Climate Simulation – Zach O’Connor

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt concerned about if dramatic change will actually happen. Each nation had their own interests to pursue, and this made it difficult to negotiate. Some nations were willing to work together, while others were set on their demands and didn’t want to change.

As negotiation rounds passed, I was surprised about the difficulty of lowering the temperature to 2 degrees celsius. At the start, nations were arguing over reforestation and deforestation rates, but the main factor was annual reduction rate. Even when we plugged in best case scenarios, we still failed at lowering the temperature to 2 degrees celsius.

Our group, the United States, maintained a similar goal throughout the simulation. We didn’t want to contribute that much money into the global fund, and our afforestation and deforestation rates remained the same. The most drastic change was that we moved up our peak and reduction year, and we increased our reduction rate.

Our group’s ideas were changed by the fact that a lot more progress needed to be done if we wanted to meet the global goal. We negotiated with China and India to try and meet the goal. We were able to match China with their progress and meet India’s financial need.

I think emissions can be cut, but it’s going to take cooperation from every nation. Everybody needs to realize that the blame doesn’t fall on a single nation, and everyone needs to help to make a change.

The major costs and barriers of participant proposals were the amount of funding they requested. Some nations requested more money in the global fund, but we weren’t willing to give it. We wanted to focus our money on domestic programs. It was also difficult to match the opinions of the American people. Climate change wasn’t ranked as an important concern for our citizens, so we had to factor that into our decisions.

We can catalyze change in the U.S. by educating the population about this problem. People need to understand the negative impacts of climate change. Once there is an agreement that we need to fix this problem, we must work together to propose programs and solutions that will improve the world.

World Climate Simulation – Hailey Maxwell

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt both powerful and frustrated. As a member of the US delegation, our negotiating power was high; we had money that the other countries wanted, and we could bargain with that instead of having to promise to reduce our emissions. However, as a human who wants the earth to still be functional in 80 years, I was very frustrated, both with how slowly negotiations were progressing and with how little effect many of our changes had on the climate. My group became significantly more willing to decrease carbon emissions and to donate money as negotiations went on. We started with a goal of a 2040 peak year and essentially no donations, but we ended with 2030 and about 12 billion dollars. This change was prompted by seeing how little effect the changed we were forcing on the other countries had. We realized we and our ally, China, needed to also commit to a sooner peak year, and we were only able to get China to do so by offering to donate about as much money as they did. I think emissions can certainly be cut; however, I am not so optimistic that they will be cut by enough or soon enough to prevent irreversible change. Major costs and barriers to the implementation of proposals, at least on the part of the US, were that we were reluctant to do anything that might harm our economy in the slightest. Public opinion in the US is not as concerned with the climate as it is with matters of national security and the economy. In order to catalyze change in the US, we need to increase public concern for the climate so that politicians can fight for it without risking their positions.

Sam Greenwell Climate Change Simulation

When I played my role as China, I felt as if I was the middle ground for the developed and developing nations, and it was difficult to get other countries to negotiate. Being more developed than countries like India and other developing nations, we were expected to contribute more to global funds. However, being less developed than the United States, we were the largest source of carbon emissions in the world and we had to work to resolve that.

My stances didn’t change much on how the global temperature would stay within 2 degrees Celsius of what it is at now by 2100. I knew that because China was the largest emitter of carbon that we’d have to contribute in a variety of ways, but I figured that afforestation was not one of those ways, which I was correct about. Although it is portrayed in media as a key resolution to the problem of climate change, increasing our afforestation (which is not feasible in a land where so many people rely on agriculture) made a very little impact.

We did however change our ideas on the basis of peak year. We figured that China was going to peak in 2040 and then plateau with no changes, likely due to the fact that their population rates are slowing down as time progresses. So, keeping the peak year as 2040 and then working to reduce carbon emissions in the years following would work best and most plausibly. However, that didn’t make enough of an impact on the climate, so we bumped up the peak year all the way to 2020, which might not be completely realistic, but it was the weight that China had to carry to avoid increasing carbon emissions substantially over the next 20 years. Working on negotiations with the US allowed us to realize that we would need to do that.

