When I played my role as part of the country of India, I felt like it was hard for all of the countries to meet at a common agreement as well as get the 2100 predicted temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. It was difficult for the larger countries to get what they wanted while also helping the developing nations as well as us out.

At the beginning of discussions, I was optimistic about our chances to bring the 2100 predicted temperature down as well as help the country of India get rid of its poverty. As discussions went on, I became more and more optimistic because everything that we tried was either rejected by the larger nations or did not do enough to decrease the 2100 predicted temperature. At the end, I realized that it is almost impossible to prevent climate change due to the many factors that go into stopping it.

Our group changed our ideas about half way through the discussion. We decided that 2040 was pretty late for our peak emissions, so we changed to 2035 and changed our start of reductions to 2040 from 2050. We decided to keep our reduction rate at 1% as well as our $30 billion though. We had decently reasonable requests, so we did not have to change much throughout the discussion.

This change was prompted by the fact that all of the other countries were peaking around 2030, so we felt that , even though we were not a huge factor in the rise of temperatures, we needed to help out a little bit.

In the end, I think that we can cut emissions, but we can not cut them enough and continue to prosper. To get rid of climate change, we will have to get rid of everything that helps us live our lives as we do. If we cut emissions completely, we will lose all of the advancements we’ve made across the world the last hundreds of years.

The main cost barrier we encountered was the fact that the other developing nations wanted $200 billion as well as our request for $30 billion. However, the other nations were not willing to offer that much, so we had to discuss, and the other developing nations decided to eventually drop their request down a little.

We can catalyze change in the US by beginning to cut emissions sooner rather than later. As we learned in the activity, waiting to cut emissions does not help out at all. The earlier we cut emissions, the lower the temperatures will be in the distant future.

When I played my role in the policy exercise I felt upset because other countries were very hesitant to donate money to us (other developing countries). We need the most money because of how high our carbon emission rates are and how little money we have to fix it. It was frustrating to see that other countries didn’t want to help us, considering that lowering our carbon emission rates would significantly help lowering world wide carbon emission rates.

At first I was frustrated, but after we expressed our point of view, other countries became more willing to give us the money we need. I realized that a lot of the reason why other countries didn’t want to donate to us was because we were asking for such a high amount of money ($200 billion), but once we explained that the steep amount was necessary, we started to get a lot more money from other countries.

Our group didn’t change our idea of how much money we wanted, but we did change our ideas on how we were going to use the money after negotiating with the other countries. At first, we had planned to use most of it to maintain the rainforest and plant more trees, but we then decided to allocate more money toward green energy.

The changes in where we decided to allocate our money was brought upon by talking to other countries, such as the US. We realized that, in order to get the money we want, we would need to use some of it on things that they wanted us to use it on, which included green energy.

I do believe that emissions can be cut, but the world needs to work together to make it happen. Focusing on your own country won’t solve the problem, because climate change will spread and affect the whole world if we don’t do more to fix it.

Green energy is much more expensive to invest our money into than afforestation, which means that the economy will go down. Each individual country would need to decide if it’s worth it to put money into green energy, which could lead to conflict if they don’t choose to do what other countries want them to do.

We can catalyze change in the US by focusing on decreasing carbon emission from large corporations and producers. We can also focus on lowering individual emission rates by educating people on the importance of reducing our carbon footprint. While people know that climate change exists, most people don’t understand the severity and how quickly it will soon affect the whole world.

During the climate simulation, I was in the group of “other developed countries”. I was surprised to see that the majority of populations in these countries wanted to see government actions to help counteract climate change, as this is much more controversial in the US. This brightens my hopes about saving/improving the environment, as I now realize that there are other countries out there that are likely to make large contributions, even in the unfortunate possibility that the US does not start to take action.

I put myself in the shoes of government officials of developed countries in order to determine the first decision. As our populations believed in climate change, our group decided to focus a large amount of efforts on internal afforestation and preventing deforestation. However, we only contributed a base-level amount of money: $1 billion. As we started to see other countries pick up the pace of donations (especially in the EU), we started to realize that our coalition of nations could realistically afford to contribute at least $50 billion. This was further catalyzed by some of the “needier” countries, like India, who requested a monumental sum of money, but also had solid plans on how to spend it.

Even with the large contributions that were made in the second round, I felt somewhat disheartened by the fact that the simulation still showed above a 2-degree increase in the global temperature. However, I do have hope that in the real world, even though countries won’t change their minds as quickly as we did in class, the few initial contributions will have a large enough domino effect in order to get other countries to step forward (and end up reducing emissions enough to meet the goal of less than a 2 degree increase).

One of the largest barriers to this negotiation was the complex political relationships between nations. Many nations, in reality, would be hesitant to contribute money in fear that the receiving country would not use the funds for the intended purpose (other purposes, in the worst cases, could include weapon development). Additionally, even if these nations did make such an agreement, it would further promote a hierarchy where underdeveloped nations are forced to depend on the wealth and authority of the more-developed (which is one of the problems that got us here in the first place with colonialism).

My hope is that, along with increasing rallies of the US population to combat climate change, the internal pressure along with the pressure of other nations will eventually cause the United States to begin active contributions to stopping climate change. One of the major problems here is that climate change has turned into such a political issue. More people from all sides of the political spectrum should stand up for these issues rather than blindly following their parties’ platforms. This will take many different efforts, including improved education about climate change and well-formed budgeting proposals. If this is successful, as the US is one of the largest voices (and wealthiest nations) on the world stage, other nations will follow suit, and we will see dramatic changes.

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.

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.  

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.

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.