The discussions were about deciding which of the UN's many goals were actually achievable and creating a ranking for each.
The diplomats decided that "preventing HIV/AIDS and improving the distribution of micronutrients and vitamins would deliver the most cost-effective results".
"There is this tendency in the United Nations, in government, the private sector, everywhere: You want it all," said Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which seeks to support the Millennium Development Goals by prioritizing resources.I don't know about you, but I'm always comforted by the distinction between what developing nations can hope for and what developed nations can have. The "us" and "them" mentality has really worked out well for the world to date, hasn't it?
"But you have to force yourself to say, 'If I can't have it all, what is first, second, etc.' For the developing [nations], it's really about better health, better food, more clean drinking water and sanitation."
The Times says that fighting malaria and malnutrition, improving access to clean water and sanitation and improving basic education all placed high on the cost-benefit analysis. While improving financial stability in poor nations placed toward the bottom, along with climate change.
When you spend $1 on climate change, you're getting back as little as 25 cents. It's expensive, and the benefits come far out into the future.Thanks Bjorn, that's great, let's just think about right now and not worry at all about the future. Again, a strategy that's done wonders so far.
While a certain level of prioritising is important, and while not all the UN's goals will be met at all, let alone on time, simply writing things like climate change and carbon trading off seems rather idiotic to me.
The UN may be overly bureaucratic and tragically inefficient at getting things on its agenda to happen, but at least when they are on the agenda they have a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment