Climate Challenge, or How I Learned to Start Pandering and Love the Pork

I played the Climate Challenge game recently after discovering it on the Games for Change website and found it to be a provocative look at the politics and policy solutions related to global warming. While the gameplay has a few blind spots (mainly the lack of good feedback on economic performance) and gets a bit repetitive, Climate Challenge communicates and encourages reflection on some important and perennial political lessons.

The gist is that you "play as the President of Europe from 2000 to 2100 [!?], and attempt to reduce your carbon emissions while maintaining vital national services and remaining popular with the electorate." This is tougher than it seems. There are five variables you must monitor—finances, energy, food, water, and emissions—and five policy areas with which to affect these variables—national, trade, agriculture & industry, local, and household. You are evaluated at the end of your public service on indicators of environment, wealth, and popularity.

For my first attempt I figured why not go for broke with an aggressive Green platform: I ended up getting booted out of office after four rounds. My approval rating fell through the floor when I neglected the food supply and the water infrastructure in favor of fuel taxes and rapid expansion of renewable energy, and my administration was punished by climate-induced floods and heat waves that further compounded my popularity problems. Game Over. Chalk it up to the game's learning curve.

Periodically during Climate Challenge, Europe must engage in environmental diplomacy with the other blocs: North America, South America, Africa, South Asia, Pacifica, and North Asia. The negotiation stage is minimal and it's not clear what's at stake, but you have the option to subsidize green development in each region. Presumably these gestures rally the negotiators to your side. But what is your side? While emissions targets give you something to aim for, they also make your job harder.

On my second pass I tried to be a more sensitive leader while still negotiating in good faith for emissions reductions on the international stage. Fortunately the game is loaded with great policy choices with which to meet these goals—energy innovation and efficiency, transportation and green building regulations, and investments in basic research.

I found that one way to keep my rating high was to focus on subsidizing things people wanted, like home solar, and to steer clear of things they didn't, such as carbon taxes—promote, don't restrict—which seems to adhere to what Roger Pielke calls his "iron law" of climate politics.

Climate Challenge also offers some tempting public programs of uncertain value (within the game environment): launch a space program, host the Olympics, send foreign aid. These tend to hemorrhage money, energy, and emissions, but the voters like them.

I played a final round with an exaggerated pro-business approach, funding things like nuclear projects and carbon capture, yet even then I somehow managed to throw the economy into hyperinflation by 2100 and allow criminals to stalk the streets. Clearly the game needs better feedback on the socioeconomic front, as my approval rating ran high throughout.

While the gameplay is just a bunch of clicking, the real action happens on the conceptual level, and there are some nice contextual touches that teach the reality of nimbyism, resource limitations, and political trade-offs. For example, after each election you get a newspaper report on how your policies have been received. My favorite one said: "The most popular policy was 'Spin your policies.'" A few dollars spent on savvy PR can go a long way.

What Was All the Gossip About?

Now that some of the furor over Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has calmed down, it helps to untangle even a small strand of the web of intrigue surrounding the release of U.S. diplomatic cables. One of the themes we heard these past several months was that most of the cables are mere cocktail party "gossip." This phrase is often used to downplay their significance and to denigrate any public value WikiLeaks may provide as a safe harbor for whistleblowers.

Thus we see similar headlines all over the world: "Wikileaks 'Gossip' Merely Annoying in Latin America," Mario Osava, Inter Press Service, Dec. 13, 2010; "Good Gossip, and No Harm Done to U.S.," Albert R. Hunt, Bloomberg News, Dec. 5, 2010, syndicated in the New York Times; "Raila [Odinga] dismisses WikiLeaks reports as gossip," Carol Gakii and Kendagor Obadiah, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, Dec. 10, 2010; "WikiLeaks: Gossip on a global level," Rabia Ashfaque, Express Tribune Pakistan Blog, circa Dec. 10, 2010; "WikiLeaks: Much ado over idle chat," Korea Herald editorial, Dec. 17, 2010.

So where did this idea come from? Why has it crystallized in so many minds as a convenient explanation? The "gossip" diagnosis is portrayed as the commonsense response, and this alone is reason to beware. We live in an era of information warfare, marked by proliferation of secrecy and the agents who sustain it. Common sense is no longer credible when it can be so easily provided by a third party.

