Global Crises, Global Solutions: Copenhagen Consensus 2004

Overview
"Global Crises, Global Solutions: Copenhagen Consensus 2004," edited by Bjørn Lomborg, assembles a wide-ranging effort to rank global problems and the interventions that address them by cost-effectiveness. The book grew out of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which convened economists and subject experts to evaluate how limited global resources could best be spent to improve human welfare. Contributors apply economic reasoning and empirical review to a set of pressing issues, from malnutrition and infectious disease to trade barriers and climate change, with the explicit aim of informing donor priorities and public debate.
The presentations and commissioned papers are organized around the notion that prioritizing interventions according to rigorously assessed benefits and costs can highlight opportunities that deliver the largest human payoff per dollar. The volume pairs technical assessments with accessible summaries and a final ranking, offering both detail for specialists and a policy-oriented synthesis for decision makers.

Methodology
The project's central device is cost-benefit analysis: each proposed intervention is evaluated for expected benefits in relation to its costs, using consistent assumptions where possible to allow comparison across diverse problems. Analysts estimated impacts on mortality, morbidity, income, and other welfare measures; these effects were translated into monetary terms where feasible to generate benefit-cost ratios and to permit ordering of interventions by return on investment.
A panel of economists reviewed the technical papers and the synthesized estimates to produce a prioritized list. The exercise relied on available evidence, modeling, and judgment about key parameters such as effectiveness, scale-up feasibility, and time horizons. Where evidence was thin or contested, the contributors made assumptions explicit and explored sensitivity to alternative values, while emphasizing transparency in trade-offs between short-term and long-term gains.

Main Findings
The book highlights that many interventions with substantial human impact are also among the most cost-effective. Investments in nutritional programs, micronutrient supplementation, expanded immunization, and basic infectious disease control emerge as high-priority actions because they avert large numbers of deaths and disability at relatively low cost. Improvements in child health and measures that enhance early-life nutrition are repeatedly identified as delivering outsized returns by boosting survival and long-term productivity.
By contrast, some high-profile global challenges receive more mixed rankings when judged on cost-effectiveness alone. Large-scale mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, is recognized as addressing a critical long-term threat but tends to rank lower than immediate health and poverty interventions because of high near-term costs, uncertain long-term benefits, and the distribution of impacts over distant future generations. The volume therefore often recommends complementary approaches, greater investment in research, adaptation, and technology development, rather than immediate large-scale expenditure in areas where cost-effectiveness is less favorable.

Controversy and Criticism
The Copenhagen Consensus approach generated vigorous debate. Supporters praise its clarity and focus on maximizing human welfare per dollar, arguing it forces donors to confront trade-offs and to target scarce funds where they will do the most good. Critics object to the heavy reliance on monetization of health and life, contend that some values and environmental goods resist meaningful economic valuation, and argue that the expert selection and framing can influence outcomes. Concerns were also raised about discounting of future benefits and the potential undervaluing of long-term risks and equity considerations.
Contributors and commentators dispute the implications rather than the goal of priority setting, with much of the critique focused on methodological choices and normative assumptions rather than the practical relevance of asking which interventions yield the greatest returns.

Legacy and Influence
The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus book played a formative role in pushing prioritization and evidence-based allocation into global policy conversations. It helped popularize rigorous cost-effectiveness as a decision tool for philanthropic and public donors and spurred subsequent iterations of the Copenhagen Consensus and related exercises. Even among those who reject aspects of its framing, the work is credited with sharpening debate about how best to translate limited resources into measurable improvements in human well-being and with prompting donors to look beyond rhetoric to comparative impact.