Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics, using cost–benefit analysis. It was conceived and organized around 2004 by Bjørn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and the then director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute.
The project is run by the Copenhagen Consensus Center,http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com Copenhagen Consensus Center – CCC Home Page which is directed by Lomborg and was part of the Copenhagen Business School, but is now an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation registered in the USA. The project considers possible solutions to a wide range of problems, presented by experts in each field. These are evaluated and ranked by a panel of economists. The emphasis is on rational prioritization by economic analysis. The panel is given an arbitrary budget constraint and instructed to use cost–benefit analysis to focus on a bottom line approach in solving/ranking presented problems. The approach is justified as a corrective to standard practice in international development, where, it is alleged, media attention and the "court of public opinion" results in priorities that are often far from optimal.
International relations scholar Peter Hough notes that the project is part of the "dwindling band of climate-change deniers" who have now changed their tune and modified their original arguments in the face of the scientific consensus on climate change, admitting that it is real and caused by CO2 emissions, but still arguing that concerns are exaggerated and that humans can adapt to the problem instead of mitigating it. Hough acknowledges that the concerns raised by the Copenhagen Consensus about how to direct aid are valid, but the majority of their arguments lack rigor, and many of their solutions, such as geoengineering, lack evidence.
History The project has held conferences in 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012. The 2012 conference ranked bundled micronutrient interventions the highest priority, and the 2008 report identified supplementing vitamins for undernourished children as the world’s best investment. The 2009 conference, dealing specifically with global warming, proposed research into marine cloud whitening (ships spraying seawater into clouds to make them reflect more sunlight and thereby reduce temperature) as the top climate change priority, though climate change itself is ranked well below other world problems. In 2011 the Copenhagen Consensus Center carried out the Rethink HIV project together with the RUSH Foundation, to find smart solutions to the problem of HIV/AIDS. In 2007 looked into which projects would contribute most to welfare in Copenhagen Consensus for Latin America in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank.
The initial project was co-sponsored by the Danish government and The Economist. A book summarizing the Copenhagen Consensus 2004 conclusions, Global Crises, Global Solutions, edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 by Cambridge University Press, followed by the second edition published in 2009 based on the 2008 conclusions.
Copenhagen Consensus 2012 In May 2012, the third global Copenhagen ConsensusCopenhagen Consensus 2012 was held, gathering economists to analyze the costs and benefits of different approaches to tackling the world‘s biggest problems. The aim was to provide an answer to the question: If you had $75bn for worthwhile causes, where should you start? A panel including four Nobel laureates met in Copenhagen, Denmark, in May 2012. The panel’s deliberations were informed by thirty new economic research papers that were written just for the project by scholars from around the world.
Economists The panel members were the following, four of whom are Nobel Laureate economists. Robert Mundell Nancy Stokey Thomas Schelling Vernon Smith Finn Kydland
Challenges Armed conflict Biodiversity Chronic disease Climate Change Education Hunger and malnutrition Infectious disease Natural disasters Population growth Water and sanitation In addition, the Center commissioned research on Corruption and trade barriers, but the Expert Panel did not rank these for Copenhagen Consensus 2012, because the solutions to these challenges are political rather than investment-related.
Outcome Given the budget restraints, they found 16 investments worthy of investment (in descending order of desirability):
Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education Expanding the subsidy for malaria combination treatment Expanded childhood immunization coverage Deworming of schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes Expanding tuberculosis treatment R&D to Increase yield enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change Investing in effective early warning systems to protect populations against natural disaster Strengthening surgical capacity Hepatitis B immunization Using low‐Cost drugs in the case of acute heart attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries) Salt reduction campaign to reduce chronic disease Geo‐engineering R&D into the feasibility of solar radiation management Conditional cash transfer for school attendance Accelerated HIV vaccine R&D Extended field trial of information campaigns on the benefits from schooling Borehole and public hand pump intervention
Slate ranking During the days of the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 conference, a series of articles was published in Slate Magazine each about a challenge that was discussed, and Slate readers could make their own ranking, voting for the solutions which they thought were best. Slate readers' ranking corresponded with that of the Expert Panel on many points, including the desirability of bundled micronutrient intervention; however, the most striking difference was in connection with the problem of overpopulation. Family planning ranked highest on the Slate priority list, whereas it didn't feature in the top 16 of the Expert Panel's prioritisation.
