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)
Ono o čemu želim govoriti su najveći problemi na svijetu. Neću pričati o "Skeptičnom borcu za okoliš" -- vjerojatno je i to dobar izbor. (Smijeh)
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.
No govorit ću o tome koji su veliki problemi u svijetu? I moram reći, prije nego nastavim, želim zamoliti svakoga od vas da pokuša i uzme olovku i papir jer vas zapravo želim pitati da mi pomognete kako da to napravimo. Stoga uzmite vaše olovke i papir. U konačnici, puno je problema na svijetu. Navest ću samo neke od njih. 800 milijuna ljudi gladuje. Milijarda ljudi nema čistu pitku vodu. Dvije milijarde ljudi nema zdravstvo. Više milijuna ljudi umire od HIV-a i AIDS-a. Popis se neprestano nastavlja. Dvije milijarde ljudi će biti teško pogođeni klimatskim promjenama -- i tako dalje. Postoji mnogo, mnogo problema.
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.
U idealnom svijetu, sve bismo ih riješili, ali to ne činimo. Mi zapravo ne rješavamo sve probleme. I ako to ne činimo, mislim da si trebamo postaviti pitanje -- i zato smo u ekonomskoj sesiji -- da kažemo, ako ne rješavamo sve stvari, doista se trebamo početi pitati, koje bismo prve trebali riješiti? I to je pitanje koje vam želim postaviti. Da imamo, recimo, 50 milijardi dolara u sljedeće četiri godine da potrošimo radeći dobro na ovome svijetu, gdje bismo ih potrošili? Identificirali smo 10 najvećih izazova na svijetu, i samo ću ih kratko pročitati. Klimatske promjene, zarazne bolesti, konflikti, obrazovanje, financijska nestabilnost, upravljanje i korupcija, pothranjenost i glad, migracije stanovništva, zdravstvo i voda, i subvencije i trgovinske barijere. Vjerujemo da ovi na mnoge načine obuhvaćaju najveće probleme na svijetu. Očigledno pitanje bi bilo, što mislite koje su najveće stvari? Gdje trebamo započeti s rješavanjem ovih problema? Ali to je krivi problem o kojem se pitamo. To je zapravo problem koji je postavljen u Davosu u siječnju.
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.
Ali naravno, nastaje problem kada tražimo od ljudi da se fokusiraju na probleme. Jer mi ne možemo riješiti probleme. Sigurno je najveći problem na svijetu da svi umiremo. Ali nemamo tehnologiju koja će to riješiti, zar ne? Dakle poanta nije odrediti probleme po važnosti, već je poanta odrediti rješenja problema po važnosti. A to bi bilo -- naravno tu postaje kompliciranije. Za klimatske promjene to bi primjerice bio Kyoto. Za zarazne bolesti, to mogu biti zdravstvene klinike ili mreže protiv komaraca. Za konflikte to mogu biti U.N.-ove mirovne misije, i tako dalje. Ono što vas želim zamoliti je da pokušate napraviti, da u samo 30 sekundi -- i znam da je to na određeni način nemogući zadatak -- zapišete što vi mislite koji su najvjerojatnije najveći prioriteti. I također -- i to je naravno gdje ekonomija postaje zlobna -- da zapišete koje stvari ne bismo trebali napraviti, prve. Što bi trebalo biti na dnu popisa? Molim vas, uzmite 30 sekundi, možda razgovarajte s vašim susjedom, i odredite što bi trebali biti najviši prioriteti i najniži prioriteti rješenja koja imamo na najveće svjetske probleme.
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.
Nevjerojatan dio toga procesa -- i naravno, mislim, želio bih -- imam samo 18 minuta, dao sam vam već znatan dio svoga vremena, zar ne? Želio bih istražiti i navesti vas na razmišljanje o tom procesu, i to smo zapravo napravili. I također vas snažno potičem, i siguran sam da ćemo ove rasprave imati i kasnije, da razmislite, kako zapravo određujemo prioritete? Naravno, trebate se zapitati, zašto nikada prije ovakav popis nije bio napravljen? Jedan razlog je da je određivanje prioriteta nevjerojatno neugodno. Nitko to ne želi raditi. Naravno, svaka organizacija bi željela biti na vrhu takvoga popisa. Ali i svaka organizacija bi mrzila ne biti na vrhu liste. A kako ima puno više mjesta koja nisu prva na tom popisu, nego što ima prvih mjesta, savršeno je jasno zašto se takav popis ne želi raditi. Imamo U.N. već skoro 60 godina, a ipak nikad nismo napravili temeljni popis svih velikih stvari koje možemo napraviti na svijetu, i rekli, koje od njih ćemo napraviti prve? To ne znači da ne određujemo prioritete -- bilo koja odluka je određivanje prioriteta, pa zapravo mi ipak određujemo prioritete no samo prešutno -- a to ne može biti dobro kao da zapravo odredimo prioritete, i razgovaramo o tome.
