What I'd like to talk about is really the biggest problems in the world. I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" -- probably that's also a good choice. (Laughter)
Do que me gustaría falar é dos problemas máis grandes do mundo. Non vou falar de "O ecoloxista escéptico" -- probablemente iso tamén é unha boa opción. (Riso)
But I am going talk about: what are the big problems in the world? And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you to try and get out pen and paper because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that. So get out your pen and paper. Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world. I'm just going to list some of them. There are 800 million people starving. There's a billion people without clean drinking water. Two billion people without sanitation. There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS. The lists go on and on. There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on. There are many, many problems out there.
Senón que vou falar de ¿cales son os grandes problemas do mundo? E debo dicir, antes de continuar, pediríavos a cada un de vos que collades lápiz e papel porque vouvos pedir que me axudedes a ver como o facemos. Así que collede lápiz e papel. A fin de contas, hai un montón de problemas no mundo de aí fora. Eu vou listar só algúns. 800 millóns de persoas pasan fame. Mil millóns de persoas non teñen acceso a auga potable. Dous mil millóns sen saneamento. Varios millóns de persoas morren de VIH e SIDA. As listas continúan. Dous mil millóns de persoas que se verán seriamente afectados pola mudanza climática -- e sigue. Temos moitos, moitos problemas aí afora.
In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't. We don't actually solve all problems. And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves -- and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say, if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves, which ones should we solve first? And that's the question I'd like to ask you. If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend to do good in this world, where should we spend it? We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world, and I will just briefly read them: climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, population migration, sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers. We believe that these in many ways encompass the biggest problems in the world. The obvious question would be to ask, what do you think are the biggest things? Where should we start on solving these problems? But that's a wrong problem to ask. That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.
Nun mundo ideal, os resolveríamos todos, pero non o facemos. A verdade é que non resolvemos todos os problemas. E se non o facemos, a pregunta que penso que nos deberíamos facer -- e ese é o motivo polo que estamos na sesión de economía -- é dicir, se non facemos todo, realmente temos que comezar a nos preguntar, que problemas deberíamos resolver primeiro? Esa é a pregunta que me gustaría preguntarvos. Se tivesemos digamos, 50 mil millóns de dolares para gastar nos próximos catro anos para mellorar este mundo, ¿en que os deberíamos gastar? Identificamos 10 dos retos máis grandes do mundo. e simplemente os lerei. Mudanza climática, enfermedades contaxiosas, conflictos, educación, inestabilidade financeira, gobernanza e corrupción, malnutrición e fame, movementos migratorios, saneamento e auga, e subsidios e barreiras ao comercio. Pensamos que estes, de moitas formas, abarcan os maiores problemas do mundo. A cuestión obvia sería preguntármonos, cales pensas que son os maiores? Por onde deberíamos comezar a resolver estes problemas? Pero iso é preguntarse sobre un problema erróneo En realidade, ese foi o porblema do que se falou en Davos en Xaneiro.
But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems. Because we can't solve problems. Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die. But we don't have a technology to solve that, right? So the point is not to prioritize problems, but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems. And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated. To climate change that would be like Kyoto. To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets. To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on. The point that I would like to ask you to try to do, is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense an impossible task -- write down what you think is probably some of the top priorities. And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil -- to put down what are the things we should not do, first. What should be at the bottom of the list? Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor, and just figure out what should be the top priorities and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have to the world's biggest issues.
Pero naturalmetne, hai un problema se lle pides á xente que se centre nos problemas. Porque non podemos solucionar problemas. Seguramente que o maior dos problemas que temos no mundo é que todos morremos. Pero non temos a tecnoloxía para resolver iso, temos? Así que a cuestión non é priorizar os problemas, senon priorizar as solucións aos problemas. E xa estaría -- naturalmente que se fai un pouco máis complicado. Para a mudanza climática, sería algo como Kyoto. Para enfermidades contaxiosas, poderían ser clínicas ou redes para os mosquitos. Para os conflictos, serían as forzas de paz da ONU, e así poderíamos continuar. O que me gustaría pedirvos que tentásedes facer, e que en 30 segundos -- e sei que dalgunha maneira é algo imposible -- escribades o que pensades que son as máximas prioridades. E tamén -- en aquí é, naturalmente, onde a economía se volve cativa -- anotade o que non deberíamos facer en primeiro lugar. Qué debería estar ó final da lista? Por favor, tomade simplemente 30 segundos, quizáis falade coa xente aredor, e simplemente imaxinade cales deberían ser as principais prioridades e as menos prioritarias das solucións que temos para os maiores problemas do mundo.
The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean, I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes, I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right? I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process, and that's actually what we did. And I also strongly encourage you, and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards, to think about, how do we actually prioritize? Of course, you have to ask yourself, why on Earth was such a list never done before? And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable. Nobody wants to do this. Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list. But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list. And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense not to want to do such a list. We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years, yet we've never actually made a fundamental list of all the big things that we can do in the world, and said, which of them should we do first? So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing -- any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing, if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good as if we actually did the prioritization, and went in and talked about it.
O sorprendente deste proceso -- por suposto, quero dicir, me encantaría -- só teño 18 minutos Xa vos din unha importante cantidade do meu tempo, non? Me gustaría profundizar, e facervos pensar acerca deste proceso, e iso é o que en realidade fixemos. E tamén os recomendo enormemente, e estou seguro de que tamén teremos estas discusións despois, para pensar, como é que priorizamos realmente? Dende logo, hai que se preguntar a un mesmo, por que nunca se ten feito unha lista como esta antes? E unha razón é que a priorización é incríblemente incómoda. Ninguén o quere facer. Por suposto, todas as organizacións quererían estar no máis alto dunha lista como esa. Pero tamén todas as organizacíons detestarían non estar no máis alto. E xa que hai moitos máis "non números ún" que números un, é lóxico non querer unha lista como esta. Hai 60 anos que existe a ONU, e todavía non se ten feito unha lista básica das grandes cousas que podemos facer no mundo, e dito, cales deberíamos facer primeiro? Isto non significa que non esteamos a priorirzar -- cada decisión é unha priorización, así que a pesar de todo estamos a priorizar aínda que só sexa implícitamente -- e iso non é probable que sexa tan bo como se realmente fixeramos a priorización, e fosemos e falasemos diso.
So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have, for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices. There are many, many things we can do out there, but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes. We have not had an idea. Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card, but you have no idea what the price is. You know, you have a pizza; you've no idea what the price is. It could be at one dollar; it could be 1,000 dollars. It could be a family-size pizza; it could be a very individual-size pizza, right? We'd like to know these things.
Así que o que estou a propoñer é realmente dicir que tivemos, por un periodo moi largo de tempo, unha situación na que existían múltiples opcións. Hai moitas, moitas cousas que podemos facer aí fora, pero non tivemos os prezos, nin os tamaños. Non tivemos unha idea. Imaxina que entras nun restaurante e tes unha carta enorme, pero non sabes cales son os prezos. Sabes que tes pizza, pero non sabes canto custa. Podería ser un dolar, poderían ser 1.000 dólares. Podería ser unha pizza familiar. Podería ser unha pizza individual, non? Quereríamos saber estas cousas.
And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do -- to try to put prices on these issues. And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process. We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area. So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change. What can we do? What will be the cost and what will be the benefit of that? Likewise in communicable diseases. Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do? What would be the price? What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome? And so on.
E iso é o que está a tratar de facer o Consenso de Copenhaguen -- trata de poñer os prezos destes temas. E así, basicamente, este foi o proceso do Consenso de Copenhaguen. Xuntamos 30 dos mellores economistas do mundo, tres de cada área. De modo que tivesemos tres dos mellores economistas do planeta escribindo acerca de mudanza climática. Qué podemos facer? Cal será o seu custo? E cal o beneficio de facelo? O mesmo con enfermidades contaxiosas. Tres dos mellores expertos dicindo, que podemos facer? Cal será o prezo? Que deberíamos facer acerca diso, e cal sería o resultado? E así en diante.
Then we had some of the world's top economists, eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates, meet in Copenhagen in May 2004. We called them the "dream team." The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them the Real Madrid of economics. That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here. And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list. And then you ask, why economists? And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) -- because that's a very good question. The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria, you ask a malaria expert. If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first, you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do. That is what economists do. They prioritize. They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first, and which one should we do afterwards?
Entón collemos a algúns dos mellores economistas mundiais, oito dos mellores economistas do mundo, incluíndo tres Premios Nóbel, xuntáronse en Copenhaguen en Maio de 2004. Os chamamos o "dream team". Os prefectos da Universidad de Cambridge decidiron chamalos o Real Madrid da economía. Eso funciona moi ben en Europa, pero aquí non tanto. E, básicamente o que fixeron, foi acadar unha lista priorizada. E entón vos preguntaredes, por que economistas? E naturalmente, estou moi contento de que me fixerades esa pregunta -- (risas) -- porque é unha pregunta moi boa. O tema é que, obviamente, se queres saber de malaria, preguntas a un experto sobre a malaria. Se queres saber sobre o clima, preguntas a un climatólogo. Pero se queres saber cal dos dous debes resolver primeiro, non podes preguntarlle a ningún dos dous, porque iso no é o que fan. Iso é o que fan os economistas. Priorizan. Fan esa tarea algo desagradable de dicir, que debemos facer primeiro, e que debemos facer despois.
So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you. Of course, you can also see it on the website, and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on. They basically came up with a list where they said there were bad projects -- basically, projects where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back. Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects. And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing. I'm going to go from backwards so that we end up with the best projects.
Así que esta é a lista, e esta é a lista que querería compartir convosco. Claro que tamén a podedes ver na web, e estou certo de que tamén falaremos disto conforme avance o día. Básicamente elaboraron unha lista na que dicían que había malos proxectos -- básicamente, proxectos onde invistes un dolar, e recibes menos dun dolar como resultado. Despois estaban os proxectos axeitados, os bos e os mois bos. E naturalmente, son os proxectos moi bos os que deberíamos comezar por facer. Vou comezar dende o último de modo que podamos rematar cos mellores proxectos.
These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn't come back, either. And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious. Why is it it came up? And I'll actually also try to get back to this because it's probably one of the things that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.
Estes foron os malos. Como podedes ver ó final da lista está a mudanza climática. Isto ofende a moita xente, e iso é probablemente unha das cousas sobre as que a xente dirá que non debería regresar. E me gustaría falar sobre iso, porque é realmente curioso. Por que apareceu? E a verdade, tamén tentarei falar de novo disto porque é probablemente unha das cousas nas que non estaremos de acordo coas listas que vos escribístedes.
The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto -- or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal is simply because it's very inefficient. It's not saying that global warming is not happening. It's not saying that it's not a big problem. But it's saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That's a substantial amount of money. That's two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we've spent a lot of money doing a little good.
A razón pola que resultou que dixeron isto é que Kyoto -- ou facer algo máis que Kyoto -- non é un bo negocio simplemente porque é moi ineficiente. Non é dicir que non existe o quecemento global. Non é dicir que non é un grande problema. Pero é dicir que o que nos podemos facer por elo é moi pouco, a un custo moi elevado. O que básicamente nos mostran, a media de todos os modelos macroeconómicos. e que Kyoto, se todo o mundo estivese de acordo, costaría uns 150 mil millóns de dolares ao ano. Iso é unha importante cantidade de diñeiro. Dúas ou tres veces a axuda global ao desenvolvemento que adicamos ao Terceiro Mundo cada ano. E para facer moi pouco ben. Todos os modelos mostran que posporá o aquecemento uns seis anos cara o 2100. Así que un tipo en Bangladesh que vaia sufrir unha inundación no 2100 pode agardar ata 2106. O que está algo ben, pero non moi ben. Así que a idea e dicir, ben, gastamos unha morea de cartos facendo algo de ben.
And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It's not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't want to do it. But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.
