"The obvious issue is providing clean drinking water and sanitation to every single human being on earth at the cost of little more than one year of the Kyoto treaty"
About this Quote
Bjorn Lomborg argues that the most straightforward humanitarian priority is universal access to clean water and sanitation, and he frames the claim by comparing its price tag to a single year of spending under the Kyoto Protocol. The move is strategic: by setting a concrete, immediately life-saving goal against a costly, diffuse climate treaty with delayed benefits, he highlights opportunity cost and urges a triage mindset. It reflects his broader project, from The Skeptical Environmentalist to the Copenhagen Consensus, to rank global interventions by cost-effectiveness rather than moral urgency or political momentum.
The comparison gains force because water and sanitation deliver rapid, measurable gains: fewer child deaths from diarrheal disease, reduced disease burden, better school attendance for girls, and substantial productivity improvements. Dollars spent here often yield some of the highest returns in global health. The phrasing also signals frustration with symbolic or poorly targeted environmental spending, pushing for hard-nosed choices rather than feel-good commitments.
Yet the claim invites critique. The estimated cost of universal water and sanitation is not just a lump sum; it involves building, maintaining, and governing systems over decades. Infrastructure breaks, utilities need revenue, and institutional capacity matters as much as capital. Framing the issue as an either-or risks a false dichotomy: climate change itself threatens water security through droughts, floods, and contamination, so long-term mitigation and near-term WASH investments can be complementary, not competing. Moreover, the benefits of climate action include co-benefits like cleaner air that are hard to fold into a single comparison.
Still, Lomborg’s provocation has value. It compels policymakers to articulate trade-offs, quantify outcomes, and prioritize interventions that save and improve lives now while not losing sight of future risks. The deeper message is about rigor and accountability in global spending: scarce resources should be steered toward the greatest human benefit, and grand ambitions should be weighed against practical, high-impact alternatives.
The comparison gains force because water and sanitation deliver rapid, measurable gains: fewer child deaths from diarrheal disease, reduced disease burden, better school attendance for girls, and substantial productivity improvements. Dollars spent here often yield some of the highest returns in global health. The phrasing also signals frustration with symbolic or poorly targeted environmental spending, pushing for hard-nosed choices rather than feel-good commitments.
Yet the claim invites critique. The estimated cost of universal water and sanitation is not just a lump sum; it involves building, maintaining, and governing systems over decades. Infrastructure breaks, utilities need revenue, and institutional capacity matters as much as capital. Framing the issue as an either-or risks a false dichotomy: climate change itself threatens water security through droughts, floods, and contamination, so long-term mitigation and near-term WASH investments can be complementary, not competing. Moreover, the benefits of climate action include co-benefits like cleaner air that are hard to fold into a single comparison.
Still, Lomborg’s provocation has value. It compels policymakers to articulate trade-offs, quantify outcomes, and prioritize interventions that save and improve lives now while not losing sight of future risks. The deeper message is about rigor and accountability in global spending: scarce resources should be steered toward the greatest human benefit, and grand ambitions should be weighed against practical, high-impact alternatives.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Bjorn
Add to List