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.
Dakle ono što zapravo predlažem je da kažemo da imamo, već dugo vremena, situaciju kad imamo izbor mogućnosti. Ima mnogo, mnogo stvari koje možemo napraviti, ali nismo imali cijene, niti veličine. Nismo imali ideju. Zamislite da idete u restoran i dobijete veliki jelovnik, ali nemate pojma kakve su cijene. Znate, imate pizzu, nemate pojma kolika je cijena. Može biti jedan dolar, može biti 1.000 dolara. Može biti veća obiteljska pizza. Može biti pizza za jednu osobu, zar ne? Željeli bismo znati te stvari.
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.
I to je ono što Konsenzus u Kopenhagenu zapravo želi napraviti -- pokušati odrediti cijene tim problemima. I zapravo, to je bio proces Konsenzusa u Kopenhagenu. Imamo 30 najboljih svjetskih ekonomista, tri za svako područje. Dakle imamo tri najbolja svjetska ekonomista koji pišu o klimatskim promjenama. Što možemo napraviti? Kakav će biti trošak? I koje će biti koristi od toga? Tako i za zarazne bolesti. Tri najbolja svjetska stručnjaka govore, što možemo učiniti? Koja bi bila cijena? Što bismo trebali napraviti s tim i kakav će biti ishod? I tako dalje.
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?
Pa imamo neke od najboljih svjetskih ekonomista, osmorica od najboljih svjetskih ekonomista, uključujući tri Nobelova laureata, susreli su su u Kopenhagenu u svibnju 2004. Nazvali smo ih timom iz snova. Starješine sa Sveučilišta u Cambridgeu su ih odlučili nazvati Real Madridom ekonomije. To funkcionira u Europi ali zapravo ne funkcionira ovdje. I ono što su u osnovi napravili je da su stvorili popis s prioritetima. I onda se pitate, zašto ekonomisti? I naravno, vrlo sam sretan da ste postavili to pitanje -- (Smijeh) -- jer to je jako dobro pitanje. Poanta je u tome, naravno, ako želite znati o malariji, pitat ćete stručnjaka za malariju. Ako želite znati o klimi, pitat ćete klimatologa. Ali ako želite znati što ćete od toga prvo rješavati, ne možete pitati ni jednoga od njih, jer to nije ono što oni rade. To ekonomisti rade. Određuju prioritete. Oni odrađuju na neki način gadan zadatak da kažu, što prvo trebamo rješavati, i što ćemo raditi sljedeće?
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.
I to je popis, i to je ono što želim s vama podijeliti. Naravno, to možete vidjeti i na internetskoj stranici, i razgovarat ćemo o tome više, siguran sam, kako dan bude odmicao. Oni su u osnovi stvorili popis gdje su rekli da su postojali loši projekti -- u osnovi projekti kod kojih ako si uložio dolar, dobio bi povrat manji od dolara. Zatim postoje pravedni projekti, dobri projekti i jako dobri projekti. I naravno, trebamo započeti s jako dobrim projektima. Krenut ću unatrag tako da završimo s najboljim projektima.
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.
Ovo su bili loši projekti. Kao što možete vidjeti na dnu popisa su klimatske promjene. To vrijeđa mnoge ljude, i to je vjerojatno jedna od stvari zbog koje će ljudi reći da se ne trebam vratiti. I želim pričati o tome, jer to je vrlo zanimljivo. Zašto se to dogodilo? I zapravo ću pokušati doći do toga jer je to vjerojatno jedna od stvari koja se neće slagati s popisom kojega ste vi zapisali.
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.
