Connect with us

Published

on

This is a guest blog post by Daniel Tamberg, Potsdam, co-founder and director of SCIARA GmbH. The non-profit organisation SCIARA is developing and operating a flexible software platform for scientific simulation games that allows thousands of players to explore, design and understand possible climate futures together. Decision-makers in politics, business, society can use these games to test climate protection measures for social acceptance in advance, in order to be able to act more quickly and safely to combat global warming.

SCIARA is currently running a crowdfunding campaign to finance the next round of development and refinement after a first Minimal Viable Product (MVP) has been created in the last seven months by a team of software development professionals ten members strong.

Setting the stage

Once the evidence of what was causing the ozone hole had become clear in 1985, it only took a few years to ban the production and use of the responsible chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) after the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 and entered into force on 26 August 1989. Replacing the ozone-depleting CFCs was technically easy, and users were not subjected to any significant restrictions as a result of the technological changeover.

Tackling climate change requires global interaction of many complex technical and social solutions. Central industries will be massively affected and are – in some cases – bound to die: first and foremost the fossil energy industry as well as the automotive and aircraft industries, which have provided unprecedented prosperity in the past. And the lifestyle of billions of people will need to change.

Any politician or business leader who takes early and decisive action on climate change risks losing voters, customers, investors, and supporters – see French President Macron’s experience with the Yellow Vests. Those who act too late or too hesitantly, on the other hand, become responsible for the catastrophic effects of climate change in the future.

YellowVests

“Yellow Vest” protests after fuel prices were raised in France in 2019, Elekes Andor CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

My hypothesis: We know enough about the existence, cause, consequences and impacts of climate change as well as about possible technological, systemic and societal solutions. The social acceptance of climate protection measures has become the decisive impediment to solving the climate crisis. The lack of acceptance is expressed through non-compliance with regulations, at the ballot box and through protests, riots and, in extreme cases, even insurrection.

How can governments and corporate leaders reduce uncertainty about the response of people affected, find the most socially acceptable solutions and strategies to introduce them, and thus make confident decisions about climate action?

One would have to be able to see into the future. But who can?

Visualizing climate futures

Insufficient StrategiesInsufficient strategies to identify climate change solutions

Previous strategies such as expert interviews, studies and surveys apparently do not work well enough for this. And even the most sophisticated so-called social-ecological agent-based simulations, which attempt to bring together models of human behaviour with models of our natural environment, do not achieve sufficiently realistic results to be able to narrow down the likely behaviour of real citizens.

The crucial shortcoming of these models: people are mapped into formulas and algorithms and some essential drivers of social dynamics are not mapped at all, for example the discursive communication of the modelled human actors.

CommonModelTypesCommon types of models used to study societal climate impacts

This is where SCIARA comes in. Instead of trying to refine software models of human behaviour further and further in the hope of one day creating a realistic representation of humans in computers, we take a shortcut: we replace software-driven actors in social-ecological-technological simulations with real people.

For the players of these simulations, who can participate free of charge and anonymously, it looks like a browser-based massively multiplayer online game. The backend with the models runs on cloud-based servers, maintained by the SCIARA organisation.

Playing the game

In a first of many possible simulation scenarios, players roll forward their current lifestyle in all areas that are important for the climate. To do this, they adapt their future lifestyle to their changing needs, new rules and the state of the world whenever they want. Important areas on which players make decisions are, for example, mobility, diet, housing, consumption, leisure, investments, travel and recycling and their political orientation.

PilotscenarioSimple SCIARA information flow schematics (click for larger version)

The system constantly visualises the collective progressive effects of all participants’ decisions on the planet and society. These include, for example, sea level rise, crop failures and extreme weather events, but also bank balances, the results of elections and perhaps economic growth. Wherever necessary, these feedbacks are calculated by scientific models provided by major science partners..

Realistic trade-offs arise for players because, even in the simulation, they only have a limited income and assets, they want to live healthily for a long time, and perhaps freedom and the amount of free time they have at their disposal are particularly important to them.

House-and-dietScreenshots from the current development version of SCIARA – the red dots on the screen give access to various corresponding information or decision options, like diet.

In addition, players meet and interact with other simulation participants about the world and their decisions in the game. They do this in simulated places such as their homes, neighbourhoods, workplaces, pubs, transport and many more.

Complementing their direct perception of the simulated world, AI-generated virtual media of various flavours give players a realistically “filtered” view of the wider simulated world and the events in it.

The “goal” of the game is to live the best life possible in the simulation under the given and evolving circumstances – according to players’ own standards, values and needs. To do this, it is necessary to constantly adapt one’s own lifestyle to the changing climate and climate protection measures introduced, and to balance the conflicting goals that arise in the process.

Prognosis-ScreenThis is a prognosis screen – how would the climate look in 2100 if everybody would live like I do? We want to visualize the numeric values in a more tangible way in the future, like stating which cities will be inundated by the given sea level rise.

The time players spend participating in a simulation run varies depending on how deeply they immerse themselves in the virtual world and how much players communicate with the other participants in it. We assume between 2 and 60 minutes per day, over several days or weeks for a simulation run. And new simulation runs will keep coming out with changed conditions, so participation never gets boring.

In this test environment, decision-makers in politics, business and science can check the social reaction to climate protection measures – with realistic social dynamics over time. In this way, they can distinguish laws, regulations and products that are likely to be socially viable from those that would fail due to societal resistance. This helps to weigh risks and opportunities and to act quickly, effectively and sustainably in favour of the climate.

Supporting SCIARA

SCIARA was founded by Sebastian Kutscha and myself. So far, six medium-sized German IT companies have become partners and have invested money and provided team members. A seventh company will soon join as a partner.

The development is done in close cooperation with the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as well as leading scientific institutions in Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland and the USA, which provide the models and work with us to answer the social science questions (e.g. participant recruitment, representativeness, realistic behaviour, citizen science approach, evaluation) properly.

How about supporting SCIARA by participating in the simulations, by supporting the crowdfunding campaign on StartNext, by spreading the idea and the campaign in your networks – or even as a customer who wants to test a climate protection measure?

Note: SCIARA is pronounced “skiara” with a hard “k” (not “shiara”) and is an acronym for Society-Climate Interaction Analysis with Real Agents.

The SCIARA Project – Interactive Time Travel into the Climate Future

Continue Reading

Climate Change

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Published

on

The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.

From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Published

on

SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million. 

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.

Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.

“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”

The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]

ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]

Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.

“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”

Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

-ENDS-

Images available in Greenpeace Media Library

Notes:

[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.

[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee

[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.

Media contact:

Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Published

on

The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.

In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com