Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change

Translator: Morten Kelder Skouboe Reviewer: Jonas Tholstrup Christensen

What I'd like to talk about is really the biggest problems in the world.

Det jeg gerne vil tale om, er virkelig verdens største problemer.

I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" --

Jeg har ikke tænkt mig at tale om "Verdens sande tilstand" --

probably that's also a good choice.

det er sandsynligvis også en god idé.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

But I am going talk about: what are the big problems in the world?

Men jeg har tænkt mig at tale om, hvad er verdens største problemer?

And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you

Og jeg må sige, før jeg går videre, at jeg gerne vil have hver af jer

to try and get out pen and paper

til at prøve og tage blyant og papir frem,

because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that.

for jeg har faktisk tænkt mig at bede jer om at hjælpe mig med at se på, hvordan vi gør det.

So get out your pen and paper.

Så tag jeres blyant og papir frem.

Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world.

Sagens kerne er, at der er mange problemer derude i verden.

I'm just going to list some of them.

Jeg vil bare remse nogle af dem op.

There are 800 million people starving.

Der er 800 millioner mennesker, der sulter.

There's a billion people without clean drinking water.

Der er en milliard mennesker uden rent drikkevand.

Two billion people without sanitation.

To milliarder mennesker uden sanitet.

There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS.

Der er flere millioner mennesker, der dør af HIV og AIDS.

The lists go on and on.

Listen bliver ved og ved.

There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on.

Der er to milliarder mennesker, der vil blive alvorligt ramt af klimaforandringer -- og så videre.

There are many, many problems out there.

Der er mange, mange problemer derude.

In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't.

I en ideel verden ville vi løse dem alle, men det gør vi ikke.

We don't actually solve all problems.

Vi løser faktisk ikke alle problemer.

And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves --

Og hvis vi ikke gør det, er spørgsmålet, tror jeg, vi må stille os selv --

and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say,

og det er derfor, det er på økonomisessionen -- er at sige,

if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves,

hvis vi ikke gør alle ting, må vi virkelig starte med at spørge os selv,

which ones should we solve first?

hvilke burde vi løse først?

And that's the question I'd like to ask you.

Og det er spørgsmålet, jeg gerne vil stille jer.

If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend

Hvis vi havde, lad os sige, 50 milliarder dollars til at bruge over de næste fire år

to do good in this world, where should we spend it?

på at gøre godt i denne verden, hvor skulle vi bruge dem?

We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world,

Vi identificerede 10 af verdens største udfordringer,

and I will just briefly read them:

og jeg vil bare kort læse dem op.

climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education,

Klimaforandringer, smitsomme sygdomme, konflikter, uddannelse,

financial instability, governance and corruption,

finansiel ustabilitet, regering og korruption,

malnutrition and hunger, population migration,

fejlernæring og hungersnød, befolkningsudvandring,

sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers.

sanitering og vand og pengehjælp og handelsbarrierer.

We believe that these in many ways

Vi mener, at disse på mange måder

encompass the biggest problems in the world.

indbefatter de største problemer i verden.

The obvious question would be to ask,

Det indlysende spørgsmål ville være at spørge,

what do you think are the biggest things?

hvad tror I, er de største ting?

Where should we start on solving these problems?

Hvor burde vi starte med at løse disse problemer?

But that's a wrong problem to ask.

Men det er et forkert problem at stille.

That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.

Det var faktisk det problem, der blev stillet i Davos i Januar.

But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems.

Men selvfølgelig er der et problem i at bede folk fokusere på problemer.

Because we can't solve problems.

For vi kan ikke løse problemer.

Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die.

Det største problem, vi har i verden, er vel, at vi alle dør.

But we don't have a technology to solve that, right?

Men vi har ikke en teknologi til at løse det, vel?

So the point is not to prioritize problems,

Så pointen er ikke at prioritere problemer,

but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems.

men pointen er at prioritere løsninger på problemer.

And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated.

Og det ville være -- selvfølgelig bliver det en smule kompliceret.

To climate change that would be like Kyoto.

