辅导 COP30 SIMULATION ASSESSMENT辅导留学生Matlab语言程序

MID-TERM: COP30 SIMULATION ASSESSMENT

TOPIC: Loss and Damage

The Climate Justice: Theory, Practice and Policy midterm consists of a three-component COP30 simulation (1) a collective pre-simulation position paper, (2) active participation during simulation (expectations below), (3) an individual reflection paper.

WHAT YOU WILL NOT BE GRADED ON:

● Whether your bloc "won" the negotiation

● How much your bloc spoke (quantity of interventions)

● Your personal agreement/disagreement with the position you were assigned

● Charisma, confidence, or rhetorical polish

● Native fluency in English

WHAT YOU WILL BE GRADED ON:

● Understanding: Do you grasp your bloc's interests and the broader politics?

● Strategic thinking: Did you think critically about how to advance your position?

● Critical analysis: Can you apply decolonial frameworks to analyze power?

● Self-reflection: Do you thoughtfully examine your learning and positionality?

● Integration: Do you connect simulation to course concepts and real-world governance?

● Depth over breadth: Quality of analysis, not surface description

The goal isn't to "win" the negotiation or give the most speeches, it's to deeply understand how power operates in climate governance and to think critically about what justice requires.

Component Breakdown:

1. Pre-Simulation Position Paper (50 points)

2. Simulation Participation (40 points)

3. Peer and Self-Assessment (10 points)

COMPONENT 1: PRE-SIMULATION POSITION PAPER

Assignment Description

Due: Thursday 5pm (day before the simulation)

Modality: Collective

Length: 4-6 pages, with references

Purpose: Demonstrate understanding of your bloc's position, the issues at stake, and your strategic approach.

Prompt:

You have been assigned to represent [Your Assigned Bloc] in negotiations on loss and damage. Write a position paper that:

1. Analyzes your bloc's interests and constraints (1.5-2 pages)

。 What are your bloc's priorities? Why?

。 What historical, economic, and political factors shape your position?

。 What are your constraints (domestic politics, economic dependence, etc.)?

。 What power do you have? What power do you lack?

2. Articulates your negotiating strategy (1-1.5 pages)

。 What are your red lines (non-negotiable positions)?

。 Where might you compromise?

。 What alliances will you build?

。 What tactics will you use?

3. Critiques your bloc's position from a climate justice perspective (1.5 pages)

。 Even if you're playing a "justice-oriented" bloc, what are the limitations or contradictions in your position?

。 If you're playing a bloc resisting change, what ethical problems does your position raise?

。 How does your bloc's position relate to power, colonialism, and justice?

。 What alternative position would be more just, even if politically unfeasible for your bloc?

4. Cite at least 4 academic/policy sources; draw on course readings where relevant

Note: Students representing “obstructive” blocs (US, Petro-states) should demonstrate an understanding ofwhy these positions exist, not necessarily your agreement or disagreement with them. We are looking for the ability to “see the system” not just describe positions. Critical self-reflection matters even for “progressive” blocs; students must have an understanding of arguments against their positions.

Rubric: Pre-Simulation Position Paper (50 points)

COMPONENT 2: IN-CLASS SIMULATION (40 points)

During the simulation, your bloc will negotiate over a draft decision text that contains bracketed options representing different positions; your task is to advocate for your preferred language, propose deletions, or craft bridging text that can build consensus with other blocs. You will have several tools to manage the negotiation process: you can request huddles to the Facilitator (brief pauses for your bloc to strategize), propose bilateral discussions with specific blocs to find common ground, or invoke procedural rules to manage impasse. The goal is to reach consensus on the final text, though, as in real negotiations, this may not always be possible, and you may need to decide whether to accept compromise language or hold firm on your red lines.

Multiple Forms of Participation (All Valued)

Students can contribute meaningfully through:

● Speaking in plenary: Interventions, proposals, responses

● Strategic thinking: Helping bloc develop positions

● Text drafting: Working on amendments and proposals

● Coalition building: Negotiating with other blocs during and before the Simulation

● Documentation: Taking notes, tracking proposals

● Listening and synthesizing: Understanding other positions, identifying common ground

● Research support: Looking up information during simulation

Equity note: Students may contribute powerfully without dominating airtime. We will grade your strategic contributions, which must be reflected in your reflection paper and confirmed by your teammates' peer assessments.

COMPONENT 3: POST-SIMULATION REFLECTION PAPER (10 points)

Assignment Description

Due: No later than Monday (10/27), 11:59 pm

Modality: Individual submission (submitted to instructor)

Length: 1-2 pages, single-spaced

PART I: Brief Coalition Strategy Memo & Reflection

● Document how your bloc built (or tried to build) alliances

● Analyze why some coalitions formed and others didn't

● Reflect on what this reveals about interests, power, and climate justice in climate governance

PART II: Self and Peer Assessment

Self-Assessment

● Contribution: What did you contribute to your bloc's work? Be specific about different forms of contribution (speaking, strategizing, drafting, research, listening, etc.)

● Strengths: What did you do well? What skills did you use effectively?

● Growth areas: What would you do differently? What do you want to improve?

Peer-Assessment (Confidential, submitted to instructor)

Sent as an attachment to the reflection paper (please copy & paste before filling)

Assess each member of your block (without including yourself)

For each person, rate on a scale of 1-5

Name	Strategic thinking and understanding of role	Quality of contributions to discussions	Collaboration and teamwork	Reliability and preparation	Additional Comment What did this person specifically contribute? What did you appreciate about working with them?