Contact info:

1
60 university students grouped in 17 delegations
had the task to agree by consensus on a
quantitative interpretation of Article 2, and a
formula for funding adaptation. Some of them
will present their experiences at this side
event. The Java Climate Model, which they used
to explore options and uncertainties, will also
be presented. Such experiments help to implement
Article 6 and may also highlight science and
policy questions for future negotiations. We
will also discuss how we might build on this
experience, involving groups around the
world. Those who have made, or consider similar
experiments are especially encouraged to discuss
them at this side event.
COP9 Side-Event Linking Article 2 Article 6
Experiences from a role-play of future climate
negotiations with students from UCL
Belgium, using the interactive Java Climate
Model (jcm.chooseclimate.org) Friday 12th, 1-
3pm Verona

• Contact info
• Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
• 32 10 47 32 97
• vanyp_at_climate.be
• Ben Matthews
• 32 10 47 33 65
• matthews_at_climate.be
• Institut d'astronomie et de géophysique
  G.Lemaître,
• Université catholique de Louvain,
• Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
• www.climate.be
• Java Climate Model

2
Article 6 (Any effective global agreement
requires informed participation by many citizens.
How to involve more people into the global
dialogue?)
Article 2 (Which dangerous climate impacts must
we avoid, and with how much certainty? Hence,
what is a safe level of stabilisation to avoid
these impacts?)

• The safe stabilisation level is a risk and value
  judgement which should involve participation by
  many stakeholders. 60 students had the task to
  agree by consensus on a quantitative
  interpretation of Article 2, and a formula for
  funding adaptation. They used the Java Climate
  Model to explore options and uncertainties.
• Negotiating mitigation and adaptation together
  helped to balance the North-South debate and may
  help to encourage honesty about the scientific
  uncertainties.
• Using the same model, delegates could present
  very different cases by selecting parameters and
  indicators.
• What indicator should we limit - concentrations,
  global temperature, sea-level, rates of change?
• A target later in the chain shifts the burden of
  uncertainty from adaptation towards mitigation.
• For both issues, various equity principles had to
  be considered (historical responsibility,
  capacity to act, need for development, uneven
  regional distribution of impacts, rights to share
  the atmosphere, etc.).
• Should the funding of adaptation be based on the
  polluter-pays principle,and how should capacity
  to pay be balanced against sufficiency to handle
  impacts?
• The political compromises were a multi-criteria
  stabilisation target and a multi-source
  adaptation fund that were challenging to
  interpret.
• Come to the side event to hear the result from
  some of the students themselves!After this
  simulation of international negotiations, we
  discovered the great inertia and complexity that
  rule both the climatic and diplomatic systems,
  the latter maybe harder to model than the former.
  However we all felt that it was an original and
  exciting human experience
• Such web models might provide a quantative
  framework for a global dialogue.
• Could we combine such tools and experience to
  link groups from all corners of the world?

3
COP9 Side-Event Linking Article 2 Article 6
Experiences from a role-play of future climate
negotiations with students from UCL
Belgium, using the interactive Java Climate Model
(jcm.chooseclimate.org) Friday 12th, 1-3pm,
Verona Could we find a safe level of
stabilisation, with a fair formula for
adaptation funds? How did we balance various
climate indicators, equity principles, and
scientific uncertainties? Could such
experiments help train negotiators and catalyse
the process? Could we use such a web model as a
quantative framework for a global debate between
students around the world? Contact Jean-Pascal
van Ypersele vanyp_at_climate.be, Ben Matthews
matthews_at_climate.be