We were able to witness the emissions that were cut out from this change. However, no matter what changes we made, we were always the leader in carbon emissions. The footprint that has been left from China is already impactful enough to keep the global temperatures rising at a rate that is more than what is ideal.

The barriers of the proposals we made were that we could not direct much effort towards prevention of deforestation or encouraging afforestation because of the population and emphasis on agriculture. However, we found that to not be very impactful anyways and we found that the impacts we were making as far as contribution to the global funds were much greater. Another barrier though was that the developing nations outside of China were asking for far too much and it was tough to negotiate with them.

We can catalyze change in the US by starting now to reduce carbon emissions. As the US group noted, the political situation in the US could be different in ten years from now, so making sure that this political landscape is focused reducing carbon in case leaders in the future stray from that idea is important.

Climate Simulation- David Wang

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt that negotiations were extremely difficult. As the exercise went on, my views in regards to meeting the temperature goals became more radical. The fiscal and climate goals felt extremely difficult to reach, as all the countries also needed to satisfy their own needs, which made compromise extremely difficult. This caused me to believe that every country needed to compromise a lot more of their resources in regards to fighting climate change. Our group, which represented India, did not change our stance much because India itself does not contribute much to the rising carbon emissions. Initially, our group demanded for money in regards to fighting climate change, rather than contributing, because India is a poor country. However, we elected to not change this stance due to the lack of demand from other countries in regards to changing this stance. In the end, I believe that emissions can be cut. However, there are major costs and barriers that need to be overcome. Assuming the simulation matches exactly like the real negotiations, the high costs demanded by developing countries need to be overcome. The best way is through technological innovation, in which better access to more advanced technology will help increase efficiency and reduce costs. Furthermore, the US and China economic war needs to be overcome. Because the US and China contribute heavily to climate change, most notably China, negotiations are mandatory. Compromise is necessary. However, such discussions may be extremely difficult. In order to catalyze change in the US, everyone needs to encourage entrepreneurs with business ideas that combat climate change to step forth. This type of encouragement is most likely to meet bipartisan support from the government, as environmentally friendly businesses help the climate while bolstering the economy. Currently, there are many successful and creative inventions from such businesses that are combating climate change, such as carbon capture plants and solar panels.

Climate Simulation – Rowan Wiley

Acting as an important executive for the United States made me feel powerful and important and like I could make a major difference. However, after actually trying to negotiate with other world powers and address climate change, I felt confused and disappointed. I realized that the impact of my decisions was actually not as significant as I had hoped it would be.

I felt pretty confident about our ability to address climate change at the start of the exercise. I knew that the US contributed a great deal to global CO₂ emissions and that we also have tremendous global power when it comes to negotiations, so I thought for sure that we could address the problem with a little effort. However, actually attempting to reduce emissions proved a lot harder than I expected, especially when other countries were unwilling to cooperate.

My group didn’t really change our ideas very much over the course of the exercise. We kept our deforestation and afforestation rates consistent throughout the entire exercise and we only added to our fund contribution in an effort to appease China. We did move our peak and reduction years forward, but once again that was in conjunction with China and India.

The most significant factor that led us to change our initial policies was the limited impact that our reductions had on climate change. In addition, the willingness of China and India to cooperate with us made things easier. We had a lot more trouble reaching agreements with the Other Developing Countries and Other Developed Countries.

I do think that emissions can be cut, but not by a significant enough margin to eliminate the effects of climate change. Based on the results of the exercise I think it is borderline impossible to truly minimize climate change before it is too late. Even with almost unanimous support and cooperation we were unable to reach the target of 2 ̊C.

Economic concerns and global competition seemed to be the biggest barriers to me. Reducing emissions and funding afforestation programs while reducing deforestation is an extremely expensive endeavor that will severely damage the economy, and most countries are unwilling to jeopardize their economic welfare. This doesn’t even take into account the money that other countries asked for in order to address climate change. Other groups were quick to jump on China and the US for not offering to donate very much money, but I don’t think they really understand how much it will cost to implement domestic changes that are significant enough to make a difference.

We can catalyze change in the US by ensuring that more people are educated about climate change and know how to address it. Doing little things personally isn’t going to make any difference whatsoever, massive industrial companies are the ones driving the emissions, so instead we should focus on bringing the problem to the attention of the government and high ranking officials in major companies. Only then can we hope to mitigate the damages of climate change.

Chad Hudak – Climate Simulation Blog Post

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I felt almost left out in a way. Because my group was the UN, we didn’t have to negotiate too much with other nations because we were already doing as much as possible to cut down our emissions and we were giving out a generous amount of money. However, we did have some negotiations with the developing nations and got them to agree to use our funding with oversight from us.

In the first round, our claims did not really change because we were putting forth a massive effort to reduce emissions. The second round however, is where things began to change. We ended up donating $50 billion more than before and negotiated with the United States to give at least some money. They ended up only giving $12 billion to be used to help fight climate change. The biggest negotiation that we made successful also came in the second round of negotiating. We were able to get the developing nations to use our funding, under the condition that we could oversee the implementation and use of our funds. My reactions to the United States’ position changed but only slightly. In the first round they pledged to give only $17.76 which is just terrible compared to how much money they could have spent. In the second round, they raised that to $12 billion which I still believe is very little for them because they are currently one of the largest carbon emitters.

Our group changed our ideas because we originally thought that all of the developed nations would be willing to give money to help the less developed nations reduce their emissions, but we were mistaken. Our ideas then changed to convincing the developed nations to help while we were still giving tons of money in aid.

This change came about because of the lack of funds from some of the nations with the largest economies such as the US and China. Those two nations could have given significantly more money. It took a lot of convincing to get the US to give the amount that they ended up giving.

In the end, I believe that emissions can be cut, however, there will have to be a massive push from political leaders to make any significant changes. If there are no consequences for high emissions, then nothing will really change. Along with this, political leaders are the only ones who can access enough money and allocate it in their budget. Without enough funding, the cutting of emissions is only a dream.

One of the major costs for the implementation of emission reducing proposals was the fact that we, the EU, had to give out so much money. That money could have been used to assist ourselves and reduce our emissions, but we decided to give it to those who needed it more than us. One of the major barriers was the US being stubborn and only focusing on themselves and convincing the developing nations that they needed our oversight if they were to use our funds. Eventually both agreed, but it was difficult to get to that point.

We can catalyze change in the US by promoting recycling, compostable materials, and alternative energy. These changes will reduce the amount of carbon emissions because they will eventually replace the current emission spewing methods. Factories could be run on solar, wind, or water power, cars could all be electric and give off zero emissions, and the reusing and composting of materials would reduce the amount of products produced in factories and limit the amount of waste that is left over. These changes would launch the US into the direction of reducing its carbon emissions and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.

Climate Change Simulation – Nico Fontova

I was part of the United States group for the simulation, and I mostly felt overwhelmed during the simulation. Negotiating was difficult, as countries did not seem to be on the same page, and occasionally wanted to bash each other. The US did not have similar interests with EU, for example, because the EU was very focused on donating to developing nations while the Americans were not. This led to the EU and the US getting slightly heated in negotiation. Our position on donation definitely shifted after other countries’ anger at the amount we donated (or lack thereof), and we when saw in the program that donation had a decent effect on the temperature raise. We decided to use this to our advantage and exchange our raising of a donation for China’s promising to begin cutting emissions earlier. We did not entirely trust developing nations to use their money for good, but we saw that we needed to at least a little to cause change.

Major barriers of implementation were trying to confound to our countries’ goals and political settings; Americans do not care about climate change very much, and a constantly changing government makes long term goals difficult. Catalyzing change in the US needs to be done by showing people what will happen in the world if emissions continue to rise, and by limiting the role of fossil fuel companies in government and the news cycle so that they will no longer lie to the American people. Emissions can most certainly be cut, but it will be difficult and require extreme change from every UN nation.

