How should we spend on malnutrition compared to stabilizing global warming? Environmentalism vs common compassion come to opposite conclusions. Materialism versus intelligent causation worldviews strike again: —————–
May 30, 2008 ˜Forget Climate Change, We Should Spend on Nutrition; Mark Henderson, Science Editor, Copenhagen, Times Online
Malnutrition should be the world’s major priority for aid and development, a panel of eight leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, declared yesterday. The provision of supplements of vitamin A and zinc to children in developing countries, to prevent avoidable deficiencies that affect hundreds of millions of children, is the most cost-effective way of making the world a better place, the Copenhagen Consensus initiative has found.
Copenhagen Consensus: the panel’s verdict
1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) Malnutrition
2 The Doha development agenda Trade
3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Malnutrition
4 Expanded immunization coverage for children Diseases . . .29 R&D and mitigation Global Warming
30 Mitigation only Global Warming
{DLH PS Apologies to DaveScott for duplicate posting. See:
Times: Forget Climate Change}