Copenhagen, 14 May  –   Under the auspices of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a gathering of 60+ prominent economists — including four Nobel Laureates — has produced a ranking of the best investments that are likely to deliver the biggest bang for the buck in terms of improving the lives of the world’s poorest people.

Bjørn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, remarked: “It may not sound sexy, but solving the problems of diarrhoea, worms and malnutrition will do good for more of the world’s poor than other more grandiose interventions. That is the conclusion of some of the world’s brightest minds, who came together for this year’s Copenhagen Consensus. If the world’s policymakers and humanitarian charities were to reorient their priorities around adopting these and other smart solutions, the world would be a better place.”

The economists evaluated how the world could prioritise the spending of $75 billion – a 15% increase on current aid spending – on issues such as chronic and infectious diseases, armed conflict, biodiversity, climate change, hunger and malnutrition, among others.

Lomborg explained how this applies to one specific priority, that of improving agricultural output.* Lomborg said “Spending two billion dollars annually to make more productive crops would generate global returns of much more than 1600 percent. Not only would it reduce hunger, but through better nutrition, make children smarter, better educated, higher paid and hence break the cycle of poverty. At the same time, higher agricultural productivity means humanity will cut down fewer forests, for the benefit of both biodiversity and earth’s climate.”

Lomborg concluded, “We live in a world constrained by scarce resources. This year’s Copenhagen Consensus shows how we can achieve the most good today, and tomorrow, by prioritising our spending on the world’s most pressing issues.”

ENDS

* Immediately following are Copenhagen Consensus 2012 rankings combined with detailed information from the background research papers. The Copenhagen Consensus 2012 priority list, in order of ranking, is included at the end.  Background research papers are available at  http://tinyurl.com/cc12-research

Copenhagen Consensus 2012 Ranking  combined with information from background research papers

CC12 RANKING	Challenge / Priority	Expenditure	Benefit for each dollar spent
1	Fighting Malnutrition Today, more than 100 million children start their lives with inadequate nutrition, impairing their mental abilities and causing physical defects. To provide both short- and long-term benefits, this sum of money would provide micronutrients, complementary foods, treatments for wormsand diarrhoeal diseases, and behaviour change programs. This would reduce chronic under-nutrition by 36 per cent in developing countries. It would also improve cognitive functions, increase learning and in adulthood increase incomes 24%.	$ 3 billion annually	Each dollar spent reducing chronic undernutrition has more than a $30 payoff
2	Malaria medicines These funds would prevent 300,000 child deaths if used to extend the Global Fund’s Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria financing mechanism that makes combination therapies cheaper for poor countries. This approach also safeguards the most effective malaria drug for the future. Later in 2012, donors will decide whether to renew this facility; the Copenhagen Consensus findings add to the case for them to do so.	$300 million	Each dollar spent generates $35 of benefits
3	Expanded childhood immunisation coverage Spending $1 billion annually would save one million children.	$1 billion	The benefits would be 20 times higher than the costs
4	De-worming treatments for children This sum could treat 300 million children to rid them of parasitic intestinal worms, which are detrimental to their wellbeing.  Free of these parasites, children would be more nourished, more alert, likely to stay in school longer and generate more income as adults.	$300 million	Each dollar spent generates at least $10 of benefits
5	Expand tuberculosis treatment Spending $1.5 billion annually would spare one million adults from death.	$1.5 billion	Each dollar spent would generate $15 of benefits

6	Increase agricultural output / yield enhancements By increasing investment in agricultural R&D, this solution potentially could yield many benefits to both people and the environment.  Not only would it reduce hunger by increasing food production and reducing food prices, but also it would protect more biodiversity by reducing the need for forest land to be converted into agricultural land. Simultaneously, it would help in the fight against climate change, because forests lock up carbon.	$ 2 billion annually	For R&D, each dollar spent would have at least $16 return.
7	Early warning system for natural disasters For less than $1 billion a year, the establishment of effective early warning systems for natural disasters in developing countries could alleviate the disaster damage and avoid long-term economic damage resulting from catastrophes.	Less than $1 billion annually	Each dollar would give up to $35 of benefits, directly and indirectly
9	Hepatitis B vaccine Hepatitis B falls in the category of chronic diseases, which increasingly affect people in the developing world as their lifespan improves.  Hepatitis B is the major cause of liver cancer worldwide. For $122 million, we could achieve global coverage and avoid 150,000 deaths.	$122 million	Each dollar spent generates $10 of benefits
10	Low cost heart attack drugs If these medicines were more widely available in developing countries, up to up to 300,000 heart-attack deaths could be prevented each year.	$200 million	Each dollar spent would generate $25 of benefits
12	Investigate the feasibility of planetary cooling through geo-engineering technologies This would serve to better understand the technology’s risks, costs, and benefits, but also act as an important potential insurance against global warming.	Appx $1 billion annually	A rough estimate is that each dollar spent could yield $1,000 of benefits
14	R&D for HIV/AIDS vaccine The AIDS epidemic which threatens every aspect of development for dozens of countries. A vaccine would be the ultimate preventative tool.	$100 million	Each dollar spent would generate more than $11 of benefits

Copenhagen Consensus 2012 Priority Ranking

1	Bundled Micro-Nutrient Interventions	Hunger & Education
2	Subsidy for Malaria Combination Treatment	Infectious Disease
3	Expanded Childhood Immunization Coverage	Infectious Disease
4	Deworming of Schoolchildren	Infectious Disease
5	Expanding Tuberculosis Treatment	Infectious Disease
6	R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements	Hunger, Education & Climate
7	Investing in Effective Early Warning Systems	Natural Disasters
8	Strengthening Surgical Capacity	Infectious Disease
9	Hepatitis B Immunization	Chronic Disease
10	Acute Heart Attack Low ]Cost Drugs	Chronic Disease
11	Salt Reduction Campaign	Chronic Disease
12	Geo ]Engineering R&D	Climate Change
13	Conditional Cash Transfers for School Attendance	Education
14	Accelerated HIV Vaccine R&D	Infectious Disease
15	Information Campaign on Benefits From Schooling	Education
16	Borehole and Public Hand Pump Intervention	Water & Sanitation
17	Increased Funding for Green Energy R&D	Climate Change
18	Increase Availability of Family Planning	Population Growth
19	Heart Attack Risk Reduction Generic Pill	Chronic Disease
20	Community Led Total Sanitation	Water & Sanitation
21	Sanitation as a Business	Water & Sanitation
22	Increasing Tobacco Taxation	Chronic Disease
23	Community Walls Against Floods	Natural Disasters
24	The Reinvented Toilet	Water & Sanitation
25	Protecting All Forests	Biodiversity
26	Retrofitting Schools to Withstand Earthquake Damage	Natural Disasters
27	Crop Advisory Text Messages	Hunger
28	Extension of Protected Areas	Biodiversity
29	Strengthening Structures Against Hurricanes and Storms	Natural Disasters
30	Elevating Residential Structures to Avoid Flooding	Natural Disasters

By Bjørn Lomborg

COPENHAGEN—This decade has seen remarkable progress against humanity’s greatest challenges. Consider the declaration of victory over polio in India, which seemed impossible 10 years ago. January marked one year since the country’s last reported case. Or look at the strides made against malaria: Over the past decade, the number of cases has been reduced by 17 percent, and the number of deaths has dropped by 26 percent.

Despite global population growth and economic crisis, absolute poverty—the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day—is falling in every region of the world. In fact, the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty in half has been achieved five years ahead of time.

Just a few years ago, the use of male circumcision as a tool in the fight against HIV/AIDS was largely unknown. Today, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization recommend it as a means to combat HIV/AIDS, and more than 10 African countries are implementing strategies to increase its availability. Similarly, the concept of using geoengineering to respond to climate change has moved from science fiction to an area of serious research.

But, while the last decade has given much reason for cheer, there are areas in which we cannot claim such success. Climate change has emerged as one of the most talked-about problems, yet global negotiations have fallen apart, and we are barely any closer to cutting carbon emissions than we were 10years ago.

Similarly, violent conflicts continue to take a toll that is far too high. And, while the world met the Millennium Development Goal for providing clean drinking water five years early, the provision of sanitation has fallen behind: An astonishing one-third of the world’s population, 2.5 billion people, lack access to basic sanitation, and more than 1 billion people defecate in the open.

Other problems have emerged and grown over the decade. If current patterns continue, tobacco use may account for some 10 million deaths per year by 2030, with most occurring in low- and middle-income countries: We might see roughly 1 billion tobacco-related deaths in this century, compared to 100 million in the 20th century. Cardiovascular diseases account for 13 million deaths in low- and middle-income countries each year, more than a quarter of the entire death toll, and risk factors are growing.

The state of challenges facing humanity changes rapidly. So does our knowledge of how best to respond. Policymakers and philanthropists need access to regularly updated information on how to use limited funds effectively.

The Copenhagen Consensus project, which I direct, provides a link between academic research and concrete economic analysis that can be used by decision-makers in the real world. Every four years, researchers and Nobel laureates work to identify the smartest responses to the biggest problems facing humanity.

In 2004, the Copenhagen Consensus highlighted the need to prioritize measures to control and treat HIV/AIDS. More money and attention was soon devoted to HIV prevention and treatment. In 2008, the Copenhagen Consensus focused the attention of policymakers and philanthropists on investments in micronutrient provision. Public acceptance of this idea led to an increase in efforts to reduce “hidden hunger”— that is, people suffering from not getting the nutrients that they need.

This May, more than 30 Nobel laureates and researchers will work together once again to identify the smartest ways to respond to global challenges, based on the latest information about the toughest problems facing our world.

Since 2008, the global economic crisis has made it even more necessary to ensure that development and aid spending is used wisely, where it can make the biggest difference. The Copenhagen Consensus project carries out the difficult task of comparing one set of initiatives with another by using fundamental economic tools and principles.

First, teams of world-renowned expert economists write research papers on the costs and benefits of a range of investments that address specific challenges. Debate and discussion is encouraged by ensuring that three papers are written for each topic, so that a range of expert opinions is available. This provides a framework with which we can see the full price tag, incorporating all of the costs, benefits, and spin-offs to society from using a limited amount of money in a particular way.

All of this research constitutes a valuable contribution to international development and aid policy. But the project goes a step further. A panel of the world’s top economists—including four Nobel laureates—test and debate the experts’ recommendations, and identify the most attractive possibilities. Alongside the research papers, the Nobel laureates’ prioritized list provides an important input for policymakers and philanthropists.

While the past decade has witnessed much progress and reason for hope, there are still many important problems to tackle: malnutrition, sanitation, education, civil conflicts, climate change, and natural disasters, to name some of the most prominent.

But are the most prominent problems necessarily those that we should addressimmediately? The research and the prioritized list make us consider the reasons for our current priorities, and challenge us to spend limited resources to do the most good first. And what are the best things to do first?

Slate readers will have an opportunity to answer this question themselves. Over the next two weeks, I will summarize each of the 10 key research papers for Copenhagen Consensus 2012.

In each of the 10 articles, published on the day that each research paper is released to the public, I will outline the latest thinking on the smartest ways to respond to one global challenge.  I will ask Slate readers, each day, for your views about that day’s choices. Would you rather policy-makers prioritized efforts to improve agricultural output, for example, or that they invested more in micronutrient interventions in developing countries?

At the end of two weeks, I’ll provide you with the findings from the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 expert panel of Nobel Laureates, and contrast their priorities with those from Slate. We will discover what investments Slate readers would prioritize to continue to make rapid progress against the planet’s biggest challenges.

Next month, May 7-10, we will see the third global Copenhagen Consensus where we bring together more than 60 world class economists presenting smart solutions to the world’s biggest challenges, ranging from malnutrition to education, civil wars to climate change and natural disasters to free trade. A top panel including 4 Nobel Laureates will examine the costs and benefits of the smartest solutions and conclude with a list of the world’s best investments for the coming years.

In Dr. Lomborg’s new Project Syndicate column, he shows us why such a priority setting is more needed than ever.

You can read more about the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 conference here.

By Bjørn Lomborg

COPENHAGEN – This decade has seen remarkable progress against humanity’s greatest challenges. Consider the declaration of victory over polio in India, which seemed impossible ten years ago. January marked one year since the country’s last reported case. Or look at the strides made against malaria: over the past decade, the number of cases has been reduced by 17%, and the number of deaths has dropped by 26%.

Despite global population growth and economic crisis, absolute poverty – the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day – is falling in every region of the world. In fact, the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty in half has been achieved five years ahead of time.

Just a few years ago, the use of male circumcision as a tool in the fight against HIV/AIDS was largely unknown. Today, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization recommend it as a means to combat HIV/AIDS, and more than ten African countries are implementing strategies to increase its availability. Similarly, the concept of using geo-engineering to respond to climate change has moved from science fiction to an area of serious research.

This decade has also witnessed a 60% increase in global development aid. Bill Gates’s Giving Pledge challenge has graduated from concept to campaign, with at least $125 billion promised to good causes.

But, while the last decade has given much reason for cheer, there are areas in which we cannot claim such success. Climate change has emerged as one of the most talked-about problems, yet global negotiations have fallen apart, and we are barely any closer to cutting carbon emissions than we were ten years ago.

Similarly, violent conflicts continue to take a toll that is far too high. And, while the world met the Millennium Development Goal for providing clean drinking water five years early, the provision of sanitation has fallen behind: an astonishing one-third of the world’s population, 2.5 billion people, lack access to basic sanitation, and more than one billion people defecate in the open.

Other problems have emerged and grown over the decade. If current patterns continue, tobacco use may account for some 10 million deaths per year by 2030, with most occurring in low- and middle-income countries: we might see roughly one billion tobacco-related deaths in this century, compared to 100 million in the twentieth century. Cardiovascular diseases account for 13 million deaths in low- and middle-income countries each year, more than a quarter of the entire death toll, and risk factors are growing.

