Negotiating Climate Change: Reflections from a COP Simulation
Guest post by Usama Liyaudeen and Serena Angoua
Guest post by Birkbeck student contributors on the MSc Global Political Economy and the MSc International Security and Global Governance programmes
On 1 December 2025, I participated in a full-day climate negotiation simulation hosted by Chatham House, formally known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in partnership with the British International Studies Association (BISA). The simulation replicated a Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), bringing together students from 48 universities across the UK. Representing as the Indonesian deligates, the experience provided a rare and immersive insight into the realities of global climate diplomacy.
The simulation followed authentic COP procedures, including consensus-based decision-making, moderated debates, and unmoderated caucuses. Two delegates represented each participating university, and negotiations unfolded across key agenda items including emissions reductions, adaptation, climate finance, and institutional reform. From the outset, it became clear that although there is widespread agreement on the urgency of climate change, translating that urgency into collective action is far more complex. National interests, economic structures, historical responsibility, and geopolitical positioning shaped every intervention.
Representing Indonesia highlighted the difficult balancing act faced by many developing and emerging economies. Indonesia’s delegation emphasised willingness to pursue ambitious mitigation pathways, including reducing deforestation and transitioning toward net-zero emissions, while consistently linking higher ambition to access to finance, technology transfer, and a just energy transition away from coal. This reflected a broader pattern across the Global South: ambition was not rejected, but conditional upon fairness and support.
One of the most revealing aspects of the simulation was observing how firmly certain delegations defended their national positions, even when those positions were unpopular within the room. In particular, the Iranian and Chinese delegations were highly disciplined and unwavering in articulating their demands. China’s representatives repeatedly stressed the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, arguing that developed countries must bear a greater share of the burden due to their historical emissions since the Industrial Revolution. This intervention reframed several discussions, shifting attention away from present-day emissions alone and back toward long-term structural responsibility. Iran, similarly, demonstrated how states often prioritise sovereignty and political consistency over consensus, reinforcing the reality that multilateral negotiations are as much about principle as compromise.
These exchanges underscored an important lesson: climate negotiations are not exercises in moral persuasion alone. Delegations arrive with clear mandates, red lines, and strategic objectives. Even in an academic simulation, representatives remained loyal to their country’s core interests, illustrating how entrenched positions can persist regardless of international pressure or reputational cost.
Climate finance emerged as one of the most contentious agenda items. While there was broad agreement on the scale of funding required to meet mitigation and adaptation goals, sharp divisions remained over who should pay and how. Developing country delegations emphasised the need for grant-based finance and warned against climate loans exacerbating debt vulnerabilities. Developed countries, by contrast, frequently highlighted the role of private finance and domestic constraints. The debates made clear that finance is the foundation upon which all other climate commitments rest; without credible funding mechanisms, pledges risk remaining rhetorical rather than transformative.
Beyond the formal negotiations, the structure of the day itself was highly enriching. Breaks between sessions and refreshment intervals provided valuable opportunities to network and engage informally with participants from a wide range of academic, cultural, and professional backgrounds. These conversations often deepened understanding beyond the formal debate, allowing delegates to exchange perspectives, challenge assumptions, and build connections with like-minded individuals from different universities and disciplines. Learning, in this sense, extended well beyond the conference floor.
Being hosted at Chatham House added a unique and symbolic dimension to the experience. Walking through the halls of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, surrounded by the history, legacy, and intellectual gravitas of the institution, was both humbling and inspiring. Seeing the names and contributions of figures who have shaped global political thought reinforced the relevance of the discussions taking place and highlighted the continuity between academic inquiry and real-world policymaking.
This simulation, strongly connected with themes from our coursework such as global governance, inequality, institutional constraints, and power asymmetries, was vividly reflected in the negotiations. The exercise demonstrated how climate change is not only an environmental crisis but a deeply embedded political economy problem shaped by history, development trajectories, and global power structures.
Overall, the COP simulation was an intellectually rigorous and personally rewarding experience. It transformed abstract theoretical debates into lived negotiation dynamics and reinforced the challenges and possibilities of multilateral climate governance. For students of politics, such simulations are invaluable, offering insight not only into how global agreements are negotiated, but why progress remains so difficult in an unequal and warming world.