Copenhagen Consensus 2008
Economists Nobel Prize winners marked with (¤) Jagdish Bhagwati François Bourguignon Finn E. Kydland (¤) Robert Mundell (¤) Douglass North (¤) Vernon L. Smith (¤) Thomas Schelling (¤) Nancy Stokey
Results In the Copenhagen Consensus 2008, the solutions for global problems have been ranked in the following order:
Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) The Doha development agenda Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Expanded immunization coverage for children Biofortification Deworming and other nutrition programs at school Lowering the price of schooling Increase and improve girls’ schooling Community-based nutrition promotion Provide support for women’s reproductive role Heart attack acute management Malaria prevention and treatment Tuberculosis case finding and treatment R&D in low-carbon energy technologies Bio-sand filters for household water treatment Rural water supply Conditional cash transfer Peace-keeping in post-conflict situations HIV combination prevention Total sanitation campaign Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level Microfinance Improved stove intervention to combat Air Pollution Large, multipurpose dam in Africa Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles Diesel vehicle particulate control technology Tobacco tax R&D and carbon dioxide emissions reduction Carbon dioxide emissions reduction
Unlike the 2004 results, these were not grouped into qualitative bands such as Good, Poor, etc.
Gary Yohe, one of the authors of the global warming paper, subsequently accused Lomborg of "deliberate distortion of our conclusions", adding that "as one of the authors of the Copenhagen Consensus Project's principal climate paper, I can say with certainty that Lomborg is misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory". Kåre Fog further pointed out that the future benefits of emissions reduction were discounted at a higher rate than for any of the other 27 proposals, stating "so there is an obvious reason why the climate issue always is ranked last" in Lomborg's environmental studies.
In a subsequent joint statement settling their differences, Lomborg and Yohe agreed that the "failure" of Lomborg's emissions reduction plan "could be traced to faulty design".
Climate Change Project In 2009, the Copenhagen convened an expert panel specifically to examine solutions to climate change. The process was similar to the 2004 and 2008 Copenhagen Consensus, involving papers by specialists considered by a panel of economists. The panel ranked 15 solutions, of which the top 5 were: Research into marine cloud whitening (involving ships spraying sea-water into clouds so as to reflect more sunlight and thereby reduce temperatures) Technology-led policy response Research into stratospheric aerosol injection (involving injected ?sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to reduce sunlight) Research into carbon storage Planning for adaptation
The benefits of the number 1 solution are that if the research proved successful this solution could be deployed relatively cheaply and quickly. Potential problems include environmental impacts e.g. from changing rainfall patterns.
Measures to cut carbon and methane emissions, such as carbon taxes, came bottom of the results list, partly because they would take a long time to have much effect on temperatures.
Copenhagen Consensus 2004
Process Eight economists met May 24–28, 2004 at a roundtable in Copenhagen. A series of background papers had been prepared in advance to summarize the current knowledge about the welfare economics of 32 proposals ("opportunities") from 10 categories ("challenges"). For each category, one assessment article and two critiques were produced. After a closed-door review of the background papers, each of the participants gave economic priority rankings to 17 of the proposals (the rest were deemed inconclusive).
Economists Jagdish Bhagwati Robert Fogel Bruno Frey Justin Yifu Lin Douglass North Thomas Schelling Vernon L. Smith Nancy Stokey
Challenges
Below is a list of the 10 challenge areas and the author of the paper on each. Within each challenge, 3–4 opportunities (proposals) were analyzed:
Communicable diseases (Anne Mills) Conflicts (Paul Collier) Education (Lant Pritchett) Financial instability (Barry Eichengreen) Global Warming sometimes also called Climate change (William R. Cline) Government and corruption (Susan Rose-Ackerman) Malnutrition and hunger (Jere Behrman) Population: migration (Phillip L. Martin) Sanitation and water (Frank Rijsberman) Subsidies and trade barriers (Kym Anderson)
Results The panel agreed to rate seventeen of the thirty-two opportunities within seven of the ten challenges. The rated opportunities were further classified into four groups: Very Good, Good, Fair and Bad; all results are based using cost–benefit analysis.
Very good The highest priority was assigned to implementing certain new measures to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. The economists estimated that an investment of $27 billion could avert nearly 30 million new infections by 2010.
Policies to reduce malnutrition and hunger were chosen as the second priority. Increasing the availability of micronutrients, particularly reducing iron deficiency anemia through dietary supplements, was judged to have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs, which were estimated at $12 billion.
Third on the list was trade liberalization; the experts agreed that modest costs could yield large benefits for the world as a whole and for developing nations.