Climate Simulation Reflection- Marianne Lamarche

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt… a mix of emotions. It was tough knowing that, as the Other Developed Nations, we were in a much more privileged position than many of the other groups. However, we couldn’t sacrifice everything we had for other nations when ours was still producing too many emissions as well. It was hard to find the right thing to do, both morally and strategically.

How did your reaction, comments, feelings; and shifts (if any) in negotiating positions evolve across the rounds and discussions?  Across rounds and discussions, I realized how much more severe the situation was than I thought. It was stressful to see how difficult it was to lower the temperature change to 2 degrees Celsius despite best efforts by almost all countries in the world.

How did your group change their ideas? Our group became more giving to other nations and willing to compromise throughout the rounds. We changed our financial donations from $1 Billion yearly to $50 Billion yearly, and we also increased our % reduction of carbon emissions from .5% to 2%.

What prompted that change? As the simulation progressed, we realized how much the developing nations really needed our help. Overall as a United Nations, we weren’t going to achieve our carbon reduction goals if we didn’t contribute more money to the global fund or increase our percent of carbon reduction. Thus, we adapted our solution to what we thought would best benefit other countries, ourselves, and the future of humanity as a whole.

In the end, do you think that emissions can be cut? I do have faith that we can reduce some of the damage we are causing to the environment by cutting emissions. Continuing with Business As Usual policies is just unsustainable, so I think we have no option but to cut emissions. However, I am unsure of how cooperative countries and their economies will be, so I fear we will not follow through will resolutions (as evidenced by the recent Climate Summit).

What were the major costs and barriers to implementation of participant proposals? The costs involve how generally expensive materials like solar panels and alternative equipment are, as well as the expenses related to afforestation. The major barrier was economic disparity between all the countries; those that most urgently needed to combat emissions also had the least money, so they had to beg the richer nations for assistance, which was often unsuccessful (especially when it came to aid from the US). Unfortunately, this is a very real problem in today’s climate negotiations.

How can we catalyze change in the US? I think catalyzing change in the US will take a combination of large-scale actions by the government and large companies, but is also highly dependent on our individual actions. We all need to participate in, and spread knowledge about, these 7 tactics I read online that instantly reduce our carbon footprint: eating less (or no) meat, unplugging our devices, driving less, not buying “fast fashion,” planting gardens, eating local/organic, and line-drying our clothes.