By Debra J. Rosenthal for The Conversation.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Michigan News Connection for the Public News Service-Conversation collaboration..

Among the world’s ever-expanding array of board games, a small but growing number deal with climate change. But are these games any good?

As a professor of English who specializes in environmental literature, I set out to learn how well these board games portray the perils that global warming poses to the planet. Are they an effective way for students to learn some of the science and stark realities behind the persistent heating of Earth?

I invited half a dozen climate activists and educators to try the games out to answer these questions and more. My thought was that if people learn best while they are active and joyful participants, then turning a serious topic like climate change into a board game might have value beyond the game.

No individual winners

Most board games – think of Monopoly or Catan – are zero-sum competitions: One player wins a clear victory over the others. But since climate change affects the whole world, climate change board games emphasize teamwork and group success. Either all players win together, or no one survives. These board games have a narrative arc that can spark discussion about values, perspective, conflict, emotions and decision-making.

And those are precisely the kinds of discussions my colleagues and I had while sharing pizza and salad over the course of the evening. Together, we evaluated the games for their ease to learn, their value for teaching about climate catastrophe, their ability to spark conversation and their suitability for high school and university students.

What follows is an account of the five climate change board games that we all tried.

1. Solutions

Solutions draws upon scientific solutions researched by Project Drawdown, which is a nonprofit that pushes for solutions to climate change. The game, played in rounds, requires players to draw two cards that each carefully describe a way to reduce global emissions.

Players discuss the two options and rank which one is better for the climate. Correct decisions reduce global temperatures, while incorrect guesses damage the planet. Players also roll the dice to determine further actions that could potentially make global temperatures rise.

We all agreed the game could be a valuable learning tool since it was easy to learn and based on accurate scientific information. The need to evaluate different solutions easily sparked conversation, and the information was suitable for upper-level high school students and university students.

2. Kyoto

Another game that we ranked highly is Kyoto, which has players simulate a high-stakes climate negotiation summit. We each represented a country, and the cards we drew determined our secret national interests. To win the game, we had to bargain with each other, pay fees, bribe and try to persuade each other to reach climate goals.

Initially, I doubted the educational value of the game because, due to the draw of the cards, players who represented the U.S. could only win the game if they increased global carbon emissions, as determined by the coal-industry-friendly cards. Who wants a game where players try to raise global temperatures?

But through discussion, we all realized that the game provides insight into possible barriers to achieving emissions goals, and how nations have to juggle meeting emission-reduction goals with their own economic self-interests. While the game takes more time to learn than Solutions, we decided it could still be very useful for students.

3. Carbon City Zero

We tried playing a free downloadable and printable version of Carbon City Zero, but it proved too time-consuming to learn the rules. After 45 minutes of struggling with the cards to figure out how to play, we gave up and moved on.

4. Somewhere Everywhere Water Rising

Family Pastimes, the company that makes Somewhere Everywhere Water Rising, is known for developing only collaborative games, and we have purchased many children’s games from them in the past. In Somewhere Everywhere Water Rising, players take on the role of consultants who have to make collective decisions about developing land projects in the face of sea-level rise.

We liked the discussion it sparked, but ultimately concurred that the game specifically focuses on devastating sea-level rise, rather than systemic climate change that causes such rising levels in the first place. The game is easy to learn and relies on conversation, but we felt it had a lower educational value because it does not teach about the human activity that creates and perpetuates increasing global temperatures. The game might be more suitable as an extra credit activity, rather than the focus of a classroom lesson.

5. Nunami

Finally, we played Nunami, a lovely game created by an Inuit family from Ivujivik, Canada, with instructions in Inuktitut, English and French.

The game aims to teach players about balancing life in fragile terrain. There are cards for humans, animals, sand and snow. Although we deeply appreciated how the game strives to sensitize players to Inuit life on the tundra so that they can see what is threatened by climate catastrophe, it does not teach about the drivers of climate change and thus was not suitable for our specific classroom needs.

Picking the best

By 10 p.m., we had conquered the pizza, energetically played five different board or card games, and had a lot of fun discussing critical issues and meeting new people.

To our group, the clear “winner” is the board game Solutions because it encourages collaborating to make decisions with fact-based science. The setup of the game allows for interesting team-building conversations.

