The Copenhagen Consensus process has been incredibly helpful in bringing attention to the efficiency of nutritional interventions for development. Their process gives tailwind to good ideas and helps to make our global priorities smarter.

Making choices is not an easy task. But if we want to get the best possible impact for our limited resources, it is essential to prioritize our options. The cooperation with Copenhagen Consensus Center has been a highly informative and valuable experience, and the results of Bangladesh Priorities will help BRAC specifically and the country in general set our future priorities.

There are a lot of pressing problems in the world, and a lot of aspirations to fix them. But resources are scarce and we must prioritise our goals if we want to use our resources as well as possible. I therefore wholeheartedly commend the initiative to assess the costs and benefits of the Post-2015 goals. If done well — and I fully expect that it will be — the value of this project may be measured in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. I cannot think of work that is more important, and I cannot wait to see the results.

Effective investments for today’s children are fundamental for a better and more equitable world in future. The Copenhagen Consensus Centre brings a simple but compelling logic to this endeavor: if we want to make sure that this world is realized for our children, let’s focus on the investments that will generate the most good.

Four years ago, the Danish Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, Bjorn Lomborg, gathered together a panel of Nobel Economic Laureates and tasked them with the job of identifying the most and least cost-effective actions to address climate change...Let me just summarise. A considered panel of the world’s most eminent pure market economists concluded that of 15 different systems for cutting emissions, the three worst, the three least effective, the three most costly per tonne of abatement were variations of the carbon tax or ETS. By comparison, their top solutions were all about smarter technology.

We welcome this contribution form the Copenhagen Consensus Center and remain confident that it, along with all ideas and similar initiatives from civil society stakeholders, will enrich the deliberations.

I certainly don't agree with Bjorn (or the Copenhagen Consensus) on everything, but I always find him worth listening to. He's not an idealogue. He's a data driven guy who cares about using scarce resources in the smartest possible way.

It is vital that the billions of dollars that governments provide for international development are used to greatest effect to improve living standards in developing countries. I welcome the initiative of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in undertaking a project to identify the most effective development goals for 2015 and beyond. This important research is aimed at providing policy makers with additional tools to improve the management of foreign aid globally.

Ranking specific interventions based on their cost-effectiveness forced researchers to get away from generalities and vague policy recommendations.

The bad news is that the world seems poised to spend vast sums on ineffective global warming policies. The good news is that Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center bring together the best advice from leading experts on smart ways to address climate change. The public and policymakers should take heed.