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.