E simplemente por dar unha referencia, a ONU estima que pola metade desa cantidade, uns 75 mil millóns de dólares ao ano, poderíamos solucionar todos os principais problemas básicos do mundo. Poderíamos dar auga limpa, saneamento, sanidade básica e educación a todos os seres humanos do planeta. Así que deberíamos preguntármonos, queremos gastar o dobre en facer moi pouco ben? Ou a metade facendo algo increíblemente bo? E é aí onde se transforma nun mal proxecto. Non é dicir que si tivesemos todo o diñeiro do mundo, non o quereríamos facer. Senon, que cando non o temos, simplemente non é a nosa primeira prioridade.
The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these -- but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it, simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing. It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly. Again, what it tells us is suddenly we start thinking about both sides of the equation. If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in. Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important, but it also costs a lot of infrastructure. So I'd like to show you the top four priorities which should be at least the first ones that we deal with when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.
Os proxectos axeitados -- non vou comentar todos -- pero enfermidades contaxiosas, escala de servizos básicos sanitarios -- o son por pouco, simplemente porque, sí, a escala de servizos básicos de saúde é unha grande cousa. Faría moito ben, pero tamén e moi, pero que moi costosa. Unha vez máis, o que nos dí e de repente comezamos a pensar nos dous lados da ecuación. Se mirades os bos proxectos, aparecen un montón de proxectos de saneamento. Unha vez máis, o saneamento e a auga é incríblemente importante, pero tamén custa moita infraestrutura. Así que vos vou mostrar as catro máximas prioridades que deberían ser, cando menos, as primeiras que solucionar cando falamos de como deberíamos solucionar os problemas do mundo.
The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria. The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year. It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP every year for affected nations. If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years, we could bring that incidence down to half. We could avoid about 500,000 people dying, but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a [million] people getting infected every year. We would significantly increase their ability to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with -- of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.
O cuarto maior probelma é a malaria -- tratar a malaria. A incidencia da malaria é de sobre un par de millóns de persoas infectadas cada ano. Podería incluso costar un punto porcentual do PIB ao ano para as nacións afectadas. Se investísemos uns 13 mil millóns de dólares nos próximos catro anos, poderíamos reducir a incidencia á metade. Poderíamos evitar a morte dunhas 500.000 persoas, pero o que quizáis é máis importante, poderíamos evitar que mil millóns de persoas se infectasen cada ano. Incrementaríamos significativamenta a súa capacidade para tratar moitos dos outros problemas que teñen que afrontar. Naturalmente, no longo prazo, tamén a lidiar co quecemento global.
This third best one was free trade. Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade, and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe, we could basically enliven the global economy to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year, half of which would accrue to the Third World. Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull two to three hundred million people out of poverty, very radically fast, in about two to five years. That would be the third best thing we could do.
A terceira mellor é o libre comercio. Básicamente, o modelo mostrou que se puidesemos acadar o libre comercio, e especialmente cortando as axudas dos USA e Europa, poderíamos básicamente elevar a economía global ate a asombrosa cifra duns 2'4 billóns de dolares ao ano, a metade dos cales provería do Terceiro Mundo. Unha vez máis, poderíamos realmente sacar a 200 ou 300 millóns de persoas da pobreza, radicalmente e moi rápido, entre dous e cinco anos. Esa sería a terceira mellor cousa que poderíamos facer.
The second best thing would be to focus on malnutrition. Not just malnutrition in general, but there's a very cheap way of dealing with malnutrition, namely, the lack of micronutrients. Basically, about half of the world's population is lacking in iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A. If we invest about 12 billion dollars, we could make a severe inroad into that problem. That would be the second best investment that we could do.
A segunda mellor cousa sería centrarse na desnutrición. Non desnutrición en xeral, senon un camiño moi económico de tratar a desnutrición, é dicir, a falta de micronutrientes. Básicamente, a metade da poboación do mundo ten falla de ferro, zinc, iodo e vitamina A. Se investisemos 12 mil millóns de dólares, poderíamos facer unha profunda incursión nese problema. Esta sería a segunda mellor inverisón que poderíamos facer.
And the very best project would be to focus on HIV/AIDS. Basically, if we invest 27 billion dollars over the next eight years, we could avoid 28 new million cases of HIV/AIDS. Again, what this does and what it focuses on is saying there are two very different ways that we can deal with HIV/AIDS. One is treatment; the other one is prevention. And again, in an ideal world, we would do both. But in a world where we don't do either, or don't do it very well, we have to at least ask ourselves where should we invest first. And treatment is much, much more expensive than prevention. So basically, what this focuses on is saying, we can do a lot more by investing in prevention. Basically for the amount of money that we spend, we can do X amount of good in treatment, and 10 times as much good in prevention. So again, what we focus on is prevention rather than treatment, at first rate.
