Jeffrey Sachs has thought about many subjects at great depth, and writes about them with great learning and clarity. He seems to have thought about all the key points and many details. Could we do X about some problem? He's thought about it and has an opinion, or lots of them! I imagine he'd be a tough debating opponent.

His strongest material is about population, food and environmental destruction. Professor Sachs is both quite depressing and optimistic. He pulls no punches in calling out humanity for one sin after another, and the text moves right along in what is actually fairly dense content. You made read this as a survey of so many things that are going wrong. Even though I consider that the highlight, there are plenty of books raving about the environment. What Sachs offers that sets him apart from many others are his recommendations (although "recommendation" is a bit soft as a word for his energy) and his optimism that they will actually work and make a difference, at a cost that within range of discussion. A bit like those World War II posters: "Yes, We Can!"

He also rightly (in my opinion) emphasizes the critical role technology has played in advancing humanity's standard of living and how essential technology is to finding solutions. We must solve problems through brainpower and not pretend that a reduced standard of living for the west will somehow fix anything. Of course, Professor Sachs calls out technology for its negative impact and rampant destruction in the hands of humans. His balance is on the optimistic side for technology, partly through more institutional control over its application.

What I found somewhat unpersuasive was his optimism about Africa, that money and talent properly applied would really set Africa on the road to development. Sachs admits that geography is a major obstacle for Africa, but refuses to agree with those who argue that geography is destiny or so fundamental. I felt he underestimated the cultural factors in both donor and recipient countries, and over-estimated the capabilities of the UN. To be honest, I hope he is right.

Also unpersuasive were his secondary comments on America as compared to more socialist-like Scandinavians. That topic seemed a bit unnecessary and, while not exactly apples and oranges, he used some numbers that I felt distorted the argument. In a book that talks so cogently about poverty and its impact, it felt so wrong to say that 17% of American live in poverty because their income is less than 50% of the average, when that standard of living at the 50% of average in America is so high.

My strongest objection, however, was how Mr. Sachs took too many partisan shots that made him seem too petty and aggressive. Many of his arguments were so well stated that he didn't need to stoop to constant attacks against the Bush Administration. Yes, we all know Bush has been a terrible president. OK, we get it. Yet, when other administrations or politicians of the other side were behind debacles, such as his complaint about Vietnam or American foreign policies that have lasted decades or the lack of nuclear power as an energy option in the US, those responsible or leading the charge remain nameless. Mr. Sachs clearly can raise his game in that regard.

Jeffrey Sachs has thought about many subjects at great depth, and writes about them with great learning and clarity. He seems to have thought about all the key points and many details. Could we do X about some problem? He's thought about it and has an opinion, or lots of them! I imagine he'd be a tough debating opponent.

His strongest material is about population, food and environmental destruction. Professor Sachs is both quite depressing and optimistic. He pulls no punches in calling out humanity for one sin after another, and the text moves right along in what is actually fairly dense content. You made read this as a survey of so many things that are going wrong. Even though I consider that the highlight, there are plenty of books raving about the environment. What Sachs offers that sets him apart from many others are his recommendations (although "recommendation" is a bit soft as a word for his energy) and his optimism that they will actually work and make a difference, at a cost that within range of discussion. A bit like those World War II posters: "Yes, We Can!"

What I found somewhat unpersuasive was his optimism about Africa, that money and talent properly applied would really set Africa on the road to development. Sachs admits that geography is a major obstacle for Africa, but refuses to agree with those who argue that geography is destiny or so fundamental. I felt he underestimated the cultural factors in both donor and recipient countries, and over-estimated the capabilities of the UN. To be honest, I hope he is right.

Also unpersuasive were his secondary comments on America as compared to more socialist-like Scandinavians. That topic seemed a bit unnecessary and, while not exactly apples and oranges, he used some numbers that I felt distorted the argument. In a book that talks so cogently about poverty and its impact, it felt so wrong to say that 17% of American live in poverty because their income is less than 50% of the average, when that standard of living at the 50% of average in America is so high.

My strongest objection, however, was how Mr. Sachs took too many partisan shots that made him seem too petty and aggressive. Many of his arguments were so well stated that he didn't need to stoop to constant attacks against the Bush Administration. Yes, we all know Bush has been a terrible president. OK, we get it. Yet, when other administrations or politicians of the other side were behind debacles, such as his complaint about Vietnam or American foreign policies that have lasted decades or the lack of nuclear power as an energy option in the US, those responsible or leading the charge remain nameless. Mr. Sachs clearly can raise his game in that regard.

Sachs begins by telling us that the 20th century saw the end of European dominance of global politics and economics, and the 21st will see the end of American dominance - probably within the first half. Simultaneously, we will also confront the challenges of sustainable development - protecting the environment, stabilizing population, narrowing the gaps between rich and poor, and illegal migration take center stage. Global cooperation, not unrestrained market forces and competing nation-states, will be required.

