The game challenges you to make the world zero from now until 2050, in order to prevent the worst effects of global warming. It addresses many important sectors, from electricity to buildings and transportation to industry. I have to admit that while I kept the planet warming to 1.48 degrees Celsius in my first attempt (somewhat of a victory!), I did not manage to reach the net zero until the second round. At the risk of looking defensive – something my sister would say is characteristic of my approach to defeat – I have some theories about my defeat. The first: I would argue that the game gives more weight to public opinion than our current policy approach. For example, when asked how to take public opinion in light of some voters’ concerns about high electricity bills, I replied, “Just ignore them, they are wrong.” We have a planet to save here, people! This period of cynicism was obviously not the right move, as the game is based on the premise that it is vital for the audience to participate. Which… yes, I agree. However, countless polls show that the public is investing more and more in climate action. Telling them to deal with it, I thought that if the majority was in favor of doing something about climate change and only “a few voters” resisted aggressive climate action in this imaginary world, why slow us down? According to Pippa, my visiting friend who I encouraged her to play, the game responded with a similar alarm to her decision to announce that all dietary proteins must now come from insects. And my attempt to dare $ 1,000 per tonne of coal also caused a public outcry in the Financial Times fantasy world. But I continued to heat below 1.5 degrees Celsius, saving countless imaginary lives in the process. Does it matter that a small constituency went crazy? The transportation department focused almost entirely on electric vehicles, which also marked my first attempt. Initially, I did not invest enough in carbon offsets because I mistakenly assumed that I could expect an opportunity to invest in public transport. While electric car mobility is great, getting more people to walk or bike or use buses is a less glamorous but no less crucial part of the climate saving puzzle. Do not misunderstand me though. I love this game. And I really think it’s good that different people can have different approaches to resolving the climate crisis. A series of approaches is what we need! I like that the game forces the player to bypass investments or decisions that will be a lost effort (quantified in the game, although hopefully the effort is easier in the real world). Pippa was rightly skeptical about investing in drone technology for reforestation, and I should have invested in sustainable aviation fuel. (It just left my mind. Sorry, virtual world!) Games like this can also make dense references, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has recently become much more accessible. Pippa played three times (and successfully reached net zero in her second attempt), something that even the most interested in reading the IPCC can say. The Financial Times has released a cheat sheet, ostensibly for the game but also – let’s be honest – what could be turned into a checklist for policy makers. But playing is a lot more fun. Someone gets this on every member of Congress’s iPad as soon as possible.
