Chad Hudak – Climate Simulation Blog Post

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt almost left out in a way. Because my group was the UN, we didn’t have to negotiate too much with other nations because we were already doing as much as possible to cut down our emissions and we were giving out a generous amount of money. However, we did have some negotiations with the developing nations and got them to agree to use our funding with oversight from us.

In the first round, our claims did not really change because we were putting forth a massive effort to reduce emissions. The second round however, is where things began to change. We ended up donating $50 billion more than before and negotiated with the United States to give at least some money. They ended up only giving $12 billion to be used to help fight climate change. The biggest negotiation that we made successful also came in the second round of negotiating. We were able to get the developing nations to use our funding, under the condition that we could oversee the implementation and use of our funds. My reactions to the United States’ position changed but only slightly. In the first round they pledged to give only $17.76 which is just terrible compared to how much money they could have spent. In the second round, they raised that to $12 billion which I still believe is very little for them because they are currently one of the largest carbon emitters.

Our group changed our ideas because we originally thought that all of the developed nations would be willing to give money to help the less developed nations reduce their emissions, but we were mistaken. Our ideas then changed to convincing the developed nations to help while we were still giving tons of money in aid.

This change came about because of the lack of funds from some of the nations with the largest economies such as the US and China. Those two nations could have given significantly more money. It took a lot of convincing to get the US to give the amount that they ended up giving.

In the end, I believe that emissions can be cut, however, there will have to be a massive push from political leaders to make any significant changes. If there are no consequences for high emissions, then nothing will really change. Along with this, political leaders are the only ones who can access enough money and allocate it in their budget. Without enough funding, the cutting of emissions is only a dream.

One of the major costs for the implementation of emission reducing proposals was the fact that we, the EU, had to give out so much money. That money could have been used to assist ourselves and reduce our emissions, but we decided to give it to those who needed it more than us. One of the major barriers was the US being stubborn and only focusing on themselves and convincing the developing nations that they needed our oversight if they were to use our funds. Eventually both agreed, but it was difficult to get to that point.

We can catalyze change in the US by promoting recycling, compostable materials, and alternative energy. These changes will reduce the amount of carbon emissions because they will eventually replace the current emission spewing methods. Factories could be run on solar, wind, or water power, cars could all be electric and give off zero emissions, and the reusing and composting of materials would reduce the amount of products produced in factories and limit the amount of waste that is left over. These changes would launch the US into the direction of reducing its carbon emissions and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.

Climate Negotiation Simulation – Richard Yones

During these past two classes, we have been simulating a World Climate negotiation to what actually went into making decisions about the global climate. My group was tasked to represent India in these negotiations, and other groups represented the United States, China, the EU, Developing Nations, and Developed Nations. The goal was to collectively create a plan of what each global area should do to reduce global warming to 2 degrees by the year 2100. The problem was that each country/region had its own domestic problems to solve as well, and this made it hard to come to a collective decision. For India, our CO₂ emissions were the lowest out of all the regions at the current date and would be second-lowest in the year 2100. Reducing our emissions was the least of our concerns; the main goal was to pull our people out of poverty. This goal would be impossible to do so if we immediately reduced emissions, so we decided to peak our emissions in the year 2040, and then reduce our emissions by 1% each year starting a few years after. We asked for a modest $30 billion to use towards transitioning out of fossil fuels, and we even pledged to slow deforestation and promote afforestation. We felt as if we were doing our part in this climate crisis while also looking out for our domestic interests.

Once everyone plugged in their initial plans to the simulator, we all found out that we had barely made a dent in helping the environment. As a whole, each plan was flawed (except for the EU’s plan, we love the EU). One area asked for an unreasonable amount of money while others did not give enough. Negotiations actually got really heated because no one could seem to agree on a middle ground. It was very difficult to compromise on the needs of others without giving up some of your own resources. At the end of the day though, we all had to cut our emissions more. After the negotiations, many regions pledged money (the EU ended up pledging even more, we love the EU) to solve the domestic and climate problems of India and the developing nations. Collectively, we found that promoting afforestation and reducing deforestation did close to nothing when it came to CO2 emissions. For us, we agreed to cut our emissions a considerable amount more, and many other nations and areas followed suit. By the end of class, we still ended up over 2 degrees of warming.

This begs the question then; can anything be done to cut emissions any lower? In the simulation, there were only 6 groups in the negotiations, and no sound consensus was found. Juxtapose that to a real negotiation where there would likely be way more than 6 committees. There are just so many barriers to consider that go deeper domestically than just climate in real life, and that makes it very difficult to make a decision. One barrier is the cost of transitioning to a new power source such as solar or wind power; not every country has the resources to do so. Another barrier is technological, for not all countries have the sophisticated tech to connect this new power to grids across the country. The removal or reduction of fossil fuels will cause the huge companies of that industry to fail, reducing major tax revenue. These barriers affect countries globally and make it difficult to come to a consensus.