På klimaforandringer ville det være noget som Kyoto.

To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets.

På smitsomme sygdomme kunne det være sundhedsklinikker eller moskitonet.

To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on.

På konflikter ville det være FN's fredsbevarende styrker og så videre.

The point that I would like to ask you to try to do,

Pointen, jeg gerne vil bede jer forsøge at gøre,

is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense

er på bare 30 sekunder -- og jeg ved, det her er på en måde

an impossible task -- write down what you think

en umulig opgave -- skrive ned, hvad I tror,

is probably some of the top priorities.

der sandsynligvis er nogle af topprioriteterne.

And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil --

Og også -- og det er selvfølgelig, hvor økonomi bliver ondt --

to put down what are the things we should not do, first.

at skrive ned, hvilke ting vi ikke burde gøre først.

What should be at the bottom of the list?

Hvad burde være i bunden af listen?

Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor,

Vær venlige, bare brug 30 sekunder, tal måske med jeres nabo,

and just figure out what should be the top priorities

og bare find ud af, hvad burde være topprioriteterne

and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have

og bundprioriteterne af løsningerne, som vi har

to the world's biggest issues.

på verdens største problemer.

The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean,

Den fantastiske del af denne proces -- og selvfølgelig, jeg mener,

I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes,

jeg ville elske at -- jeg har kun 18 minutter,

I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right?

jeg har allerede givet jer en ret væsentlig mængde af min tid, ikke?

I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process,

Jeg ville elske at gå ind i og få jer til at overveje denne proces,

and that's actually what we did.

og det er faktisk, hvad vi gjorde.

And I also strongly encourage you,

Og jeg opmuntrer jer også stærkt,

and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards,

og jeg er sikker på, at vi også har disse diskussioner bagefter,

to think about, how do we actually prioritize?

til at overveje, hvordan prioriterer vi egentlig?

Of course, you have to ask yourself,

Selvfølgelig er I nødt til at spørge jer selv,

why on Earth was such a list never done before?

hvorfor i alverden er sådan en liste aldrig blevet lavet før?

And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable.

Og en grund er, at prioriteringen er utroligt ubehagelig.

Nobody wants to do this.

Ingen vil gøre det her.

Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list.

Selvfølgelig ville enhver organisation elske at være på toppen af sådan en liste.

But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list.

Men enhver organisation ville også hade ikke at være på toppen af listen.

And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list

Og eftersom der er mange flere ikke-nummer-et-pladser på listen,

than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense

end der er nummer ettere, giver det god mening

not to want to do such a list.

ikke at ville lave sådan en liste.

We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years,

Vi har haft FN i næsten 60 år,

yet we've never actually made a fundamental list

men vi har faktisk aldrig lavet en fundamental liste

of all the big things that we can do in the world,

over alle de store ting, som vi kan gøre i verden,

and said, which of them should we do first?

og sagt, hvilke af dem burde vi gøre først?

So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing --

Så det betyder ikke, at vi ikke prioriterer --

any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing,

enhver beslutning er en prioritering, så selvfølgelig prioriterer vi stadigvæk

if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good

om end kun indirekte -- og det er usandsynligt, at det er lige så godt,

as if we actually did the prioritization,

som hvis vi faktisk prioriterede

and went in and talked about it.

og gik ind i og talte om det.

So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have,

Så det, jeg foreslår, er egentligt at sige, at vi har

for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices.

i meget lang tid været i en situation, hvor vi har haft en menu af valg.

There are many, many things we can do out there,

Der er mange, mange ting, vi kan gøre derude,

but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes.

men vi har ikke haft priser eller størrelserne.

We have not had an idea.

Vi har ikke haft en anelse.

Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card,

Forestil jer at I går ind på en restaurant og får det her store menukort,

but you have no idea what the price is.

men I har ingen anelse om, hvad prisen er.

You know, you have a pizza; you've no idea what the price is.

I ved, I har en pizza, I har ingen anelse om, hvad prisen er.

It could be at one dollar; it could be 1,000 dollars.

Den kunne være på en dollar, den kunne være 1.000 dollars.

