By Ethan Wong
On February 23, The Center for Climate and Security (CCS) facilitated an Arctic security scenario exercise for the World House Student Fellows Program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perry World House. The tabletop game was designed to educate future decision makers on the ways in which climate change intersects with existing security risks, and to encourage innovative and rational decision-making given rising uncertainties and time restrictions.
Students engage in tabletop exercise to assess their decision-making skills during high-risk scenarios. (Perry World House / University of Pennsylvania)
The crisis response game was set in 2030 and centered around an environmental crisis in the Arctic amidst brewing geopolitical tensions featuring military exercises, oil spills, gray-zone activities, and ecosystem changes due to rising temperatures. The student fellows took on the role of three different teams, Blue, Red and Green, representing NATO, Russia, and the international community, respectively. Throughout the exercise, teams competed and worked to tackle the ongoing crisis that was exacerbated by “injects,” or wildcard events, such as severe natural disasters and suspicious military incidents. Over the course of several turns, students debated policies, sent and received intelligence, and formulated political and military responses that contributed to the evolving situation in the Arctic.
Several key takeaways emerged from the exercise:
- During a game-end group discussion, all teams recognized that managing climate change hazards and protecting the environment were critical priorities, yet climate issues often receded to the background throughout game play as teams narrowed their focus on other acute crises arising from geopolitical tensions. As a result, environmental disasters, namely an Arctic oil spill, remained largely unresolved.
- Likewise, even when confronted with the reality that climate hazards exacerbated tensions between the Red and Blue team in particular, they still chose to compete over differing political, military, and economic self-interests rather than cooperate on the mutually shared risks posed by climate change and the dangerous Arctic waters. At one point, addressing the climate risks and increased pollution from Arctic trade and an oil spill became a bargaining chip. Rather than offering to help clean up the oil spill for the sake of the environment, some teams proposed support or humanitarian assistance on the condition that the other teams provide military or political concessions.
- Climate change can have serious impacts on military operations and amplify existing security risks. During the game, participants found that several of their naval responses were disrupted by stormy conditions, winter temperatures, and the sudden formation of sea ice. Additionally, the changing environment created new opportunities for gray-zone activities and for additional actors, such as China, to insert themselves into the region and expand their role as a provider of disaster relief.
- Geopolitical perceptions served as a barrier to responses to climate-driven hazards. The tense security landscape prevented effective cooperation between teams, while unilateral action to combat the deteriorating environmental situation was often viewed as a potential pretext for a team to strengthen their military presence in the Arctic.
- Limited access to information fueled misunderstandings. Additionally, a lack of trust among the teams before the immediate crisis meant public statements in the wake of accidents and major incidents in the game were met with skepticism by all players.
Overall, the students were engaging, creative, and generated a strong set of unique approaches that drew on their diverse perspectives and the interdisciplinary nature of the World House Student Fellows Program. Through the interactive experience, the students were exposed to the dynamics of real-world decision making, reacting to crises under pressure, and responding to limited information, while also learning more about a strategically and ecologically important region. Although many issues in the scenario remained unresolved, the game ultimately highlighted the linkages between climate change and international security and emphasized the utility of tabletop games as a tool for teaching.