The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets economists and politicians to address the question "in a world of limited resources, if we cannot do everything at once what should we do first?". The top-4 ratings from their 2006 meeting are:
1. communicable diseases 2. sanitation and water 3. education 4. malnutrition and hunger Climate change slips from #10 (its position at the first CC meeting in 2004) to #27. (Full list at: http://tinyurl.com/39udey) What's your take on this people? Part of me wants to reject this as the ravings of right-wing Kyoto-protocol-hating ideologues. But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions have a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the effect. Where would you put your limited $$? Robert
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
