Advantages of Treating Climate Issues as "Goals to Achieve" Rather than a "Problem to 4

[Ron247]

I have always believed there is a big difference in determining how to Achieve a Goal versus Solving a Problem. I think the reason we make no progress on treating any climate issue as a Problem to Solve is that we do not all agree it is a problem in the first place. The debate then gets bogged down in politics to some degree. Once politics is introduced, that impressive ability to achieve results goes out the window sadly.

Why not look at is as a Goal to Achieve. If someone came into this forum and asked how many different ways we could come up with to reduce carbon emissions, we could come up with a lot of possible ways to achieve this even though we may not believe it is a problem. There would be no debate on the problem issue, just ways to achieve the goal. We do not even have to come up with where to get the money. We would work as engineers to come up with ways to achieve this goal. At that point we have done our job. Later when the time comes to determine how much $$$ to spend, we can get involved separately as citizens. But at least we know the viable options to compare.

The absolute first step in Problem Solving is "to accurately define the problem". I am yet to see that happen on the issue of climate change. Defining a Goal seems an easier path to me. We have let politics make it a Problem to Solve because they have elections every 2 years in USA and therefore need "urgency". Change elections to every 20 years and you won't hear a peep until 18 years have elapsed.

Any thoughts?

 

[Ron247]

There is a design cost regardless of problem or goal methodology. There is a design cost regardless of whether we think it is a crisis or not. "Design beyond conception" requires funding. Coming up with some proposed methods of achieving the goal or correcting the problem is not expensive. That is a common brain-storming exercise that generally has minimal costs but definitely is the nucleus of a working solution. Have we gotten past that stage yet? Not that I have seen. If there is, please outline it in this forum.

Below are some common initial steps in either problem solving or goal achievement. These "initial" steps take very little if any funding. These could be easily done in this forum if we decided to undertake the task. This forum cannot make laws, raise capital or any of a list of needed items but could do the initial framework to a working solution. I am yet to hear of a working framework other than we must all agree it is a problem and time is running out (12 years left). By the way, we are down to less than 11.5 years now. Funding is always a real problem. So make of list of what you are willing to take money away from to accomplish CC. I am in favor of a $50 tax on a cup of coffee since I do not drink coffee. I am absolutely NOT in favor of putting a $1 fee on having an opinion on something.

The Steps to Problem Solving
[li]Accurately define the problem.[/li]
[li]Propose multiple possible solutions regardless of project specific criteria.[/li]
[li]Compile a list of the parameters of your specific situation.[/li]
[li]Define the “characteristics” of the successful solution to this unique project.[/li]

The Steps to Goal Achievement
[li]Accurately define the “primary” goal. All terms need a working definition if not obvious.[/li]
[li]State the reasons the goal is desired.[/li]
[li]If needed, break the Primary Goal down into Sub-Goals.[/li]
[li]Define who/what is the primary beneficiary of the Goal or Sub-Goals.[/li]
[li]Create a PRELIMINARY list of whose participation would be required to accomplish the goals with “qualifiers”. (EX: People, Government, Business etc.)[/li]
[li]Outline “ground rules” for discussion of the project.[/li]
[li]Propose methods to accomplish all or part of the goal.[/li]

 

[IRstuff]

My point, wrt to the cost, is that funding requires consensus, and no one would be willing to fund arbitrary goals with no consensus on why goal is even important, or whether the design would even get used.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Ron247]

Taking the current state of the "CC problem". Do you have consensus? Do you have funding? You can get funding without consensus. If 50% of the people believe CC is a serious problem, why would they not be willing to provide funding? If consensus is an absolute must to solving the problem, I am going to enjoy my next 11.5 years and not worry. You will not get 80% consensus that the problem exists with the current plan of attack. We are supposed to believe a CC document that states as 1 of its 3 things to address is "eradicate poverty". They came out of the gate stumbling.

Now consensus could be the agreement it is a problem. Also consensus could mean we are willing to sacrifice money and inconvenience. Which consensus are you talking about, they are not the same. Let's use military support as an example. Most people who claim to support the military may not get beyond level 2 below. Well level 3 and 4 is real support and that is the support needed to combat CC.
[ol 1]
[li]I support the military so much I will wear a lapel pin.[/li]
[li]I support the military so much I will get in a public argument in their defense.[/li]
[li]I support the military so much I will spend my personal money to help them.[/li]
[li]I support the military so much I will endure inconvenience to support them.[/li]
[/ol]