GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 A recent initiative by Copenhagen Concensus Center gathered a bunch of economists to prioritize solutions to world problems. The goal of the center is to try to change the focus of the world governments and aid organizations to focus their efforts towards areas that can generate the maximum benefit for the amount of time and money that goes into solving a particular problem (apparently a revolutionary concept to many) Guess where global warming landed on the list of 40 hot topics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 A recent initiative by Copenhagen Concensus Center gathered a bunch of economists to prioritize solutions to world problems. The goal of the center is to try to change the focus of the world governments and aid organizations to focus their efforts towards areas that can generate the maximum benefit for the amount of time and money that goes into solving a particular problem (apparently a revolutionary concept to many) Guess where global warming landed on the list of 40 hot topics? 722464[/snapback] Where the hell is fighting terrorism. That should be in the top 5 or #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Where the hell is fighting terrorism. That should be in the top 5 or #1. 722483[/snapback] Fair question. From an economic viewpoint, perhaps fighting terrorism isn't cost-effective enough to make the top 40? The cost-benefit ratio was a big part of the criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 noone said it would be fast or cheap. but that doesnt mean we should just ignore it all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 noone said it would be fast or cheap. but that doesnt mean we should just ignore it all together. 722530[/snapback] No doubting that fighting terrorism is important....more important than many things on that list. However the point of the conference was to recommend 40 solutions to problems where the most impact can be made with the least money spent. Terrorism doesn't really fit that description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 Where the hell is fighting terrorism. That should be in the top 5 or #1. 722483[/snapback] Maybe because this study was directed at the people who work at aid organizations, as opposed to the departments of defense? If you had thought of the answer for more than 1 minute, you would realize that completing the top 10 items would go a long way towards ultimately winning GWOT (and probably a lot more economically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Fair question. From an economic viewpoint, perhaps fighting terrorism isn't cost-effective enough to make the top 40? The cost-benefit ratio was a big part of the criteria. 722526[/snapback] This is exactly the thinking. Terrorism was on the initial list of topics, but not the final list for 2 reasons: 1. The task of the conference was to determine how to best spend a hypothetical $50 Billion to solve global problems - real spending on terrorism drawfs that today and another $50B doesn't get you all that much more 2. Terrorism, by and large, impacts mainly industrial nations and the goal of the consensus was to find ways to get results globally with particular attention being paid to the problems of the developing world. As for our friend Al Gore and global climate change, that topic also falls short on the list due to its lack of "bang for the buck" for a relatively small sum ($50B, in terms of global spending is really nothing). There have also been complaints that the group, being hand-picked by Bjorn Lomborg, is biased against environmental causes - Lomborg's views on global climate problems were well documented in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist (the book is a social scientist's attempt to discredit the work of numerous natural scientists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 WTF does "Doha" mean in that context? The only Doha I know of is a military camp in Kuwait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 WTF does "Doha" mean in that context? The only Doha I know of is a military camp in Kuwait. 722588[/snapback] It refers to the WTO's Doha Declaration of 2001 with regards to trade reform. Apparently halving subsidies and trade barriers is considered "optimistic" Doha, while 25% liberalization or less is pessimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 WTF does "Doha" mean in that context? The only Doha I know of is a military camp in Kuwait. 722588[/snapback] Doha in this contect refers to the 2001 round of WTO talks that took place in Doha, Qatar. The focus on this round of talks was to lower global trade barriers to assist developing countries - something that splits industrial countries and developing countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 As for our friend Al Gore and global climate change, that topic also falls short on the list due to its lack of "bang for the buck" for a relatively small sum ($50B, in terms of global spending is really nothing). There have also been complaints that the group, being hand-picked by Bjorn Lomborg, is biased against environmental causes - Lomborg's views on global climate problems were well documented in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist (the book is a social scientist's attempt to discredit the work of numerous natural scientists). 722582[/snapback] And that's precisely the point. Environmental causes are extremely wasteful and don't provide tangible benefits relative to the money spent on them. Your relatively small sum of $50 billion, however, could have an immediate benefit for healthcare & sanitation in the developing world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Doha in this contect refers to the 2001 round of WTO talks that took place in Doha, Qatar. The focus on this round of talks was to lower global trade barriers to assist developing countries - something that splits industrial countries and developing countries. 722610[/snapback] So......... should I just go ahead and delete my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 So......... should I just go ahead and delete my post? 722615[/snapback] Looks like our posts overlapped - as soon as I hit the Add Reply button it showed up right under yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 $50B would buy enough nukes to do the job, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 No doubting that fighting terrorism is important....more important than many things on that list. However the point of the conference was to recommend 40 solutions to problems where the most impact can be made with the least money spent. Terrorism doesn't really fit that description. 722539[/snapback] actually i should have been more descriptive. i was talking about Global Warming not being cheap or fast.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 http://www.livescience.com/enviroment/0607...ecord_heat.html In this link you click on then click enviroment then click 2006 record heat in the us. Part of the article says this. The average temperture of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental U.S., scientist announced today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 If you had thought of the answer for more than 1 minute, you would realize that completing the top 10 items would go a long way towards ultimately winning GWOT (and probably a lot more economically) 722546[/snapback] Shhhh. The only way to win the war on terrorism is to kill lots of brown people. Nothing better than lock stepping conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Shhhh. The only way to win the war on terrorism is to kill lots of brown people. Nothing better than lock stepping conservatives. 723380[/snapback] Hell, we don't even have to kill them. Just so we keep them out of our ports, everything's rosy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 http://www.livescience.com/enviroment/0607...ecord_heat.html In this link you click on then click enviroment then click 2006 record heat in the us. Part of the article says this. The average temperture of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental U.S., scientist announced today. 723253[/snapback] And prominently featured there is a link to this: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...ifferences.html Apparently, despite the USA-Today quality map in the link you suggest (working link here, btw), the scientific community can't decide if it real has been the warmest "on record" or not. The map would look awfully good in Gore's book, though...right alongside all the other bull sh-- USA Today graphics. The most inconvenient truth about Gore's book (which I read yesterday) is that it's the worst kind of manipulative nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 And prominently featured there is a link to this: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...ifferences.html Apparently, despite the USA-Today quality map in the link you suggest (working link here, btw), the scientific community can't decide if it real has been the warmest "on record" or not. The map would look awfully good in Gore's book, though...right alongside all the other bull sh-- USA Today graphics. The most inconvenient truth about Gore's book (which I read yesterday) is that it's the worst kind of manipulative nonsense. 723400[/snapback] I am not saying either side is true, just that both sides of the issue need to be looked at. I heard in one dicussion that global warming on earth is also happening on mars, where the icecaps there are melting. And jupiter is developing another storm similar to the giant one that is evident through a telescope. The theory is it's related to the suns increasing solar flares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts