Global Warming Vs. Save The Humans

I found the Bjorn Lomberg interview over at Scienticfic American's Clash site interesting -- he asks basically, how much of the available money in the world should we be using to cure human suffering due to Climate Change in the next 100 years, vs. how much should we spend now for related and unrelated problems. (Clash asked the same series of questions to Lomberg, Sir Nicholas Stern and Gary Yohe).

For example Bjorn says:

"It turns out that for every person you can save from dying from malaria [which will get worse due to Global Warming] through [the] Kyoto [Treaty], the same resources spent on malaria directly could have saved 36,000 people."

I find this a fascinating topic that I have not heard much discussion on. I have forwarded this to our Global Warming Blog to see if Brett wishes to post on this topic as well.