{"id":269589,"date":"2023-07-26T20:52:20","date_gmt":"2023-07-26T18:52:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269589"},"modified":"2023-07-26T20:52:22","modified_gmt":"2023-07-26T18:52:22","slug":"hey-look-solutions-to-all-the-worlds-big-problems-with-the-napkins-to-prove-it-now-send-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269589","title":{"rendered":"Hey Look, Solutions to All the World\u2019s Big Problems with the Napkins to Prove It! Now Send Money."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From BOE REPORT<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Terry Etam<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sheesh, what\u2019s with all the drama? The news is full of bad-news stories about doom and gloom; can\u2019t everyone see we just need to roll up our sleeves and get to work? Most of this stuff isn\u2019t even all that hard!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can solve the world\u2019s obesity\/health problem in a matter of months. Start by closing all fast food chains immediately. Ban all kinds of fattening food like chocolate, or anything deep fried. Ration sugar.\u00a0\u00a0Coke and slurpees and ice cream and pie \u2013 all illegal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can solve the world\u2019s drug problems. It\u2019s not that hard; it\u2019ll just cost a few bucks. Spatially, we know where most drug problems occur. It\u2019s not in the middle of a wheat field or a forest or a mountain or the Sahara desert. The actual problem zones are not that big as a percentage of the world\u2019s surface. So for those regions, we will train an army of, I don\u2019t know, say 20 million soldiers \u2013 a tiny fraction of the world\u2019s population. We\u2019ll place them on a grid at a rate of let\u2019s say 11 people per acre or for high rise buildings at a rate of 1 per 19 cubic metres (preliminary estimate) in all trouble zones. They will be equipped with tasers and guns and stun grenades, and smiley face stickers so that the children aren\u2019t too frightened<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can solve the world\u2019s dating problems, good lord how hard can it be? It\u2019s just data scraping and machine learning. You say you like Thai food and travel and quiet afternoons on a cool fall day with a fuzzy sweater and a good book and social events with friends? Hey, possibly there is someone else in the world with the same wild and wacky outlook on life, just need to get y\u2019all catalogued and cross referenced and your new tailored mate will be waiting for you in your favourite first-date spot within the next two weeks at a time that doesn\u2019t annoy you. AI will solve it all!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can solve the world\u2019s emissions problems by September. Immediately ban all flights except those for medical emergencies. All cruise ships will be abandoned immediately or, ok, as soon as they get back to home base if we can afford the delay. Shut down tourist resorts; everyone has to travel to get there, ergo they are a huge part of the problem. You want travel? Walk outside and turn left. Or right, it\u2019s up to you. Keep going until you\u2019re had your fill, then turn around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you don\u2019t like the sound of those ideas, hey, there are other ways. Here\u2019s another way to \u2018save the environment\u2019, one that will be far less disruptive and will be far more pleasant. What\u2019s the world\u2019s average unemployment rate? Let\u2019s call it six percent.\u00a0Six percent of eight billion people = 480 million people. Order 480 million shovels from Amazon and a hundred seedlings apiece, boom: 48 billion new trees, unemployment solved, climate saved. Next!29dk2902lhttps:\/\/boereport.com\/29dk2902l.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OK, fine. Those are all moronic ideas. Well, not so much moronic as just wildly impractical, or run counter to human necessities, or are solutions that citizens simply won\u2019t stand for. And the main point of outlining such wild scenarios isn\u2019t to be a smartass (that\u2019s a secondary objective)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point of such a weird and silly catalogue is to highlight that, from a high level, huge problems are easily solved \u2013 in theory<\/em>. Some sound easy if we just throw money at them, or just try a little harder.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I can recall personal examples of where I learned these follies first hand. In university, in business school, one of my favourite courses was organizational behaviour. I found it fascinating how the professor could outline logical processes and programs that would vastly improve a business\u2019s functioning.