One of the challenges I face in teaching how to address ‘super wicked’ problems like climate change is identifying pathways and tools for meaningful action for students. Climate change requires coordinated action, often colliding with competing economic, political, and social interests. To help students more directly experience these dynamics, I designed a simulation for my course Global Environmental Politics (POLI 350) – with the invaluable support of undergraduate student Arwen Low.1
Global Environmental Politics is an upper-year political science course open to students studying environment, international development, geography and economics.2 The course examines how international organizations, governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and social movements shape responses to global environmental challenges. While I incorporate active learning throughout the course, I wanted to provide an opportunity for students to apply course concepts and themes in a more immersive way. I reviewed existing climate simulations but found they did not quite fit the learning objectives I had in mind. So, I designed my own! Here, I overview the simulation and conclude with some reflections from the experience.3
This simulation challenged students to draft a multilateral treaty on fossil fuel non-proliferation. I framed the simulation as a response to a hypothetical but plausible scenario: students were given an actual letter signed by 77 world leaders and Nobel laureates, calling on the United Nations Summit of the Future to tackle the cause of the climate crisis – fossil fuel production. In response to this letter, students were tasked with negotiating and developing a treaty to “manage and finance a fast and fair global transition away from coal, oil and gas extraction in line with the 1.5ºC limit agreed to by nations in the Paris Agreement.” This became the foundation for the Alternative Summit of the Future treaty negotiation, or as my students ‘rebranded’ the treaty – Time’s Up!
I randomly assigned students to small groups to ensure fairness, each representing one of over 35 diverse stakeholders, including nation-states, NGOs, fossil fuel companies, and media. Arwen and I intentionally selected the delegations to ensure a variety of positions for the idea of a fossil fuel phase-out. Each group then conducted research to realistically represent their delegation’s interests and behaviour in the simulation.4
In preparation for the simulation, we spent two weeks considering the importance and challenges of negotiating and implementing multilateral environmental treaties. I also provided class time for students to work in groups and prepare for the simulation, where students could consult with me to discuss their delegation’s approach to the simulation. Arwen and I developed a guide loosely modelled on Model United Nations Conferences. The guide included detailed information about how to write opening statements summarizing a delegation’s position, guidelines for drafting and amending treaty clauses, and an explanation of the voting and amendment process.
The simulation took place over two 80-minute classes. I assumed the role of the UN Secretary-General, delivering an opening speech to the plenary and calling on delegates to collectively negotiate a just phase-out of fossil fuels. During Day 1, each delegation presented its position and key priorities in an opening statement – these were both realistic and engaging (with some political theatre for good measure!). This was followed by a ‘committee session,’ which initially was organized chaos as delegations self-organized into groups, aligning with like-minded stakeholders to draft specific sections of the treaty.
On Day 2, committees developed and finalized their draft sections before reconvening in the plenary. Students strategized with their delegation, crafted clauses, and developed persuasive arguments while navigating opposition from other delegations. Students had to consider trade-offs between their delegation’s interests and what would be broadly supported. Delegates then debated, proposed, and amended the treaty clause-by-clause – this was an admittedly rushed but not unrealistic process, mirroring the frenzy of last-minute text changes of actual treaty-making! The simulation concluded with a tense formal roll-call vote.
After the simulation, students submitted individual reflections, which provided an opportunity to understand their experience and were a key part of the learning process. Students connected dynamics in the simulation to course themes – for example, they identified the importance of strategic leadership, the dual power of coalitions to drive or stall progress, and the difficulty of balancing diverse state interests. In short, students gained a deeper appreciation for the complexities and challenges of developing effective multilateral treaties.
The Alternative Summit of the Future brought the complexity of real-world climate negotiations to life. It was incredibly engaging, and judging by the energy in the room, I wasn’t the only one having fun! The students were fully immersed in the simulation, and their enthusiasm was tangible. I am curious to see how future iterations of this class will engage with this experience.
Interested in developing or running a similar simulation? Feel free to reach out to Amy at amy.janzwood@mcgill.ca
Amy Janzwood is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and the Bieler School of Environment at McGill University.
References:
1 With the support of a grant from the Quebec government, McGill’s Teaching and Learning Services ran a Students as Partners program that allowed students a paid opportunity to partner with an instructor to provide feedback and perspectives on a particular course. In our case, Arwen, who had previously taken POLI 350, worked with me to develop and facilitate the simulation.
2 The syllabus for POLI 350: Global Environmental Politics is available here.
3 In developing this simulation, I drew inspiration from others, including a multilateral plastics treaty simulation by Professor Peter Andrée at Carleton University.
4 The simulation comprised 15% of students’ grade for the course. I didn’t grade the simulation itself (given the challenges of doing so in a class of 150 students!); instead, the students worked in groups to prepare a position paper summarizing their delegation’s interests, rationale, and key negotiation points. Individually, students also wrote short reflective papers after the simulation and completed a peer and self-assessment.
Image credit: Marina Ivanov