As I incorporate games into my courses on climate-change literature and first-year writing, students play Solutions and complete a writing assignment based on their various decisions during the game.

At our next climate change board game evening, my group of educators and activists plans to play Tipping Point, Daybreak, Carboniq and Climate Call.

Anyone want to join us? We’ll deal you in.


Debra J. Rosenthal wrote this article in a collaborative reporting initiative with The Conversation, supported by the Joyce Foundation..


get more stories like this via email

By Sarah Derouin for Mongabay.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

American agroforestry initiatives got a big boost of funding in 2022 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which allocated $60 million to help farmers transition toward this style of climate-friendlier farming, as part of the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities program.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is leading the multi-partner effort, allocating money to farmers across 30 states. Dubbed the Expanding Agroforestry Project, it will provide technical assistance and funding to farmers for planting new agroforestry acres on their land. The goal is to plant 12,140 new hectares (30,000 acres) of agroforestry across the U.S.

Recently, Mongabay checked in to see how agroforestry efforts were progressing and whether funds were making their way to farmers. After the first application cycle, farmers in 21 states submitted more than 200 applications to the program, representing about 20% of the agroforestry acreage goals.

Like agroforestry itself, the application, training and distribution of funds take some time to get off the ground — the first incentive payments are anticipated to be disbursed in the summer and fall of 2024.

Expanding Agroforestry Project

The Expanding Agroforestry Project is part of the USDA’s larger Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program — a $3.1 billion effort to fund projects to fight climate change while supporting landowners. Agroforestry practices are effective at capturing carbon while providing additional commodities and land benefits to farmers.

Above and below ground, agroforestry systems typically capture 2–5 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year. Nate Lawrence, ecosystem scientist for the Savanna Institute, expanded on the science of measuring such figures during a recent podcast.

As the lead administrator of the grant, TNC is “processing $36 million … in incentive payments directly to enrolled producers,” Audrey Epp Schmidt, the agroforestry program manager at The Nature Conservancy, explained in an email.

The remaining $24 million will support the expansion of project partner organizations, including adding staff capacity for the agroforestry work. These funds will also bolster measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification activities and develop market opportunities for agroforestry commodities, she said.

With the influx of federal funding, TNC created a five-year program to provide growers with technical help and funding to support agroforestry efforts. To get the word out, the project partners launched a communication effort that included emails, social media posts and virtual presentations, along with in-person events on farms.

“Producers typically want to hear directly from other producers, so we encourage farmer-to-farmer networks to help drive adoption whenever possible,” Epp Schmidt said.

TNC’s goal is to attract at least 200 farmers to the program, with at least 50 of those being underserved producers, said Epp Schmidt. The USDA defines underserved producers as farmers who are new, have limited financial resources, are socially disadvantaged (either by race or gender) or are military veterans.

Epp Schmidt said the program includes the adoption of alley cropping, silvopasture and windbreak projects.

Alley cropping means planting rows of trees or shrubs within crops, while windbreaks are planted on the edges of fields (stopping or slowing wind erosion while adding biodiversity). Silvopasture is an agroforestry practice that integrates trees, pasture, forage plants and livestock into a single system. She noted the program is focused on adding new fruit, nut, timber and biodiversity-supporting trees that are ecologically suitable for the project site.

Agroforestry enhances biodiversity on farms by breaking up large expanses of the same crop, called monocropping. By planting trees, shrubs and understory plants, farmers can attract beneficial insects, fungi and wildlife to their land, bolstering pollinators and potentially reducing the need for insecticides.

After being accepted to the program, farmers are matched with a technical assistance staff member — each region has its own partner organization — to support developing an agroforestry plan for the farmers’ land.

The program subsidizes the cost of tree planting, providing $36 million in incentive payments directly to producers. Wendy Johnson, a farmer at Jóia Food & Fiber Farm and active agroforestry practitioner in Iowa, said she heard about the program in its early stages and thought it was an important step forward for agroforestry support.

Johnson, who has planted more than 6,000 trees on her farm, is not able to apply for funding from the project — her trees are already in the ground. But she said learning about the program was “really exciting because it’s finally providing a dollar amount that would help with maintenance costs, too.”

She knows that young trees need a lot of care in the early years before they are fully established. “Maintenance is huge, and I can’t stress that enough,” she said. “You can’t just plant a tree and let it go — it also needs shelter and it needs care for the first three years … otherwise that investment is lost.”

Johnson noted that on her own farm, the planted saplings coincided with record drought — and regular watering of the seedlings is a time- and labor-intensive endeavor. Such issues are only likely to amplify due to the worsening impacts of climate change.

Committing to years of maintenance and switching part of a farm to more diversified land use may take a leap of faith. It can also mean farmers have to accept a risk to their profitability, often lasting for years.

“These are complex, perennial systems, and that involves a temporal mindset,” said John Munsell, forest management extension specialist at Virginia Tech. He added that an adaptive management plan will help farmers adjust in the eight-plus years between planting and maturity of trees and shrubs.

Munsell said that a program like Expanding Agroforestry can get farmers to take a chance on planting. “This will tip the scale for many,” he said. And while farmers wait for their plantings to mature, Munsell said the agroforestry community can strengthen the market for forest products. “While your hazelnuts are maturing … you have eight years to move into a market space and set things up.”

Launching the program

The initial application cycle of the Expanding Agroforestry Project received 213 applications from producers in 21 states for the incentive payment program, noted Epp Schmidt. Of these, 93% self-reported as underserved farmers. She said these farmers potentially represent more than “6,300 acres of new agroforestry plantings.”

Farmers who are interested in the program can learn more on TNC’s website. There are two application cycles each year, and the next deadline will be in late summer.



Sarah Derouin wrote this article for Mongabay.


get more stories like this via email

A diverse coalition of groups is opposing an initiative in Washington that could upend the state's push to make buildings greener and more efficient. Initiative 2066 would stop the state's efforts to transition from natural gas and halt local efforts to do the same.

Kerry Meade, executive director of the Washington state-based organization Building Potential, said the initiative would also roll back back energy-efficiency programs that utility companies are running to help people save on energy costs and install efficient equipment.

"It would pull a lot of funding away from those sorts of programs that support people in being able to cost effectively do that, and a lot of that money actually goes to more low-income and moderate-income customers," Meade said.

Meade noted that equipment like electric heat pumps is less costly than equipment that runs on natural gas. Unions, environmental groups and health organizations are among those opposing the measure. Supporters of the initiative say it will ensure Washingtonians have a choice if they want to use natural gas.

Leah Missik, Washington deputy policy director with Climate Solutions, said it's concerning that the initiative would take away cities' ability to decide on this issue.

"It also is a direct attack on local control. It would prevent local communities, local governments from passing policies around their own communities' energy choice in a way that makes sense to them," she contended.

Missik added that there are many benefits to the state - and the climate - for moving away from natural gas.

"We are future proofing, we are making sure we are resilient as we move along the pathway to more clean energy and protecting folks from the climate crisis and its impact that it's having right now," she continued.

As Ohio continues to embrace clean energy solutions, the debate over its economic and environmental impact remains a focal point for residents.

With solar energy manufacturing on the rise and more jobs emerging in the sector, clean energy is reshaping Ohio's economy.

Tony Zartman, director of programs and operations for the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum, highlighted why the development is significant for the state.

"We are highly concerned with the development of clean energy," Zartman explained. "We want those jobs here in the U.S., we want those jobs here in Ohio and we want the ability to strengthen our grid so that we have national security."

While some critics question the costs, the shift is evident. Ohio's manufacturing sector, ranked third nationally, now employs 9,600 workers in clean energy. However, concerns about energy reliability and balancing new projects with the state's power needs persist.

As more solar manufacturing facilities come online and energy demand grows, ensuring a stable and self-sufficient energy grid has become a pressing concern. Ohio is already importing power from other states, a situation that may worsen without continued investment in local energy production, Zartman contended.

"Ohio uses more power, electrical power, than what we produce," Zartman stressed. "We are now importing power eventually, the new push for electric cars and doing away with gas stoves. We don't have enough now."

Ohio's clean energy growth not only brings economic benefits but also challenges in managing energy resources. As the state leads the Midwest in utility-scale solar power capacity, the future of energy in Ohio is at a crossroads. With more than $6 billion in capital investments and thousands of jobs at stake, the clean energy industry is poised to shape Ohio's economic landscape for years to come.