How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place by Bjørn Lomborg

How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place Reviews

• 
  Jerry

  This book doesn't distinguish between throwing money at a problem versus changing the culture that produced the problem. It lacks countless meaningful distinctions.
• 
  John Brinsley-pirie

  A short read that does well to introduce the reader to a a range of challenges and solutions facing the world. The interesting analysis from the Copenhagen Consensus looking at how we best rank and order wellbeing initiatives is a useful thought process that provides one of the more compelling methods of designing interventions. The book should be read as an interesting reference for further reading and a guide to thinking about how to use resources.
• 
  Robert Webber

  This is an interesting academic study of some of the problems facing the World. Teams of economists including Nobel Laureates have been brought together by the Copenhagen Institute under Bjorn Lomborg to consider which problems can be solved or at least ameliorated, whilst offering the most benefit for each dollar that is spent. That is not to infer that there should be a profit motive’ involved in solving problems, but a recognition that resources are limited and best employed where the money will do the most good.
  
  Interestingly, anthropogenic ‘climate change’ whilst recognised by many as the most serious problem facing the World today doesn’t make it onto the first page. Whilst acknowledging the scale of the problem and arguing that potential solutions should be pursued with vigour, none exist at present. Neither do any effective means of accurately measuring the relative success of any potential solutions. The inference here is that whilst ‘Climate Change’ may be a critical problem it is not the only serious problem the World faces and that these other issues should not be ignored. Indeed, the Copenhagen Institute findings are that the provision of micro-nutrients to children in less-developed countries, the treatment of infectious diseases and improved sanitation offer enormous benefits for each 1$ spent.
  
  This is not a ‘page turner’ offering up instant solutions and controversial opinions. It is however, a carefully argued study of how some of the difficult and seemingly intractable problems facing humanity might be solved or at least mitigated at relatively little cost in global terms. My own view is that if you want to listen to a critical, well informed and balanced view of global problems from Skandinavia, let it be Professor Bjorn Lomborg. Recommended.
• 
  Marcus Whybrow

  Empower brain power.
• 
  Jesús

  (1.5)
  
  Honestly pretty bad as a book. As many have stated already this book could of used a lot more back story and explanations. Just a super dry read.
• 
  Rodrigo Flamenco

  Good short book to understand the world's greatest problems and how to find the solutions.
• 
  Pete

  How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place (2013) by Bjorn Lomborg is a short summary of The Copenhagen Consensus project that got experts in various areas to work out the cost benefit ratios of various forms of aid and then got a panel of economists including multiple Nobel Prize winners to judge them. It's a great idea and remarkable because cost benefit analysis seems to have been little used when thinking about aid spending.
  
  The book is not a good read. The solutions are presented, the conclusion described and then five Nobel Prize winning economists present their ideas. Then the cost benefit ratios for all the options are briefly described. The book is a collection of essays with the most important parts being the cost benefit ratios that are essentially just presented.
  
  The best options for spending have been, in order, micronutrients for children, fighting malaria, immunisation, deworming, fighting TB and R & D spending on agriculture.
  
  The idea behind the Copenhagen Consensus is a really good one and the basic idea, that of applying standard accounting and economics practices to evaluating aid is a really valuable contribution. Micronutrient spending seems to have benefited from people reading the conclusion.
  
  The weaknesses of the approach are in the accuracy of the cost benefit analysis and trying to apply it to things like reducing corruption and increasing free trade. These things would increase wealth substantially but are very difficult to achieve in practice.
  
  The book may be worth having as a reference but it's not nearly as interesting or as well put together as Lomborg's other books.
• 
  Neil Johnstone

  It’s all good people the world is improving massively, but this books looks at the ways international aid should be or could be better spent. A good book with lots of information it’s based on the Copenhagen consensus which is a group of the best economists and they do cost/benefit to all the major issues facing the world.
  
  The news will have you believing that the world is going to hell in a handcart. When in fact starvation is less, war is less, accessibility to clean water is up and we still have a lot to do but stop watching the news I recommend.
  
  Education for more people is what people want but a cheaper and more effective answer is to improve nutrition cuz hungry stomachs don’t have ears.
  
  Environment taxes don’t work especially when the technology is not ready to be adopted. Plus rich countries will find a way of changing there crops and generating money, climate change will hit poorer people much harder.
  Some crazy scientists have said about maker clouds whiter to reflect more sun away from earth. Plus stratospheric aerosol injection putting more sulphur dioxide reflecting the rays away. Do you even science?
  
  Biodiversity we need to stop cutting down forest to grow food so we must invest in research on improving yield of crops. Agricultural r&d is also a way to reduce malnutrition.
  
  Disasters retro fitting schools in poor nations against earthquakes, then invest in community flood walls and elevate houses in danger, then improved roofing. But these projects are super expensive but a gradual improvement would save countless lives. Rather than now a disaster hit then we send money which is nice but not cost effective.
  A cheaper option is installing early detection systems which can save lives and businesses. In conjunction with the above mentioned improvements is best.
  
  Population the best idea is having more family planning in Africa as 1/4 of women want to reduce or wait till their next child, but aren’t using contraception. Which I agree but I am against abortion in all cases except if the mothers life is at risk.
  
  Sanitation the legend that is bill gates has given grants to universities to develop a toilet that reuses human waste in the home and therefore does not require a sewage system this is in the prototype stage but this would help stop the spread of diseases.
  Other community lead projects are helping but it is the old system that needs a revamp.
  
  Infectious diseases expanding immunisation projects would save 1 million child deaths per year. Deworming drugs are very cheap and should be a priority because worms are still a huge problem in poor countries.
  
