When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt frustrated. It was hard to try and figure out how to compromise with other countries when I felt like my country was doing everything right and they were making the mistakes, even though I knew that wasn’t entirely true. It felt like no matter what we did, it was impossible to come up with a realistic plan to reduce emissions that would actually reach our goal.
How did your reaction, comments, feelings; and shifts (if any) in negotiating positions evolve across the rounds and discussions? My group was forced to accept more reductions in our emissions in exchange for the money we needed, which was frankly unrealistic, but included for the sake of the simulation.
How did your group change their ideas? We had to shift from being very hopeful and conservative at the beginning to making insane reductions by the end in order to achieve the results that we wanted.
What prompted that change? All the countries had to make more drastic changes as the rounds continue, because we looked at the chart and saw that the rise in temperature was still not under 2 degrees. It became more intense debate as the teams all tried to figure out what would finally bring us under 2 degrees.
In the end, do you think that emissions can be cut? I believe emissions can be cut, but not to the level that they need to be in order to protect our climate fully.
What were the major costs and barriers to implementation of participant proposals? Countries did not want to give money because they needed to focus on their own efforts, but the countries in need could not implement any plans without funding from richer countries. It is all costly and easy to place blame on others.
How can we catalyze change in the US? We can reduce our emissions individually and try to live a more environmentally-conscious life. We can also make our government aware of the fact that this is an issue that matters to its people.