The publication removed the aptly named “The Climate Game” for Earth Week (yes, it’s not just a day anymore). If you haven’t played the game yet, go ahead and do it now if you want, because there are spoilers below.
The game challenges you to make the world reach zero from now until 2050 to prevent the worst effects of global warming. It focuses on many key sectors, from electricity to buildings and transport to industry. I must admit that while maintaining the warming of the planet to 1.48 degrees Celsius in my first attempt (victory of sorts!), I failed to score zero goal until the second round.
At the risk of sounding defensive – something my sister would say is typical of my approach to loss – I have several theories about my loss. First, I would say that the game puts more weight on public opinion than our current approach to policy-making.
For example, when I was asked how to get my country’s public opinion in light of some voters’ concerns about rising electricity bills, I said, “Just ignore them, they’re wrong.” We have a planet to save here, people! This attack of cynicism was clearly not the right move, as the game is built on the premise that attracting an audience is crucial.
Which, yes, I agree. However, countless polls show that the public is increasingly investing in climate action. As I told them to deal with this, I decided that if the majority is in favor of doing something about climate change and only “some voters” oppose aggressive climate action in this imaginary world, why should it to slow us down?
According to Pippa, my visiting friend, whom I encouraged to play, the game reacted with similar concern to her decision to declare that all protein in diets should now come from insects. And my attempt to be bold at $ 1,000 a tonne for carbon also sparked a public outcry in the Financial Times’s imaginary world. But I continued to warm to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, saving countless fictional lives in the process. Does it matter that a small constituency is angry?
The transport section focuses almost entirely on electric vehicles, which also failed my first attempt. Initially, I did not invest enough in decarbonizing vehicles because I mistakenly assumed that I could wait to invest in public transport. While electrifying cars is great, getting more people to walk or bike or use buses is less glamorous, but no less important piece of the climate-saving puzzle.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I love this game. And in fact, I think it’s good that different people may have different approaches to tackling the climate crisis. Merging approaches is what we need!
I like that the game forces the player to avoid investments or decisions that will be a waste of effort (measured in the game, although hopefully the effort is easier to determine in the real world). Pippa was rightly skeptical about the possibility of investing in reforestation drone technology, while I had to invest in sustainable aviation fuel. (I just slipped away. Sorry, virtual world!)
Games like this can also make solid reports, such as that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has recently become much more accessible. Pippa played three times (and successfully reached zero on his second attempt), which even the most climate-conscious person can say about reading the IPCC.
The Financial Times has released a scammer, ostensibly for the game, but also – let’s be honest – one that could be turned into a checklist for politicians. But the game is a lot more fun. Someone get this to every member of Congress’ iPad as soon as possible.
Add Comment