaria.
Lomborg is opposed to the idea that there is suchGlobal warming only featured as number 17 on
a thing as global warming, or questioning that it isthe list. Its position on the chart was determined
busy destroying our planet earth. Not at all. Whatby how expensive it would be to address serious
he is saying rather, is that the world has hugeglobal warming issues, in relation to how much
problems, in addition to global warming, and thatmore effective the money could be spent
available aid funding would not be sufficient toaddressing malaria or combating the spread of
address all these problems.HIV/AIDS for instance.
Amongst the list of the top most pressingDuring this meeting of bright minds, it was also
problems the world faces are poverty, starvation,decided that many of the world interventions
malnutrition, lack of water and sanitation, HIVsuch as fighting the spread of HIV/AIDS would
AIDS, malaria, lack of free trade and migration ofautomatically enable the human race to be more
people just to mention some of them. He wasaware of environmental issues in that they would
not the only one who compiled this list. In 2004not need to focus all of their attention on their
Bjorn Lomborg convened a Copenhagenand their family's survival. Some of their effort
Consensus at which the participants tried tocould be spent on ensuring that some global
establish a strategy on how to tackle thesewarming issues became important to them.
challenges with a view to utilising the limitedThe most important question one needs to ask
available funds as effectively as possible.then is whether one should allow a group of
During these discussions a plan of action waseconomists to determine what is important for
recommended. Previously no organisation, includingthe world. Who after all should determine what
the United Nations, had established any kind ofthe money needs to be spent on when every
plan to view and tackle the overall problemssingle major problem, whether malnutrition, HIV
facing the world. This Copenhagen Consensus hasAIDS or global warming for instance needs to be
tried to do this involving many experts in theaddressed as a matter of urgency.
various areas such as health for instance plusRemember the popular debating topic? When a
adding in a sprinkling of economists to assist withplane is falling out of the sky, who out of all the
predictions on costs and possible outcomes.passengers gets to use the one and only
The recommendations of these experts was thatparachute? Or the cruiser that is sinking, who gets
the number one priority for the world should beto climb into the lifeboat. Check the video at TED
to spend available funding on the HIV/AIDSof Bjorn Lomborg discussing the topic of global
pandemic both for prevention and for health careproblems and make up your own mind as to
for infected people. The conclusion they drewwhich one you feel is the most important.
was that the available funding would provide the