It could be a family-size pizza;

Den kunne være en familie-størrelse pizza.

it could be a very individual-size pizza, right?

Det kunne være en enkeltperson-størrelse pizza, ikke?

We'd like to know these things.

Vi ville gerne vide disse ting.

And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do --

Og det er, hvad Copenhagen Consensus egentlig prøver at gøre --

to try to put prices on these issues.

at forsøge at sætte priser på disse problemer.

And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process.

Og helt grundlæggende har det været Copenhagen Consensus' arbejde.

We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area.

Vi fik 30 af verdens bedste økonomer, tre inden for hvert felt.

So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change.

Så vi har tre af verdens topøkonomer til at skrive om klimaforandringer.

What can we do? What will be the cost

Hvad kan vi gøre? Hvad vil prisen være?

and what will be the benefit of that?

Og hvad vil fordelene af det være?

Likewise in communicable diseases.

På samme måde med smitsomme sygdomme.

Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do?

Tre af verdens topeksperter, der siger, hvad kan vi gøre?

What would be the price?

Hvad ville prisen være?

What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome?

Hvad burde vi gøre ved det, og hvad vil udfaldet være?

And so on.

Og så videre.

Then we had some of the world's top economists,

Så vi fik nogle af verdens topøkonomer,

eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates,

otte af verdens topøkonomer, inklusive tre Nobelpristagere,

meet in Copenhagen in May 2004.

til at mødes i København i maj 2004.

We called them the "dream team."

Vi kaldte dem drømmeholdet.

The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them

Cambridge Universitys præfekter besluttede sig for at kalde dem

the Real Madrid of economics.

økonomiens Real Madrid.

That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here.

Det virker meget godt i Europa, men det virker ikke rigtigt herovre.

And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list.

Og det, de rent faktisk gjorde, var at lave en prioriteret liste.

And then you ask, why economists?

Og så spørger I, hvorfor økonomer?

And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) --

Og selvfølgelig er jeg meget glad for, at I stillede det spørgsmål -- (Latter) --

because that's a very good question.

fordi det er et meget godt spørgsmål.

The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria,

Pointen er selvfølgelig, at hvis man vil vide noget om malaria,

you ask a malaria expert.

spørger man en malariaekspert.

If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist.

Hvis man vil vide noget om klimaet, spørger man en klimatolog.

But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first,

Men hvis man vil vide, hvilken af de to man skal håndtere først,

you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do.

kan man ikke spørge nogen af dem, for det er ikke, hvad de gør.

That is what economists do.

Det er, hvad økonomer gør.

They prioritize.

De prioriterer.

They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first,

De gør det på nogen måder afskyelige stykke arbejde at sige, hvilken man burde håndtere først,

and which one should we do afterwards?

og hvilken burde man håndtere bagefter?

So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you.

Så det her er listen, og det er den jeg gerne vil dele med jer.

Of course, you can also see it on the website,

Selvfølgelig kan man også se den på hjemmesiden,

and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on.

og vi vil også tale mere om den, er jeg sikker på, som dagen skrider frem.

They basically came up with a list where they said

De lavede simpelthen en liste, hvor de sagde,

there were bad projects -- basically, projects

der var dårlige projekter -- simpelthen projekter,

where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back.

hvor hvis man investerer en dollar, får man mindre end en dollar tilbage.

Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects.

Så er der fair projekter, gode projekter og meget gode projekter.

And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing.

Og selvfølgelig er det de meget gode projekter, vi burde komme i gang med.

I'm going to go from backwards

Jeg vil gå fra nederst,

so that we end up with the best projects.

så at vi ender med de bedste projekter.

These were the bad projects.

Disse var de dårlige projekter.

As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change.

Som I måske kan se, var bunden af listen klimaforandringer.

This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things

Dette fornærmer en masse, og det er sandsynligvis også en af de ting,

where people will say I shouldn't come back, either.

hvor folk vil sige, jeg ikke bør komme tilbage.

And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious.

Og jeg vil gerne tale om det, for det er virkelig underligt.