E o mellor proxecto sería centrarse en VIH/SIDA. Básicamente, se investimos 27 mil millóns de dólares nos próximos oito anos, poderíamos evitar 28 millóns de novos casos de VIH/SIDA. Outra vez, o que isto fai e no que se centra é en dicir que temos dúas formas moi diferentes como tratar co VIH/SIDA. Unha é o tratamento e a outra é a prevención. Unha vez máis, nun mundo ideal, faríamos as dúas. Pero nun mundo onde non facemos calquera das dúas ou onde non o facemos moi ben, deberíamos, cando menos, preguntarnos onde deberíamos investir primeiro. E o tratamento é moito, moito máis caro que a prevención. Así que básicamnete, no que isto se centra é en dicir que podemos facer moito máis investindo na prevención. Básicamente para a cantidade de diñeiro que gastamos. podemos facer X ben en tratamento, e 10 veces máis en prevención. Así que unha vez máis, debemos centrarnos en prevención máis que en tratamento, como primeira opción.
What this really does is that it makes us think about our priorities. I'd like to have you look at your priority list and say, did you get it right? Or did you get close to what we came up with here? Well, of course, one of the things is climate change again. I find a lot of people find it very, very unlikely that we should do that.
O que isto fai é que realmente nos obriga a pensar nas nosas prioridades. Me gustaría que mirásedes á vosa lista de prioiridades e dixérades, o fixéchedes ben? ou chegáchedes a algo parecido ao que fixemos aquí? Ben, naturalemnte, unha das cousas é novamente a mudanza climática. Atopo moita xente que pensa que é moi, pero que moi pouco probable que fixeramos iso.
We should also do climate change, if for no other reason, simply because it's such a big problem. But of course, we don't do all problems. There are many problems out there in the world. And what I want to make sure of is, if we actually focus on problems, that we focus on the right ones. The ones where we can do a lot of good rather than a little good. And I think, actually -- Thomas Schelling, one of the participants in the dream team, he put it very, very well. One of things that people forget, is that in 100 years, when we're talking about most of the climate change impacts will be, people will be much, much richer. Even the most pessimistic impact scenarios of the U.N. estimate that the average person in the developing world in 2100 will be about as rich as we are today. Much more likely, they will be two to four times richer than we are. And of course, we'll be even richer than that.
Tamén deberíamos facer mudanza climática, se non hai outro motivo, simplemente porque é un grande problema. Pero, naturalmente, non resolvemos todos os probelmas. Temos moitos problemas no mundo. E o que quero asegurarvos é que se nos centramos nos problemas, nos centremos nos máis axeitados. Naqueles que podemos facer moito ben máis que pouco ben. E penso, a verdade --Thomas Schelling, un dos participantes do "dream team", o explicou moi, moi ben. Unha das cousas que a xente olvida, e que en 100 anos, cando esteamos a falar da maioría dos impactos da mudanza climática, a xente será moito, moito máis rica. Incluso os escenarios de impactos máis pesimistas da ONU estiman que unha persoa media no mundo en desenvolvemento no 2100 será tan rica como nos o somos hoxe. E moito máis probable, serán de dúas a catro veces máis ricos do que os somos nos. E naturalmente, nos seremos incluso máis ricos que iso.
But the point is to say, when we talk about saving people, or helping people in Bangladesh in 2100, we're not talking about a poor Bangladeshi. We're actually talking about a fairly rich Dutch guy. And so the real point, of course, is to say, do we want to spend a lot of money helping a little, 100 years from now, a fairly rich Dutch guy? Or do we want to help real poor people, right now, in Bangladesh, who really need the help, and whom we can help very, very cheaply? Or as Schelling put it, imagine if you were a rich -- as you will be -- a rich Chinese, a rich Bolivian, a rich Congolese, in 2100, thinking back on 2005, and saying, "How odd that they cared so much about helping me a little bit through climate change, and cared so fairly little about helping my grandfather and my great grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more, and who needed the help so much more?"