  Chronic diseases so heart, cancer and stroke the most cost effective way to reduce these is tobacco taxation. Then even if I travel around the world my cigarettes will expensive so I’m not a big fan. Smoking has declined massively in developed countries but it’s on the rise elsewhere.
  Salt reduction is another are where millions of lives can be saved, working with food manufacturers to use less salt and a campaign telling the dangers of too much salt in the diet.
  
  Hunger and malnutrition so we produce more food than is needed but one benefit of producing even more is the cost goes down for developing nations.
  An another area in micronutrients giving children a better chance to study.
  
  These are the main point of the book if you can’t be arsed to read it.
• 
  MP

  A lot of times, I certainly feel like the world is going down in spirals. The world today is so divided and solutions to problems are certainly a big debate in these types of fields. Lomberg does a great job at laying the foundation to look at a realistic view of improving the world. Whether it’s fighting malnutrition, or coming up with a Reinvented Toilet, this book neatly lays the problems facing the world currently and asks an important question: “How do we fix it?” Lomberg starts with stating that we can’t fix everything at once, so we need to prioritize. Interestingly enough, most of the researchers in the Copenhagen Consensus felt that some climate change takes like carbon tax were rated substantially lower than things like fighting malnutrition and fighting poverty. I think we spend to much time, especially climate activists, pondering ways to fight climate change, but it seems the climate activists rarely take actions to fight it. Instead, they patronize and demean anyone skeptical of the radical fight of climate change, when obviously hunger and poverty are a bigger problem. Research also shows that when poverty is decreased, people start to think of how their actions are affecting the climate.
  
  Anyway, this little book is great at laying out the foundation to actually taking steps to make the world a better place, and how we can fight things like climate change, malnutrition, lack of education, overpopulation, etc. Highly recommend it.
  5/5
• 
  Tyler van der Veer

  Bjørn Lomborg’s ‘How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place’ provides a framework in which a collective view of the costs and benefits of a range of investments are prioritised and ranked in so far as they advance global welfare. This decade has seen remarkable progress against humanity’s great challenges, however, climate change has emerged as one of the most discussed problems in the public forum. Lomborg notes that whatever is done about climate change, it should also be recognised that the world has many other problems. If one is malnourished, what the climate will be like at the end of the century is not a high priority—this is the case for the 925 million people who still live in hunger. Therefore, given limited resources, public opinion should not be swayed by the apocalyptic fear generated by any threat over the other. Lomborg, along with a panel of economists including four Nobel laureates, outlines how instead of costing trillions of dollars in attempting to inefficiently cut carbon emissions, this could be used to tackle more pressing problems facing the world’s poorest people—micronutrients to hungry children, the control of malaria, and immunisation coverage.
• 
  Reinhard Gaul

  Using cost/benefit analysis as a prioritization method for humanitarian investments, a panel of Nobel laureates rank widely discussed interventions to the worlds biggest problems. Priority was given to small investments that could pay big dividends in economic and human improvement. This cost/benefit analysis method has its issues but I found it refreshing to see a quantitative method used, regardless. I found the results of the panel super interesting. The top investments discussed aren’t super closely correlated with the ones we may hear the most about on social media or from media sources. I thought it made a lot of sense that the results of the study highly favored investment for small children, both in education and nutrition. I feel better educated on what problems exist in the world and the most cost effective ways I can contribute to solving these issues.
• 
  Peter De Kinder

  A bit too dry and outdated, but there are some interesting points that can still be learnt from this book. As it is just a synthesis of the research that preceded it, it is normal that there are some areas I would like to have seen elaborated, but I understand that it was not the idea to create a 500-page book.
• 
  CristianEdmundo

  World’s best work! This is actually real data and ideas to make the world better. I feel so tired of all the people saying that we should do something about the world, but no one takes real action. Data and numbers are the answers, not good intentions. Remember the road to hell is paved by good intentions
• 
  Peter Curtiss

  Not particularly compelling, but would recommend to anyone who devotes any amount of their income to philanthropy. Having those decisions being informed by a cost/benefit analysis seems tremendous - this book gives a strong example of that approach.
• 
  Karen

  Do something . . . start where you are . . . change the world - this book provides clear data and motivation to make the world a better place. It surprised me how little $ is needed to make a huge difference in the lives of millions of children and adults.
• 
  Andy De Lima

  Instead of Cop26, 27, 28, blá-blá-blá, just get this book pick one problem from the list and get on with it. Pledges us a political statement, we need action not pledges.
• 
  Jeremiah Shipley

  Basically the economists way of saying, “Go to school kids.” 3 stars.
• 
  Dimitris

  Very interesting and thorough, I was expecting a more fluid read to be honest and this was closer to a scientific paper.
  
• 
  Camila

  This book is the review of the Copenhagen Consensus in 2012. The first aim of the consensus was to identify and to rank the most cost-effective policies to make the world a better place. The considered policies have to have enough evidence which points out the cost and the benefits. There are interventions in health, in education in climate change, in confict, in natural disasters, among others. These policies were ranked by experts and by common people.
  In my opinion, the most interesting conclusion here is that the most cost-effective policies are the ones related to nutrition, infectious and chronic diseases, in other words: health. Governments just have to invest small amounts of money to have healthy and productive people.
  One of my conclusions from this bookis that these policies should be obligatory for all the developing countries. World Health Organization should verify what poor and middle income countries have programs like inverventions to reduce undernutrition in scholars, subsidies for malaria combination treatment, integral inmunization coverage, tuberculosis treatment, among others.
  
  Finally, I would like to mention that the book takes a simplistic approach to conflict, peace process and corruption. These topics could not be considered as "policies" because they are structural process, they depend on cultural, political and economic changes.