If you think you can easily come up with a workable set of policies to stop and reverse global warming, think again. Or try playing this (very addictive) BBC game that will help you figure it out:
The science behind Climate Challenge:
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.
(Via)
- Log in to post comments
It is pretty limited. I was able to reach a target of 0 emissions in the deadline and kept my approval at nearly 100%, but allegedly wrecked the economy on the very last turn. (How, I'm not sure, since there was extensive research going into fusion, a hell of a lot of new construction going on to create or install alt-energy sources all over the EU, and a real possibility for growth industry in agriculture.)
A more realistic scenario would provide more flexibility regarding public approval -- after all, as we've learned, a 30% approval rating is no hindrance to setting wretchedly bad policy, and even a half-decade payoff would radically improve popularity.
I am at a loss as to why the "Apollo Program for Energy Independence" meme hasn't caught on like wildfire. Like NASA, it promises to give pots of money to a wide variety of consituencies across the US's congressional districts (ethanol in the grain belt, wind power in the intermountain west, high tech up and down the coast), it stresses isolationism, and much of the military industrial complex can just retool. Plus it just makes sense.
Getting things done in Academia
advice for graduate students in the sciences