I thought that the change I voted for was going to prioritize a more rational and facts-based approach to addressing the major issues of our times. I thought that we actually were going to start to abandon our top-down, failed-from-the-start approaches to helping the poorest and to start “exploring” new approaches that might actually work.
Bjorn Lomborg leads the Copenhagen Consensus Center (Facebook page), a think-tank that recommends to governments and philanthropists around the world about the best ways to spend aid and development money … based on primary research and the consensus opinion of a lot of smart people who look at the data. Bjorn thinks that climate change is a major issue and he thinks we’re thinking about it all the wrong way.
In an op-ed piece today, he argues “Investing in energy R&D might work. Mandated emissions cuts (haven’t and) won’t.”
What is an example of a better investment?
Focusing on investments to reduce the at-risk malaria population (mosquito nets, environmentally safe indoor DDT sprays and new therapies) would save 78,000 times more lives than the same money spent on climate change.
Some more Bang for the Buck recommendations.
If you have an open mind to hear a perspective not getting the media attention in Copenhagen this week, I highly recommend that you read Bjorn’s article.
Please post your thoughts in comments about what you think of Bjorn’s thoughts and reasonings.
Extensive book reviews of some of the most interesting and controversial books on addressing global poverty.
Twitter: 
Facebook: 
