Although this was supposed to be a simulation, the whole thing felt real. For some reason, I felt the burden of all the world in my hands. It feels funny to say that, but it was such a cool experience. It wasn’t the real thing but it brought me close to it. The role I played was the ambassador for “Other Developed Countries”. It was cool. I was not like the main country like the U.S. but it still felt like my countries could make a huge impact.

Before this simulation, I had certain views about solving the climate crisis. This simulation changed all that. I did not understand the extent of the other factors we had to take into account when making decisions. For example, it was hard to get the under-developed countries to enforce policies due to corruption that existed in their countries. The under-developed countries needed money which they didn’t have. Some developed countries did not want to give them this money. There were so many things to factor in that making a group decision was rather difficult.

At first, my group was actually rather stingy with our money and had other ideas of solving this crisis (hint: the suggestion was peaceful). One of our group members suggested invading the under-developed countries. The thing is that our countries weren’t causing the main problems. The under-developed countries were causing all the problems in terms of pollution. China was also one of the top causes of all the pollution. The next problem was the fact these countries were under-funded (except China). Our country did not have as much as money as countries such as the U.S. or China to give. Our stinginess led to a stalemate. No country wanted to give money. Since no country gave money to the under-developed countries, they didn’t put any sanctions in place. We decided to break this stalemate. Our group changed our minds and pledged $50 billion if USA pledged at least $100. This led to better deal making with all the countries.

I definitely think emissions can be cut, but it is very very difficult to get them cut. In an ideal world, all the countries would work together to solve this crisis. US pulling out of the Paris accords did not help at all. If the countries dropped their egos and worked together, we could solve the crisis we have right now.

The biggest thing that was holding us back was the selfishness of everybody. Not a single country was selfless and that was understandable. Obviously nobody wants to give up a lot without receiving a lot. This problem was holding us back. Eventually, we overcame it. In real life, it is much harder to solve this problem.

I think the best change that the U.S. can make is in the government. Lobbying plays a huge part in stopping the climate crisis. Oil companies pay politicians so they can pass bills that allow unhealthy stuff to go on. If oil companies are monitored closely, we can solve a lot of the pollution the U.S. produces. Taxes on the companies can give us the money to give to the under-developed countries.

I’ve always loved simulation activities. So when I heard we were going to be doing a climate simulation, I got very excited. I’ve always thought that interactive forms of learning are more interesting than just listening to a lecture.

For the simulation, my table was assigned to the role of “Other Developed Nations”. This included developed nations other than the US that were not part of the EU, such as Canada and Japan. Initially, we only pledged a few billion dollars – we were expecting other developed nations to do their part. Unfortunately, they weren’t having it. In the first round, the US only gave 17 dollars. Not 17 billion, just 17. In addition, many developing nations were unable to pledge as much money as the developed world, and even needed money to be given to them by others. It became quite obvious that something had to change.

So we decided we were going to help, by increasing our pledge from 2 billion dollars to 20 billion. This would allow us to contribute more to developing nations (who, may I add, were very calm and had a very well-thought-out explanation of where the funds would go). In addition, we increased our efforts with regard to preventing deforestation, encouraging afforestation, and decreasing emissions. As we convinced other developed nations to join us in doing the same, the estimate of how high global temperature would get by 2100 kept getting smaller and smaller. We were succeeding.

From this activity, I learned two things: the first is that selfishness is a big barrier, but that everyone is subject to it. It’s easy to see someone acting in their own best interest and dismiss them as selfish. But when you start acting in your own self-interest, you ignore the people calling you selfish. This isn’t to say that acting in one’s own self-interest is a good or bad thing, but sometimes everybody needs to realize that you can both act in your own self-interest and submit to compromise. Second is that while individuals can’t directly influence the decisions of major bodies like the UN, individuals can do their part by taking awareness of their actions while governments and corporations battle it out over emissions and climate change. Eventually, these contributions will add up, and hopefully, corporations will eventually be regulated, whether by governments or by themselves.

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt excited yet anxious. Since my usual daily decisions include where to eat or when to study, the task of deciding the most effective way to cut emissions and fight climate change intimated me. As the exercise progressed, however, I felt empowered and satisfied.

As a member of the developed nations, I initially had a close minded view during negotiations. I assumed since our countries were pledging lots of funds because already have things like stable government, widely-accessible clean water and food, and healthy economies that other countries should too. At first, I did not like hearing that other, less fortunate countries were not pledging nearly as much and actually needed money from us. After listening to their representatives, however, I understood that they simply did not have the resources to pledge.

Our group changed our ideas when we decided to pledge more money to the developing nations. Their representatives pleaded with us in a logical, level-headed manner and assured us the pledged resources would not only help their nations but help the entire world by allowing the developing nations to cut back on emissions.

The representatives of the developing nations approaching us in a calm manner to ask for donations prompted this change. Their well thought-out, cohesive explanation of where the money would go and how it would be used to fight climate change ultimately made my group change our minds.

Yes, I believe emissions can be cut once enough people/nations realize they must put the greater good of the world ahead of the greater good of their nation. The world is in a classic prisoner’s dilemma, but they can escape this problem with proper coordination. If the nations assure each other that everyone will contribute their fair share and no one will be put at a serious economic disadvantage by agreeing to fight climate change, then real change can be achieved.

The biggest barrier was selfishness. Nations did not want to pledge too much in fear that they would economically fall behind the rest of the world. You could tell, especially in the beginning, that most groups were looking our for themselves first and the world second. While this is a very natural and human way to negotiate, all nations must work to change.

We can catalyze change in the U.S. by placing laws on oil companies and big corporations that limit emissions. While small, individual changes like abstaining from plastic straws or using less water are somewhat helpful and well-intentioned, the biggest changes will come from limiting massive companies.

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I had mixed emotions. I felt like, as the USA, we had more bargaining power than any other group so we should be able to have the greatest effect on reducing world emissions. I was kind of frustrated at how long it took for everyone to negotiate and also at how little each adjustment affected the climate. My group became much more willing to donate money and to decrease carbon emissions as the simulation progressed. We realized, through negotiations with China, that our two nations needed to come together and commit to an earlier peak year. We were able to get China to work with us by matching their donations. I believe that emissions can be cut but it might be a “too little, too late” scenario regarding climate damage. The major barrier to the implementation of proposals was that we did not want to take an economic hit to make a small improvement to the climate. We were less likely to give more money if it only had a small impact. To catalyze change in the US, we need to raise public awareness of the issues with our climate to get more public support for climate-friendly bills and to make people more likely to reduce our own emissions.

Participating in this exercise, I felt that I gained a better understanding of the urgency of the climate change issue. My group as a whole began to see more of the importance as time went on and became more and more open to the stances and ideas of the other groups. We also went from an “us-versus-them” mindset to that of a group working towards a goal.

We, the United States, started with a very isolationist and protective stance. On Day 2, we realized that this approach was not going to get us very far and some of the other groups were taking the place as frontrunner which we should have held. Watching the other teams seemingly make all this progress without us and in gaining more information about the issue, we became more open.

I do think that emissions need to be cut in order to slow global warming. This is a key critical issue for us and for the future generations of earth. There are many obstacles in the way, though, chiefly being the hefty financial burden needing to be undertaken by developed countries to help foot the bill and the partisan disagreements between nations over how to best handle solving the problem. If the nations of the world could be more generous financially and open minded, tackling climate change would not be hard at all.

In the United States, we most importantly needed to bring the issue into education. Educated citizens have a strong correlation with supporting the fight against global warming, and this only grows as you filter down by age. A massive effort must be undertaken by America as a whole to raise awareness and work towards change.

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt worried about the future of planet Earth. If we didn’t do anything as a planet, the global temperature would raise over 4 degrees celsius by 2100. What made me more concerned was that even after two rounds of negotiation and hundreds of billions of dollars spent per year on reducing deforestation, promoting afforestation, and green energy, the planet will still be 2 degrees celsius warmer by 2100.

In the first round, we (the developing nations) asked for $200 billion to save trees, plant trees, and move towards green energy. Many countries were not willing to meet this number. After the second round of negotiations, once other countries realized how important the money was to producing results, we were able to receive $190 billion per year in order to reduce the global warming. The negotiation periods were stressful because other countries had different motives and goals that didn’t seem to always align with just saving the planet.

Our group changed our ideas because we were initially more concerned with saving the Amazon rainforest and planting more trees, but what was even more important was moving to green energy and reducing carbon emissions. We ended up spending around $20 billion a year just for green energy.

We decided to focus on green energy more because of the future climate calculator. Having 100% of our resources dedicated to trees was not as effective as dedicating some to the trees and some to green energy.

In the end, I do think emissions can be cut. Technology is progressing rapidly, but the problem is getting everyone to do their part. It is a worldwide effort to make sure that emissions can be cut.

There were major economic and social costs to make these proposals possible. It takes billions per year to try and cut emissions and utilize green energy and maintain forests. It also requires people around the world to be more conscious of carbon emissions.

I believe that the United States needs to lead by example. In the simulation, the US always just matched China or matched another country, but if they took the initiative, it is possible that other countries would be more inspired and make more of an effort to save the planet.

