1) Good animated wolf.

2) I wonder about the decision to limit the maximum amount to any one crisis to $8 billion. (Note: Page 11 of 22 of the paper mistakenly says, “$8 million.”)

3) The ranking system is clear…and I like rankings (rather than SWAT’s lack of numerical rankings). But in some cases, the rankings don’t make too much sense. For example, how is it that climate change rates a “2″ on Direct Life-Saving Capacity? How many people are directly killed by climate change each year?

4) There is a reference to a cost/benefit analysis. But I don’t see the cost/benefit analysis calculations for each crisis…? In an appendix that didn’t make it to the website?

1) Overall, the website of SWAT is by far the “cleanest” and easiest to understand. The column with the issues listed on the left is good, as is the the “click for more information” after each summary.

2) SWAT is totally devoid of calculations that help to explain why specific amounts were allocated to each category. It appears that SWAT was one of the groups that doesn’t “believe in” cost/benefit analysis. Well, welcome to the real world, kiddies.

3) It’s disappointing (to me) to see the lack of willingness of SWAT to consider funding organizations outside the U.N. Everything is World Bank, UNICEF, UNESCO, etc. For example, (Nobel-prize-winning) Grameen Bank, in lieu of the World Bank?

“We will spend $1.5 billion to support planning for local amelioration and adaptation projects. We will fund studies to show where coffer dams can protect population centers from rising sea levels and violent storm surges…”

Sounds sort of like water tubes. If so….A++++++!

1) Troika’s discount rate example for a windmill has the price of electricity increasing from 8 to 14 cents/kWh in 29 years. That’s very unrealistic. The trend in electricity prices (adjusted for inflation) has been downward, not upward. (And definitely not almost doubling in 29 years.)

2) The same discount rate example covers years 0 to 5, and years 25 to 29, but nothing in between. I realize it’s just an example, but how difficult would it be to use an example that includes all 29 years?

3) The energy document says the world will “need” a “global investment” of $16 trillion in energy development. Well, what happens when the world doesn’t get that “need” met? The end of the world as we know it?

4) The windmill example says that a 500 amp wind power station (presumably at 110 volts, so 50 kW) could be built for a “$1000 kit” if done “on an industrial scale with automotive components”. But that is obviously ridiculously low. A much better estimate would be about $2000 per PEAK kilowatt, or $100,000 for a 500 amp PEAK installation. And such an installation would typically have a capacity factor of only about 33%…so it would be $100,000 for an *average* output of about 17 kW.

Therefore, the estimate is off by approximately a factor of 300(!). Even for non-technical students, graduate students shouldn’t be making such huge mistakes. If the world really could get $50 kW continuously for a capital cost of $1000, there wouldn’t be any energy problem anywhere. We certainly wouldn’t have coal-fired and nuclear-fission power plants if wind was that inexpensive.

eduardo

My comment on the project itself:

I support the SWAT group who prioritized project not by the amount of money allotted but by the urgency of the problem.

To spend money on some of those project without the people having access to food and water would be a huge waste of effort and time. A quick look at the Pyramid of Maslow tells us that only when people have fulfill sufficiently their physiological need can they focus on their security needs. In that views it is very important to solve the basic need of hunger, water and communicable disease.

The groups did a great job describing the problems but not such a great job at describing the benefit of their proposed action. I believe that action are worth as long as the benefit exceed the cost.

I hope that my comment were helpful.

Another difficulty is that the group’s decision appear to be more subjective than analytical; this is why they end up with the majority of their allocation going to projects which match their initial mission statement. The implication of this is that there is something missing in the objective analysis and intercomparison of opportunities. As they state that their initial ranking was subjectively-based, perhaps the group needs to find a more dispassionate means of assessing priorities.

Part of the problem may lie in the pairing procedure, which did not seem to add a great deal to the evaluative process, and the initial value estimates, which were insufficiently varied. A glance at the appended tables shows too little differentiation between different options. The group needs to reconsider its underlying bias in relation to the range of opportunities, make estimates of real benefits and allocate a value to these, and take consideration of the long-term implications of their choices, such as the likely increase of population in marginal development areas due to improved disease control & hunger/food programs.

My conclusion overall is that the wolfpack, in spite of its name, has allowed its heart to rule its head, reaching the conclusions which are implied by its initial subjective evaluations, rather than looking coldly and ruthlessly at best opportunities.

My recommendation is to go back to the start and look at how you can evaluate the benefits of each opportunity.

I hope you find this useful and not too destrucitve; good luck!

This is a cost\benefit analysis. I have read your earlier paper (which was excellent!) about the problems when values judgments are used when making policy decisions. Isn’t cost benefit analysis a values judgment? What are the values and costs that are important? How do you reconcile the differences in what different groups consider are important?

For example the national parks need money to maintain the parks. Surveys of visitors of the parks show that they are willing to pay increased fees if it will go to the parks, but the park service will not increase fees because they want to make sure there is open access to the parks.

How do you reconcile the different groups differt value judgments? You can give a link to a paper you have written ( I’m sure it will be insightful )