Creating change in the USA won’t be easy either. Fossil fuel energy is implemented in almost every aspect of our lives, a reduction in such energy would require us to change the way we live almost completely. That being said, in order to enact change, we must slowly decrease our reliance on fossil fuels without making an inconvenience for the American people. Mass transit and efficient homes could be a start.

Climate Change Simulation – Nico Fontova

I was part of the United States group for the simulation, and I mostly felt overwhelmed during the simulation. Negotiating was difficult, as countries did not seem to be on the same page, and occasionally wanted to bash each other. The US did not have similar interests with EU, for example, because the EU was very focused on donating to developing nations while the Americans were not. This led to the EU and the US getting slightly heated in negotiation. Our position on donation definitely shifted after other countries’ anger at the amount we donated (or lack thereof), and we when saw in the program that donation had a decent effect on the temperature raise. We decided to use this to our advantage and exchange our raising of a donation for China’s promising to begin cutting emissions earlier. We did not entirely trust developing nations to use their money for good, but we saw that we needed to at least a little to cause change.

Major barriers of implementation were trying to confound to our countries’ goals and political settings; Americans do not care about climate change very much, and a constantly changing government makes long term goals difficult. Catalyzing change in the US needs to be done by showing people what will happen in the world if emissions continue to rise, and by limiting the role of fossil fuel companies in government and the news cycle so that they will no longer lie to the American people. Emissions can most certainly be cut, but it will be difficult and require extreme change from every UN nation.

Climate Change Simulation Reflection

During the world climate change negotiations, I was surprised. I initially thought because it was just a simulation most people would do whatever was necessary to keep the temperature increase below 2 degree. It was fake money so theoretically any country could ask for or give as much as they wanted to help achieve the goal. This is not what happened though. The simulation instead closely resembled Zimbardo prisons experiment where people took on the roles of the countries they were representing. I was also surprised that reforestation and stopping deforestation did so little. I thought the emissions rate would definitely contribute the most, but I didn’t realize how much until we actually put it in the graph.

I didn’t personally feel I changed my negotiating tactic much throughout the simulation nor did my group. We stuck with our initial plan and only raised our reduction rate when we found we needed to bring the degree change down more. I was also representing India so our group was not in the limelight as much as the US or the other developing countries.

I definitely think emissions can be cut but I think it will take a lot of people putting their own interest and comforts second to the goal. I think that is why negotiations like this are so hard because you are there representing your country and you want to ensure your people get the good end of the deal but also work towards the ultimate goal. For instance, donating to the developing counties so that they can bring their people out of poverty but not contribute to the rise in emissions. I also noticed one of the reason people were hesitant to contribute to the global funds was a lack of trust in other. Some people thought the money would be used by corrupt individuals to promote their own interest. I think this is definitely a valid concern but instead of not donating I think it would be smarter to implement ways of making sure the money is used correctly that way the end goal is still achieved.

I think that to catalyze change in the US there need to be a change in thinking. What I mean by this is I feel like a lot of people don’t see climate change as something that need to be addressed now or by us. It is seen as a problem for down the road and for other people so solve. However, climate change doesn’t stop at a country’ borders it is a problem that affects everyone. I think until people realize that or for that of a better word start believing in the science there won’t be a change. Unfortunately, I think until people notice a change in the way the climate is affecting their day to day life, they won’t change their mindset.

Climate Simulation Reflection- Stephen Foernsler

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt that climate change is an issue that cannot be fixed by a single country. I felt that alone as the country of India there was only so much that we could do to have a real impact. It was not an easy thing to get everyone to work together and decide on a good course of action, but luckily for us we were not a major contributor and did not need to have as drastic of changes. The discussions definitely changed as the negotiations proceeded. For example, at first the issue of deforestation and afforestation was a major focus point until everyone realized that peak year and rate of decline had a much larger impact. Also, many countries were unwilling to provide much money to the world fund initially, but as everyone talked more, they were willing to give more so the countries who needed the money could successfully implement ideas. By the last round, everyone was much more agreeable and on the same page in realizing each country had to do their part to get down to two degrees by 2100. Our group didn’t need to have any major changes as negotiations went on since we had reasonable requests and levels, but we did move up our peak year as well as have a higher rate of decline in emissions. Most of this change was because we saw that the trees and forests did not have as large of an impact on temperature as we initially thought, so we wanted to make sure to do the most we could to help out. I think it will be exceptionally difficult to completely cut emissions, but it is possible. If countries devote time and resources and are willing to work together, then emissions can be cut to minimize the effects of climate change. The major barriers in developed countries was the fact that they have used fossil fuels for so long that change becomes difficult as well as the public opinion not being focused on climate change but rather the economy and other issues. In developing countries the main cost was building up technologies with alternative energy so that as they develop they do it in a clean way that will not cause massive emissions. Change in the US really needs to start with the people. The citizens in the United States need to realize that climate change is having a real impact on the world, and if something isn’t done then the world will be negatively changed in the near future. If everyone comes together to really ask for change, the government will need to listen and then we can start to turn to alternative sources of energy, and money can be put into projects for reducing emissions.

