So, You Want to be a UN Climate Negotiator? Then Try Your Hand at This Simulator
Here’s 3 popular scenarios I put to the test.
--
“How much Florida do you want to save?”
That’s how it feels playing this climate simulator developed for schools. All I need now is a cat, a cigar and a metal claw as I turn the dials up and down to change the fate of the world —
- A little more population here
- A lot more subsidies on renewables
- Some medium growth on technologies.
All sung along to Mambo №5 by Lou Bega and there you have it: The simulator shows you the temperature your choices have made for life in 2100.
Created by the nonprofit think tank Climate Interactive and designed for groups in classrooms. It calculates the emissions reduction potential of your favorite “save the planet” policies.
So, could my climate change ideas save the world?
What it takes to be a climate negotiator
We all have the best intentions and the most important of opinions, but what is it like to be a UN climate negotiator?
No matter what side of the political spectrum you sat, no one was happy with the outcome at the COP26 in Glasgow.
Least of all, Alok Sharma, the President of COP26, who ended the conference holding back tears.
I saw Sharma at the end of the conference understand the fail in real time. One of the most heartbreaking things I’ve ever seen live on television.
Right there, he understood the enormity of what happened. We could not come together, not even to save the planet.
Not without compromise.
Regardless of what you think about COP26, or Alok Sharma or even climate change, it is a tough gig.
The main aim of COP26 was to
“secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach.”
It was time to put some popular ideas out there to the test.
Start with the status quo: 3.6 degrees by 2100
This is the opening gambit if we carry on “business as usual.” The current scenario will lead to the planet becoming 3.6 degrees warmer by 2100.
The aim agreed for by the world’s countries is to keep the climate’s temperature to an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030.
We are currently at 1.1 to 1.2 degrees.
The three scenarios I played out on the simulator:
- Highly taxing fossil fuels
- A high growth scenario
- UK government policy ideas
Here’s how the three scenarios worked out on the CNET simulator:
Scenario #1 Highly taxing fossil fuels
After hours of listening to 195 countries pledge to the agreement at COP26, even though many felt it was a compromise, India swooped in at the last minute at COP26 to change the terms.
They changed it from “phasing out” of coal to “phasing down” of coal. This made Alok Sharma tear up at the end.
So what would happen if all countries highly taxed fossil fuels? For the sake of the demonstration, I did not want to change much else — the changes you can see in blue.
When you add highly reduced methane (which also comes from natural gas pipe leaks), it is 2.7 degrees.
There is more that needs to be done than simply reducing fossil fuels, but it's a splendid start.
#2 High growth scenario
This is a scenario I see argued on some blogs and on this site: it’s pro-technology and against de-growth policies.
We have nuclear subsidized, electrification of transport, high population growth and high economic growth.
The electrification of transport reduced the temperature by 0.1 degrees, as did the subsidization of nuclear energy.
Four degrees is shorthand for complete societal collapse in environmental circles.
We don’t want to go there.
#3 Domestic policy for the United Kingdom
I thought it would be fun to have a look at some policies talked about by our government here in the United Kingdom.
As you can see, I then dialled it up to the hilt.
This is the “recipe”:
- Reduced fossil fuels, increased renewables, added some nuclear.
- Then electrified transport (which is what the London Mayor promises for 2030) and fixed the insulation problem of old housing stock in the UK, giving it perfect energy efficiency.
- There was a little population growth from immigration and more economic growth (this could be optimistic!).
- I reduced methane completely and increased the number of trees in the UK depleted over the centuries by industrialization in the north and Scotland.
What stood out was the building efficiency will have on the temperature.
Recently 18 peaceful protesters from Insulate Britain went to jail, and the laws changed specifically to jail them, for protesting for better energy efficiency for old housing stock in the UK.
And yet, if you dial up the energy efficiency of buildings, you can decrease temperature by 0.4 degrees.
Still, it’s a dangerous two degrees warmer if we applied this scenario to the entire world.
What would your country’s climate policy look like in the simulator?
Final thoughts
It’s not everybody’s idea of fun. But it had me thinking:
What do we need to focus our attention on as a planet?
Unfortunately, I could get none of these down to 1.5 degrees that we need with these popular scenarios.
What I do know is I’d rather throw rocks at the right people, not climate negotiators.
Many don’t agree with me.
Well, here’s your chance to try it yourself.
Here’s the link:
En-ROADS (Energy Rapid Overview and Decision Support) is a free, online simulation tool that models warming based on input climate actions and policies focused on things like taxes, subsidies, economic growth, fuel mix, energy efficiency, technical innovation, and other factors.
I’d love to hear some scenarios you tried and the results in the comments. Did anybody manage to get under 1.5 degrees — and how did you do it?
When readers click on my link and sign up with Medium, I get a small commission. The price is no higher for the reader, but it really helps me. Thanks.
