A small little article in USA Today recently brings up an interesting question. Where should the UN or any governmental entity spend it's $'s to get the biggest return. Should the money be spent for humans only or for all living members of the Earth including all plants and animals. Climate change affects all living members of the Earth so spreading the cost of Climate Change arrest to help all living species really gives a better return. But if you have interest in humans only and very poor humans specifically, then as is seen below, $'s spent on climate change may not be a good investment.
Bjorn Lomborg, director of Copenhagen Consensus Center says, "Providing Vitamin A and zinc to 80% of the 140 million or so undernourished children in the world would require a commitment of just $60 million annually. For $226 million, we could get iron and iodine to more than 2.5 billion people. The choice is stark: For a few hundred million dollars, we could help almost half of humanity now. Compare this with the investments to tackle climate change-$40 trillion annually by the end of the century-which would save a hundred times fewer starving people."