Simulation Reflection – Toby Fu

During this exercise I was part of the European Union group.

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I did not feel necessarily restricted by the group (nations’) background. Although during the exercise the EU made many large contributions, they were all based somewhat on reality. For example, some European countries had up to 4.5% reductions. Policy making in terms of negotiations was more challenging, and we did not always end up with what we wanted out of the deal, despite still handing over our resources.

As negotiations progressed, I felt that despite people’s initial hesitance towards contributing to the cause, when they realized just how much progress still had to be made, countries that did were not interested before suddenly increased their contribution, in hopes that we could actually achieve our goal. Even though we (the EU group) already donated a lot of money into the cause, we put even more in later in the rounds.

The EU group already started with a lot invested into the program, and the only change we had was donating even more money to the cause, as well as having more of our group monitoring those that needed our money.

We realized we all had to put in more money, when it turns out other groups needed more money than we would have expected.

In the end, I think the only way emissions can be cut is if we, as people of earth and not of nations, realized that no one would be happy if the earth catches on fire. We would all have to set aside differences and put our efforts into saving the world we live in, most importantly making it a higher priority than it is for many nations right now.

Many countries that still were developing could not bear the price of cutting emissions early, since they would not be able to progress. Even the best they could do to delay and cut emissions would be paid for at a high cost. Ultimately, it was the act of cutting emissions that was the most important to reaching our goal.

The best way to catalyze change really is to spread the information outward, as well as give genuine examples of how change would affect us. Without even knowing how it affects us, people may not be interested in saving our environment.

Climate Simulation Reflection

When I played my role in the policy exercise, I was a member of the developing nations. At times I felt slightly frustrated when other countries expected us to “contribute more” when at the point we were at there wan not much more we could. This particularly difficult in regards to carbon emissions as everyone seemed to forget how many people we had and that some form of carbon emissions was inevitable. Generally, though I was able to understand where they were coming from, though I think part of the issue is that while the design of the agreements worked for most nations in regards to decreasing climate emissions it did not in regards to us and India. As the two groups with the lowest per capita carbon emissions, we simply could not sustain any yearly percentage decrease. We could offer a one time decrease of a certain percentage over some years but that proposal could not be incorporated into any calculations. In some ways, our group was lucky in that we had so little that our ideas and requests stayed fairly consistent throughout the process. It was, however, heartbreaking to see that even with all of our aforestation and anti-deforestation efforts, ultimately it did little. I remain optimistic though that over time as though forests would build up they could have a greater impact, it just might be an impact that the people who start such campaigns would never get to see—I still believe it would be worth it.
Several issues arose in the simulation that I am sure are problems with these negotiations today. Mistrust between countries and fear of political corruption is one that we, in particular, had to deal with. This I completely understand. The developing countries of the world (particularly the regions we were given) are rife with corruption and greed in the places of power. These powerful but corrupt individuals are also proponents of taking advantage of their natural resources when they can—regardless of the long-term consequences (The Brazillian President Jair Bolsonaro and his attitudes toward protecting the Amazon being only one of many examples). These are issues that will not be easy to solve. In the simulation, we were able to work out arrangements that included other countries being able to oversee operations they were funding (so long as the jobs went to out people) but we are not blinded by greed or a lust for power the way many world leaders, unfortunately, are.
All in all, I am more optimistic now then I have been in the past about reducing emissions. There seems to be a growing base of support for the idea in the US as well as in China. Here I think we can continue to present the facts, and perhaps stop presenting climate-change deniers as if they have the same scientific backing that climate change itself does. I am not sure if we will realistically be able to get the average degree increased to 2 degrees celsius, but I have hope that more people will see the severity of the situation, and that if some countries who are committed to this are able to sustain themselves on more green energy that the more stubborn of the countries (in particular the US) may come around to the idea.

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.