Dietz

Tom Dietz, a professor of sociology and environmental science and policy, spoke yesterday with Michigan Radio’s Charity Nebbe about a paper he and colleagues recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The group found that policies encouraging households to adopt simple behavioral changes could help the United States cut its carbon footprint by an amount equal to France’s total emissions in just ten years.

The interview was one of several Dietz and his colleagues gave about the study. To see more press coverage, click here.

Last week, Dr. Edward Parson (University of Michigan), spoke on policies that affect the advancement of climate change technologies. It was the second talk in the MAES and ESPP Bioeconomy and Global Climate Change initiative.

ESPP sat with Parson after the talk for his thoughts on technology’s role in mitigating climate change, how major research universities can help, and why he has skepticism about the upcoming Copenhagen talks.

– Andy Balaskovitz

If an ESPP-sponsored Copenhagen simulation is any indication of the real climate negotiations in December, don’t expect an effective climate treaty to pass.

For three hours, students negotiated a climate agreement under the motivating force of ESPP faculty member Laura Schmitt-Olabisi. The simulation exercise they participated in was developed at MIT and has been used nationally and internationally in preparation for the Copenhagen climate talks December 7-18.

The exercise played out like this. Students formed three blocs, representing developed, developing, and least developed nations. Each received briefing materials on its particular concerns and agendas. Through three rounds of negotiations, they attempted to draft a climate pact that all agreed on.

To emphasize the unequal footing of the nations, developed nations sat at a table with chairs, developing nations had no table, and least developed nationals sat on the floor.

Blocs spent rounds deciding what they are prepared to offer in three areas: emission cuts, mitigation through deforestation, and contributions to a global climate fund for adaptation of poor countries. Blocs also negotiated with each other around desired concessions. The moderator then plugged the numbers into a Web-based model which predicts atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100.

Little progress on capping CO2 emissions was made after the first round. None of the blocs conceded much and everyone was surprised to discover that negotiation positions had resulted in devastatingly high sea levels and a rapidly warming climate.

Things got a bit heated in the second round. The developing bloc accused developed nations of trying to strong-arm a deal that put a higher emissions-cutting burden on developing nations. Negotiations stalled as developed nations refused to lower their emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions were well above the goal of 400 ppm by 2100. Back to the drawing board we went.

By round three, compromises were made, emissions were lowered and you could sense the hope of a successful climate treaty.

Though the group succeeded in steeply lowering worldwide CO2 emissions, it was still a failure in terms of the simulation’s goals. The result was a binding agreement among nations that, by 2100, would still generate atmospheric CO2 levels near 500 parts per million and raise average global temperatures by 3 degrees C. The goal was 400 or less with average temperatures rising less than 2.5 degrees C.

Some were disheartened when the final pact didn’t meet the simulation’s goals. How, some said, is Copenhagen ever going to agree on something in real life, with real stakes, next month when we couldn’t do it in a classroom? Others wished the simulation took into account factors such as technology advances and other greenhouse gases in setting emission goals.

– Andy Balaskovitz

This year, the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and ESPP are bringing distinguished speakers to campus to talk about aspects of the bioeconomy and global climate change. More on this initiative can be found here.

The first talk, held October 15, featured Professor David Zilberman of UC Berkeley’s Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. His talk was titled, “Can we fill the car and feed the stomach without destroying the environment?”

Following the talk, ESPP sat down with Professor Zilberman to ask what Michigan can do to best position itself in the bioeconomy, how MSU should handle this type of research and what average citizens can do to help the transition move smoothly.

The next talk in the series, on November 12, will feature Edward Parson from the University of Michigan, who will be speaking on “Climate change policies and technological innovation.”

– Andy Balaskovitz