Forging national commitments and cooperation has proven hardest in societies divided by race, ethnicity and class, and native-born vs. immigrant status - eg. the U.S. Unfortunately, cooperation with the U.S. is also hampered by notorious acts of U.S. unilateralism such as the CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba, overthrows of Iran, Guyana, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, assassinations of numerous foreign officials, and unilateral wars or invasions in Central America, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Iraq. We have also influenced elections through secret CIA financing, and supported violent leaders who then came back to haunt us (eg. Saddam, Osama). (We have also done good things - eg. Marshal Plan, supporting the spread of ozone-depleting chemicals, etc.)

Sachs contends that averting climate-change devastation would cost less than 1% of the world's GNP, with implementing effective population control and wiping out extreme poverty would each add a cost of less than 0.1% GNP. He also believes that the U.S. portion could be easily funded through reducing military expenditures (20X that of the world average, on a per-person basis), and making existing foreign aid more effective (eg. less spent on expensive consultants and high-priced U.S. food). China must also be involved - it is now adding the equivalent of two 500 MW coal-fired plants/week, equivalent to the U.K.'s total each year, and if it reaches half the U.S. motor-vehicle density by 2050 they will have over 2X the U.S. total.

Dealing with global warming can be effectively accomplished at a cost of 1-5 cents/kwh where geology is favorable; Sachs also asserts that alternative energy sources would be even cheaper, though offers no documentation of this doubtful statement. Further, since he does not tell us how prevalent "favorable geology for sequestration" is, his overall claim is suspect as well. Regardless, it is interesting to learn that 19% of new CO2 comes from deforestation.

Some 70% of the Earth's surface water usage goes to agriculture. Dry lands have expanded from 15% to 30% since 1970, though again no documentation of this alarming claim is made. The major problem is our emptying underground reserves, and depleting rivers prior to subsequent nations having a fair share (eg. the Rio Grande vs. Mexico). One obvious solution is "more crop per drop" - drip irrigation.

Rich world nations added about 400 million inhabitants (50%) between 1950-2005, while the developing world added 3.5 billion (200%). Its clear where the emphasis needs to be placed.

Africa is particularly burdened by poor growing conditions, transportation difficulties, and rampant disease. The good news is that demonstration projects have shown how to multiply yields to 5X current levels. Sachs admits that little progress in adopting these methods has occurred, and suggests that lack of funds for fertilizer is a major factor holding back both Africa and India.

Besides increasing the levels and more effective use of foreign aid, Sachs also sees a major opportunity through involving the world's richest individuals. The wealth of the world's 950 billionaires totals $3.5 trillion - 5% of that each year would amount to $175 billion, greater than the amount given by the 22 governments representing one billion of the Earth's population. Sachs also believes university research contributions could be made more effective through emphasizing cross-disciplinary problem-solving rather than theoretical and compartmentalized efforts.

The problem with "Common Wealth" is that it slides over culture and politics - topics that others believe are primary determinants of economic progress. Changing the U.S. from its unilateral approach will be quite difficult; further, there is the previously referenced problem of getting individuals to change their habits. Finally, as also earlier referenced, some of its conclusions and recommendations lack credible documentation, and it lacks the urgency communicated by credible others regarding global warming.

Sachs begins by telling us that the 20th century saw the end of European dominance of global politics and economics, and the 21st will see the end of American dominance - probably within the first half. Simultaneously, we will also confront the challenges of sustainable development - protecting the environment, stabilizing population, narrowing the gaps between rich and poor, and illegal migration take center stage. Global cooperation, not unrestrained market forces and competing nation-states, will be required.

Forging national commitments and cooperation has proven hardest in societies divided by race, ethnicity and class, and native-born vs. immigrant status - eg. the U.S. Unfortunately, cooperation with the U.S. is also hampered by notorious acts of U.S. unilateralism such as the CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba, overthrows of Iran, Guyana, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, assassinations of numerous foreign officials, and unilateral wars or invasions in Central America, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Iraq. We have also influenced elections through secret CIA financing, and supported violent leaders who then came back to haunt us (eg. Saddam, Osama). (We have also done good things - eg. Marshal Plan, supporting the spread of ozone-depleting chemicals, etc.)

Sachs contends that averting climate-change devastation would cost less than 1% of the world's GNP, with implementing effective population control and wiping out extreme poverty would each add a cost of less than 0.1% GNP. He also believes that the U.S. portion could be easily funded through reducing military expenditures (20X that of the world average, on a per-person basis), and making existing foreign aid more effective (eg. less spent on expensive consultants and high-priced U.S. food). China must also be involved - it is now adding the equivalent of two 500 MW coal-fired plants/week, equivalent to the U.K.'s total each year, and if it reaches half the U.S. motor-vehicle density by 2050 they will have over 2X the U.S. total.

Dealing with global warming can be effectively accomplished at a cost of 1-5 cents/kwh where geology is favorable; Sachs also asserts that alternative energy sources would be even cheaper, though offers no documentation of this doubtful statement. Further, since he does not tell us how prevalent "favorable geology for sequestration" is, his overall claim is suspect as well. Regardless, it is interesting to learn that 19% of new CO2 comes from deforestation.

Some 70% of the Earth's surface water usage goes to agriculture. Dry lands have expanded from 15% to 30% since 1970, though again no documentation of this alarming claim is made. The major problem is our emptying underground reserves, and depleting rivers prior to subsequent nations having a fair share (eg. the Rio Grande vs. Mexico). One obvious solution is "more crop per drop" - drip irrigation.

Rich world nations added about 400 million inhabitants (50%) between 1950-2005, while the developing world added 3.5 billion (200%). Its clear where the emphasis needs to be placed.

Africa is particularly burdened by poor growing conditions, transportation difficulties, and rampant disease. The good news is that demonstration projects have shown how to multiply yields to 5X current levels. Sachs admits that little progress in adopting these methods has occurred, and suggests that lack of funds for fertilizer is a major factor holding back both Africa and India.

Besides increasing the levels and more effective use of foreign aid, Sachs also sees a major opportunity through involving the world's richest individuals. The wealth of the world's 950 billionaires totals $3.5 trillion - 5% of that each year would amount to $175 billion, greater than the amount given by the 22 governments representing one billion of the Earth's population. Sachs also believes university research contributions could be made more effective through emphasizing cross-disciplinary problem-solving rather than theoretical and compartmentalized efforts.

The problem with "Common Wealth" is that it slides over politics and psychology. Changing the U.S. from its unilateral approach will be quite difficult; further, there is the previously referenced problem of getting individuals to change their habits. Finally, as also earlier referenced, some of its conclusions and recommendations lack credible documentation, and it lacks the urgency communicated by credible others regarding global warming.

Truly a must-read. I assure non-economists wary of econojargin: if you read books, this one's accessible enough for you.

The book sheds light onto the roots of the world's problems from a UN economist's perspective.

The complex web of cause and effect, and of problem and solution, occasionally seems to present contradictions, but it ultimately serves to reveal how complicated things truly are, and therefore, just how delicate, prescriptive, and adaptable the next generation of policies must be.

this is one of four books that i would hope that our new president reads, assuming that he is capable. this book addresses, from a macroeconomic perspective, many of the issues that face our planet. it encourages cooperation among all peoples and countries. it discusses and identifies specific actions that can be taken to encourage our responsible addressing of global issues of the environment, pollution and global warming, education, poverty, basic infrastructure ... it does not address any possible capitalistic opportunities or opportunities for bringing capitalism or democracy to developing countries. in my opinion, sachs pretty persuasively calls for action on a global scale for many issues that we face. eruditic in nature, he is not the easiest read, but he dispels valuable treasures along the way that make turning and reading each page well worthwhile. i found one "statistical error" but, otherwise, free from typos, grammatical errors, or other errors, of course, i am not expert at the content. this is one of the few books over the decades that i am recommending to former professors.

When I was born in 1955, the global population stood at about 2.5 billion people. Today it is 6.6 billion. According to conservative estimates, by 2050, 9.2 billion people will populate planet earth, and in gloomier forecasts the figure rises to 11.7 billion. Most of the growth has taken place in the poorest countries that can least afford it (literally or figuratively). Like never before, writes Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, we share "a common fate on a crowded planet," and that common human fate demands a shared responsibility.

In his previous book, The End of Poverty (2005), Sachs tackled the problem of the roughly 40% of our world that lives in poverty or "extreme poverty" (on $1 a day or less). In that book he argued that the real obstacles to poverty reduction are not so much ineptitude, corruption, and laziness but structural problems, geographic isolation, overall vulnerability, and rich-world miserliness. He chided the United States in particular for its short-sighted stinginess. Our development aid has "declined for decades," he wrote, because we insist upon looking for "the cheap way out." Fierce critics of aid such as William Easterly (The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good) argued that Sachs simply wanted to throw more aid dollars at problems, when such aid has failed in the past.

Sachs broadens his scope in the current book, but continues the same theme. After two introductory chapters, the middle nine chapters of the book focus on three broad obstacles to sharing the world's common wealth: environmental sustainability (climate change, water, and species extinction), population stabilization, and poverty reduction. Our current trajectory is simply unsustainable. If we do nothing, he says, only calamity awaits us. Nor can we expect free markets alone to solve these problems.

Our main problem, he argues repeatedly, is not the lack of available solutions but the absence of political leadership, global cooperation, and implementation. What we must overcome is nothing less than "the collapse of faith in global problem-solving" and the "cynical disbelief in global cooperation itself." The age of global convergence and cooperation is all the more important, in his mind, because the age of American hegemony, especially given the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, is over.

Sachs does not argue that economic growth like that in India or China is undesirable or unsustainable. It's only unsustainable if we do nothing. Nor is he a pessimist, but in fact an unabashed optimist about the power of science and technology to lead the way. "These burdens are surmountable, and at a remarkably low cost. Food production can be increased; diseases can be controlled; education and literacy can be expanded to ensure universal coverage of the young; and infrastructure-- especially roads, power, water, and sanitation-- can be put in place. Indeed, these things can happen rapidly if the projects can be implemented. While in a handful of cases the limiting factor is poor governance, in most cases it is finance. The poor know what to do but are too poor to do it. Since they can't meet their immediate needs (food, safe water, health care) they also can't afford to save and invest for the future. This is where foreign assistance comes in" (229).

