How to Get the Biggest Bang for 10 Billion Bucks

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 28, 2008 | BJORN LOMBORG

[The Raven]

If you had a spare $10 billion over the next four years, how would you spend it to achieve the most for humanity?

This is a small amount compared to rich-government budgets. But if we could set aside an extra $10 billion, we could achieve an awful lot.

Would you spend your money tackling diseases like malaria, HIV and tuberculosis, which claim millions of lives each year? Would you battle hunger and malnutrition? What about climate change, which many believe is the biggest challenge facing the planet?

....more

[The Raven]

"...An extra $70 billion world-wide has been spent annually on homeland security since 2001. Although there has been a 34% drop in transnational terrorist attacks, there have been 67 more deaths, on average, each year.

Apples and oranges. Lomborg doesn't know the results of terrorism if we had not spent the money. If Bush had done nothing after 9/11 - surely we would have had more attacks.

[steelyourfaith]

From the link:

CLIMATE CHANGE

There is unequivocal evidence that humans are changing the planet's climate. We are already committed to average temperature increases of about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit, even without further rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

The world has focused on mitigation -- reducing carbon emissions -- as its response to this challenge. The Kyoto Protocol was an international attempt to cut back on these emissions, and at the end of 2009 politicians will gather in Copenhagen to discuss Kyoto's successor. Although we don't focus on other possible solutions to this challenge, they do exist.

If mitigation -- economic measures like taxes or trading systems -- succeeded in capping industrialized emissions at 2010 levels, then the world would pump out 55 billion tons of carbon emissions in 2100, instead of 67 billion tons.

This is a difference of 18%; but the benefits would remain smaller than 0.5% of the world's GDP for more than 200 years. These benefits simply are not large enough to make the investment worthwhile.

Spending $800 billion (in total present-day terms) over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

When you add up the benefits of that spending -- from the slightly lower temperatures -- the returns are only $685 billion. For each extra dollar spent, we would get 90 cents of benefits -- and this is even when things like environmental damage are taken into account.

A continued narrow focus on mitigation alone will clearly not solve the climate problem. One problem right now: Although politicians base their decisions on the assumption that low-carbon energy technology is being rapidly developed, that is not the case. These technologies just do not exist. Wind and solar power are available -- at a high expense -- but suffer from intermittency. Researchers need to develop better ways to store electricity when those renewable sources are offline.

If we took that $800 billion and spent it on research and development into clean energy, the results would be remarkably better. In comparison with the 90-cent return from investing solely in mitigation, each dollar spent on research and development would generate $11 of benefits.

(Figures based on research by Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University, and Christopher Green, McGill University.)

This drivel from "the Skeptical Environmentalist"?

 

Global Warming Scam News & Views

• Fight Global Warming Lies
• Beam me to Planet Gore !
• WeatherQuestions.Com (Dr. Roy Spencer, Official Climatologist, EIB Network)
• Reasoned Thinking Comes From Cooler Heads
• Schnitt's Global Warming Files
• Rush Limbaugh's E-Stack "Global Warming Hoax & Religion of Environmentalism" (Rush 24/7 subscription required)
• Craig James 24 Hour News 8 Blog
• Icecap

Entrepreneur's Compilation of
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet

• Part I ............. Documentaries
• Part II ...................... Lectures
• Part III ...................... Debates
• Part IV ............. Short Videos
• Part V ........................ Humor
• Part VI...Updates & Additions

[Caipirabob]

I'd buy some democrat senators cheap and tell them to vote for every pro-energy bill that comes through congress.

[SatinDoll]

“...there have been 67 more deaths, on average, each year...”

That is if you’re only counting from 9/11.

If you start counting from the Olympic Games slaughter of Israeli athletes in Munich during the 60’s - the numbers and nationalities are much, much greater.

[Hardastarboard]

I’d give a couple of billion of it to pro-gun groups, just to see the reaction.

[gpapa]

If you had a spare $10 billion over the next four years, how would you spend it to achieve the most for humanity?

Stupid question. Answer, its mine buddy, I will do what ever I wish to do with it.

[The Raven]

>>If you had a spare $10 billion over the next four years, how would you spend it to achieve the most for humanity?

Give it back to the taxpayers

[pieceofthepuzzle]

These kinds of assessments miss the point, which is the preservation of a free society. Clearly the number of deaths worldwide went way up after the beginning of World War II, but very few would argue that we shouldn't have fought that war.

Regarding what to do with an extra $10 billion, I would start a bias-free internet-based news service founded on the principle of absolute accuracy and in depth analysis. There would be a daily feature in which the top stories from the day before as reported in high visibility main-stream news sources would be vetted for inaccuracies. I would also set aside a very large prize for the person or company that came up with the best alternative energy approach.

[The Duke]

I'd buy some democrat senators cheap...

Aren't ALL democrat senators "cheap"? (Or am I confusing "cheap" with "sleazy"?)

[imintrouble]

Big Yawn here....thanks for the reminder there are really people out there who continue to think like we have a never-ending capacity and desire to save our world.

Love your suggestions Mr. Lomborg - sorry - I think the USA is pretty much tapped out on giving right now - we have to take care of our own nation which has been hijacked by global warming nuts and half-baked politicians who refuse to develop our own resources in favor of pouring billions into other nations - some of whom are our enemies. Not to mention draining our beautiful young men and women into death and life-long trauma both mental and physical through military service in lands we can’t control or manage in the long term.

Try again in about ten years ummmmmm ok?

[Portcall24]

This is so full of holes and inaccuracies I don’t know where to begin. An terrorist attack with a nuclear device could eat up that $70B in a heartbeat.

[Lloyd227]

If I could spend 10 B with an eye toward improving the world, I believe I'd spend the entire amount distributing copies of Atlas Shrugged in every language where it can actually be translated.

[villagerjoel]

“Regarding what to do with an extra $10 billion, I would start a bias-free internet-based news service founded on the principle of absolute accuracy and in depth analysis.”

I like it! But you don’t need $10B, and you don’t need to wait for your next life!

[Hank Kerchief]

“If Bush had done nothing after 9/11 - surely we would have had more attacks.”

You know this, how?

Hank

[The Raven]

>>You know this, how?

I’m not a liberal

[RightWhale]

I have a plan for the situation of having $10 billion. I might not need the plan, but it is good to have a plan.

[Billthedrill]

Me, I’d spend 5 billion on booze and women and probably waste the rest.

[Reeses]

The biggest bang for the buck at this point in time is investing in robotics, such as sniper robots for the military and farm worker and landscaping robots so we didn't have to look the other way at illegal labor. The savings in social spending on illegals would be immense, fewer schools, hospitals, and jails, and they would remain in their home countries where their pollution footprint would be 1/30th of their American one.

The DARPA grand challenge was a wonderful investment. For a few million in prizes we now have military vehicles that can drive themselves not to mention newly minted engineers with developed robotic design skills. If we need to take on China we're going to need robots to win.