Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change

譯者: Jayce Pei Yu Lee 審譯者: Zachary Lin Zhao

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

我想和大家談的是地球上最嚴重的問題。

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

我不會談到＂多疑的環境保護論者＂這本書

probably that's also a good choice.

雖然那也是不錯的選擇。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

不過我要談的是，何謂地球上最嚴重的問題？

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

在我開始之前，必須說的是，我先請在座的每一位

to try and get out pen and paper

拿出筆跟紙

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

因為我將請各位和我一起來找找我們所要的答案

So get out your pen and paper.

所以請拿出筆和紙

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

最重要的是這世界上有很多的問題

I'm just going to list some of them.

我來舉些例子說明

There are 800 million people starving.

全球有八億人口處於飢餓當中

There's a billion people without clean drinking water.

十億人口沒有乾淨的水喝

Two billion people without sanitation.

二十億人口沒有基本衛生措施

There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS.

幾百萬的人口因感染愛滋病毒和愛滋病而死亡

The lists go on and on.

有太多的例子列舉不完

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

全球有二十億人口嚴重受到氣候變遷的影響－－等等

There are many, many problems out there.

有許多許多的問題

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

在一個完美的世界，我們會解決所有的問題，可是實際上我們不會。

We don't actually solve all problems.

現實世界裡我們不會解決所有的問題。

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

那麼如果我們不會，我想我們該問自己的是－－

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

這也是為什麼這場演講被安排在經濟議題的時段

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

既然我們無法解決所有問題，我們應該開始自我省察

which ones should we solve first?

我們應該先解決哪些問題？

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

這是今天我要問大家的問題

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

假設如果我們有500億美元，能夠在未來四年

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

可以為這世界做些事，這些錢該用在哪裡?

We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world,

我們找出十項地球所面臨最嚴重的挑戰

and I will just briefly read them:

我很快的念出來。

climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education,

氣候變遷，傳染疾病，衝突

financial instability, governance and corruption,

金融波動，政府治理，貪汙

malnutrition and hunger, population migration,

營養失調及饑荒，人口遷移

sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers.

衛生及水源，經濟資助及貿易保護

We believe that these in many ways

我們相信在很多的地方

encompass the biggest problems in the world.

涵蓋全球最嚴重的問題

The obvious question would be to ask,

我們要問的是

what do you think are the biggest things?

哪些是最重要的?

Where should we start on solving these problems?

我們該從哪些問題開始解決？

But that's a wrong problem to ask.

不過這問題問得不對

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

今年一月這個問題早在瑞士達沃斯已被提出

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

當然，把注意力集中在問題上，這本身就是個問題。

Because we can't solve problems.

因為總是有解決不了的問題。

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

我們要面對的最大問題就是我們都會死

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

但卻沒有任何科技可以解決這問題，是吧？

So the point is not to prioritize problems,

因此重點不在於為問題訂出優先次序

but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems.

而是為解決方法訂出優先次序

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

那就是說--當然事情沒有那麼簡單

To climate change that would be like Kyoto.

氣候變遷的解決方法可能是京都協議

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

傳染病的解決方法可能是醫療診所或蚊帳

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

衝突的解決方法可能是聯合國維和部隊等等。

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

我想請大家一起嘗試做的是

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

請在三十秒內－我知道這幾乎是

an impossible task -- write down what you think

不可能的任務－寫出你認為

is probably some of the top priorities.

應該最優先著手的項目

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

還有－這就是為什麼經濟學是很殘酷的--

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

我們得列出哪些事是不需要最先被處理的

What should be at the bottom of the list?

哪些事是最後要處理的？

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

請你用三十秒的時間，或許和旁邊的人討論

and just figure out what should be the top priorities

想想我們有哪些解決方法

and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have

與進行的優先次序來面對

to the world's biggest issues.

世界上最嚴重的問題

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

這過程最奇妙的是－－當然

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

我很樂意－但我只有十八分鐘

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

我已分給大家相當多的時間，是麼？

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

我想引導大家思考這個過程

and that's actually what we did.

這就是我們所做的

And I also strongly encourage you,

同時我也請大家認真想想

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

我相信以後也會有類似的討論

to think about, how do we actually prioritize?