If we can mobilize more financial aid, and then mobilize all the many and necessary actors (government, business, NGOs, scientists, universities, etc.) to work in concert, Sachs is confident that we can enjoy economic growth for all, environmental sustainability, and population stabilization. He points to past successes like the eradication of small pox and polio, a million Africans now on affordable anti-retrovirals, and the Grameen Bank founded by Muhammad Yunus that has extended micro-credit loans to seven million borrowers (mainly women). In his view persistence, generosity, and enlightened self-interest by the global community must triumph over pessimism and business as usual. The former path leads to an "economics for a crowded planet," the latter to certain catastrophe.

With the publication of The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time just a few years ago, Jeffrey Sachs estimated that it would take annual donations of 135 to 190 billion dollars by rich countries to eradicate poverty by 2025. Those were the UN Millenium Development Goals of 2000. But much has happened since then. Economic development has accelerated and not because of development aid, it was mostly due to globalization or market forces. The unfortunate by-product of this development has been enviromental stress. In order to continue development in a sustainable way and also reach areas of sub-Sahara Africa, the price tag will go up. According to Sachs, it will now require 840 billion dollars or about 2.4 percent of rich-world income. This is still a bargain when one considers the alternative.

Sachs is obviously a liberal with a grandiose plan that many will call utopian. He has been famously criticized by conservatives such as William Easterly in The White Man's Burden. Conservatives are not keen on large-scale plans in general, and they are generally cynical about what governments and humanitarian aid agencies can accomplish. However, in spite of their differences, Sachs and Easterly share some common ground. They both believe that small targeted projects that are either monitored or bypass corrupt government officials can be effective. Sachs is at his best when he draws on work done at the Earth Institute, of which he is director. The scientific farming techniques that he advocates are essential to the survival of the human race that is becoming predominantly urban.

Eradicating poverty is in everyone's interest since it slows down population growth. If the global population continues to grow at its current rate, reaching 10 billion at mid-century, our resources will be depleted. It is unrealistic for national governments or international organizations to try and control population growth. Only with economic security and widely distributed wealth will populations levels stabalize.

Sachs argues in the final chapter (The Power of One) that global cooperation is needed to solve the problems of poverty, overpopulation, pandemics, pollution, climate change, and scarcities of water, arable land and resources. This sounds naive and utopian but it is also true. National governments, however, will only be looking at their own short-term interests. But as environmental catastrophes start to mount, whether it's food shortages or rising sea-levels, governments will take action, but by then it might be too late.

With the publication of The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time just a few years ago, Jeffrey Sachs estimated that it would take annual donations of 135 to 190 billion dollars by rich countries to eradicate poverty by 2025. Those were the UN Millenium Development Goals of 2000. But much has happened since then. Economic development has accelerated and not because of development aid, it was mostly due to globalization or market forces. The unfortunate by-product of this development has been enviromental stress. In order to continue development in a sustainable way and also reach areas of sub-Sahara Africa, the price tag will go up. According to Sachs, it will now require 840 billion dollars or about 2.4 percent of rich-world income. This is still a bargain when one considers the alternative.

Sachs is obviously a liberal with a grandiose plan that many will call utopian. He has been famously criticized by conservatives such as William Easterly in The White Man's Burden. Conservatives are not keen on large-scale plans in general, and they are generally cynical about what governments and humanitarian aid agencies can accomplish. However, in spite of their differences, Sachs and Easterly share some common ground. They both believe that small targeted projects that are either monitored or bypass corrupt government officials can be effective. Sachs is at his best when he draws on work done at the Earth Institute, of which he is director. The scientific farming techniques that he advocates are essential to the survival of the human race that is becoming predominantly urban.

Eradicating poverty is in everyone's interests when is comes to slowing down population growth. If the global population continues at its current rate reaching 10 billion at mid-century our resources will be depleted. It is unrealistic for national governments or international organizations to try and control population growth. Only with economic security will populations levels stabalize.

Sachs argues in the final chapter (The Power of One) that global cooperation is needed to solve the problems of poverty, overpopulation, pandemics, pollution, climate change, and scarcities of water, arable land and resources. This sounds naive and utopian but it is also true. National governments, however, will only be looking at their own short-term interests. But as environmental catastrophes start to mount, whether it's food shortages or rising sea-levels, governments will take action, but by then it might be too late.

I wrote a rave review on the author's earlier book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time and eagerly anticipated this book. It has been a real disappointment. Only the foreword by E.O. Wilson kept me from setting it aside entirely.

As someone who reads broadly and sees with increasing dismay the insularity of citation cabals, somewhat arthritic communities of practice, and a tendency to ignore diverse perspectives, I was immediately annoyed by this book's failure to respect Lester Brown, Herman Daly, Paul Hawkin, C. K. Prahalad, and J. F. Rischard, to name but a few. The author does not appear to have read the High Level Threat Panel Report of the United Nations, and his over-all presentation, while accurate and erudite, is also dense, narrow, and of dubious implementability.

This is a book of, by, and for economic geeks. It is not a book for normal people. Below, in descending order of priority, are better books for the general reader, which is to say, equal or better coverage, easier to understand, with better over-all structure. Medard Gabel's book "Seven Billion Billionaires" is not out yet, so I point to his lead article and post his brilliant cost image above.
Where to find 4 billion new customers: expanding the world's marketplace; Smart companies looking for new growth opportunities should consider broadening ... consultant.: An article from: The Futurist
High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them
The Future of Life
A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
2007 State of the Future
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition

If you are steeped in the literature and care deeply about the details, then this book is an absolutely essential reference, and for that reason receives four stars.

The author opens with "Humanity shares a common fate on a crowded planet." Early on he says that sustainable energy could be achieved for 1% of world income. He believes Asia will be the economic center of gravity in the future (assuming this includes India, I agree).

He identifies six key factors for the near future:
1. Convergence
2. More people, higher incomes
3. Asian Century
4. Urban Century
5. Environmental Challenges
6. Poorest Billion

He loses one star, apart from failing to honor the real pioneers including Herman Daly, father of Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications, for overly general platitudes about global collaboration, technology, saving Darfur as if anything he lists was possible, and generally neglecting so many factors and metrics as to leave me wondering where the book was going.

He does well in itemizing the importance of the anthropocene, which tends to be neglected by many, listing impacts on land, water, carbon, nitrogen, plants, birds, and fisheries. The loss of amphibians and pollinators (e.g. bees) is noted.

He lists seven climate change impacts:
1. Rising ocean levels
2. Habitat destruction
3. Increased disease transmission
4. Changes in agricultural productivity
5. Changes in water availability
6. Increased natural hazards
7. Changes in ocean chemistry

These are all important, but I am distressed to see no reference to Blue Frontier, Blue Death, or Water: The Fate of Our Most Precious Resource. This confirms my unease--this is a brilliant man with a great deal of influence who is out of touch with a number of very significant observers whose intellectual contributions cannot be ignored in a work such as this.

Coming back to Darfur, one recommendation he makes with which I totally agree, is the value of introducing cell phones and cell towers to the high-risk areas. I wrote to the CEOs of both Nokia and Motorola about such an initiative a year ago, and never received a response. They do not seem to appreciate the reality that cell phones, like razors, should be given away, and the transactions monetized instead ("sell the shave, not the razor").

He makes five points about the US that are certainly serious, but as one who has read Joe Nye, Jonathan Schell, Chalmers Johnson, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Peters, and so many others, I see the following five points as the equivalent of a teen-age driver lecturing on highway safety:
1. Limits of military power (see Nye's Paradox of American Power)
2. Wars of identity (see Peter's Wars of Blood and Faith)
3. Drivers of violence (see UN High Level Threat Panel above)
4. Foreign Assistance (see O'Hanlon, Half Penny on the Dollar)
5. Real Security (proliferation, environment, failed states--ho hum)

The chapter on global problem solving was entirely reasonable, and I worry that I am communicating too harsh a sense of the book. If you are a geek and have time on your hands, by all means buy this book. Otherwise, read my reviews of all the others, and then buy Rischard's book and spend time at the Earth Intelligence Network (all free).

He says the public sector should
1. Fund basic science (never mind the Republican war on science)
2. Promote early stage technologies (never mind Monsanto's seeds of death or the Transylvanian Dracula patent system designed to retard human progress by locking up new stuff so the legacy stuff can continue to sell)
3. Create a global policy framework for solutions (see Earth Intelligence Network and the ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers, see especially the EarthGame(TM) as devised by Medard Gabel who helped Buckminster Fuller create the original analog World Game)
4. Finance the scale-up of successful innovations and technologies (huh?)

No mention of the public sector's most important role in creating a social environment that is stable, orderly, and healthy, so that citizens can be educated and gainfully employed while exporting goodness.

He suggests the private sector has two core responsibilities besides making a profit (at our expense, see comment below on true costs):
1. Investing in R&D, often with public funding
2. Implementing large-scale technological solutions in partnership with the public sector

Hmmm. No mention of Green to Gold, Sustainable Design, Services Science, identification of "true cost" for all products and services, etc. There is an entire planet of literature relevant to this books purpose that does not appear here. I respect the author and his accomplishments, but at this point in the book I am exasperated.

The not-for-profit sector has five key roles, per the author:
1. Public advocacy (perhaps public education would be a better term)
2. Social entrepreneurship and problem solving (good)
3. Seed funding of solutions (but not willy nilly--has anyone heard of the concept of a creating a Global Range of Gifts Table for each of the ten threats across each of the twelve policies, with amounts from $10 to $100 million, such that individuals--80% of the giving--can select items directly, and Civil Affairs and NGO individuals all over the world can "call in" peace targets to the Table?)
4. Accountability of government and the private sector (see the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and what David Walker will be doing there--that is a first-class endeavor)
5. Scientific research, notably in academic institutions (where we should be emphasizing very low cost licensing to the governments of India, South Africa and others, and burying the profiteering pharmaceuticals and the predatory seed companies).

The author follows the above with a global funding architecture that is not persuasive and that would not satisfy my colleagues from the Office of Management and Budget.