Why is it it came up?

Hvorfor er det, det kom op?

And I'll actually also try to get back to this

Og jeg vil faktisk også forsøge at komme tilbage til dette,

because it's probably one of the things

for det er sandsynligvis en af de ting,

that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

som vi vil være uenige med på listen, som I skrev ned.

The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto --

Grunden til, at de endte med at sige, at Kyoto --

or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal

eller at gøre noget større end Kyoto -- er en dårlig handel,

is simply because it's very inefficient.

er simpelthen fordi, det er meget ineffektivt.

It's not saying that global warming is not happening.

Det er ikke at sige, at global opvarmning ikke sker.

It's not saying that it's not a big problem.

Det er ikke at sige, at det ikke er et stort problem.

But it's saying that what we can do about it

Men det er at sige, at hvad vi kan gøre ved det,

is very little, at a very high cost.

er meget lidt til en meget høj pris.

What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models,

Hvad de grundlæggende viser os, gennemsnittet af alle makroøkonomiske modeller,

is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year.

er, at Kyoto, hvis alle gik med til den, ville koste omkring 150 milliarder dollars om året.

That's a substantial amount of money.

Det er en væsentlig mængde penge.

That's two to three times the global development aid

Det er to til tre gange den globale udviklingsstøtte,

that we give the Third World every year.

som vi giver den Tredje Verden hvert år.

Yet it would do very little good.

Og alligevel ville den gøre meget lidt godt.

All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100.

Alle modeller viser, det vil udskyde opvarmning med omkring seks år i 2100.

So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106.

Så fyren i Bangladesh, der bliver offer for en oversvømmelse i 2100, kan vente til 2106.

Which is a little good, but not very much good.

Hvilket er en lille smule godt, men ikke ret meget godt.

So the idea here really is to say, well, we've spent a lot of money doing a little good.

Så idéen her er virkelig at sige, altså, vi har brugt en masse penge på at gøre lidt godt.

And just to give you a sense of reference,

Og bare for at give jer et referencepunkt,

the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount,

estimerede FN faktisk, at for halvdelen af det beløb,

for about 75 billion dollars a year,

for omkring 75 milliarder dollars om året,

we could solve all major basic problems in the world.

kunne vi løse alle større basale problemer i verden.

We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare

Vi kunne give rent drikkevand, sanitering, basal sundhedspleje

and education to every single human being on the planet.

og uddannelse til hver eneste menneske på planeten.

So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount

Så vi er nødt til at spørge os selv, vil vi bruge det dobbelte beløb

on doing very little good?

på at gøre meget lidt godt?

Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good?

Eller halvdelen af beløbet på at gøre ufatteligt meget godt?

And that is really why it becomes a bad project.

Og det er egentlig derfor, det er et dårligt projekt.

It's not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't want to do it.

Det er ikke at sige, at hvis vi havde alle penge i verden, ville vi ikke gerne gøre det.

But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.

Men det er at sige, når vi ikke har, er det simpelthen ikke vores førsteprioritet.

The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these --

De fair projekter -- læg mærke til, at jeg ikke har tænkt mig at kommentere alle disse --

but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it,

men smitsomme sygdomme, bedre basal sundhedspleje -- klarede den lige,

simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing.

simpelthen fordi, ja, bedre basal sundhedspleje er en god ting.

It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly.

Det ville gøre en masse godt, men det er også meget, meget dyrt.

Again, what it tells us is suddenly

Igen, hvad det fortæller os er, at pludselig

we start thinking about both sides of the equation.

begynder vi at tænke over begge sider af ligningen.

If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in.

Hvis I ser på de gode projekter, kom en masse saniterings- og vandprojekter ind.

Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important,

Igen, sanitering og vand er utroligt vigtigt,

but it also costs a lot of infrastructure.

men det koster også en masse infrastruktur.

So I'd like to show you the top four priorities

Så jeg vil gerne vise jer top fire prioriteterne,

which should be at least the first ones that we deal with

der skulle være i det mindste de første, som vi håndterer,

when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.

når vi taler om, hvordan vi burde håndtere verdens problemer.