Razlog zbog čega su rekli da je Kyoto -- ili činiti nešto više nego što je Kyoto -- loša stvar je jednostavno zato jer je vrlo neefikasno. Time se ne tvrdi da se globalno zagrijavanje ne događa. Ne tvrdi se da to nije veliki problem. Ali ukazuje da ono što mi možemo oko toga učiniti je vrlo malo, a trošak je vrlo visok. Ono što su nam oni u osnovi pokazali, uprosjećivanjem svih makroekonomskih modela, je da bi Kyoto, da su se svi usuglasili, koštao oko 150 milijardi dolara godišnje. To je značajan iznos novaca. To je dva ili tri puta više od pomoći globalnom razvoju koju svake godine dajemo Trećem svijetu. Ipak napravilo bi malo dobroga. Svi modeli pokazuju da bi se zagrijavanje odgodilo za otprilike šest godina u 2100. Tako da čovjek u Bangladešu kojeg zadesi poplava u 2100. može čekati do 2106. Što je malo dobro, ali ne i jako dobro. Ideja je da se ovdje kaže, pa, potrošili smo puno novaca radeći malo dobroga.
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.
I samo da vam približim smisao, U.N. je zapravo procijenio da za pola toga iznosa, za otprilike 75 milijardi dolara godišnje, mogli bismo riješiti sve velike temeljne probleme u svijetu. Omogućili bismo čistu pitku vodu, zdravstvo, osnovnu zdravstvenu zaštitu, i obrazovanje svakom pojedinom ljudskom biću na planeti. Pa se moramo zapitati, želimo li trošiti dvostruko veći iznos čineći malo dobra? Ili pola iznosa čineći nevjerojatnu količinu dobroga? I zbog toga zapravo to postaje loš projekt. Ne tvrdi se da to ne bismo željeli učiniti da imamo sav novac ovoga svijeta. Nego se tvrdi, kada to ne činimo, to jednostavno nije naš prvi prioritet.
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.
Pravedni projekti -- primijetite da neću komentirati sve njih -- ali zarazne bolesti, opseg osnovnih zdravstvenih usluga -- su zapravo uspjeli, jednostavno zato jer, da, opseg osnovnih zdravstvenih usluga je izvrsna stvar. Napravilo bi se puno dobroga, ali je također vrlo, vrlo skupo. No opet, ono što se tvrdi je da iznenada, počinjemo razmišljati o obje strane jednadžbe. Ako pogledate dobre projekte, puno zdravstvenih i projekata vodoopskrbe tu spada. Doista, zdravstvo i voda su nevjerojatno važni, ali i potrebno je mnogo skupe infrastrukture. Želim vam pokazati najvažnija četiri prioriteta koji bi zasigurno trebali biti prvi s kojima ćemo se baviti kada govorimo o tome kako bismo trebali rješavati probleme u svijetu.
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.
Četvrti najbolji problem je malarija -- suočavanje s malarijom. Zahvaćenost malarijom je oko nekoliko [milijuna] ljudi koji se zaraze svake godine. To bi moglo koštati i do jednog postotnog poena BDP-a svake godine za zahvaćene narode. Da investiramo oko 13 milijardi dolara u sljedeće četiri godine, mogli bismo prepoloviti zahvaćenost. Mogli bismo izbjeći smrt 500.000 ljudi, i što je možda još važnije, mogli bismo izbjeći da oko milijarde ljudi bude zaraženo svake godine. Značajno bismo povećali njihovu sposobnost da se bave mnogim drugim problemima s kojima se moraju suočavati. Naravno, dugoročno, da se suočavaju i s globalnim zatopljavanjem.
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.
Treći najbolji je slobodna trgovina. U osnovi, model je pokazao da kada bismo mogli ostvariti slobodnu trgovinu. i pogotovo ukinuti subvencije između SAD-a i Europe, zapravo bismo oživjeli globalno gospodarstvo do zapanjujućeg broja od 2.400 milijardi dolara godišnje, od čega bi polovina pripala Trećem svijetu. Ponovno, poanta je da se kaže da zapravo možemo izvući dvije ili tri stotine milijuna ljudi iz siromaštva, izrazito brzo, kroz dvije do pet godina. To bi bila treća najbolja stvar koju bismo mogli napraviti.
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.