Climate Change Simulation – United States

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt…

mildly perturbed. Despite us making deals with other countries, we seemed to barely make a dent in the temperature increase.

How did your reaction, comments, feelings; and shifts (if any) in negotiating positions evolve across the rounds and discussions?

In the first round we took a more hardline approach and refused to make any submissions until China made more of an effort to reduce their emissions. However, after the first round when we saw how far we were from reaching the goal we negotiated with China so that we would both reduce our emissions by more. Later on, we negotiated with India to ask them to request less money from the Green Fund.

How did your group change their ideas?

We decided that negotiating with China was necessary to reduce the temperature change.

What prompted that change?

When we saw the environmental apocalypse was still imminent despite our first efforts we realized that it would take a communal effort to save the planet.

In the end, do you think that emissions can be cut?

I do think that emissions can be cut. However, it will take significant investment from governments or large corporations to start these cuts. The government needs to create incentives for companies to make a pledge to reducing emissions.

What were the major costs and barriers to implementation of participant proposals?

In order to implement some of the proposals it would take significant monetary investment to build up the infrastructure to reduce or stop carbon emissions. Also, some countries were unable to fund these investments themselves so they asked for money from more wealthy countries such as the U.S.

How can we catalyze change in the US?

First, we need to stop our domestic climate emissions. This can be accomplished by the government providing incentives for companies that are environmentally friendly. In addition, we can focus on afforestation efforts by organizing events where trees are planted.

Climate Simulation: Other Developing Nations

Africa, Central and South America, South and Southeast Asia, most of the Middle East, and the island nations of the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Caribbean

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt…

tense, uncomfortable, and even helpless. All the countries were asking for us to do more, like decrease our emissions per person), even though the developing countries have the second-lowest carbon emissions per person (2.5%).

How did your reaction, comments, feelings; and shifts (if any) in negotiating positions evolve across the rounds and discussions?

In the beginning, I did not feel as threatened. However, during the second round, all the other nations seemed to be frustrated with us because we had little to contribute towards lowering global warming below 2°C. Even though the other developing countries did not cause the problem, we seemed to be attacked, especially by the United States.

How did your group change their ideas?

After the second round, and with much pressure from the other nations, we decided to annual reduction rate from 0% to about 1.5%, but even that was not enough to lower the rate to 2%.

What prompted that change?

All the other nations pressuring us prompted that change.

In the end, do you think that emissions can be cut?

I think it will be possible if all the nations made it a priority and if all the nations would join together instead of arguing with each other about the cost. However, I do not know if this will actually happen because each nation has its own concerns.

What were the major costs and barriers to implementation of participant proposals?

As the other developing countries, we needed money and therefore, could not contribute to the costs for the global fund. We could not significantly cut emissions because the nations are still developing and progressing. Furthermore, the carbon emissions per person were already so low, it was hard to lower it even more. Being composed of many different countries made it hard for us because we had to worry about so many people and how these implementations would affect them.

How can we catalyze change in the US?

I think the best way we can catalyze change in the US is to educate the public about the danger of not doing anything towards global warming. Furthermore, the issue of global warming needs to be a bigger priority than it is currently.

Simulation Reflection – Toby Fu

During this exercise I was part of the European Union group.

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I did not feel necessarily restricted by the group (nations’) background. Although during the exercise the EU made many large contributions, they were all based somewhat on reality. For example, some European countries had up to 4.5% reductions. Policy making in terms of negotiations was more challenging, and we did not always end up with what we wanted out of the deal, despite still handing over our resources.

As negotiations progressed, I felt that despite people’s initial hesitance towards contributing to the cause, when they realized just how much progress still had to be made, countries that did were not interested before suddenly increased their contribution, in hopes that we could actually achieve our goal. Even though we (the EU group) already donated a lot of money into the cause, we put even more in later in the rounds.

The EU group already started with a lot invested into the program, and the only change we had was donating even more money to the cause, as well as having more of our group monitoring those that needed our money.

We realized we all had to put in more money, when it turns out other groups needed more money than we would have expected.

