Can you propose an alternative way to make decisions that affect the future, if we forego cost-benefit analysis? The Copenhagen Consensus concluded that fighting global warming by researching low‐carbon energy technologies would be beneficial, and fighting malnutrition by giving children vitamin A and zinc would be beneficial. In a reality where resources are finite, using available resources to fight malnutrition was expected to produce more benefit. They might be wrong, but if you disagree wouldn't you be arguing that fighting global warming (with a given unit of budget) will produce greater benefit than fighting malnutrition? Or you could say we just don't know, but that doesn't help us decide what to do. It's natural to ask "Why can't we do both?" But the carbon R&D was ranked #14 out of 30 on the list of priorities, so this is like asking "Why can't we do everything possible to improve the world?" The answer, of course, is the cost.
I doubt any legislator anywhere is making a vitamin A vs. global warming mitigation decision. Outlining problems is a worthwhile effort, but saying "we have $75B to spend, how to spend it?" frames the circumstances in way that doesn't reflect reality. There are countless ways to address global warming which include, but aren't limited to, spending money.In a reality where resources are finite, using available resources to fight malnutrition was expected to produce more benefit.
There is finite funding for nutrition, there is finite funding for climate, the funding is not allocated at random. So no, there may not be a particular moment where one legislator decides to split a pot of money between those two causes, but the process of creating a budget requires many decisions about spending limited resources on individual programs. "The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches the smartest solutions for the world's biggest problems, advising policy-makers and philanthropists how to spend their money most effectively." Spending money is not the only way to solve problems, but spending money can help, and it is certainly a way policy-makers and philanthropists can do good (or harm!) depending on how they act. Can you suggest any better alternative to cost-benefit analysis for these organizations to make better decisions? I'm curious as well to know what you have in mind as the non-financial approaches ... but on second reading you say "include, but aren't limited to, spending money" so you recognize that these countless ways do involve financial decisions. Spending money is a part, but not all, of most interventions. You seem skeptical of the Copenhagen Consensus but I don't understand why. If the ways to address global warming include spending money, how do you decide how to spend the money? Which of the "countless ways" will you prioritize? Can an additional airplane trip be balanced by using paper straws? You question whether economists can provide estimates, but the proposals were created by "acknowledged authorities in each area," not the economists. You point out that economists have made mistakes, but don't propose an alternative to economists.I doubt any legislator anywhere is making a vitamin A vs. global warming mitigation decision.
I propose they don't create such broad and assumptive yet comparative ROI fictions. It is not an honest reflection of what these economists can usefully predict.You point out that economists have made mistakes, but don't propose an alternative to economists.
Not doing the thing you object to is not much of an alternative, but as I favor the do-nothing approach I shouldn’t complain.