Druga najbolja stvar bi bila usredotočenost na pothranjenost. Ne samo pothranjenost općenito, ali postoji vrlo jeftin način suočavanja s pothranjenošću, odnosno, nedostatkom mikronutrijenata. U osnovi, oko polovice svjetske populacije ima nedostatak željeza, cinka, joda i vitamina A. Da investiramo oko 12 milijardi dolara, mogli bismo ozbiljno napasti na taj problem. To bi bila druga najbolja investicija koju možemo učiniti.
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.
I najbolji projekt bi bio fokusirati se na HIV/AIDS. Odnosno, da uložimo 27 milijardi dolara kroz sljedećih osam godina, mogli bismo izbjeći 28 milijuna novih slučajeva HIV-a/AIDS-a. Ponovno, ono što se time čini i na što se fokusira je da se tvrdi da postoje dva vrlo različita načina kojima se možemo boriti protiv HIV-a/AIDS-a. Jedan je liječenje, drugi je prevencija. I ponovno, u idealnom svijetu, činili bismo oboje. Ali u svijetu u kojemu ne činimo ni jedno, ili ne činimo to dovoljno dobro, moramo se barem zapitati gdje bismo najprije trebali investirati. I liječenje je puno, puno skuplje od prevencije. Tako u osnovi, fokus je na tvrdnji da možemo puno više učiniti investiranjem u prevenciju. U osnovi, za iznos novaca koji potrošimo, možemo ostvariti količinu X dobroga u liječenju, i 10 puta toliko dobroga u prevenciji. Pa ponovno, rađe se fokusiramo na prevenciju negoli na liječenje, što je bolje.
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.
Ono što se time zapravo čini je da nas tjera na promišljanje o našim prioritetima. Želim da pogledate u vašu listu prioriteta i kažete, jeste li pogodili? Ili jeste li blizu onoga što smo rekli ovdje? Pa, naravno, jedna od stvari jesu opet klimatske promjene. Vidim mnogo ljudi kojima je vrlo, vrlo malo vjerojatno da to trebamo raditi.
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.
Trebali bismo se baviti i klimatskim promjenama, ako ne iz bilo kojeg drugog razloga onda zato jer je to tako veliki problem. No naravno, mi se ne bavimo svim problemima. Mnogo je problema u svijetu. I ono što želim osigurati je da ako se stvarno fokusiramo na probleme, da se fokusiramo na ispravne. Na one kod kojih rađe možemo napraviti puno dobroga negoli malo dobroga. I mislim, zapravo -- Thomas Schelling, jedan od sudionika tima iz snova, je rekao vrlo, vrlo dobro. Jedna od stvari koju ljudi zaboravljaju je da za 100 godina, kada govorimo o tome kakav će utjecaj klimatskih promjena biti, ljudi će biti puno, puno bogatiji. Čak i najpestimističniji scenariji U.N.-a procjenjuju da će 2100. prosječna osoba iz svijetu u razvoju biti bogata kao što smo mi danas. Više je vjerojatno da će biti dva do četiri puta bogatija nego što smo mi danas. I naravno, mi ćemo biti još bogatiji od toga.
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?"
Ono što želim reći, kada govorimo o spašavanju ljudi, ili pomaganju ljudi u Bangladešu 2100., ne govorimo o siromašnom Bangladešaninu. Mi zapravo govorimo o prilično bogatom Nizozemcu. I zapravo stvarna poanta je da se kaže, želimo li trošiti mnogo novaca pomažući malo, 100 godina od danas, prilično bogatom Nizozemcu? Ili želimo li pomoći stvarno siromašnim ljudima, upravo sada, u Bangladešu, koji stvarno trebaju pomoć, i kojima možemo pomoći, vrlo, vrlo jeftino? Ili kako Schelling kaže, zamislite da ste bogati -- što ćete i biti -- bogati Kinez, bogati Bolivijanac, bogati Kongoležanin, 2100. i da se prisjećate 2005. i kažete, "Kako čudno da su se tako mnogo brinuli pomažući mi malo kroz klimatske promjene, a tako se malo brinuli oko pomaganja mojem djedu i mojem pradjedu, kojima su puno više mogli pomoći, i koji su trebali pomoć puno više?"
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.