The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria.

Det fjerdebedste problem er malaria -- at håndtere malaria.

The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year.

Hyppigheden af malaria er, at omkring et par [millioner] mennesker bliver smittet hvert år.

It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP

Det kan endda koste op imod et procentpoint af BNP

every year for affected nations.

hvert år for påvirkede lande.

If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years,

Hvis vi investerede omkring 13 milliarder dollars over de næste fire år,

we could bring that incidence down to half.

kunne vi bringe den hyppighed ned til det halve.

We could avoid about 500,000 people dying,

Vi kunne undgå, at omkring 500.000 mennesker dør,

but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a [million] people

men måske vigtigere kunne vi undgå, at omkring en milliard mennesker

getting infected every year.

bliver smittet hvert år.

We would significantly increase their ability

Vi ville væsentligt forbedre deres evne

to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with --

til at håndtere mange af de andre problemer, som de er nødt til at håndtere.

of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.

Selvfølgelig, i det lange løb også håndtere global opvarmning.

This third best one was free trade.

Denne tredjebedste var fri handel.

Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade,

Dybest set viste modellen, at hvis vi kunne få fri handel

and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe,

og især skære pengestøtte i USA og Europa fra,

we could basically enliven the global economy

kunne vi rent faktisk oplive den globale økonomi

to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year,

til en forbløffende størrelse af omkring 2.400 milliarder dollars om året,

half of which would accrue to the Third World.

hvoraf halvdelen ville tilfalde den Tredje Verden.

Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull

Igen er pointen at sige, at vi kunne faktisk trække

two to three hundred million people out of poverty,

to til tre hundrede millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom

very radically fast, in about two to five years.

meget radikalt hurtigt på omkring to til fem år.

That would be the third best thing we could do.

Det ville være den tredjebedste ting, vi kunne gøre.

The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition.

Den næstbedste ting ville være at fokusere på fejlernæring.

Not just malnutrition in general, but there's a very cheap way

Ikke bare fejlernæring generelt, men der er en meget billig måde

of dealing with malnutrition, namely, the lack of micronutrients.

at håndtere fejlernæring på, især mangel på mikronæringsstoffer.

Basically, about half of the world's population is lacking in

Dybest set er omkring halvdelen af verdens befolkning i underskud af

iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A.

jern, zink, jod og A-vitamin.

If we invest about 12 billion dollars,

Hvis vi investerer omkring 12 milliarder dollars,

we could make a severe inroad into that problem.

kunne vi lave et seriøst indhug i det problem.

That would be the second best investment that we could do.

Det ville være den næstbedste investering, vi kunne foretage.

And the very best project would be to focus on HIV/AIDS.

Og det allerbedste projekt ville være at fokusere på HIV/AIDS.

Basically, if we invest 27 billion dollars over the next eight years,

Dybest set, hvis vi investerer 27 milliarder dollars over de næste otte år,

we could avoid 28 new million cases of HIV/AIDS.

kunne vi undgå 28 nye millioner tilfælde af HIV/AIDS.

Again, what this does and what it focuses on is saying

Igen, hvad det her gør, og hvad det fokuserer på, er at sige,

there are two very different ways that we can deal with HIV/AIDS.

der er to meget forskellige måder, vi kan håndtere HIV/AIDS.

One is treatment; the other one is prevention.

Den ene er behandling, den anden er forebyggelse.

And again, in an ideal world, we would do both.

Og igen i en ideel verden ville vi gøre begge dele.

But in a world where we don't do either, or don't do it very well,

Men i en verden, hvor vi ikke gør nogen af dem, eller ikke gør det særlig godt,

we have to at least ask ourselves where should we invest first.

er vi nødt til i det mindste at spørge os selv, hvor vi burde investere først.

And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention.

Og behandling er meget, meget dyrere end forebyggelse.

So basically, what this focuses on is saying, we can do a lot more

Så det, det dybest set fokuserer på, er at sige, at vi kan gøre meget mere

by investing in prevention.

ved at investere i forebyggelse.

Basically for the amount of money that we spend,

Grundlæggende for de penge, vi bruger,

we can do X amount of good in treatment,

kan vi gøre X mængde godt ved behandling

and 10 times as much good in prevention.

og 10 gange så meget godt ved forebyggelse.

So again, what we focus on is prevention rather than treatment,

Så igen, det, vi fokuserer på, er forebyggelse frem for behandling

at first rate.

i første omgang.

What this really does is that it makes us think about our priorities.

Det, det virkelig gør, er, at det får os til at tænke over vores prioriteter.

I'd like to have you look at your priority list and say,

Jeg vil gerne have jer til at se på jeres prioriteringsliste og sige,

did you get it right?

fik I det rigtige?

Or did you get close to what we came up with here?

Eller kom I tæt på, hvad vi kom frem til her?

Well, of course, one of the things is climate change again.

Altså selvfølgelig er klimaforandringer et af emnerne igen.

I find a lot of people find it very, very unlikely that we should do that.

Jeg møder mange mennesker, der finder det meget, meget usandsynligt, at vi skulle gøre det.

We should also do climate change,

Vi burde også håndtere klimaforandringer,

if for no other reason, simply because it's such a big problem.

om ikke andet så simpelthen fordi det er så stort et problem.

But of course, we don't do all problems.

Men selvfølgelig håndterer vi ikke alle problemer.

There are many problems out there in the world.

Der er mange problemer derude i verden.

And what I want to make sure of is, if we actually focus on problems,

Og det, jeg gerne vil gøre sikre, er, at hvis vi faktisk fokuserer på problemer,

that we focus on the right ones.

så fokuserer vi på de rigtige.

The ones where we can do a lot of good rather than a little good.

Dem, hvor vi kan gøre meget godt frem for lidt godt.

And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling,

Og jeg tror egentlig -- Thomas Schelling,

one of the participants in the dream team, he put it very, very well.

en af deltagerne på drømmeholdet, han sagde det meget, meget godt.

One of things that people forget, is that in 100 years,

En af tingene, folk glemmer, er, at om 100 år,

when we're talking about most of the climate change impacts will be,

hvor vi snakker om, de fleste af klimaforandringernes indvirkninger vil være,

people will be much, much richer.

vil folk være meget, meget rigere.

Even the most pessimistic impact scenarios of the U.N.

Selv de mest pessimistiske af FN's indvirkningsscenarier

estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100

vurderer, at den gennemsnitlige person i den udviklede del af verden i 2100

will be about as rich as we are today.

vil være nogenlunde så rig, som vi er i dag.

Much more likely, they will be two to four times richer than we are.

Meget mere sandsynligt er det, at de vil være to til fire gange så rige som os.

And of course, we'll be even richer than that.

Og selvfølgelig vil vi være endnu rigere end det.

But the point is to say, when we talk about saving people,

Men pointen er at sige, når vi snakker om at redde mennesker

or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100,

eller redde folk i Bangladesh i 2100,

we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi.

snakker vi ikke om en fattig bangladesher.

We're actually talking about a fairly rich Dutch guy.

Vi snakker faktisk om en ret rig hollandsk fyr.

And so the real point, of course, is to say,

Og derfor er den rigtige pointe selvfølgelig at sige,

do we want to spend a lot of money helping a little,

vil vi bruge en masse penge på at hjælpe

100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy?

om 100 år fra nu en ret rig hollandsk fyr?

Or do we want to help real poor people, right now, in Bangladesh,

Eller vil vi gerne hjælpe rigtigt fattige lige nu i Bangladesh,

who really need the help, and whom we can help very, very cheaply?

der virkelig har brug for hjælp, og som vi kan hjælpe meget, meget billigt?