Pero a cuestión é, que cando falamos de salvar xente, o axudar á xente en Bangladesh en 2100, non estamos a falar dun pobre Bangaldés. Estamos a falar dun holandes bastante rico. E así o tema real, naturalmente, que é dicir, queremos gastar moito diñeiro axudando un pouco, de aquí a 100 anos, a un holandés bastante rico? ou queremos axudar á xente pobre, nestes intres, en Bangladesh, quen precisa realmente a axuda, e a quen podemos axudar moi económicamente? Ou como os dixo Schelling, imaxina que foses rico -- como acontecerá -- un chino rico, un boliviano rico, un congoleño rico no 2100 pensando no 2005 e dicindo, "como é que se preocuparon tanto por axudarme un pouco con este tema da mudanza climática, e se preocuparon tan pouco por axudar ao meu avó e o meu bisavó, a quen poderían ter axudado tantísimo, e que o necesitaban moito máis?"
So I think that really does tell us why it is we need to get our priorities straight. Even if it doesn't accord to the typical way we see this problem. Of course, that's mainly because climate change has good pictures. We have, you know, "The Day After Tomorrow" -- it looks great, right? It's a good film in the sense that I certainly want to see it, right, but don't expect Emmerich to cast Brad Pitt in his next movie digging latrines in Tanzania or something. (Laughter) It just doesn't make for as much of a movie. So in many ways, I think of the Copenhagen Consensus and the whole discussion of priorities as a defense for boring problems. To make sure that we realize it's not about making us feel good. It's not about making things that have the most media attention, but it's about making places where we can actually do the most good.
Así que penso que o que realmente nos dí por que precisamos poñer as nosas prioridades en orde. Incluso se non concorda coa típica forma de ver este problema. Por suposto, iso é fundamentalmente porque a mudanza climática ten unhas fotos tan boas. Sabedes que temos "El día de mañana" -- parece xenial, non? É unha boa película no sentido de que quero vela, certo, pero non creo que Emmerich vaia a escoller a Brad Pitt na súa próxima película cavando letrinas en Tanzania ou algo así. (Risa) Simplemente non da para unha película. Así que en moitos modos, penso que o Consenso de Copenhaguen e toda a discusión acerca das prioridades é unha defensa dos problemas aburridos. Para asegurármonos de que non é simplemente para facernos sentir ben, non vai sobre facer as cousas que teñen a maior atracción mediática, pero tamén vai sobre facer lugares onde podemos realmente facer un maior ben .
The other objections, I think, that are important to say, is that I'm somehow -- or we are somehow -- positing a false choice. Of course, we should do all things, in an ideal world -- I would certainly agree. I think we should do all things, but we don't. In 1970, the developed world decided we were going to spend twice as much as we did, right now, than in 1970, on the developing world. Since then our aid has halved. So it doesn't look like we're actually on the path of suddenly solving all big problems.
As outras obxeccións, penso, que son importantes, é que de algunha manera estou -- ou estamos -- a propoñer unha elección falsa. Naturalmente que debemos facelo todo, nun mundo ideal -- estaría totalmente de acordo. Penso que deberíamos facer todas as cousas, pero non as facemos. No 1970, o mundo desenvolvido decidiu que íamos gastar o dobre do que fixemos, agora mesmo, que no 1970 nos países en vías de desenvolvimento. Como a nosa axuda se reduciu á metade. Non parece que estamos no camiño de resolver repentinamente todos os grandes problemas.
Likewise, people are also saying, but what about the Iraq war? You know, we spend 100 billion dollars -- why don't we spend that on doing good in the world? I'm all for that. If any one of you guys can talk Bush into doing that, that's fine. But the point, of course, is still to say, if you get another 100 billion dollars, we still want to spend that in the best possible way, don't we? So the real issue here is to get ourselves back and think about what are the right priorities. I should just mention briefly, is this really the right list that we got out? You know, when you ask the world's best economists, you inevitably end up asking old, white American men. And they're not necessarily, you know, great ways of looking at the entire world.