The book ends with a limp, suggesting eight steps individuals can take:
1. Learn
2. Travel
3. Join
4. Community (face to face)
5. Social Networks (online)
6. Workplace
7. Live personally (Gandhi: be the change you want to see in the world.)

My bottom line: this book is not ready for prime time. It is dense, disappointing, and it will never be read nor understood by the kinds of people--less E.O. Wilson and George Soros--that have real power over the $1 trillion in charitable giving, the $1 trillion in spending on war instead of peace, or the $1 trillion in corporate and government and other foreign assistance.

I challenge the author to post a one page summary suitable for a President, and a one-page spending plan that addresses the ten threats and twelve policies that I list below for the convenience of the Amazon shopper:

TEN THREATS (LtGen Dr. Brent Scowcroft and others on High Level Threat Panel of the United Nations--in order of priority)
01 Poverty
02 Infectious Disease
03 Environmental Degradation (includes climate change and warming)
04 Inter-State Conflict (we spend $1.3 trillion on waging war)
05 Civil War (often occasioned by corruption and our support for 42 of the 44 dictators on the planet--see Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
06 Genocide
07 Other Atrocities (kidnapping for body parts; kidnapping dumb cute girls from Connecticut that go to "movie auditions" alone)
08 Proliferation (no mention of small arms, the real weapon of mass destruction: the USA sells five times more weapons to the rest of the world than the UK, three times more than Russia--and the worst proliferators of nuclear, biological and chemical are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Reality check, anyone?)
09 Terrorism (a law enforcement problem, not even close to the casualties from automobile accidents in the US alone)
10 Transnational crime ($2 trillion against the US $7 trillion, and getting worse--they have better intelligence, encryption, computers, and wages than any government force)

The twelve policies, based on an EIN study of the last 5 presidential election "mandate for change books":
01 Agriculture
02 Diplomacy
03 Economy
04 Education
05 Energy
06 Family
07 Health
08 Immigration
09 Justice
10 Security
11 Society
12 Water

Last but not least, the author, who is without question one of the very highest experts in his narrow chosen domain, appears out of touch with the literatures on collective intelligence and on the wealth of networks. I will mention only one book (there are others, including one now free at EIN on COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace). See my favorite, Yochai Benckler's The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.

I am going to end with a harsh thought: As much as I admire Columbia University, as much as I see the possibilities for the United Nations, what I sense in this book is that the author is deeply entrenched in a pyramidal systems of systems, and is still in the "command and control" top-down elites rule mode. Common Wealth is not going to be orchestrated by the New York mandarins--it is going to be created by We the People, using Open Money, boycotting all products and services whose true costs are externalized (e.g. Exxon did not make $40 billion in profit--they externalized $12 in costs to the earth for EACH gallon of gas they sold--one will not find that fact in this author's book--he might not be invited back to the high table).

See for instance (Amazon limits me to ten links, sorry):
Infinite Wealth by Barry Carter (the first real visionary)
Wealth of Networks by Tom Stewart
Revolutionary Wealth by Alvin and Heidi Toffler
Group Genius by Keith Sawyer
Wikinomics by Don Tapscott

Then there is the sustainability and ecological economics literature:
Seven Tomorrows by Paul Hawkins
Green to Gold by by Daniel Esty and Andrew Williams
Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawkins
Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawkins
Capitalism 3.0 by Peter Barnes
The Philosophy of Sustainable Design by Jason McClellan
and so on....

Argh. Annoying. I expected so MUCH more. I expect some negative votes. There are those that simply cannot stand to be told they have missed a big part of the diversity answer. As we used to say in Viet-Nam, "Sorry 'bout that." It takes ALL of us, SHARING and creating COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE from the BOTTOM UP, to create Common Wealth. This book is certainly accurate as far as it goes, well-intentioned, but looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

I wrote a rave review on the author's earlier book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time and eagerly anticipated this book. It has been a real disappointment. Only the foreword by E.O. Wilson kept me from setting it aside entirely.

As someone who reads broadly and sees with increasing dismay the insularity of citation cabals, somewhat arthritic communities of practice, and a tendency to ignore diverse perspectives, I was immediately annoyed by this book's failure to respect Lester Brown, Herman Daly, Paul Hawkin, C. K. Prahalad, and J. F. Rischard, to name but a few. The author does not appear to have read the High Level Threat Panel Report of the United Nations, and his over-all presentation, while accurate and erudite, is also dense, narrow, and of dubious implementability.

This is a book of, by, and for economic geeks. It is not a book for normal people. Below, in descending order of priority, are better books for the general reader, which is to say, equal or better coverage, easier to understand, with better over-all structure. Medard Gabel's book "Seven Billion Billionaires" is not out yet, so I point to his lead article and post his brilliant cost image above.
Where to find 4 billion new customers: expanding the world's marketplace; Smart companies looking for new growth opportunities should consider broadening ... consultant.: An article from: The Futurist
High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them
The Future of Life
A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
2007 State of the Future
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition

If you are steeped in the literature and care deeply about the details, then this book is an absolutely essential reference, and for that reason receives four stars.

