Lomborg arranged the first "Copenhagen Consensus" conference in 2004 and has planned to arrange a similar conference every fourth year. The second was held in 2008. In addition, some other local conferences have been held along the same lines.

The conferences are set up in such a way that short-term problems will inevitably get a higher priority than long-term problems. As the climate issue is a long-term problem, it will always get a low rank. And indeed, the 2004 conference as well as the 2008 resulted in climate problems being given the lowest of all ranks.

How this comes about, is explained in more detail in Lomborg-errrors´ pages on the 2004 conference, and especially in the page about discounting. Some critical comments on the 2008 conference are also given.

I have also written a page on the concepts "cost-efficiency" and "cost-benefit".

According to Lomborg, Copenhagen Consensus 2004 has stimulated increased funding for the efforts against malaria and HIV/AIDS. Has this funding been worthwhile? Did the effort actually pay off as well as postulated in Copenhagen Consensus 2004? Can the effort stand up to a cost/benefit analysis? This is discussed in the last page on the following list:

Text on Copenhagen Consensus 2004
Text on Copenhagen Consensus 2008
Text on discounting
Debate between Fog and Lomborg on cheating with discount rates
Cost-effectiveness versus cost-benefit
Analysis of the actual efforts and their outcome