1. When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt like I was fighting an uphill battle against a phenomenon that has already progressed too far and against other groups who either wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything to help stop its perpetuation. I felt like the world police, trying to get everyone to follow the rules for their own good even if it seemed hopeless.
2. Over time, I became more sympathetic to the plight of the developing world, as it is being asked to commit equally to stopping a process they had little to no involvement with in the first place. It’s easy for developed nations to cast blame on these nations who are causing increasing amounts of pollution compared to the rest of the world, but I realized that their behavior is completely understandable, as they haven’t had a chance to grow as the developed world has.
3. We became more willing to contribute to less developed countries as we listened to their problems, and we had to take an increased international role in order to make up for the lack of participation from other groups.
4. The unwillingness of other developed nations to initially contribute or match our promises, as well as the obvious need for aid in the less developed countries spurred us to make an even larger contribution.
5. As the world stands now, I don’t think a simple contribution to a global fund and reduction of emissions will be enough to maintain a livable level of climate change. Technological developments and international agreement in conjunction with domestic policy and willingness to contribute, however, still could stand a chance if that change starts very soon.
6. Developing nations had emissions per capital that were too low to reasonably reduce further, and the rest of the developed world at the beginning of the simulation was hesitant to even contribute to other nations’ limited emissions, much less to limit their own production. Most of this was overcome however, resulting in a significant, although ultimately insufficient, reduction in climate change.
7. Personal change in consumption to more environmentally friendly products signals desire for change in production standards. The speed with which change can take place with significant impetus is very promising in a free market economy like that of the United States. Additionally, demonstrating irrefutably the havoc that climate change can and will wreak can help to catalyze these efforts, and education of the public can help to disseminate the most effective ways to combat the crisis.

In the simulation, I played the role of other developing countries. When playing my role, I felt like I was at a disadvantage. The climate issues present in the world today didn’t originate from developing countries, but yet we need still pay the cost. When trying to stand up for ourselves, we often lacked the resources and power to do so effectively. Across the rounds, the way we negotiated changed, but so did my reactions to the situation as a whole. While we were clearly at a disadvantage, my opinions about being at such a disadvantage changed a little when we didn’t have to give anything to the fund, but instead asked for aid. However, it was very clear we were paying reparations for issues we didn’t create when talking to nations like China and like United States. Our group changed our ideas to prioritize forestation efforts for our land made up of rainforest, a crucial part of global carbon removal. This change was prompted by looking at how out protection of the rainforest impacts global emissions and temperature change, While I think it may be hard for a lot of people and it is going to require a worldwide effort, I do think with time emissions can be cut. Costs and barriers in implementing proposals made includes things like the fact that a ton of countries that are still developing, while they make up a large part of emissions, probably can’t realistically cut that many emissions. In the US, we can do every little thing, from carpooling and turning the lights off, to shortening our showers.

When I played my role as a part of the European Union, I felt a little like a parent to the rest of the nations and groups. It was difficult to get other groups to cooperate to either give money or vow to do something to better the World’s climate. I also felt like our group gave the most money, and also got the least in return, because the EU already has decently low emissions. Our issues came from the lack of other well off nations to contribute to help change the course that our global temperature is on. I felt like the United States and China should have made a more conscious effort to assist either by lowering their CO2 emissions, by giving money, or both.

At first, I thought that our group and the rest of the groups did more than enough to get the global temperature to where we wanted it to be by 2100. We placed a big emphasis on deforestation and reforestation, while it was actually the peak year and year starting to reduce emissions that made the biggest difference. After I saw that we did not do enough in round one, I knew we needed to take much larger measures to get the global temperature to where we wanted it to be.

After round one, our group decided to give even more money to the groups who needed it, in exchange for us being able to monitor the use of the money. We did not really change anything else, however, because our peak year and declination of CO2 were already at a good level, and our deforestation and reforestation were as well.

The change was prompted by all of the groups seeing that what we did in round one did not do enough to get to the +2 degrees C, which is where we were trying to get as the World for 2100.

I definitely think that emissions can be cut. However, I do not think that developing nations can cut their emissions as much as the developed nations would like them to, but they can do whatever they can to make the world as good off as possible. As long as all nations make it a conscious effort to reduce emissions as much as is possible, emissions can be cut.

The biggest barrier to implementing the proposals is the fact that it costs a lot of money to reduce carbon emissions. Developing nations need a lot of assistance as it is, and reducing carbon emissions would be one of the last things on their mind to spend billions of dollars on. They have more pressing issues within their borders that the money could be used toward.

We can start by changing our ways, then trying to scale upward. A good start would be to walk everywhere you can, and try to carpool or take public transportation whenever possible. Also, we can spread awareness to young people, as they are the ones who will be having to live with these effects. In addition, we could lobby to politicians to try and get a bill passed that reduces carbon emissions in the United States. It is important to educate the younger generation, so they will grow up with habits that are better for our global environment.