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like most grads, I was eager to put these practices into work at my first job out of university, at a big company. Some corporate deficiencies were obvious; I recognized them from class! But implementation? Wow did the veteran employees laugh at the suggestions. \u201cThanks college boy, we\u2019d never have thought of that.\u201d The real world has problems with budget realities, with ingrained habits\/behaviours, with personal issues and personnel issues. Irrational circumstances can exist in a prolonged state simply because someone in a position of power likes it that way. And that is ultimately what one learns as they get far enough away from university: positions of power dictate everything.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, however, in the energy transition realm, human optimism, or the prevailing wisdom that we \u2018have to\u2019 transition energy sources, overrides realists. Those in the positions of power want to adopt the ideas of the theorists, because they view it as an existential necessity to change course radically \u2013 that is what an \u2018emergency\u2019 dictates.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider the following three climate plans, each of which forms the backbone of at least one major government initiative, thought process, or plan. They all have major institutional pedigrees or standing: one from one of the US\u2019s most senior politicians who very nearly led the Democratic party; one from a Stanford University engineering professor; and one espoused by the hallowed news source Bloomberg. All have substantial academic support, backing, and seal of approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a\u00a0plan<\/a>\u00a0from Bernie Sanders, which has garnered much support in the US under the Green New Deal banner. It\u2019s from way back in 2019: a $16.3 trillion plan to eliminate fossil fuel use in the US by 2050 with the standard formula: new wind, solar, and geothermal power sources across the country. The total includes a, hmm, well it\u2019s kind of paltry in comparison, $200 billion transfer to poor nations to help them fight the good fight. Sanders announced this will be good business to boot, it will \u2018pay for itself\u2019 within 15 years. Hey, it\u2019ll even create an estimated 20 million jobs!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oops, sorry, that\u2019s way out of date. Bernie was way off! Here\u2019s\u00a0one<\/a>\u00a0from a prominent Stanford professor: again with the wind and solar, but this one\u2019s global and has a price tag of\u2026\u00a0$62 trillion<\/em>. Quit your whining, it\u2019s a bargain, the prof says \u2013 this one pays for itself in 6 years! And would create 28 million jobs around the world. Kind of a pathetic jobs total though; Sanders\u2019 plan would cost about $815,000 per job, the Stanford model about $2.2 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rats, there I go again, that plan is from 2022, way out of date already. Just a few weeks ago, Bloomberg came up with the latest thinking, which\u00a0puts the tab<\/a>\u00a0for zeroing out the world\u2019s carbon emissions by 2050 \u2013 same fight, same renewables recipe \u2013 at\u2026$200 trillion<\/em>. And, Bloomberg notes enthusiastically, that\u2019s a bargain!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Your head should be spinning as you try to think about what $200 trillion actually is, in terms of spending power, but put those thoughts aside for a minute. They\u2019ll break your head anyway. For now, focus on the following realities that should be pertinent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Geological Survey of Finland has\u00a0calculated that<\/a>\u00a0there won\u2019t be enough minerals in known reserves to complete the energy transition as hoped by 2050. So resource wise, it\u2019s kind of a nonstarter anyway. But even if you poo-poo that position, as climate hawks do, consider that, per the International Energy Agency, it has historically taken\u00a017 years<\/a>\u00a0for a new mine to come into production, a number that is sure to grow as regulations tighten in much of the world. Consider that that same IEA report estimates that \u201cthe energy sector\u2019s overall needs for critical minerals could increase by as much as six times by 2040.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider that the above total energy transition scenarios contemplate a complete transition to renewable energy, which means rebuilding almost everything in the energy world. For the sake of argument, let\u2019s assume that there are enough raw materials in the world to construct all the infrastructure required for an energy transition, as inconceivable as that might be (think of replacing all hydrocarbon based industries\/processes\/infrastructure \u2013 the fuel that supplies more than 80 percent of global energy).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then consider this study<\/a> of major industrial projects over the past 100 years, a study covering 16,000 major projects in 136 countries, and the resulting mind-blowing statistics: <\/p>\n\n\n\n