思考實際上我們如何訂定這先後順序？

Of course, you have to ask yourself,

當然各位也要問問自己

why on Earth was such a list never done before?

到底為什麼這樣的清單從來沒有人做過？

And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable.

其中一個原因是優先順序會讓人感到極度不適

Nobody wants to do this.

沒人想要這麼做

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

顯而易見的，每個組織都想成為清單上的最佳選項

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

卻更不想成為清單上的非首要選項

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

既然清單上非首要的項目，遠比首要項目

than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense

要來得多，理所當然地

not to want to do such a list.

沒有人想要做這清單

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

聯合國成立了快六十年

yet we've never actually made a fundamental list

我們卻從未確實地做一份基本的清單

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

列出我們可以為世界做的所有重要事情

and said, which of them should we do first?

也就是說，哪些是我們應該先做的？

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

這不是說我們沒有決定優先次序

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

任何決定都包含了優先順序，所以我們仍然是決定了

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

假如有可能的話－－有很高的可能性是，

as if we actually did the prioritization,

沒有我們真正的訂出先後順序

and went in and talked about it.

坦白的說出來得好。

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

所以我要提議的，是我們長久以來

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

在面對狀況時已有一張清單可供我們選擇

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

我們可以做非常多的事

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

但如果我們沒有參考的數值或規模

We have not had an idea.

是不會有什麼想法的。

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

想像一下我們走進一家餐廳，拿起菜單

but you have no idea what the price is.

卻不知道價錢

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

你想要個披薩，卻不知道多少錢

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

有可能是一塊錢，有可能是一千塊錢

It could be a family-size pizza;

有可能是個家庭號披薩

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

也有可能是一人份的披薩，不是麼？

We'd like to know these things.

我們需要知道這些事情

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

而那就是哥本哈根共識想要做的

to try to put prices on these issues.

就是為這些議題訂定策略

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

基本上，這些都是哥本哈根共識的過程

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

我們找來三十位世界最頂尖的經濟學家，每個領域有三位，

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

所以在氣候變遷的領域有三位最優秀的經濟學家

What can we do? What will be the cost

我們能做什麼？要付出哪些代價？

and what will be the benefit of that?

又會得到哪些效益？

Likewise in communicable diseases.

同樣的在傳染病的範疇中

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

我們有三位世界最頂尖的專家告訴我們，該怎麼做？

What would be the price?

要付出什麼?

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

我們該怎麼做，結果又是如何？

And so on.

以此類推。

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

我們接著請世界最好的經濟學家

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

八位世界最佳經濟學家，包括三位諾貝爾獎得主，

meet in Copenhagen in May 2004.

2004年五月在哥本哈根相聚一堂

We called them the "dream team."

我們稱之為夢幻團隊

The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them

劍橋大學的督導長決定稱他們為

the Real Madrid of economics.

經濟學的皇家馬德里隊

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

在歐洲很適合，但在這裡似乎不太行得通

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

他們基本上在做的是列出一張優先順序表

And then you ask, why economists?

然後你會問，那何必找經濟學家？

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

當然，我很開心妳問這問題（笑聲）

because that's a very good question.

因為那是個非常好的問題

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

重點在於，如果你想了解瘧疾，

you ask a malaria expert.

妳會找瘧疾專家

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

如果你想了解氣候，你會諮詢氣候學家

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

但如果你想知道兩者之間，何者應優先處理

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

你不能問他們任何一方，因為這不是他們的專長

That is what economists do.

那是經濟學家的工作

They prioritize.

負責制定優先次序。

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

他們為那些看起來挺擾人的項目制定優先順序，

and which one should we do afterwards?

評估哪些先做，哪些該稍後進行？

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

因此這就是我要和大家分享的清單，

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

當然你也可以在網路上看到

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

隨著時間我們也會更密集的談到

They basically came up with a list where they said

基本上他們完成了一份選單，

there were bad projects -- basically, projects

上頭有包含一些不良項目，簡單來說，

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

假設你投資了一塊錢，回收會小於一塊錢，

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

接著有些合理的項目，良好和優秀的項目

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

當然我們應該先發展優秀項目

I'm going to go from backwards

我會從清單的末尾開始

so that we end up with the best projects.

把最後的留到最後。

These were the bad projects.