In the end, I think the only way emissions can be cut is if we, as people of earth and not of nations, realized that no one would be happy if the earth catches on fire. We would all have to set aside differences and put our efforts into saving the world we live in, most importantly making it a higher priority than it is for many nations right now.

Many countries that still were developing could not bear the price of cutting emissions early, since they would not be able to progress. Even the best they could do to delay and cut emissions would be paid for at a high cost. Ultimately, it was the act of cutting emissions that was the most important to reaching our goal.

The best way to catalyze change really is to spread the information outward, as well as give genuine examples of how change would affect us. Without even knowing how it affects us, people may not be interested in saving our environment.

Climate Simulation Reflection

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I was a member of the developing nations. At times I felt slightly frustrated when other countries expected us to “contribute more” when at the point we were at there wan not much more we could. This particularly difficult in regards to carbon emissions as everyone seemed to forget how many people we had and that some form of carbon emissions was inevitable. Generally, though I was able to understand where they were coming from, though I think part of the issue is that while the design of the agreements worked for most nations in regards to decreasing climate emissions it did not in regards to us and India. As the two groups with the lowest per capita carbon emissions, we simply could not sustain any yearly percentage decrease. We could offer a one time decrease of a certain percentage over some years but that proposal could not be incorporated into any calculations. In some ways, our group was lucky in that we had so little that our ideas and requests stayed fairly consistent throughout the process. It was, however, heartbreaking to see that even with all of our aforestation and anti-deforestation efforts, ultimately it did little. I remain optimistic though that over time as though forests would build up they could have a greater impact, it just might be an impact that the people who start such campaigns would never get to see—I still believe it would be worth it.
Several issues arose in the simulation that I am sure are problems with these negotiations today. Mistrust between countries and fear of political corruption is one that we, in particular, had to deal with. This I completely understand. The developing countries of the world (particularly the regions we were given) are rife with corruption and greed in the places of power. These powerful but corrupt individuals are also proponents of taking advantage of their natural resources when they can—regardless of the long-term consequences (The Brazillian President Jair Bolsonaro and his attitudes toward protecting the Amazon being only one of many examples). These are issues that will not be easy to solve. In the simulation, we were able to work out arrangements that included other countries being able to oversee operations they were funding (so long as the jobs went to out people) but we are not blinded by greed or a lust for power the way many world leaders, unfortunately, are.
All in all, I am more optimistic now then I have been in the past about reducing emissions. There seems to be a growing base of support for the idea in the US as well as in China. Here I think we can continue to present the facts, and perhaps stop presenting climate-change deniers as if they have the same scientific backing that climate change itself does. I am not sure if we will realistically be able to get the average degree increased to 2 degrees celsius, but I have hope that more people will see the severity of the situation, and that if some countries who are committed to this are able to sustain themselves on more green energy that the more stubborn of the countries (in particular the US) may come around to the idea.

Climate Simulation- Kenleigh Benoit

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt overwhelmed as so many countries were constantly trying to make agreements. Our country was China and we were the largest producers of CO2 emissions in the air and other countries couldn’t understand that we decreased our emissions a substantial amount, but it was still the highest because we started out with the most. It seemed as though everything we sacrificed had a little effect on bettering the world climate change situation.

After filling out the first chart, I was still somewhat unsure what our common goal was. I did not realize what we were negotiating until we began to speak with other tables/countries who had plans in mind. When everyone saw their country individually, most countries were thinking in somewhat selfish terms. It wasn’t until we were all working to lower the Carbon in the air did countries start to sacrifice more money and resources.

My table was China. We knew we were a large contributor to this problem and decided to give lots of money. Originally, our group was going to give 10 billion dollars and start our peak year in 2040. By the end of the discussions, we changed this to 13 billion and had our peak year in 2030. We did not decide to do this until the U.S. group told us they would match us if we gave a few more billions of dollars. We thought this was a good idea because the U.S. originally only gave $17.76. This was effective in that the emissions lowered and other countries benefited from China and the U.S. giving 13 billion each.

In reality, I think that the emissions can be cut, but not to a great extent. Every country, for the most part, looks out for themselves rather than the world as a whole. It was easy in our class for us to throw around money because we weren’t actually in charge of an entire country. In real life, diplomats are much stingier as they have to ensure the prosperity of all of their citizens.

China’s main problem was that we could not put a large percentage for afforestation because our country needs farmland that can not be taken over by trees. There are many starving inhabitants of China, so we could not match the afforestation levels of other countries.

Individually, each U.S. citizen can not make a lot of change in reducing the emissions of CO2, but, together, we can make a difference. If we spread awareness of the issue, consumers will boycott many large businesses that produce too much CO2. We can consult the government to make strict legislation over these big businesses.