Or as Schelling put it, imagine if you were a rich -- as you will be --

Eller som Schelling sagde det, forestil jer, at I var en rig -- som I vil blive --

a rich Chinese, a rich Bolivian, a rich Congolese, in 2100,

en rig kineser, en rig boliver, en rig congoleser i 2100,

thinking back on 2005, and saying, "How odd that they cared so much

der tænkte tilbage på 2005 og sagde, "Hvor underligt, at de bekymrede sig så meget

about helping me a little bit through climate change,

om at hjælpe mig en smule gennem klimaforandringer

and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather

og bekymrede sig så lidt om at hjælpe min bedstefar

and my great grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more,

og min oldefar, som de kunne have hjulpet så meget mere,

and who needed the help so much more?"

og som behøvede hjælpen så meget mere?"

So I think that really does tell us why it is

Så jeg synes, det virkelig fortæller os, hvorfor det er,

we need to get our priorities straight.

vi har brug for at få vores prioriteter på plads.

Even if it doesn't accord to the typical way we see this problem.

Selv hvis det ikke stemmer overens med den sædvanlige måde vi anser dette problem.

Of course, that's mainly because climate change has good pictures.

Selvfølgelig er det hovedsagligt, fordi klimaforandringer har så gode billeder.

We have, you know, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- it looks great, right?

Vi har, I ved, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- den ser godt ud, ikke?

It's a good film in the sense that

Det er en god film på den måde, at

I certainly want to see it, right, but don't expect Emmerich

jeg bestemt har lyst til at se den, okay, men forvent ikke, at Emmerich

to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie

giver Brad Pitt rollen i sin næste film,

digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter)

hvor han graver efter latriner i Tanzania eller noget. (Latter)

It just doesn't make for as much of a movie.

Det lægger bare ikke op til så god en film.

So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus

Så på mange måder anser jeg Copenhagen Consensus

and the whole discussion of priorities

og hele diskussionen omkring prioriteter

as a defense for boring problems.

som et forsvar for kedelige problemer.

To make sure that we realize it's not about making us feel good.

At sikre, at vi indser, det ikke handler om at få os til at have det godt,

It's not about making things that have the most media attention,

det handler ikke om at lave de ting, der har mest medieopmærksomhed,

but it's about making places where we can actually do the most good.

men at det er om at finde steder, hvor vi faktisk kan gøre mest godt.

The other objections, I think, that are important to say,

De andre indvendinger, tror jeg, der er vigtige at sige,

is that I'm somehow -- or we are somehow -- positing a false choice.

er, at jeg på en eller anden måde -- eller vi -- opstiller et falsk valg.

Of course, we should do all things,

Selvfølgelig burde vi gøre alle ting

in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree.

i en ideel verden -- jeg ville i den grad være enig.

I think we should do all things, but we don't.

Jeg synes, vi burde gøre alting, men det gør vi ikke.

In 1970, the developed world decided we were going to spend

I 1970 besluttede den udviklede verden, at vi skal bruge

twice as much as we did, right now, than in 1970, on the developing world.

dobbelt så meget, som vi gjorde, lige nu i forhold til 1970 på udviklingslandene.

Since then our aid has halved.

Siden da er vores støtte blevet halveret.

So it doesn't look like we're actually on the path

Så det ser ikke ud som om, vi egentlig er på vej

of suddenly solving all big problems.

til pludseligt at løse alle store problemer.

Likewise, people are also saying, but what about the Iraq war?

På samme måde siger folk, men hvad med Irak-krigen?

You know, we spend 100 billion dollars --

Ved I hvad, vi bruger 100 milliarder dollars.

why don't we spend that on doing good in the world?

Hvorfor bruger vi ikke dem på at gøre godt i verden?

I'm all for that.

Det er jeg helt for.

If any one of you guys can talk Bush into doing that, that's fine.

Hvis en af jer kan overtale Bush til at gøre det, er det fint.

But the point, of course, is still to say,

Men pointen er selvfølgelig at sige,

if you get another 100 billion dollars,

hvis man får 100 milliarder dollars mere,

we still want to spend that in the best possible way, don't we?

vil man stadig ønske at bruge dem på bedst mulig vis, ikke?

So the real issue here is to get ourselves back

Så det egentlige problem her er at få os selv tilbage

and think about what are the right priorities.

og tænke over, hvad er de rigtige prioriteter.

