The Seattle Times did an excellent series on the Gates Foundation this week, focusing on their efforts to combat malaria. While the headline emphasizes mosquito nets, the inside features this photo discussing the re-introduction of DDT as a tool. The World Health Organization said this about DDT in their press release:
"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”
What is more interesting is that the Gates Foundation priorities mirror those identified in an effort coordinated by "The Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg. The Copenhagen Consensus, organized by Lomborg, brought together experts in many areas, including a number of Nobel Prize winning economists, and analyzed where best to spend $50 billion to have the greatest impact on overall well-being of people around the world. Their top six priorities are:
1) HIV/AIDS prevention
2) Reducing malnutrition through provision of micronutrients
3) Trade liberalization
4) Reducing malaria
5) Reducing malnutrition through agricultural development
6) Improved access to water and sanitation
This list has been attacked by environmentalists because the Consensus listed efforts to reduce climate change as "Bad Projects," coming in 15th, 16th and 17th out of 17.
The Gates Foundation web page highlights a number of their areas of focus as well. They include, in no particular order:
1) Agricultural development
2) HIV/AIDS prevention
3) Reducing malaria
4) Reducing malnutrition
They focus on other things as well, such as developing vaccines, tuberculosis and acute diarrheal illness. Overall, the lists are very similar. This is not to say that the Gates Foundation is following the Copenhagen Consensus or using it in their decision making. That, however, may send a more striking message.
If the Gates Foundation prioritization is independent of the Copenhagen Consensus their conclusions would seem to confirm the analysis of the experts who developed the Consensus. I don't know what the Gates' position is on climate change and I don't mean to imply they agree with the Copenhagen Consensus position on that issue. It does seem clear, however, that the Foundation is putting its money in those areas it believes will have the greatest impact.
It is important to remember, that as we are asked to spend billions on reducing CO2 emissions, are we really doing the best for the people of our planet? Are we focusing on climate change because it is the most pressing issue or because it fits other values held by those in the environmental community?
Given the general agreement about where to spend money to help suffering people, the answer seems clear.