The Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. The Copenhagen Consensus looks at all the issues that are we face, globally, and then comes up with a collaborative consensus or an understanding of what the individuals that participate deem more important and therefore issues that should obtain more attention and we should establish more funding for.
In the 2008 results of this project, attention placed on global warming was an issue that would most likely result in “costs that were likely to exceed the benefits”. Restating this in a more blunt and direct way: Global Warming is not an issue in which we will easily get rich fast by fixing. I agree that spending money on preventing global warming will not get you rich fast but I do believe that I most people would like to know that the future generations will have at least a portion of earth, left to call home.
Criticism established, in regards, to the results formed by the Copenhagen Consensus by Jeffery Sachs, an American Economist, who argued that the individuals who made up the Copenhagen Consensus and made this particular agreement about global warming were not qualified to do so. Sachs stated that there were no members present for the project who obtained any sort of expertise or credibility towards the topic of global warming. In stating this, Sachs believed that the Copenhagen Consensus was both inappropriate and biased.
If what Sachs said was honestly, true, that there were no individuals involved in this consensus that had any credibility on the topic of global warming, I would have to agree that this was not a very advised and informed decision made on their parts. I believe that in order to come up with an informed consensus you must have someone who is knowledgeable in the topic that you are debating about present.
No comments:
Post a Comment