Global Climate Change Policy (NSC)

Fictional, set in the present day. Developed countries, including the United States, have been releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. In recent decades, rapid economic growth in major developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil has led to significant increases in their own greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the federal government, have concluded that the warming observed in recent decades is a consequence of human activity. The effects of this global warming or climate change pose risks not only to the environment, but also to the security and livelihoods of people in the United States and around the world, both now and in the future. Various international responses are possible, but the questions of how to cut emissions and prepare for climate consequences, and who should bear the costs of doing so, have few simple answers. The U.S. government has convened a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to consider what goal to pursue at an upcoming international climate summit that the president plans to attend. NSC members will need to weigh the options, bearing in mind the potential impact of climate change, the potential effects of proposed measures to limit or prevent it, and the need to secure international support for the U.S. approach from both developed and developing countries.

A major international climate summit is approaching. At the UN climate summit in Paris in 2015, world leaders pledged to reduce or limit their countries’ emissions and to monitor progress toward these goals. However, a new scientific report warns that governments will need to make urgent and unprecedented changes beyond their commitments under the Paris Agreement to avoid serious and potentially irreversible environmental consequences. Despite this alarming information, countries have taken relatively few additional steps toward meeting ambitious targets and in some cases have even retreated from their climate commitments to the Paris Agreement. 

Most heads of governments, including the president of the United States, are attending the upcoming summit. All eyes are on Washington to see if the United States will present a new U.S. negotiating strategy in light of the report. The president has called a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) to decide if and how the United States will propose creating a more robust climate agreement that can prevent the most devastating consequences of climate change. NSC members will need to consider the potential results of climate change as well as the potential effects of proposed measures to mitigate it. Members will also need to consider the need to secure international support for the U.S. approach from both developed and developing countries.

CFR Education extended simulations use a variety of pedagogical tools to create an effective, meaningful, and memorable learning experience for students that builds their global literacy. Students will develop crucial skills such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Students will complete authentic assessments that feel relevant: instead of five-paragraph essays and book reports, students will write policy memos and participate in a role-play of a meeting of a foreign policy–making body. There are no right or wrong answers in actual policy deliberations, and there are none here, either; students will walk away from this experience with an appreciation for the complexity of policy questions.

In this simulation, students will learn about the National Security Council, as well as meeting these learning outcomes specific to this simulation:

Concepts 

Issues

This section presents context, potential benefits and drawbacks, and other information about the policy options outlined in the case that you may find helpful as you guide the role-play and assess students. 

The NSC’s task is to determine the United States’ strategic goal at the upcoming summit. This entails determining how or whether the United States should change its international approach to climate change following the Paris climate agreement. The decision requires attention to both environmental and economic concerns and to the interests of the other countries at the summit.

Policy Options 

Although climate change has been a prominent political issue since the 1980s, the U.S. government has failed to adopt comprehensive climate change legislation. Congress’s most recent attempt to pass a comprehensive bill was in 2009. In the absence of congressional action, President Barack Obama sought to address climate change through executive action by implementing stricter fuel efficiency standards, and through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by releasing a new set of standards for existing power plants with the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP). The Trump administration sought to roll back many Obama administration climate regulations, including the CCP and fuel efficiency standards, claiming that they impeded economic growth. President Biden, on the other hand, has pledged to remove carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2035 and to be on a path for net-zero emissions by 2050. He has also directed federal agencies to review and reinstate over one hundred regulations that had been weakened or removed during the Trump administration. 

President Biden has designated climate change a U.S. priority for national security and foreign policy. The Biden administration created a new executive branch position dedicated entirely to climate policy—the special presidential envoy for climate. Biden appointed former Secretary of State John Kerry to fill the position and join National Security Council meetings when relevant. These actions signal to the world that the United States aims to not only strengthen its climate ambitions but revitalize its position of global leadership on climate. 

However, the United States has lagged among developed nations in establishing comprehensive national climate policies. Despite the Biden administration’s stated position, the United States has not adopted legislation on greenhouse gas emissions reductions as doing so would require approval from a divided congress. Canada, France and the United Kingdom have already passed legislation on net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Germany currently relies on renewable energy sources for over 45 percent of its electricity. Denmark plans to source 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. Iceland already does so. The relative lack of American achievement in this area makes it difficult for the United States to lead calls for concerted international action in multilateral negotiations. Finding a way to achieve significant, sustainable emissions reductions at home could give the United States greater credibility in negotiations abroad.

The task of the NSC is to determine the strategic goal of the United States at the upcoming summit. The decision requires attention to both environmental and economic concerns. It also requires awareness of the interests of domestic U.S. political groups as well as those of the other countries at the summit.

Three potential strategic goals have been presented to the NSC for decision: 

Renegotiate the Paris Agreement, requiring high-emitting countries to contribute to assistance programs to help countries reach stricter emissions targets.

By providing climate-related assistance to developing countries, the Paris Agreement could encourage countries to reach and increase their emissions targets while investing in climate adaptation. Without aid to climate-related initiatives in poorer countries, many signatories are less likely to agree to stricter emissions targets which could  halt the most devastating consequences of climate change. 

This option could entail renegotiating the agreement with a component that requires high-emitting member states to provide financial, technological, or professional assistance to poorer countries. This support would help poorer countries mitigate their emissions, develop or adopt new technology, or adapt to climate change. The United States and other signatories could adopt the goal of building one or more of these initiatives into the Paris Agreement.

Climate-related assistance is subject to debate. Advocates often argue that it is morally necessary because many poor countries have done little to contribute to climate change. Likewise, poor countries are likely to suffer some of its worst effects. Although this option provides the greatest possibility of immediate action on reaching stricter emissions targets and protecting global stability, gaining support for the agreement could be difficult because it puts the responsibility and cost of programs on high-emitting countries. 

Renegotiate the Paris Agreement, implementing market-based measures to mitigate climate change. 

Though virtually all legislation addressing climate change in the past has failed in Congress, market-based approaches have been considered and hold some political support. These approaches could form the basis of U.S. proposals for a renegotiated Paris Agreement. Two main options are discussed in this regard:

Either variation has a high chance of mitigating climate change but also has many obstacles. Although both options could reduce emissions, whether these measures could cut emissions to the extent that experts say is needed remains unclear. For this reason, many countries could support a market-based approach because it provides a path toward maintaining industries that rely on carbon emissions for a longer period of time. Both cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes are also politically controversial in many countries. In the United States some industries fear that these policies could decrease demand for their products. Likewise, consumers worry about possible higher prices. NSC members should therefore weigh the difficulties of achieving this goal against the estimated severity of the threats from climate change. 

Prioritize domestic climate measures and lead by example, keeping the Paris Agreement as is.

The Paris Agreement does not require parties to take any specific action to reduce emissions. Instead, countries make voluntary pledges that increase in ambition over time. The NSC could decide to continue this approach using the requirements and arrangements agreed to in Paris. This strategy would offer continuity and stability for other countries and U.S. industry. However, it could also mean that neither the 1.5°C or 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement is met. This would expose the entire globe to worsening climate consequences and irreversible environmental change. These changes could increase the national security risks for the country.   

If the United States decides to pursue domestic initiatives rather than renegotiate the Paris Agreement, it could seek to advance its innovations in climate change mechanisms and technology. Doing so could help regain international trust in U.S. domestic climate commitments. 

CFR Education extended simulations are project-based learning activities. Project-based learning (PBL) leads to better learning outcomes and improves skills, and is more fun than traditional instructional methods. The website that students will navigate throughout the simulation is divided into several parts:

In the NSC Guide, students will learn about the National Security Council, the body they will be simulating. Included are details on its history, how it works, who its major players are, and more. There is also a video interview with experts who have served on the body.

In the Case Notes, students dive into the actual situation they will be trying to solve in their simulation. At the beginning is a clear decision point: the question that students will debate during the role-play. This is followed by detailed background material and a discussion of the role that the United States plays.

Preparation and Role-Play includes details on the various roles students could take on, guidelines for the memorandum they will write (the student playing the role of president has a slightly different task), as well as an outline of how the discussion will flow during the role-play.

The Wrap-Up is an important part of the project and includes reflection questions and guidelines for reflecting in a class discussion and in a second memorandum. For historical cases, this section also includes a short description of how the decision point was addressed by policymakers in real life.

The simulation also includes Student Resources, which include a reading list to support research, additional directions and exemplars for writing assignments, and other tips students may find helpful.

Once students have read the simulation and prepared their position memos, here is how we recommend structuring the role-play:

Tips for the National Security Advisor
In Round 1, call on everyone for their opening statements, keeping to a strict time limit—if students have more to say, they can say it in Round 2. The president doesn’t have a specific time limit, but you should keep things moving by not letting the president get bogged down on one issue or policy option.

In Round 2, students do not need to follow a prescribed speaking order; you can call on them as they raise their placards. Work to include everyone and prevent anyone from dominating. As debate goes on, remind students they can change their minds. If it will help move things along, help students see when they are agreeing with each other without realizing it. Feel free to pose questions or propose discussion topics if you feel that certain issues are not receiving adequate consideration. Ultimately, it’s up to you to judge when Round 2 has run its course and it is time to move on to Round 3. You will want to move on when all policy options have been discussed and all of the president’s questions have been answered. The room does not need to come to a consensus—every option just needs to have a fair airing.

In Round 3, ask students to make a final case for their positions. If, during the course of the discussion, some students seem to have coalesced into blocs, you could ask one student to present on behalf of the bloc. If consensus seems possible, you could work toward it; if not, just make sure each option has been clearly presented to the president. Remember, the NSC is not democratic and is an advisory, not decision-making, body. There is no vote, and the president does not need to choose the most popular option.

Tips for the President
Before Round 1, review all the position memos, if you can. During Round 1, as students are presenting their opening statements, you can ask questions to clarify or help draw out the differences between one policy option and another. Try not to get too deep in the weeds, though—that is what Round 2 will be for.

In Round 2, you can take a more active role. If you have concerns about a policy option, ask questions; if some policy options seem stronger than others, say so. If an element of the issue is not being discussed, raise it.

In Round 3, once you have heard all the policy options, it is all down to you. You should choose whichever policy option you think is best, or combine the strongest elements of several different options. Remember, the NSC is not democratic and is an advisory, not decision-making, body. There is no vote, and you do not need to choose the most popular option. Your decision must be made and announced before the wrap-up discussion, although the written presidential directive can come later.

Tips for Online Classes

We suggest conducting the role-play in three rounds, and that three-round structure is a helpful way to approach chunking the role-play for online learning as well. You can conduct each round synchronously or asynchronously.

In round one, participants present their positions.

In round two, participants debate the various policy options.

In round three, debate begins to coalesce around the policy options that the president favors.

There are no flashpoints for this case.

Each CFR Education extended simulation involves writing assignments that help students think through policy options and reflect on their learning experience.

In NSC cases, there are three types of writing assignments.

Simulations (on the student-facing side) have instructions for written assignments, and samples for each of these writing exercises. You can also find sample rubrics below.

Samples:

Below are sample rubrics for your use in assessing the writing students will do as part of this extended simulation.

These are single-point rubrics. Jennifer Gonzalez, who writes the blog Cult of Pedagogy, has a great explainer, but the bottom line is that single-point rubrics are relatively easy for students to digest but still have all the advantages of giving structure to instructors’ feedback.

NSC Position Memo Rubric

NSC Presidential Directive Rubric

NSC Written Reflection Rubric

Downloadable rubrics are available here: