Governments need to start looking at Grand Rapids, MI for new ways to engage citizens in local politics. This week I gave a presentation to Mayor Heartwell's Youth Council and Youth Commission, a group of about 20 middle and high school students that have been agents of change in their community. These young people follow what is happening in the city and write proposals giving suggestions about next steps from the perspective of youth. Tuesday, November 10th City Manager Greg Sundstrom proposed 125 job cuts to help close the city's deficit of $28 million. After my presentation the students looked over documents explaining these cuts and are preparing for a meeting with the Mayor next week to provide their suggestions. The budget crisis that is being faced Grand Rapids right now is occurring around the country - cities are facing huge deficits and need to find a way to close the gap. But maybe the way decision have been made in the past will not work for our future. It's a step in the right direction for the City of Grand Rapids when they created a way for youth to get involved in local politics. It's more sustainable, and I view it as a great opportunity for the city to have all voices in the community represented, especially when making so many tough decisions. And it is even more important when these decisions will affect the residents of younger generations the most. Giving these young, active students the chance to voice their opinion about an issue will help ensure that we will have future leaders who already understand the need to represent everyone in their community. At the negotiations this December we need to be striving for the same kind of representation. But this time our community is not our city, state or country - rather we are a part of a global community. And if we want all voices to be heard, then it is important to support others in their quest to join the conversation. Typically however this has not been the story. Developing nations - such as India, the Maldives, Thailand, Brazil - are more negatively affected by the rise in global greenhouse gases, even though they produce the least amount of emissions. This situation puts the more polluting developed nations - including the United States, European Union, Australia, and Canada - in a more powerful position at the negotiations. But it also implies that these nations have a moral imperative to do something to solve the problem. We, in the developed countries, have a tremendous responsibility as global citizens to take bold action on climate change and assist other countries as they adapt. One of the easiest ways developed nations can begin this process is by supporting teams of negotiators from developing countries. Historically developing countries have been able to send very few, if any negotiators to the conference due to a lack of financial resources, further causing their views to be underrepresented. And unfortunately the number of youth at these negotiations follows this same trend. What developed nations can do is help fund delegations, including youth to improve the overall representation. But then they must also listen to these countries and finally take responsibility for their role in helping to cause anthropogenic climate change. It is important to the International Youth Delegation, and to delegates with the Will Steger Foundation, that there is broad representation as these meetings. Especially the youth voice. Like the students in Grand Rapids who will be affected by the decisions made now more that any other demographic, so to will the youth of the world at these negotiations. With a broader representation of youth viewpoints at these negotiations we have a better likelihood of achieving a bold, just and binding treaty. It is the youth voice that will hold key countries accountable and remind participants of what is at stake.

The purpose of the simulation was to highlight the difficult task ahead if the world is going to combat climate change. The negotiations this December are very important in ensuring that we begin to build a clean and just energy future. After completing the simulation is was even more apparent that we need to start taking action today, regardless of our state or national legislation. In the simulation participants were split up into 3 groups: Developed countries (US, Canada, EU, Australia etc), Developing A countries (China, India), and Developing B countries (South African and Asian nations, Maldives etc). The number of people in the group represented the percent of the world that they make up- meaning that the Developed countries had the fewest (only 4), Developing A was the largest bloc, and Developing B was significantly larger than the Developed group, but smaller than Developing A. Sarah and I were both negotiating for the Developing countries. After splitting up into groups we were briefed on the tools being used in this simulation. Students at MIT along with the Sustainability Institute have created C-ROADS, a climate change modeling device that inputs the different group's emission reduction targets and produces the scenario in comparison to maintaining Business as Usual (BAU) policies. The version that the UNFCCC will be using in the negotiations is more complex than ours, but the results still matched up closely to the predictions made using that model. Our frame of reference was the year 2100 and the goal was to be at 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere with no more than a 2* rise in temperature, and very little if any sea level rise. BAU policies would result in a world unknown to any human civilization. The important thing to remember through these negotiations is that the developed nations, particularly the United States, have contributed significantly to climate change. And the developing poor countries are most effected by the shift in climates while contributing the least, if at all, to the problem. Understanding this concept is key for negotiators if they want to develop a strong and bold climate treaty. The simulation was split up into 3 negotiating periods. During the first round each bloc of countries only negotiated with themselves. The reduction targets and money put into a fund for mitigation and adaptation were not enough, and negotiating this way proved to be ineffective. The second round however yielded even worse results. The Developing A and Developing B countries decided to form a coalition and demand concessions from the Developed countries before attempting to negotiate. As a result the Developed countries felt no reason to talk further, and the round ended with no progress made. The final round was the last chance that the world had to come together and generate a comprehensive emissions reduction target for the different groups and to provide the necessary funding needed to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. In this round the Developed country negotiators chose to split up and talk with both developing country blocs separately. Every group gave into certain concessions put in place by all negotiators and we were able to come up with a new set up numbers to put into the model. As negotiators for the world we were confident that we had come up with something that will put us on the path to be at 400 ppm of CO2, 1-2* temperature increase, and no sea level rise by 2100. Boy were we surprised. As the results came in it was obvious that even with our best efforts, we missed the mark by 34%. While we significantly decreased the threat, the earth's atmosphere would still be above 450 ppm of CO2, and witness a 3* rise in temperatures as well as dangerous sea level rise. What I took from this simulation is the extreme importance of these negotiations. We have the ability to make significant headway in reducing our GHG emissions today, and the money to fund initiatives to aid developing countries. We also have the support of the public. But what is currently lacking is the political will to come up with a bold, just and binding treaty in Copenhagen. And without that we will have even tougher decisions to make in the future. This simulation helped prepare me for what the actual negotiations will look like. My hope is that negotiators will be more successful than we were in coming up with a plan. I know we can do it, policy makers just need to realize that they can as well.