這些是不良項目

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

可以看見清單最末是氣候變遷

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

這惹惱了許多人，那可能就是為什麼有些人會說

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

我不應該再來。

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

這個我需要說明一下，因為看起來很奇怪

Why is it it came up?

為何是這樣？

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

我想要再回頭談談這件事

because it's probably one of the things

因為這可能是我們的清單中

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

和你們的清單裡的項目不同之處

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

為什麼這些專家認為執行京都協議，

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

或者做得比京都會議要更多－並不是個好主意

is simply because it's very inefficient.

原因很簡單，因為成效不彰

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

並不是說地球暖化沒有發生

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

也不是說問題不嚴重

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

而是說我們能做的

is very little, at a very high cost.

並不多，代價很高

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

這些專家基本上告訴我們，根據所有總體經濟學模組的平均估算

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

如果各國都同意執行京都協議，每年要花費大約一千五百億美元

That's a substantial amount of money.

這是筆龐大的數字

That's two to three times the global development aid

大約是我們每年援助第三世界發展

that we give the Third World every year.

所花費的兩到三倍

Yet it would do very little good.

但仍舊沒太大的幫助

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

所有的模組皆顯示這樣可以在二一零零年時將暖化問題延後六年

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

因此本來二一零零年在孟加拉發生的水災，可以延至二零一六年

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

是可以改善，但不是全面性的成效

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

因此真正來講，我們花了很多錢，卻沒什麼成效。

And just to give you a sense of reference,

讓我給大家一些參考資料

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

根據聯合國的統計，只需使用一半的預算

for about 75 billion dollars a year,

大約每年七百五十億美元

we could solve all major basic problems in the world.

我們可以解決世界上所有重大問題

We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare

我們可以為地球上的所有人類，提供乾淨飲用水，衛生措施，

and education to every single human being on the planet.

基本醫療與教育措施。

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

所以我們捫心自問，我們真的要花兩倍的代價

on doing very little good?

卻只能換來一點好處？

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

或者只用一半的代價，達到出人意料的驚人成效？

And that is really why it becomes a bad project.

這也是氣候變遷計畫成效不彰。

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

並不是說，如果我們有了這些錢，就不會去處理這個問題，

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

而是說，當我們沒有這些預算時，就不應該優先處理。

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

成效普通的計畫，我並不在這逐項評論，

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

但傳染病，基本健康服務－可以進行。

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

原因在於，基本健康服務規模很大是件好事

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

會帶來很多效益，但是也相當昂貴。

Again, what it tells us is suddenly

我要強調的是，這突然提醒我們

we start thinking about both sides of the equation.

該開始思考問題的兩面。

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

接著來看成效不錯的計畫，像是衛生和飲用水計畫

Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important,

這兩個計畫極為重要。

but it also costs a lot of infrastructure.

也需要許多基本措施的建造

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

我們來看看為首的四項優先順序

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

哪些步驟是我們談到如何處理世界性問題時

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

必須優先處理的

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

第四個要優先處理的是瘧疾－面對瘧疾

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

每年有幾百萬人因感染瘧疾而受影響

It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP

對受影響的國家來說，每年所需的費用

every year for affected nations.

可能激增至接近國民生產總值的百分之一

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

如果我們在未來四年投資了一百三十億美元

we could bring that incidence down to half.

我們可以把感染的人數減半

We could avoid about 500,000 people dying,

可以救回大約五十萬人的生命

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

但更重要的是，我們每年可以防止大約十億人

getting infected every year.

感染這類的疾病。

We would significantly increase their ability

這會很顯著的提高他們

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

解決處理其它很多問題的能力。

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

當然，長遠來看，這包含了處理全球暖化的能力。

This third best one was free trade.

第三項要優先處理的是自由貿易。

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

基本上，我們的經濟模組告訴我們，

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

如果我們有自由貿易，尤其是取消歐美國家的貿易津貼，

we could basically enliven the global economy

我們可以從根本活絡全球經濟。

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

每年可高達令人驚訝的兩萬四千億美元的數字。

half of which would accrue to the Third World.

半數會來自於第三世界。

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

再者，我們可以確實的在兩到五年內

two to three hundred million people out of poverty,

協助兩到三億的人口

very radically fast, in about two to five years.

快速的脫離貧困。

That would be the third best thing we could do.

這是第三件我們最應該做的事。

The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition.

