80/20 Principle in action to save the planet
Well, I am starting with the basics. Long ago, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto thought of different optimization in business and economics and found the 80/20 principle relevant in many aspects of life. It states that 80% of the outcome comes from 20 % of the causes; to reach 100% the last 20 % will cost you 80 % of the effort.
But how can this aid us in making the planet greener, well if many of the industrialized countries are working on the last 20% of their goals, they are in fact using 80% of their resources. Given the ideal situation, and all countries being at 80% that wouldn´t be a problem, but when so many countries have barely begun, and while time is starting to become critical, wouldn’t the efforts of the industrialized countries be better put to use, in the most polluting and CO2 producing countries?
With the recent UN report on climate change giving the idea of a worse situation than originally described, the current idea of the industrialized countries has to be reevaluated. Many of the thoughts use the “hockey stick” approach, where the real impact is first seen near the end of the climate optimization period. But with the UN report, where the cumulative growth in CO2 and greenhouse gases many of the changes will be too little too late. Therefore, there should be a bigger focus on the short-term goals, and not push the reductions too close to the end of the Paris agreement time frame. The more CO2 we are able to cut on a global scale now will have a much greater impact in the long run. Different studies have shown, that the rising temperature affects the planet much more than previously thought. With rising temperatures, the icecap in Greenland and the rest of the artic region is melting at an alarming rate, exposing the land underneath. This, in turn, absorbs more heat, causing an additional increase in global warming. This additional increase, causes the oceans to rise in temperature thus releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. Many reports neglect to see the bigger picture only focusing on one of the factors when all the factors combined should be put into consideration.
The Concept of this page
As with the different contributors to global warming, where many factors are interdependent, we should also try to focus our efforts in this race to use a more holistic approach, not only focusing on our local area but instead globally. As with all issues countries and politicians focus on internal and local issues instead of a global approach, and yes, I am aware they are trying to get reelected.
The 80/20 principle
First, and most important. The last 20 percent of CO2 “neutrality” will be 80 percent of the effort for the industrialized countries; therefore, the costs will be extremely high. This is done, while countries haven’t even started reducing their CO2, only selling their global CO2 quotas to improve their economies. Changing the focus of the industrialized countries, and the mindset of the politicians a paradigm change is needed. This change will ensure the money used often will have a much greater impact on a global scale. Also, the technology needed will often already be readily available, cheaper and thoroughly tested, thus making it much easier to implement than it was when it was implemented in the industrialized countries. And finally, All the mistakes and steps the industrialized countries used time and recourses on may be skipped, and participating countries can move directly to the end state.
Optimization of the cost
The optimization of costs also is achieved through a cheaper workforce, where wages are lower than in industrialized countries. Building a local workforce will not only ensure cheaper projects but also increase the development of a chosen region.
The Concerns in implementing my ideas
In this concept, I have to main concerns. The security for the projects and the people working within them. And when we start the projects in different areas of the planet where our cultures are not aligned.
Security for the people in the project
Some of the most polluted places on earth do not only have one problem but often more. Research has shown war-torn countries pollute above average, rising my concern for the security of potential people working on climate projects. In the initial projects, these countries should not be in focus, because potential projects are not likely to work there. These countries also have a high degree of corruption, reducing establishment funds significantly.
The focus should be on “more or less” stable countries, while the concept develops. I could be projects like removing the polluting coal in Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia, or focusing on the reduction of greenhouse gasses like freon in fridges and so on.
Freon in fridges, we don’t do that anymore! I know, we do not do it in the west, but there are millions of old fridges used in developing countries in Africa, Asia etc.
Meddling in culture
My experience traveling the globe in war-torn countries, where politicians want to implement their own ideas based on their bias’s often goes wrong because of the lack of cultural understanding. If I use the previous example of removing the use of coal in Ulan Bator here are some of my thoughts:
Removing coal heating, What will they use instead:
– Can wind energy work?
– Can solar energy work?
– Is there a backup plan if the above fails?
What will happen to the coal vendors when no one uses coal
– How can they survive?
– Can they be trained in Solar or wind energy?
– Do they have the schooling to be trained within this area?
– Will this increase migration to the capital?
– How are people feed, and will there be enough agricultural land to feed the country?
Does the reduction of pollution change the social patterns in society
– Are there too many doctors?
– What is the fertility rate and if more children survive into adulthood, what impact does it have on unemployment.
As you can see on the above considerations, this is no easy task to go through and there are many unknowns in this analysis. Therefore the more people who join this concept, the more likely we are to succeed in optimizing our global efforts.
Final consideration
These are my thoughts on combatting climate change, please feel free to use the concept, or support me in getting the message out to the world. As mentioned, this is no easy task and projects some will fail, but the more that join the bandwagon, the greater influence we might get in influencing our countries politicians and hopefully more projects can be started. I will attempt, when I have time, to share my thoughts on the site making a short analysis of different scenarios that I have identified over time, and I really hope that the global community will participate with their analysis and comments on the different projects.
Feel free to leave a comment or share with people!