Do mesmo modo, a xente tamén dicía, pero que hai da guerra do Iraque? Sabedes, gastamos 100 mil millóns de dóalres. Por que non gastamos iso facendo o ben no mundo. Eu estou totamente a favor. Se algún de vos pode falar con Bush para que faga iso, está ben. Pero naturalmente o tema todavía é dicir, que se tiveses outros 100 mil millóns de dólares, todavía quereríamos gastalso da mellor maneira posible, non? Así que o problema real, é comezar de novo e pensar cales son as prioridades correctas. Debería mencionar brevemente, é esta realmente a lista correcta? Sabedes, cando preguntas aos mellores economistas do mundo, inevitablemente acabas por preguntarlles a homes brancos e vellos dos Estados Unidos E non son necesariamente unha forma xenial de mirar ao mundo enteiro.
So we actually invited 80 young people from all over the world to come and solve the same problem. The only two requirements were that they were studying at the university, and they spoke English. The majority of them were, first, from developing countries. They had all the same material but they could go vastly outside the scope of discussion, and they certainly did, to come up with their own lists. And the surprising thing was that the list was very similar -- with malnutrition and diseases at the top and climate change at the bottom. We've done this many other times. There's been many other seminars and university students, and different things. They all come out with very much the same list. And that gives me great hope, really, in saying that I do believe that there is a path ahead to get us to start thinking about priorities, and saying, what is the important thing in the world? Of course, in an ideal world, again we'd love to do everything. But if we don't do it, then we can start thinking about where should we start?
Así que invitamos a 80 xovenes de todo o mundo para que resolvesen o mesmo problema. Os únicos dous requisitos eran que estivesen estudando na universidade, e que falasen inglés. A maioría deles eran, primeiro, de paises en vías de desenvolvimento. Tiñan o mesmo material pero poderían afastarese moitísimo do tema da discusión, como realmente fixeron, para elaborar as súas propias listas. E o sorprendente foi que a lista era moi similar -- con desnutrición e enfermidades no máis alto e mudanza climática ó final. Temos feito isto moitas outras veces. Houbo moitos outros seminarios e estudantes universitarios e cousas diferentes. Todos tiñan como resultado a mesma lista. E iso me da unha grande esperanza, realmente, para dicir que creo que existe un camiño por diante para comezar a pensar nas nosas prioridades. E dicir, que é o máis importante do mundo? Naturalmente, nun mundo ideal, nos encantaría facelo todo. Pero se non o facemos todo, podemos comezar a pensar por onde empezaríamos?
I see the Copenhagen Consensus as a process. We did it in 2004, and we hope to assemble many more people, getting much better information for 2008, 2012. Map out the right path for the world -- but also to start thinking about political triage. To start thinking about saying, "Let's do not the things where we can do very little at a very high cost, not the things that we don't know how to do, but let's do the great things where we can do an enormous amount of good, at very low cost, right now."
Eu vexo o Consenso de Copenhaguen como un proceso. O fixemos no 2004, e esperamos xuntar moita máis xente, para obter moita mellor información en 2008, 2012. Deseñar o camiño correcto para o mundo. Pero tamén comezar a pensar en evaluación política. Para empezar a pensar en dicir, "Non fagamos as cousas nas que podemos gañar pouco cun custo elevado, nin as cousas que non sabemos como facer, pero fagamos cousas xeniais onde podemos facer un enorme ben, a baixo custo, agora mesmo.
At the end of the day, you can disagree with the discussion of how we actually prioritize these, but we have to be honest and frank about saying, if there's some things we do, there are other things we don't do. If we worry too much about some things, we end by not worrying about other things. So I hope this will help us make better priorities, and think about how we better work for the world. Thank you.
Ao fin do día, podedes estar en desacordo coa discusión de como podemos realmente priorizar, pero temos que ser honestos e francos para dicir, se hai algunas cousas que facemos, temos outras que non facemos. Se nos preocupamos moito sobre algunhas cousas, terminamos por non nos preocupar por outras. Así que espero que esto nos axudará a establecer mellor as prioridades, e pensar como traballamos mellor para o mundo. Grazas