The author opens with "Humanity shares a common fate on a crowded planet." Early on he says that sustainable energy could be achieved for 1% of world income. He believes Asia will be the economic center of gravity in the future (assuming this includes India, I agree).

He identifies six key factors for the near future:
1. Convergence
2. More people, higher incomes
3. Asian Century
4. Urban Century
5. Environmental Challenges
6. Poorest Billion

He loses one star, apart from failing to honor the real pioneers including Herman Daly, father of Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications, for overly general platitudes about global collaboration, technology, saving Darfur as if anything he lists was possible, and generally neglecting so many factors and metrics as to leave me wondering where the book was going.

He does well in itemizing the importance of the anthropocene, which tends to be neglected by many, listing impacts on land, water, carbon, nitrogen, plants, birds, and fisheries. The loss of amphibians and pollinators (e.g. bees) is noted.

He lists seven climate change impacts:
1. Rising ocean levels
2. Habitat destruction
3. Increased disease transmission
4. Changes in agricultural productivity
5. Changes in water availability
6. Increased natural hazards
7. Changes in ocean chemistry

These are all important, but I am distressed to see no reference to Blue Frontier, Blue Death, or Water: The Fate of Our Most Precious Resource. This confirms my unease--this is a brilliant man with a great deal of influence who is out of touch with a number of very significant observers whose intellectual contributions cannot be ignored in a work such as this.

Coming back to Darfur, one recommendation he makes with which I totally agree, is the value of introducing cell phones and cell towers to the high-risk areas. I wrote to the CEOs of both Nokia and Motorola about such an initiative a year ago, and never received a response. They do not seem to appreciate the reality that cell phones, like razors, should be given away, and the transactions monetized instead ("sell the shave, not the razor").

He makes five points about the US that are certainly serious, but as one who has read Joe Nye, Jonathan Schell, Chalmers Johnson, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Peters, and so many others, I see the following five points as the equivalent of a teen-age driver lecturing on highway safety:
1. Limits of military power (see Nye's Paradox of American Power)
2. Wars of identity (see Peter's Wars of Blood and Faith)
3. Drivers of violence (see UN High Level Threat Panel above)
4. Foreign Assistance (see O'Hanlon, Half Penny on the Dollar)
5. Real Security (proliferation, environment, failed states--ho hum)

The chapter on global problem solving was entirely reasonable, and I worry that I am communicating too harsh a sense of the book. If you are a geek and have time on your hands, by all means buy this book. Otherwise, read my reviews of all the others, and then buy Rischard's book and spend time at the Earth Intelligence Network (all free).

He says the public sector should
1. Fund basic science (never mind the Republican war on science)
2. Promote early stage technologies (never mind Monsanto's seeds of death or the Transylvanian Dracula patent system designed to retard human progress by locking up new stuff so the legacy stuff can continue to sell)
3. Create a global policy framework for solutions (see Earth Intelligence Network and the ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers, see especially the EarthGame(TM) as devised by Medard Gabel who helped Buckminster Fuller create the original analog World Game)
4. Finance the scale-up of successful innovations and technologies (huh?)

No mention of the public sector's most important role in creating a social environment that is stable, orderly, and healthy, so that citizens can be educated and gainfully employed while exporting goodness.

He suggests the private sector has two core responsibilities besides making a profit (at our expense, see comment below on true costs):
1. Investing in R&D, often with public funding
2. Implementing large-scale technological solutions in partnership with the public sector

Hmmm. No mention of Green to Gold, Sustainable Design, Services Science, identification of "true cost" for all products and services, etc. There is an entire planet of literature relevant to this books purpose that does not appear here. I respect the author and his accomplishments, but at this point in the book I am exasperated.

The not-for-profit sector has five key roles, per the author:
1. Public advocacy (perhaps public education would be a better term)
2. Social entrepreneurship and problem solving (good)
3. Seed funding of solutions (but not willy nilly--has anyone heard of the concept of a creating a Global Range of Gifts Table for each of the ten threats across each of the twelve policies, with amounts from $10 to $100 million, such that individuals--80% of the giving--can select items directly, and Civil Affairs and NGO individuals all over the world can "call in" peace targets to the Table?)
4. Accountability of government and the private sector (see the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and what David Walker will be doing there--that is a first-class endeavor)
5. Scientific research, notably in academic institutions (where we should be emphasizing very low cost licensing to the governments of India, South Africa and others, and burying the profiteering pharmaceuticals and the predatory seed companies).

The author follows the above with a global funding architecture that is not persuasive and that would not satisfy my colleagues from the Office of Management and Budget.

The book ends with a limp, suggesting eight steps individuals can take:
1. Learn
2. Travel
3. Joint
4. Community (face to face)
5. Social Networks (online)
6. Workplace
7. Live personally (Gandhi: be the change you want to see in the world.)

My bottom line: this book is not ready for prime time. It is dense, disappointing, and it will never be read nor understood by the kinds of people--less E.O. Wilson and George Soros--that have real power over the $1 trillion in charitable giving, the $1 trillion in spending on war instead of peace, or the $1 trillion in corporate and government and other foreign assistance.