I should just mention briefly, is this really the right list that we got out?

Jeg burde måske nævne kort, er det virkelig den rigtige liste, vi kom frem til?

You know, when you ask the world's best economists,

I ved, når man spørger verdens bedste økonomer,

you inevitably end up asking old, white American men.

ender man uundgåeligt med at spørge gamle, hvide amerikanske mænd.

And they're not necessarily, you know,

Og de er ikke nødvendigvis, I ved,

great ways of looking at the entire world.

den bedste måde at anskue hele verden.

So we actually invited 80 young people from all over the world

Så vi inviterede faktisk 80 unge fra hele verden

to come and solve the same problem.

til at komme og løse det samme problem.

The only two requirements were that they were studying at the university,

Det eneste krav var, at de studerede på et universitet,

and they spoke English.

og at de talte engelsk.

The majority of them were, first, from developing countries.

Størstedelen af dem var, først fra udviklingslande.

They had all the same material but they could go vastly

De havde alle det samme materiale, men de kunne gå meget

outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did,

uden for diskussionens rammer, og det gjorde de i den grad,

to come up with their own lists.

for at komme frem til deres egne lister.

And the surprising thing was that the list was very similar --

Og det overraskende var, at listen var meget lig --

with malnutrition and diseases at the top

med fejlernæring og sygdomme i toppen

and climate change at the bottom.

og klimaforandringer i bunden.

We've done this many other times.

Vi har gjort det her mange andre gange.

There's been many other seminars and university students, and different things.

Der har været mange andre øvelser og universitetsstuderende og forskellige ting.

They all come out with very much the same list.

De kommer alle frem til stort set den samme liste.

And that gives me great hope, really, in saying that I do believe

Og det giver mig stort håb, virkelig, når jeg siger, at jeg tror på,

that there is a path ahead to get us to start thinking about priorities,

at der er en vej foran til at få os til at begynde at tænke over vores prioriteter.

and saying, what is the important thing in the world?

Og at sige, hvad er den vigtigste ting i verden?

Of course, in an ideal world, again we'd love to do everything.

Selvfølgelig i en ideel verden ville vi elske at gøre alting.

But if we don't do it, then we can start thinking about where should we start?

Men hvis vi ikke gør det, kan vi begynde at tænke over, hvor burde vi starte?

I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process.

Jeg ser Copenhagen Consensus som en proces.

We did it in 2004,

Vi gjorde det i 2004,

and we hope to assemble many more people,

og vi håber at samle mange flere folk,

getting much better information for 2008, 2012.

at få meget bedre information til 2008, 2012.

Map out the right path for the world --

Skitsere den rigtige vej for verden.

but also to start thinking about political triage.

Men også at begynde at tænke over politisk visitation.

To start thinking about saying, "Let's do

At begynde at tænke over at sige, "Lad os gøre

not the things where we can do very little at a very high cost,

ikke de ting, hvor vi kan gøre meget lidt til en meget høj pris,

not the things that we don't know how to do,

ikke de ting, som vi ikke ved, hvordan vi skal gøre,

but let's do the great things where we can do an enormous

men lad os gøre gode ting, hvor vi kan gøre en enorm

amount of good, at very low cost, right now."

mængde godt til en meget lav pris lige nu.

At the end of the day, you can disagree

Til syvende og sidst kan I være uenige

with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these,

i diskussionen om, hvordan vi faktisk prioriterer disse,

but we have to be honest and frank about saying,

men vi er nødt til at være ærlige og oprigtige ved at sige,

if there's some things we do, there are other things we don't do.

hvis der er nogle ting vi gør, er der andre ting vi ikke gør.

If we worry too much about some things,

Hvis vi bekymrer os for meget om nogle ting,

we end by not worrying about other things.

ender vi med ikke at bekymre os om andre ting.

So I hope this will help us make better priorities,

Så jeg håber dette vil hjælpe os med at prioritere bedre

and think about how we better work for the world.

og tænke over, hvordan vi bedre kan arbejde for verden.

Thank you.

Tak.