Why do so many Proposed “Solutions to World or National Problems” Suck even in the Design Phase ? Or Fail to solve the stated problem after implementation ?

Why are there so many plans that are proposed and then often poorly implemented that do not solve the stated problems or the solutions are terrible and insanely expensive ?

Get beyond the controversial problem statement to the shape of the proposed solutions after tens of trillions of dollars and decades and see how much is or is not solved.

For Climate Change, the big UN IPCC proposed solution is to stabilize [flatten at current levels of nearly 40 billion tons per year of CO2] levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030.

It also noted that reducing emissions would reduce the rate of economic growth (as a result of such factors as higher energy prices). But it would do so by, on average, less than a tenth of a percentage point per year between now and 2100. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050.

* $13 trillion or nearly $1 trillion every year is the ante (poker reference) to get started

The Global project proposal costs are based on hitting planned budgets and before delays and cost overruns

With the reduced GDP growth and costs running past 2100 it will hundreds of trillions of dollars.

* The plan will not be saving any glaciers or ice caps. The goals would be to reduce temperature increases out to 2100 and not bring temperatures down until well past 2300.

Sweeping upwards of 4 trillion tons of CO2 under the carpet every century

* The plan assumes that carbon capture will be successful and scaled up to a global level.

The plan would be make new CO2 pipelines all over the US and the world from the sources of CO2 to storage

The Norway Carbon storage operation shoves the carbon underneath the seafloor in saltwater aquifers.

We will need tens of thousands of these and the current carbon dioxide capture traps 90% of the CO2 that is generated

The carbon capture currently costs ten times too much to scale up to get to the “rosy and optimistic IPCC cost project”.

If carbon capture does not get affordably scaled up then we will not have the privilege of scaling up natural gas fracking to supply the natural gas that is in the IPCC plan.

This plan would have thousands of times more pipeline than Keystone XL.

What if the many CO2 pipeline have big leaks near populated areas ?

t is likely that CO2 would be transported via a pipeline at high pressure. If a pipeline carrying CO2 suffered a major fracture due to accident or failure, the CO2 would rapidly expand and cool. In the case of pure CO2, it is thought that this would initially form a ‘vapour cloud’ around the fracture, followed by the formation of solid CO2 ‘snow’.However, impurities in the CO2 could change the characteristics of this leak and introduce additional complexities affecting the nature of the release.

In the case of a pipeline constructed from steel containing a high level of carbon, the cooling effects of the leak could cause the area of the pipeline around the breach to become brittle, perhaps shattering and causing damage to the capture or injection equipment. Whilst it is thought that this would not affect stainless steel pipes, large scale experiments and modelling are needed to better understand the behaviour of leaks as well as their health and safety impacts.

Better solutions mostly ignored

Researchers used a comprehensive analysis with global modeling methods that looks at relationships between deaths and exposure to particulate matter and ozone air pollution. They found that 500,000 premature deaths per year could be avoided by the year 2030, of which two-thirds would be in China. By 2050, 800,000 to 1.8 million premature deaths could be avoided. Fixing air pollution in China and east asia will provide 10 to 70 times the benefit versus the cost of the action.

Fixing soot and particulates would cost over ten times less than the CO2 solution and would work faster to slow temperature increase and would reduce public health costs. Public health savings from less cancer, heart disease and asthma would more than offset the cost of the air pollution mitigation. The temperature reduction would be by having less darkened ice. Simple physics that dark traps more heat and white reflects more light and heat.

Nuclear energy could be scaled up safely and more affordably. This has been demonstrated on a national scale where France shifted to 80% of electricity from nuclear power over the 1980s.

Conventional nuclear fission is a better plan than the IPCC proposal. Future nuclear energy can be further improved with development of molten salt reactors. Costs would be several times lower, reactors would be even safer and waste would be reduced. Conventional nuclear already compares very well to other energy sources based on actual experience.

A Promising energy project where individuals can make a difference is LPP Fusion.

Go here to help fund LPP Fusion.

Implemented Solutions that fail to solve the stated problems

Sarbanes Oxley was rolled out to prevent future Enron’s. But it ended being a bunch of fees and money for the accounting and other companies to record company executives signoffs on statements. It would only make possible prosecution of executives a bit easier after another future Enron.

People kept talking about the 2007 financial bubble and banking problems. Those actions are still not prevented by the regulations as shown by JP Morgan Chase having many billions of losses in its trading scheme in 2012.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks