Our world is facing many problems. Since we do not have enough money or manpower to solve every problem, it makes sense to rank the cost-benefit of these problems so we can make the greatest positive impact. Many years ago Bjorn Lomborg brought together economists and leaders to calculate those costs.

He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. In the second book, he argues that global warming may be a concern, but the programs put forth would be prohibitively expensive. Thus, they should not be implemented. This is quite a conclusion for someone who used to be a Greenpeace activist.

He pulled together what has been called the Copenhagen Consensus. The meeting included Nobel laureate economists who evaluated the costs and benefits of different solutions to world problems.

They have found that just $60 million spent on providing Vitamin A capsules and therapeutic Zinc supplements for under-2-year-olds would reach 80 percent of the infants in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The annual economic benefits (from lower mortality and improved health) would be $1 billion. That means doing $17 worth of good for every dollar spent.

They have found other ratios that were equally promising. For example, spending $1 billion on tuberculosis would prevent one million deaths. The annual benefit would be $30 billion. This is a $30 return on every dollar.

The economists and leaders at the Copenhagen Consensus have found many places where the cost/benefit ratio is excellent. They have also found that the proposed programs to deal with climate change have a terrible negative ratio. The last time they met, the economists and leaders placed these programs at the very bottom of their list.

The conclusion is simple: let’s put money and resources towards programs that save lives immediately and have an excellent return on the dollar.