Take for example the CIA Red Cell Memorandum entitled "Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough," a document leaked to WikiLeaks in early 2010. The first section pretty much sums it up: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters." It is painful to witness such brash condescension for the democratic values our troops die to protect, and it is pathetic how the CIA values apathy as a means to sustain an unpopular policy. Only a pathological detachment from life and death consequences could allow them to uphold this charade.

And for those moments when apathy is not enough and war opposition becomes real, the Red Cell Memo suggests a handful of tactics for massaging European publics, tailored to the unique cultural weaknesses of each nation.

The mission’s "multilateral and humanitarian aspects" are recommended as key selling points for German audiences, and a dose of fear is thrown in for good measure: "messages that illustrate how a defeat in Afghanistan could heighten Germany’s exposure to terrorism, opium, and refugees might help to make the war more salient to skeptics."

The French media strategy calls for stirring up guilt related to civilians and women: "The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties." The irony wafts like smoke from a Gauloise when we consider the controversy over headscarves in French public schools.

But the real sneakiness here is the way that ethical values are used to legitimize continuation of the war. Of course everyone wants Afghan women and children to live happy, safe, and fulfilling lives. But good news in the service of a democratically disfavored policy sows confusion and helps apathy proliferate. Policy Innovations, in fact, has run great articles over the years on Afghan women, children, and education because it's our business to tell success stories of innovation in development. And that's exactly where the CIA logic breaks down: There are women and children who need good health and education all over the world. Just because some of them happen also to be in Afghanistan doesn't mean that the United States and its allies can retroactively justify a 10-year occupation based on their fates.

This CIA memo preceded the diplomatic cable release but it speaks to a major issue that WikiLeaks has brought to the surface: We can't go on conducting international diplomacy with hypocrisy, cynicism, and dissimulation as if somehow people of different nations live on different planets and aren't listening. Or as Slavoj Zizek writes in the London Review of Books, "We can no longer pretend we don’t know what everyone knows we know." An age of appearances is over.

PHOTO CREDIT: Paco Rives Manresa (CC).

Living Like a Refugee Is Not Easy

I had the luck to catch the Sierra Leone Refugee All Stars band last night in Manhattan. They formed in the refugee camps during the civil war of the 1990s, using their musical talents to stay alive and keep spirits high. They have since toured all over the world spreading their bright positive sound, which draws on a mix of influences from reggae to Nigerian high-life and American rap.

A pair of documentary filmmakers captured their story, and the band today leverages its success to help Sierra Leone recover and develop. When times are tough you have to dance, dance, dance.

Introducing: More Like This

Policy Innovations is pleased to announce the debut of "More Like This," a new article series by our friend John Haffner. John will be profiling clean energy leaders and other green innovators in China over the next several months.

As you can read in his introduction to the series, the motivation is triple: 1. Give these pioneers some of the recognition they deserve; 2. Convey the flavor of life in contemporary China; and 3. Inspire similar leadership in others.

The first article is a frank discussion with Kongjian Yu, an award-winning landscape architect whose designs strive to incorporate energy efficiency and natural beauty.

Yu feels that China's rapid urbanization suffers from what he calls the "'little feet' aesthetic"—showcase buildings built on shaky conceptual foundations. "These ornamental buildings can't carry their own weight. We have little feet but a jumbo body of consumption and GDP growth. Chinese have this dream of being urbanized. But the buildings aren't green."

Also of note on U.S.-China relations is our coverage of "Rare Earths Diplomacy" by Sean Daly. He looks at what we should expect in the rare minerals market and how it could impact production of the wind turbines and hybrid cars we associate with a clean technology economy.

Enjoy, and have a great Thanksgiving.

Climate Patriotism Will Only Cause More Problems

Robert Dujarric writes in the Christian Science Monitor that the Obama administration should appeal to patriotism to get Americans motivated to kick the oil addiction. Bush tried this approach back in 2006, but his weak solution was to fund more research (a form of delay) and to prioritize ethanol (which often equates to oil hidden in fertilizers and pesticides, and has unsavory consequences for world food prices).

Dujarric notes that historically in times of war the U.S. government has successfully played the patriot card for various goals: recruiting, war bonds, rationing, etc. Sociologically this argument is dead. America today is a post-sacrifice dreamland. In an economy driven by consumption, there are no costs, only opportunities.

[This is the fluff fed to the American people through marketing, from the bully pulpit (go to war and lower taxes), and by a media that sanitizes the true human experience of war or revolution. (The photos leaked from Abu Ghraib were an exception to this taboo, and the Neda Sultan video a stark intrusion of the Real.) Little wonder our fictional visual media constantly grow more casual, visceral, celebratory, and creative in their depiction of torture and murder. The problem is less that these media motivate violence and more that they are an expression of our repressed refusal to maturely engage the ongoing violence and evil of our world, whether banal or dramatic—poverty, rapes in Congo, strip mining.]

Practically speaking Obama has been reluctant to coax or force people into cutting oil consumption. During the campaign he rejected the idea of raising gasoline taxes, which would have satisfied Dujarric's desire to make life harder for authoritarian petrocrats. And now the administration is handcuffed by the need to stimulate the economy, while the underlying fundamental problem has not been solved: the economy equals pollution. Dujarric rightly notes that the global recession has been the only effective means of slowing emissions.

But the major fault line in his argument is its appeal to a very retrograde expression of patriotism, one based on fear, hate, enemies, and "the other." Gone are the days when we can blanket lump and demonize a "foreign" people to accomplish domestic or international goals. Destabilization of regimes and democracy promotion of this stripe is dead.

If Obama wants to appeal to American patriotism, he should elevate the debate. Americans pride themselves on being the type of people who don't run from their responsibilities. And when you look at current, cumulative, and per capita emissions, Americans bear a lot of responsibility for the current crisis.

Going forward, successful nations will be defined less by whom they confront, and more by what they can construct (and how they share it). This in the end is one symbolic lesson of the falling towers of 9/11: What have we built?

Given the urgency of global warming, the situation has moved past specific battles like saving polar bears to the idea of saving civilization. But this requires that we also be civilized. To achieve this, honesty is the change people have been waiting for, not jingoism.

Stimulus, Justice, and Business in Greening the Developing World

I attended a business leaders luncheon last week organized by the United Nations Association around the idea of Greening the Developing World: Tech's Leading Role (Siemens and TIME co-sponsored). Among the themes one stood out: "Experiment on us!" This came from Minister Modest Mero of Tanzania. He indicated that Africa is an investment opportunity where clean energy pilot projects can take root because they don't have to fight the inertia of creative destruction common in rich countries.

But what is the policy and political landscape for greening development? Robert Orr, the Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Planning and Policy Coordination, explained the relevance and success of the Clean Development Mechanism in this area. About half of new energy demand and development will be in poorer countries, he said, where 2 billion people live without modern energy access or technology. About one-third of CDM projects to date have involved technology dissemination to these countries.

Orr also made the point that it might be more useful to speak generally of "technology dissemination" instead of "technology transfer." He described the latter as too much of a 1960s–70s term. Recasting the process in this light would help account for co-development, PPPs, and other projects. (While I understand his pragmatic bent here, it does seem to gloss over the justice questions at stake in climate change.)

The CDM for all its faults [PDF] is not an insignificant pool of resources, and lessons have been learned from early implementation efforts. In 2006 some $25 billion was dedicated to projects in the CDM pipeline, $5.7 billion of which went to renewable energy and energy efficiency. But it should have come as no surprise for the UN to learn that money has flowed to the biggest, most profitable projects. As Orr acknowledged, about 80 percent of the projects have occurred in just five countries: Brazil, India, China, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea. Forty-nine other countries account for only 1.5 percent of CDM projects, showing a great need for equity and capacity-building. Orr explained that the UN role should be to help harness the power of the market in a formula that ensures full participation for access to energy.

On the topic of climate ethics, Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri of India was asked to explain why the West should help countries like India that are its industrial competitors. He answered that you can't solve global climate change without them! He also offered a somewhat rhetorical question of his own: Should the West give to the poorest countries but not to India? Puri estimated that there are more people living in India at the poverty level of the Least Developed Countries than there are total people living in those LDCs.

He said that countries like India offer potential not only as laboratories for new clean energy projects, but also as new markets for green technologies. He stressed that these investments should occur within the existing intellectual property regime (a point also expressed in Sen. John Kerry's Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act [PDF]). "Accessing technologies" would mean paying for patents, but at affordable rates to promote dissemination of clean technologies. Relying on philanthropy and altruism will go nowhere, he said.

Puri cited renewables and even nuclear as the green technology needs of India, since India still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Biofuels are a non-starter for India in the short and medium term because of land and water shortages, concerns about food security, and commodity price volatility. Puri instead would like to see an increase in public-funded R&D projects that can lead to technology dissemination that also maximizes the common good.

Glenn Prickett of Conservation International broke implementation goals down into three priorities: Efficiency, Forest conservation, and Renewable energy. He cited a McKinsey study [PDF] showing that progress in those areas could account for 75 percent of the global emissions reductions needed by 2020, at a net savings of $14 billion! Of course, this would entail a 50 percent reduction in tropical deforestation, and one roadblock is that public investment in forestry, agriculture, and land-use policies has been dropping.

Energy efficiency solutions, according to Prickett, can be driven by effective standards backed by institutions for enforcement. He pointed out that one of the best ways an "awakening" private sector can contribute is through supply-chain analysis and waste reduction. On a related note, the Kerry climate bill also calls for a voluntary "national product carbon disclosure program," to be based on a review of existing and planned standards such as Carbon Trust's Publicly Available Specification 2050, standards to be developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and those of the International Standards Organization.

A question was posed to the panel about why the interaction of climate change and land-use issues has been neglected relative to renewables and other investments. Orr responded that food security must be tackled in tandem with climate change, and that technology transfer for adaptation projects that deal with land use could yield huge advances at low cost. Ambassador Puri turned to the case of India, where he said 60 percent of the country lives in rural areas but only 20 percent of the country's GDP comes from agricultural investments. Why the underinvestment? Subsidies in the rich countries! Puri indicated that it's impossible to disentangle climate solutions from the inequities and stagnation of other negotiations such as the WTO Doha Round.

Indeed it is these systemic complexities and inequities that most plague the path to agreement in Copenhagen. But there is nonetheless climate solidarity that transcends national barriers, as evidenced by the massive global call to action organized by 350.org on October 24. As I wrote recently, solving climate change has great potential to serve as an organizing principle for Green Diplomacy, in a way that solves geostrategic, security, and development concerns. But it also has the potential to be a Global Green Stimulus, at a time when developing countries have been further battered by the financial failures of rich nations. Administering much of this stimulus in the form of mitigation grants or an adaptation fund is key to answering the major questions of global environmental justice.

[Photo credit: 350.org action on the beach of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (CC).]

America Shouldn't Blow an Opportunity for Green Diplomacy

Among all the talk about soft power and smart power something big and obvious has been missing: wind power. By not being a global leader on climate change over the past decade America has blown a major opportunity to engage in Green Diplomacy—the strategic use of clean energy projects to boost development and security in poor countries. Going forward, the Obama Administration should articulate and carry out a plan to align several of our national priorities: innovation, emissions reduction, development, diplomacy, and security.

When it comes to linking climate change and security it is common practice to trot out the specter of mass hordes of climate refugees inundating rich countries as their own coastal homelands disappear into the ocean. Likely this fear suffers from a case of xenophobic exaggeration. But an already-porous migration policy does motivate the United States to focus on the development of climate-resilient countries in its own hemisphere first. Fortunately a demonstration project exists in the region: Costa Rica, where reforestation and renewable energy combine in a national commitment to becoming carbon neutral.

One can envision the United States helping clean energy best practices radiate out from there, facilitated by domestic and international regulation. Thus it is heartening to see funding and institutional priorities coalescing around these goals in Sen. John Kerry's recently submitted Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act [PDF]. The bill calls for establishment of a Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment, to be composed of the secretaries of State, Energy, Treasury, Commerce, and Agriculture, the administrators of USAID and the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other relevant officials the president sees fit.

The SIBICI's task would be "to provide United States assistance to developing countries to develop, implement and improve nationally appropriate greenhouse gas mitigation policies," including preparation for participation in "markets for international offset credits for reduced emissions from deforestation." The bill also calls for the State Department to establish an International Clean Energy Deployment Program that would distribute funding either as bilateral assistance, to multilateral funds or institutions formed pursuant to the UNFCCC, or some combination of both. Similar funding would also be distributed under the International Climate Change Adaptation and Global Security Program to "provide assistance to the most vulnerable developing countries... in a way that protects and promotes interests of the United States."

The bill goes on to specify the details for emissions allowances and international offset credits, but much is also left open-ended to ensure that the executive branch has enough latitude to create and carry out these new programs. This bodes well for putting Green Diplomacy in the American power toolbox.

[Photo credit: Volcan Arenal, by Arturo Sotillo (CC).]