Mislim da nam to stvarno govori zbog čega trebamo odrediti ispravno svoje prioritete. Čak i ako to ne odgovara tipičnom načinu na koji promatramo problem. Naravno, to je najviše zato jer klimatske promjene imaju tako dobre prikaze. Imamo, znate, "Dan poslije sutra" -- izgleda odlično, zar ne? Dobar je film na način da ga stvarno želim pogledati, ali ne očekujem da će Emmerich unajmiti Brada Pitta u svom sljedećem filmu da kopa poljski zahod u Tanzaniji ili slično. (Smijeh) Jednostavno i nije baš za neki film. Na mnoge načine, razmišljam o Konsenzusu u Kopenhagenu i o cijeloj diskusiji prioriteta kao obrani dosadnih problema. Da sigurno shvatimo kako nije bitno da se osjećamo dobro, nije do toga da određujemo stvari koje imaju najveću pozornost medija, već je do toga da određujemo mjesta gdje stvarno činimo najviše dobroga.
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.
Drugi prigovor, mislim, kojeg je važno navesti, je da sam nekako -- ili smo mi nekako -- napravili krivi izbor. Naravno, trebamo činiti sve stvari, u idealnom svijetu -- svakako se slažem. Mislim da moramo činiti sve stvari, ali ne činimo. 1970. je razvijeni svijet odlučio da ćemo potrošiti duplo više nego što smo potrošili, sada, negoli 1970., na svijet u razvoju. Odonda naša pomoć se prepolovila. I zapravo se ne čini da smo na putu da iznenada riješimo sve velike probleme.
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.
Također, ljudi govore, ali što je s ratom u Iraku? Znate, trošimo 100 milijardi dolara. Zašto to ne trošimo čineći dobro u svijetu? U potpunosti sam za to. Ako bilo tko od vas ljudi može nagovoriti Busha da to napravi, to je u redu. Ali poanta je naravno da se kaže, ako dobijete dodatnih 100 milijardi dolara, i dalje to želimo potrošiti na najbolji mogući način, zar ne? Pravi problem ovdje je da se vratimo nazad i razmislimo koji su ispravni prioriteti. Trebam samo kratko spomenuti, je li ovo stvarno pravi popis koji smo napravili? Znate, kada pitate najbolje svjetske ekonomiste, neizbježno završite tako da pitate stare, američke bijelce. A to nisu neminovno, znate, najbolji načini da gledate na cijeli svijet.
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?
Tako smo zapravo pozvali 80 mladih ljudi iz cijeloga svijeta da dođu i riješe isti problem. Jedina dva preduvjeta su bila da studiraju na sveučilištu, i da govore engleski jezik. Većina njih su bili iz zemalja u razvoju. Svi su imali isti materijal ali su mogli ići široko izvan opsega diskusije, i doista jesu, da naprave svoje vlastite popise. Iznenađujuće je bilo da su popisi bili vrlo slični -- pothranjenost i zarazne bolesti su bili na vrhu a klimatske promjene na dnu. To smo napravili još jako puno puta. Bilo je mnogo drugih seminara i sveučilišnih studenata, i različitih stvari. Svi su napravili vrlo slične liste. I to mi daje veliku nadu, doista, dok govorim da vjerujem, da postoji put naprijed koji će nas navesti da počnemo razmišljati o prioritetima. I da kažemo, koje su najvažnije stvari na svijetu? Naravno, u idealnom svijetu, voljeli bismo sve napraviti. Ali ako to ne napravimo, možemo početi razmišljati o tome gdje bismo počeli?
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."
Vidim Konsenzus u Kopenhagenu kao proces. To smo napravili 2004., i nadamo se da ćemo okupiti mnogo više ljudi, i dobiti bolje informacije za 2008., 2012. Iscrtati pravi put u svijetu. I također početi razmišljati o političkoj trijaži. Početi razmišljati o tome da kažemo, "Idemo napraviti ne one stvari koje možemo napraviti malo po visokoj cijeni, ne stvari koje ne znamo kako napraviti, idemo napraviti velike stvari gdje možemo učiniti nevjerojatno puno dobroga, po niskoj cijeni, upravo sada.
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.
Na kraju dana, ne morate se složiti s diskusijom o tome kako zapravo određujemo prioritete, ali moramo biti pošteni i iskreni i reći, ako postoje stvari koje činimo, postoje i stvari koje ne činimo. Ako se previše brinemo oko nekih stvari, završimo tako da se ne brinemo oko drugih stvari. Nadam se da će ovo pomoći da određujemo bolje prioritete, i razmišljamo o tome kako bolje radimo za svijet. Hvala vam.