I will briefly talk about the global idea for creative opportunities, through this we can come up with ideas for Israel.  

What should we do in the world? We would like to fix all its problems, but we cannot. So what should we tackle first? This is exactly what the Copenhagen Consensus is about; this is the question it deals with.

I will tell you today what we have done and you can see how it can be done in Israel.

All of this information is also available on our website: www.copenhagenconsensus.com

There are lots of problems in the world; we are all aware that they exist. In an ideal world we should fix them all, but we do not live in an ideal world and we cannot fix them all. We do not spend money to fix all the world's problems, so a good idea would be to ask: what would you do if you had $50 billion to spend over the next 4 years to do some good in the world. Not everything can be done, there are limits in all our lives, but where can we do the most good in the world. We do not have enough of such conversation, but we should.

We cannot focus on the entire world's problems; there is not enough money and not enough time. There is not enough front-page news, so many issues get shafted to the back pages or off the news entirely; there is not enough attention. Most of us worry about a few things; we should make sure to worry about the right things, therefore we must prioritize. In principal, everyone knows that we must prioritize. In doing so, it is easy to say what should be at the top of the list, but it is not so easy to determine what issues will not be placed at the top of the list. So, the conversation must be based on where we can do the most good and do that first.

Our top experts reduced the list to 10 challenges:

1. Climate Change

2. Communicable Diseases

3. Conflicts

4. Financial Instability

5. Malnutrition and Hunger

6. Education

7. Governance and Corruption

8. Population: Migration

9. Sanitation and Water

10. Subsidies and Trade Barriers

These challenges are not everything, but I am comfortable that this list encompasses the biggest problems.  Usually different experts tell me that these are exactly the top ten problems, but their area of expertise should have been number eleventh if we would have continued.  This makes me very satisfied that the above are the top biggest challenges.

The question usually asked is which of these problems are the biggest.  However, this is the wrong question to ask since the biggest problem does not necessarily have a solution.  For example, we could decide that the greatest challenge in the world is immortality, but there is no way to create a way to avoid dying.  So, the argument must not focus on the biggest problems, but rather on the best solutions. We should not ask if climate change is a big issue but rather is Kyoto a good idea, and so on. The focus must be on the solutions and their ingenuity in all the different sectors.  Then we must ask what the cost of such a solution is and how much good will it do.  In an attempt to answer this question we gathered the top experts in the world to tell us what the best solutions are, how much good it will do, and how much the solution will cost

Before I present their results I'd like to present the most common objections: The most common question is why use economists? Shouldn't we use exports in each subject?  The answer is that every expert will claim that the subject of their expertise is the most important and the biggest problem.  Thus, we must ask the question of "how much?" How much does the solution cost and how much good will it do? We utilized expert economists in each area, for example specific climate economists, to determine these questions.  In addition to the big book of results of this study we also made a small book: how to spend $50 billion to make the world a better place.   Many governments are buying this book because they do in fact have money to spend and are unsure of where best to spend it. We also used economists in order to prioritize the different challenges.

Another common objection asked is why only $50 billion? Well the answer is that it is fine if there is more money, but the goal is to make a list and based on the prioritization given in the list will be where the money is spent.  If there is more money then you can proceed farther down the list.  We wanted to have a large amount of money, but not an infinite amount in order to best utilize those funds.

The next most common objection people ask is, "but why are you comparing apples with oranges?" That is absolutely correct.  That is what nation-states must do, and that is also what we do every time we go to the supermarket.  If you buy more apples you will buy fewer oranges, which is just how we allocate our resources.  We must compare incomparable subjects, but in doing so, the challenge is to assure we spend money in the wisest way.

Our results from the first 2004, Copenhagen Consensus done in conjunction with 'The Economist' (The next Copenhagen Consensus will be done in May.):

I start from behind with the worst solutions where on each dollar spent there was less than a dollar return.  For example: Climate Change. It is not that it is not a problem; it's not that we aren't causing this problem to occur; but rather the solutions offered are poor.  Kyoto is good, but not good enough.  By our findings demonstrating that this solution is not good enough, incentive is created for the Climate Change experts to create smarter strategies.  For example, to invest in incentive strategies. 

Good projects are those where for each dollar spent there is a return of $1-3: For example, water sanitation is a very costly project, but we found that for each dollar spent there is a return of $4, so that, is a project definitely worth doing

The top four projects are as follows:

4. Controlling Malaria.  For $13 billion we could halve the incidents of malaria.  There are a billion people infected each year and this is an inhibiting disease that affects a person's productivity.  In countries with malaria two people are usually hired to do the job of one person; when one person is sick the other is needed to do the same job.  This is very costly in economies where malaria is rampant.  In controlling malaria, we also improve the growth of many economies; many countries could become twice as rich. Here, for every dollar spent there is a $10 return.

3. Free Trade. By reducing trade barriers and creating more free trade, a huge benefit is created allowing for upwards of a billion dollars per year to be evenly distributed between developed and developing countries.  The costs in improving free trade are very low, with the majority necessary to be spent on paying off first-world farmers who would lose out on cheaper goods from developing countries.  

2. The most important and perhaps the most surprising challenge is that of Micronutrition and Malnutrition. When we think of malnutrition we usually think of a lack in "real" food to provide real sustenance, but it is expensive to provide "real" food to so many people.  What we found is that about half of these people suffer from a lack of micronutrients.  This could be solved essentially by providing a vitamin pill.  For example, a deficiency in iron causes anemia and consequently bodily breakdown could be solved by providing more nutrients.  The cost for such a project is about $12 billion, but this project would create incredible benefit.  

And the number one most important project:

1. The control of HIV-Aids.  This is a dehabilitating disease which is cheap to control.  We are not discussing medication, which is an expensive method, but rather prevention which can be supplied with general sexual and contraceptive education.  This method is effective and cheap.  Such a project will see a return of $40 for every dollar spent. 

So the question now is, shouldn't we look to achieve $40 of good before we invest in 30 cents of good?

In order to show that our results are objective we asked a youth forum, representing 75% of the developing world, to create their own list.  This way no one could say that the minority (rich, Western economists) are establishing priorities for the world.  This youth forum came up with a list very similar to that of the economists in prioritizing the top problems to invest in.  Additionally, we gathered important U.N. ambassadors and asked them to create their own lists.  These lists were also similar to the one we created.  The same outcomes were achieved by very different evaluators.  When people are given $50 billion to spend they become very rational.

Several speakers at the conference mentioned the need for education, but this was not on the list of top challenges.  The reason for that is that education is not a fiscal problem. The structure must provide incentives; parents must be given a good reason to send their children to school, school-children cannot be ill or malnourished, and an opportunity to prosper-these problems must come before education and might just enable education to become a challenge to focus on. These are things we know will aid the third world, while it is not known if an investment in education will contribute great benefit to the third-world.

Now, when we are creating the Copenhagen list for 2008 we are asking people to focus priorities and come up with new ideas.  The Copenhagen Consensus has been referred to as the "Thought Olympics" because we force people to come up with the smartest ideas and we do so every four years. 

I believe that this system can be utilized for different regions of the world, possibly also the Middle East, and many different countries, one day possibly Israel.  The idea is to create a conversation as to where money should be spent.  All the academic work must be readily available so that the crucial question of where to spend the limited money available so that it makes the greatest impact, can be focused on.  

It is basically a triage: there are lots of problems; let's not do things we do not know how to, and let's not do a little good at high cost-but instead lets do lots of good at low cost.  I believe this is a point worth making.