The state of challenges facing humanity changes rapidly. So does our knowledge of how best to respond. Policymakers and philanthropists need access to regularly updated information on how to use limited funds effectively.

The Copenhagen Consensus project, which I direct, provides a link between academic research and concrete economic analysis that can be used by decision-makers in the real world. Every four years, researchers and Nobel laureates work to identify the smartest responses to the biggest problems facing humanity.

In 2004, the Copenhagen Consensus highlighted the need to prioritize measures to control and treat HIV/AIDS. More money and attention was soon devoted to HIV prevention and treatment. In 2008, the Copenhagen Consensus focused the attention of policymakers and philanthropists on investments in micronutrient provision. Public acceptance of this idea led to an increase in efforts to reduce “hidden hunger” – that is, people suffering from not getting the nutrients that they need.

This May, more than 30 Nobel laureates and researchers will work together once again to identify the smartest ways to respond to global challenges, based on the latest information about the toughest problems facing our world.

Since 2008, the global economic crisis has made it even more necessary to ensure that development and aid spending is used wisely, where it can make the biggest difference. The Copenhagen Consensus project carries out the difficult task of comparing one set of initiatives with another by using fundamental economic tools and principles.

First, teams of world-renowned expert economists write research papers on the costs and benefits of a range of investments that address specific challenges. Debate and discussion is encouraged by ensuring that three papers are written for each topic, so that a range of expert opinions is available.

This provides a framework with which we can see the full price tag, incorporating all of the costs, benefits, and spin-offs to society from using a limited amount of money in a particular way.

All of this research constitutes a valuable contribution to international development and aid policy. But the project goes a step further. A panel of the world’s top economists – including four Nobel laureates – test and debate the experts’ recommendations, and identify the most attractive possibilities. Alongside the research papers, the Nobel laureates’ prioritized list provides an important input for policymakers and philanthropists.

While the past decade has witnessed much progress and reason for hope, there are still many important problems to tackle: malnutrition, sanitation, education, civil conflicts, climate change, and natural disasters, to name some of the most prominent.

But are the most prominent problems necessarily those that we should address immediately? The research and the prioritized list make us consider the reasons for our current priorities, and challenge us to spend limited resources to do the most good first. And what are the best things to do first? We find out in May.

To find out more about OMEGA you can read about the project at: http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/nasas-omega-scientist-dr-jonathan-trent/

Check here for Lomborg’s most recent op-ed: Gone With the Wind, which discusses the price of wind energy with a focus on the UK.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/gone-with-the-wind

Order or rent your copy of Cool It now to learn what YOU can do!http://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/cool-it/id416396614

Buy or rent Cool It now to know what everyone is buzzing about just in time for Earth Day! http://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/cool-it/id416396614

Order or rent your copy of Cool It now on itunes!  http://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/cool-it/id416396614

Mt. Tambora, more commonly known as “The World’s Deadliest Volcano” is believed to be stirring up again.  The Indonesian volcano is known for the world’s largest recorded volcano blast back in 1815, where it erupted more than 35 cubic tons of volcanic ash into the air as far as the stratosphere. Compare that to Mount St. Helens which erupted 0.25 cubic tons of debris in 1980.

Here’s a quote from an article on PlanetSave.com.

Climate Change from Mount Tambora

After the 1815 eruption, the world temperatue dropped a lot, as the volcanic ash rose all the way up to the stratosphere (140,000 feet or 43 kilometers, in total) and spread — “ a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil remained for years, dimming the sunlight everywhere.” The global temperature the next summer was 0.5 degrees Celsius lower than average (if you believe climate scientists, of course — and why wouldn’t you). For anyone who doesn’t follow climate science discussions, a change in the climate of 0.5 degress Celsius is significant.

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/13j5X)

A change of 0.5 degrees Celsius or almost 1 degree Fahrenheit is an average over the entire planet.  That may not seem like a lot, but as an average over the entire globe it is significant. In 1816, it was powerful enough to create “The Year Without a Summer.” Mount Pinatubo, in the Phillipines had a similar effect in 1991.

As a comparison, models show that if countries acted on the Kyoto Protocol spending trillions of dollars over the rest of the century as the UN sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) recommends we would lower the temperature of the planet by less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. We can spend a lot of money changing the climate very little over 100 years. A volcanic eruption of the nature of Tembora or Pinatubo could essentially have that effect in a long weekend.

Watch Cool It to see more about how to spend our resources wisely and how geo engineering is attempting to recreate the effects of a volcanic eruption or how marine cloud whitening can whiten clouds as a possible emergency response to the risk of rapid climate change.