第二件我們最該做的事，是營養不良的問題

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

不只是一般的營養不良，而是有更經濟的方式

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

來面對解決微量營養元素缺乏的問題。

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

基本上全球有一半的人口缺乏

iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A.

鐵，鋅，碘和維生素A

If we invest about 12 billion dollars,

如果我們投資一百二十億美元

we could make a severe inroad into that problem.

就可以為這問題帶來重大的解決方案

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

那會是我們能做的第二樣最棒的投資。

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

至於我們成效最佳的專案，就是愛滋病的問題。

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

原則上，如果我們在未來八年內投資兩百七十億美元

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

我們可以預防兩千八百萬的人口感染愛滋。

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

同樣的我們必須考慮的是

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

對付愛滋問題有兩種截然不同的解決方式，

One is treatment; the other one is prevention.

一個是治療，另一個是預防。

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

同樣的在一個理想世界，我們兩者都要做。

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

但如果不能兩者兼顧，或者沒法做得好

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

至少得先問自己，應該首要投資的是在哪裡？

And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention.

治療是要比預防昂貴太多太多了，

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

所以基本上,如果我們投注心力在預防上，

by investing in prevention.

我們可以得到比較多的成效。

Basically for the amount of money that we spend,

基本上我們可以用一筆錢來預防愛滋

we can do X amount of good in treatment,

可以做無數個治療

and 10 times as much good in prevention.

也可以在預防得到十倍的成效

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

所以我們首要注重的應該是預防

at first rate.

而不是治療。

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

這告訴我們的是，考慮我們的優先順序是很重要的。

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

請你看看你們手上的清單，捫心自問：

did you get it right?

這清單是否正確？

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

或者與我們所制定的是否類似？

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

當然，我們要面對的其中一個問題，又是氣候變遷。

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

我知道很多人都不認為我們應該這麼做。

We should also do climate change,

我們應該單單處理好氣候變遷的問題，

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

因為這是個影響深遠的問題。

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

不過我們也不會解決所有的問題。

There are many problems out there in the world.

世界上有太多的問題了

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

我想要確定的是，如果我們專注在問題上，

that we focus on the right ones.

高過專注在對的問題上，

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

就是那些可以讓我們得到重要成效而不只是無關痛癢的問題，

And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling,

我們夢幻隊伍中的成員，

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

湯瑪斯謝琳說得非常好，他指出，

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

人們常常忘記一百年後

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

當我們討論氣候變遷所帶來的巨大影響時，

people will be much, much richer.

人們會比現在富有很多。

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

即使是聯合國最不樂觀的預測，

estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100

在二一零零年時，發展中國家的人最差的時候

will be about as rich as we are today.

也和我們現在一樣富有。

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

很有可能的是，他們要比我們現在富有兩到四倍。

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

當然，到時我們也會比現在更富有。

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

我要說的是，當我們說要在二一零零年，

or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100,

幫助孟加拉人民時，

we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi.

我們面對的不是一個窮困的孟加拉，

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

而是一個挺富有的荷蘭人

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

追根究底來說，

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

我們是否真的想花一大筆錢，去幫助一位

100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy?

一百年後相當富有的荷蘭人？

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

還是我們現在幫助那些窮困的孟加拉人民

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

而所花費的不需太龐大的代價？

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

或者如同Schelling所說，想像自己到了2100年

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

是個有錢的中國人，波利維亞人，或者是剛果人，

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

當你回想2005年時你會說，"為何他們會這麼在意

about helping me a little bit through climate change,

幫助應付氣候變遷上的事，

and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather

卻不在意幫助我的祖父，

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

和我的曾祖父，即使他們能夠做的

and who needed the help so much more?"

是那麼那麼的多？

So I think that really does tell us why it is

所以我認為這正說明了

we need to get our priorities straight.

為何正確地制定優先順序是如此重要。

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

雖然這和我們一般看這問題的角度不同。

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

當然，主要原因是氣候變遷有許多闡述方式

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

我們有像［明天以後］的電影，看起來挺棒的，不是麼?

