Articles Comments

Dickinson to Durban » Mosaic Action, Student Research » The Devil’s in the Details

The Devil’s in the Details

Agreement - Easy in Theory, Difficult in Practice

In a previous blog post, I discussed the need for a “moral compromise” between the developed and developing countries of the world in order to reach an agreement on climate change. Though I identified three points of compromise that most people would consider “fair”, this does not mean it is easy to act on them – as the students of our Mosaic and another class learned firsthand in a mock climate negotiation devised by Climate Interactive.

This simulation divided us into the representatives of individual countries that comprised three different blocs: developed (USA, EU, UK, etc), rapidly developing (China, India, Brazil, etc), and less developed (Sudan, Middle East, small island states, etc). We were not given countries based upon our knowledge, and most students did not know much at all about theirs; I was assigned the European Union, which I only coincidentally knew about from some previous policy research. This arrangement meant that we all identified more closely to our bloc than our individual nations (for a  discussion on the effects this had on the exercise, see this post by one of my classmates).

I went into the simulation ready to “make the developed world finally do its part”, and my Mosaic colleagues also had a strong desire to actually resolve the problem we have been studying so extensively. This optimistic collectivism, however, soon began to falter as we started to immerse ourselves in the details of negotiations. The process was deceptively simple: each bloc just had to decide by what percent it would cut its emissions by 2050, while the rapidly developing countries had options about limiting deforestation and planting more trees. The developed countries also had to determine how much money to provide as aid to the rest of the world for cutting their emissions and adapting to climate change. A computer model would then take all of these choices and calculate the results for global temperature increase and sea level rise (with more cuts making both less serious).

Despite our predisposition to compromise, we found ourselves getting very heated over exactly who should be doing how much and of what – we agreed that developed countries had to take a bigger share of the cuts, but did that mean a 30% decrease or a 75% decrease? Developed countries admitted deforestation was a problem, but is a 60% reduction “reasonable” to expect from them? Is $800 billion USD per year for climate adaptation being generous, or a cheapskate? Faced with these details, our collective will for a resolution quickly gave way to protecting our individual interests from perceived exploitation. We all wanted a fair distribution of responsibility for climate change, but “fair” had at least as many definitions as there were blocs at the table; compromise did not translate smoothly from theory to action. And this was just our oversimplified version of negotiations, where political reality was largely suspended.

Ultimately, we did come close to reaching a final agreement, though it still would not have been enough to prevent considerable temperature increase and sea-level rise, and we all felt like we were giving away too much to the other parties. As a Law & Policy major, I am used to taking an objective, analytical approach to problems like climate change, so this firsthand experience in the role of diplomats provided valuable insight into the human dimension of the issue that gets in the way of compromise – even when that is what we all sincerely hope to achieve. This simulation has not destroyed my hope of the real negotiations making progress, but it has deepened my understanding of why so little has been done thus far. Agreement is possible, and I hope this new insight we gained will contribute to making it a reality.

 

C-LEARN - Individual Decisions, Collective Impacts

Written by

Filed under: Mosaic Action, Student Research · Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to "The Devil’s in the Details"

  1. Emily Bowie says:

    Hey Tim!

    I thought it was really interesting being across from you at the table, so to speak, in this simulation. I represented India, one of the rapidly developing countries, while you represented the EU (with a very nice suit on, I must say). It’s funny that you say you went in ready to “make the developed world finally do its part.” I, as India, went in ready to “own up to our share and agree to help, in exchange for help.” We both had excellent mindsets when we went in, but when you stood up and said the Developed countries were willing to entertain a “gracious” cut of 25% I couldn’t believe my ears, and immediately I felt that you were trying to attack, even though you clearly weren’t. I think it’s this discrepancy between what people think is “fair” that makes this whole process difficult. If you think you’re doing your part, how do you handle someone telling you to give more? I agree, I have developed a deeper appreciation for how difficult the real negotiations must be.

    1. Timothy Damon says:

      Hi Emily!

      I actually found it very, very hard to play the EU in the “Developed” bloc – the entire time I wanted to “throw political reality to the wind” and just “do the right thing”, but that couldn’t happen. In the beginning, I was indeed pushing the other others in my bloc to make a bigger cut that 25%, but they wouldn’t have it.

      Interestingly, as the evening went on, I got surprisingly into my role (you may have noticed, haha). I really felt like I had interests to protect for the Developed group, even though I was still working toward the objective of compromise. I was thinking “we do need to agree on a solution here, but how can I make sure we give up as little as possible to reach one”.

      Also, it really tested me having to confront the representatives from the poorest countries (who attacked your table during my visit) and offer them a mere $50 billion USD per year of additional aid to use for climate change. I am a little disappointed I was placed in the same bloc I actually live in, as it would have been very interesting to be forced into a different perspective, like that of India.

      1. Christine Burns says:

        I never really understood why we were not closer to global cooperation if we were all aiming for the same goal, but now I do! I thought it was really great how everyone really embraced their roles, and played their parts well. I think that we were all shocked by how quickly we got into our roles, and how quickly we went from a cooperative environment to a very uncooperative one in which negotiations got heated and tables were attacked! It’s fascinating what we as one country considered gracious and another considered insulting. Although I am not too optimistic, I hope that the actual negotiations will go smoother.

  2. weishop kite says:

    I think that we were all shocked by how quickly we got into our roles, and how quickly we went from a cooperative environment to a very uncooperative one in which negotiations got heated and tables were attacked! It’s fascinating what we as one country considered gracious and another considered insulting. Although I am not too optimistic, I hope that the actual negotiations will go smoother.iphone 5 cases

Leave a Reply to weishop kite Cancel reply

*