RSS
(Image courtesy of John Larsson @ flickr, used under the Creative Commons license.)
The thought is absurd, at first: play a game to fight climate change. I admit -- I laughed. But that was because my knowledge of video games ends roughly with the decline of Duck Hunt.
Called Climate Challenge, and created by Red Redemption Ltd., the game offers play of a different sort. Its role-play is political, and the stakes ecologically high. The premise is that, as a European leader, you set international, national and local policy. You negotiate with world leaders to try and reduce their carbon emissions. If you fail at either, you can be voted out. Or, worse yet, the world burns to a crisp. No, really -- it burns to a crisp.
And that's where the game earns your trust. Because what makes this game different is the sense of replicated reality. Not that it's real, but that it makes a sincere effort to not only engage the process of negotiation, but to provide a sense of science and of policy. To provide a sense of consequence.
It's what Red Redemption Chairman and Co-Founder Gobion Rowlands calls a "persuasive game." If you're not yet persuaded -- and remember, I wasn't -- consider the numbers he presented to a class at Christ Church, Oxford, the other day.
According to Rowlands slides, in 2007 gaming hardware accounted for $18.3 billion worth of sales. Software another $24.2 billion. In 2006, the BBC reported that 26.5 million people in the UK claimed to be gamers. That was 59% of the UK population.
Now, I admit -- I don't play video games very often. And when I do, I don't often like to admit it. In academic, and often in professional circles, a stigma remains associated with video games. They're like a sandbox; fun for children, but shameful for grown men.
But what Rowlands's game proves is that this is no more true of video games than of Chess, or of Go. A game is not merely a game, but an abbreviated lesson. A good game's lesson includes strategy, leadership and, even, a whiff of failure.
This all is to miss the point, though. It's about fun. A game may be massively complex, so long as the heuristic architecture is invisible.
And so what does this have to do with climate change?
For an issue that comes down to levels of responsibility -- the individual, the national, the international emissions we know we need to cut back -- people too often feel burdened by the task of reduction.
If we accept that there is a gulf between those supporting the climate action conversation, and those who will do the acting -- the public followed, we hope, by the politicians -- than we need to improve the way that we educate and engage people.
And so what can we learn from Rowlands game? Here, I borrow from some of what he said during his presentation:
- The communication should be persuasive
- It should engage people on personal, equal terms
- It should inform on critical issues
- And it should aim to translate that awareness into action.
Think of the potential. 59% of the UK population claim to be gamers. Meanwhile, 100% of 6-10 year olds consider themselves gamers.
If the climate movement could raise 100% of those between the ages of 6-10 to accept an every day engagement with climate change, our world would look radically different within the century. If 59% of the population considered themselves climate gamers, the world would look and work differently within a generation.
Fine. But what are we to do? You can start by playing Climate Challenge. You can then spread the word. Just remember: Keep it personal. Keep it on equal terms. Keep it fun.
Note: If you're interested in a video, or .pdf of the presentation, click here for a website with the goods.
Share
Mowing the Lawn