It's a good film in the sense that

那是部好電影，

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

會讓我想去欣賞，但別期待Emmerich

to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie

會找布萊特彼特出現在他下一部戲中。

digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter)

在坦桑尼亞挖廁所之類的（笑聲）

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

因為那沒什麼票房可言。

So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus

所以從許多方面來看，我認為哥本哈根共識

and the whole discussion of priorities

與整個關於優先次序的討論

as a defense for boring problems.

只是對於沉悶問題的辯解罷了。

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

為了確保我們意識到不是要做些自我感覺良好的事，

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

也不是要做吸引媒體注意力的事，

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

而是去做最能帶來果效的事。

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

我在想，另外的反對聲音是需要注意到的，

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

就是我－或者我們有時候會提出假象的選擇。

Of course, we should do all things,

當然，我們應當做所有的事，

in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree.

尤其是在一個理想的世界裡－我是絕對同意。

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

我們該做所有的事，但事實上並沒有。

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

在七十年代，已開發國家估計我們所花費的成本

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

是現在實際上花費在開發中國家的兩倍。

Since then our aid has halved.

從那時以來，我們所援助的金額減了一半。

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

由此可見，我們現在走的方向，

of suddenly solving all big problems.

不會馬上解決所有重大問題。

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

同樣的，有人會問，那美伊戰爭呢?

You know, we spend 100 billion dollars --

我們已為了這戰爭花費了一千億美元，

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

為何不用這筆錢為世界做些好事？

I'm all for that.

這點我全力支持

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

如果你們其中有人能說服布希那樣做，那最好。

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

但我的論點仍然是，

if you get another 100 billion dollars,

如果有額外的一千億美元，

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

我們仍想把這筆錢做最好的運用，是吧？

So the real issue here is to get ourselves back

所以最重要的問題是，我們重新回頭想想，

and think about what are the right priorities.

哪些是正確的優先制序。

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

還有一點我要說的，是這張清單是否訂定的夠正確?

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

當我們找來世界上頂尖的經濟學家，

you inevitably end up asking old, white American men.

不可避免找來的都是些有點年紀的美國白人，

And they're not necessarily, you know,

然而他們並不一定能提供

great ways of looking at the entire world.

觀察這個世界的最好方法。

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

所以我們從世界各地邀請來了八十位年輕人，

to come and solve the same problem.

邀請他們解決相同的問題。

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

他們只需符合兩個條件：大學生

and they spoke English.

並懂英文

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

大多數的從開發中國家來的人

They had all the same material but they could go vastly

他們都有相同的資訊

outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did,

在討論時有寬廣的思考空間，也都這麼做了

to come up with their own lists.

提出他們自己的清單

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

令人驚訝的是這些清單的雷同之處

with malnutrition and diseases at the top

饑荒與疾病為當務之急

and climate change at the bottom.

氣候變遷是最不重要的

We've done this many other times.

我們嘗試了很多次

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

經過許多論壇與大學生的討論

They all come out with very much the same list.

大家都有著類似的清單

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

這給我很大的希望，真的，我衷心相信

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

是有這麼一條路引領我們開始好好思考優先順序

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

並問：什麼是世界上最重要的事？

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

當然在一個裡想的世界裡，我們希望做所有的事

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

但如果我們不做，仍可以開始思考從哪裡先做起？

I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process.

哥本哈根協議是個過程

We did it in 2004,

2004年我們做到了

and we hope to assemble many more people,

並希望結合更多的人

getting much better information for 2008, 2012.

為2008, 2012年匯集更多的資訊

Map out the right path for the world --

鋪陳出一條對世界有益的路

but also to start thinking about political triage.

並開始思考政治上的分類

To start thinking about saying, "Let's do

思考並提倡"就去做"

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

而不是做一些小事卻得付出極大的代價

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

也不是那些我們不知如何去做的事

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

而是，就從現在，

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

用最小的成本去做很多很棒的好事。

At the end of the day, you can disagree

到了最後，你可以不同意

with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these,

我們所討論的制定優先秩序的事情

but we have to be honest and frank about saying,

但我們必須坦誠佈公的說

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

如果有我們能做的事，也有我們不能做的事

If we worry too much about some things,

如果我們為某些事情太煩憂

we end by not worrying about other things.

最後會忘了其他事

So I hope this will help us make better priorities,

希望這能夠幫助我們做出更好的選擇

and think about how we better work for the world.

並想想怎麼讓世界更好

Thank you.

謝謝