The first debate is over.
The indignant smoggy gasps of special interests notwithstanding, the public is beginning to come to a general belief that climate change is real. The problem is now turning to the question of what we do about it.
There are many questions:
- How big is the problem?
- What are the possible solutions?
- Who should be responsible?
- What will it cost?
- How long will it take?
- What if we do nothing?
These are tough questions, and they have generated a truly bewildering array of responses in the form of scientific research, policy proposals, misinformation, and outright lies. It takes work and study to even begin to understand the landscape of the science, the economics, and the politics of the problem.
When there are so many possible and often contradictory proposed solutions to a problem, it’s hard to figure out which ones are worth pursuing and which will be a waste of time and money. As a society, we’re very close to deciding we have a problem to solve. I propose to provide the tools to take us to the next level—mapping the landscape of possible solutions and deciding which of them are worthwhile.
Catastrophe can be fun!
I plan to create a computer simulation game that will let players experiment with policy decisions in areas that affect climate change. Playing the role of an influential diplomat, they will be asked to consider the science, the economics, and the politics of various policy alternatives, and to choose which ones to pursue. The goal of the game is to prevent climatological disaster.
Such a game will allow players to explore the landscape of policy and science; it should show them which choices will have a useful effect, and which ones are meaningless in the long term.
What is the gameplay like?
Imagine: you’re a policy maker for one of the largest and most economically influential countries in the world (US, China, India). Every “year” in game time, you are presented with an array of lobbyists and advisors who are all clamoring to tell you about their suggested policy directions. Your job is to listen to a selection of your many (contradictory) advisors and make the policy decisions. You have a pool of political capital to spend on difficult policies. As the calendar ticks away the years, you’ll see the consequences of those decisions on the climate and the economy.
The game is a “casual” game—it’s intended to be played in under an hour, and is aimed at people who aren’t experienced at playing video games. The style is fresh and appealing, treating a very serious subject with a bit of whimsy in order to keep it approachable.
What about the science?
Although the game design is casual, the underlying science is anything but. The scientific and economic models will be based on the best current research available from universities around the country.
Skeptics who aren’t convinced will have plenty to debate and argue about:
- The constants are adjustable. When you look into the valid scientific arguments around climate change, many times the arguments are not about the equations themselves, but about the values of certain constants. For example, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approximately 375 parts per million. The problem lies is in deciding how quickly changes to the CO2 level will affect things like the global average temperature. Would a rise of another 150 ppm in 50 years cause a change of 2 degrees or a horrifying 11 degrees? The game will offer players the ability to move a slider from Pessimistic to Optimistic to see how the various assumptions will affect the outcomes.
- The model is open source. The climate model itself will be treated as open source code, using a simple expressive model no more complicated to construct than a spreadsheet. Those who care about such things can take the time to understand, change and extend the model and tune it to their own expectations.
- Changes and assumptions can be shared. The system will support identifying changes that have been applied to the model and to the assumptions. Users can make a set of changes, save them, give them names, and share them with others. It will be possible to play with “Al Gore’s Assumptions” or the latest “MIT Model”. The program provides its own platform for discussion and debate.
Who’s the target market?
The key market is the set of people who keep themselves informed about current events; the people who consume media like:
- Nonfiction books (especially science, policy, and political books)
- Weekly news magazines like Time, Newsweek, The Economist, and The Week
- National Public Radio
- Sunday morning talk shows
- Topical television shows that occasionally address serious content, like Larry King, Jay Leno, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and David Letterman.
This population is important because they’re already proven to have an interest in the topic of this material; they’re also the voters and key influencers of the rest of American society.
These customers don’t typically play games for fun, but they can be convinced to play a game if it’s on the path to learning something they care about.