Emily Larking
When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt like change was possible but it seemed like the politics were prioritized over the Earth. I think nations will need to shift their priorities in order to make an actual difference on climate change.
How did your reaction, comments, feelings; and shifts (if any) in negotiating positions evolve across the rounds and discussions? We learned that deforestation and reforestation had minimal impact on future climate change. The negotiations shifted to be more focus on when the changes will occur and the annual reduction rate.
How did your group change their ideas? What prompted that change? Our team (China) collaborated a lot with the United States and India, which prompted our team to change our ideas. We adjusted and adapted based on the other countries needs or what they were willing to do.
In the end, do you think that emissions can be cut? I do think emissions can be cut but it will take putting aside certain political interests to work for a common goal. It will take a lot of discussion and compromise.
What were the major costs and barriers to implementation of participant proposals? It cost a lot of money to reduce emissions. The developing countries needed the most money and also had the most people who didn’t have a steady food supply. Many countries have other pressing internal issues they need to address and dedicate money to as well.
How can we catalyze change in the US? Education is an important part to spark change in the United States. The younger generations are the future and the ones who will be implementing policies to enact change ahead of us so in order to ensure change occurs, we need to make sure they know how pressing of an issue climate change is.