I challenge the author to post a one page summary suitable for a President, and a one-page spending plan that addresses the ten threats and twelve policies that I list below for the convenience of the Amazon shopper:

TEN THREATS (LtGen Dr. Brent Scowcroft and others on High Level Threat Panel of the United Nations--in order of priority)
01 Poverty
02 Infectious Disease
03 Environmental Degradation (includes climate change and warming)
04 Inter-State Conflict (we spend $1.3 trillion on waging war)
05 Civil War (often occasioned by corruption and our support for 42 of the 44 dictators on the planet--see Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
06 Genocide
07 Other Atrocities (kidnapping of dumb blonds from Connecticut that go to "movie auditions" alone, kidnapping for body parts)
08 Proliferation (no mention of small arms, the real weapon of mass destruction: the USA sells five times more weapons to the rest of the world than the UK, three times more than Russia--and the worst proliferators of nuclear, biological and chemical are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Reality check, anyone?)
09 Terrorism (a law enforcement problem, not even close to the casualties from automobile accidents in the US alone)
10 Transnational crime ($2 trillion against the US $7 trillion, and getting worse--they have better intelligence, encryption, computers, and wages than any government force)

The twelve policies, based on an EIN study of the last 5 presidential election "mandate for change books":
01 Agriculture
02 Diplomacy
03 Economy
04 Education
05 Energy
06 Family
07 Health
08 Immigration
09 Justice
10 Security
11 Society
12 Water

Last but not least, the author, who is without question one of the very highest experts in his narrow chosen domain, appears out of touch with the literatures on collective intelligence and on the wealth of networks. I will mention only one book (there are others, including one now free at EIN on COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace). See my favorite, Yochai Benckler's The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.

I am going to end with a harsh thought: As much as I admire Columbia University, as much as I see the possibilities for the United Nations, what I sense in this book is that the author is deeply entrenched in a pyramidal systems of systems, and is still in the "command and control" top-down elites rule mode. Common Wealth is not going to be orchestrated by the New York mandarins--it is going to be created by We the People, using Open Money, boycotting all products and services whose true costs are externalized (e.g. Exxon did not make $40 billion in profit--they externalized $12 in costs to the earth for EACH gallon of gas they sold--one will not find that fact in this author's book--he might not be invited back to the high table).

Argh. Annoying. I expected so MUCH more.

Couple of years back I rushed to Columbia University in New York City to see Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson (I read all of his books )on stage giving a talk on Biodiversity, Environmental Impacts,.... and answering questions. I saw a man sitting next to him and asking questions and Dr. Wilson talking proudly of him and I thought this guy must be somebody really good but he is very humble. This is my first encounter in to the intellectual realm of Jeffrey D. Sachs. I later got a decent effect from his book "The End of Poverty". But this book is in a different League altogether.
It has touched, clarified, interconnected many topics of thoughts going on in my mind for long time after reading books like Deep Economy, The Ecology of Commerce, Guns germs and Steel, Collapse, Field Notes from the Catastrophe,Cradle to Cradle-Remaking the Way We Make Things,1491,Blessed Unrest, Big Coal, Untapped, Natural Capitalism, and many other books including tomes of economics and globalization ones.
The cover itself is an elegant design I have never seen before on any book. May be i liked it too much because I am an East Indian by ethnicity and we love anything golden in color :-).
I was waiting for March 18th and barged in to Barnes & Noble to grab one and read it.It deserves a public craze like that of Harry Porter. Keep doing your wonderful work Dr. Sachs. Let god give you more strength and wisdom. ---Hill Krishnan (Tk525@nyu.edu)

The author is right on and if he were in charge of the planet things would improve. But that can be said of a lot of good people, unlike our current "president" who is destroying the planet. Imagine what good the trillions of dollars we wasted on an unnecessary war could have done! We could have been completely energy independent by now with that kind of scratch. It's not that we can't do it, it's that our leaders are beholden to the oil interests.

The thing that bothers me about the talk and books about how to solve the worlds ills is that it is not hard to say how to improve the world, what needs to be done is obvious. From many points of view, in many different ways, that has been said and it's EASY to do so.

The problem is the people in charge, the powerful people, don't WANT to change the world for the better. They can do it; they just don't. You don't have to write to them about HOW to do it because that's easy. They simply don't want to. Why? Greed, fear, power. More books and treatises on HOW to fix things isn't necessary I'm afraid. For instance, it is NOT a lack of resources like water and food that causes problems, it's selfishness, greed, and fear. We could solve starvation in a heart beat if our leaders were compassionate and not beholden to greedy people.

So the revolution we need is SPIRITUAL (not religious), not technical or knowledge based. Plenty of books have been written about that too. So it's not a lack of information or knowledge. It's will. The leaders, those in power to get things done, need the will to have a heart, to be compassionate and care about others, as well as those they are beholden to who are greedy beyond belief. How many billions of dollars do you need to live? How many homes and boats do you need while others are starving for a piece of bread?
How to get that to happen? You got me. I don't know. But I do know that is the answer. No sense wasting time and resources spelling out what the world needs. We know already. It just needs to be implemented.