The Earth Now! Project is going live on spring 2019 looking for support to:
1. Fund the creation of the first Earth Now! game in at least one of three versions: Dedicated Online Multi-Player, Mobile App, Limited Edition Board Game. The games will be developed by a core team of collaborators if they sign up or we will work with a game design studio.
2. Find Communication Partners to make the games available to as many people as possible, prioritizing schools and teachers who are actually demanding this to have kind of support material.
3. If we succeed in attracting enough support for these initial steps we will proceed to legally incorporate a nonprofit organization based in the EU.
At first sight, putting words like “serious” and “game” together might seem impossible, but in recent years, serious games have proven that it is possible to learn while you play. This teaching method is known as game-based learning, a trend that is expanding at high speed in schools, universities and beyond.
Serious games are games whose primary objective is not fun or entertainment, rather learning or practicing a skill. Its use has grown, particularly in such sectors as education, science or health.
Currently all focus goes to developing the Earth Now! game in different versions. Once we get enough funds and the core design team is created we will launch new games and work on a section for submitting new games.
Story (connecting the dots)
The most popular games have themes accompanying big stories of territorial domination through war or financial means, those broadly accepted stories have been perceived as victories one should fantasize about and try to emulate those 'victories' in real life, in consequence the earth has been devastated.
World leaders at all levels and from all political spectrums have been stuck with one thought in mind, economic growth. The UN presented the Sustainable Development Goals and the world celebrated the Paris Agreement. Both documents are based on Economic Growth as the means to achieve their goals, ignoring the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet and the fact that economic growth is directly linked and responsible for much of the damage done, with developed countries having a much bigger footprint on the biosphere. The term climate change is front and center of the debate, the thing to be solved, as if reducing concentration of certain gases from the atmosphere would magically provide vibrant ecosystems for life to thrive. Leaving the door open for techno-fixers to intervene with geo engineering treatment of symptoms and promoting business based solutions that will likely perpetuate overshoot instead of looking to the natural world for guidance.
After connecting all the dots i began intensive research and started drafting the game, testing prototypes, improving designs, looking for funds and allies.
Conclusion from Hickel and Kallis report on Green Growth:
Extant empirical evidence does not support the theory of green growth. This is clear in two key registers. (1) Green growth requires that we achieve permanent absolute decoupling of resource use from GDP. Empirical projections show no absolute decoupling at a global scale, even under highly optimistic conditions. While some models show that absolute decoupling may be achieved in high-income nations under highly optimistic conditions, they indicate that it is not possible to sustain this trajectory in the long term. (2) Green growth also requires that we achieve permanent absolute decoupling of carbon emissions from GDP, and at a rate rapid enough to prevent us from exceeding the carbon budget for 1.5C or 2C. While absolute decoupling is possible at both national and global scales (and indeed has already been achieved in some regions), and while it is technically possible to decouple in line with the carbon budget for 1.5C or 2C, empirical projections show that this is unlikely to be achieved, even under highly optimistic conditions.
The empirical evidence opens up questions about the legitimacy of World Bank and OECD efforts to promote green growth as a route out of ecological emergency, and suggests that any policy programs that rely on green growth assumptions – such as the Sustainable 17 Development Goals – need urgently to be revisited. That green growth remains a theoreticalpossibility is no reason to design policy around it when the facts are pointing in the opposite direction.
Of course, we need all of the technological innovations we can get, and we need to gear government policy toward driving these innovations, but this will not be enough in and of itself.
The evidence presented indicates that in order for efficiency gains to be effective, we will need to scale down aggregate economic activity too. It is more plausible that we will be able to achieve the necessary reductions in resource use and emissions without growth than with growth. Indeed, there are no scientific grounds upon which we should not question growth, if our goal is to avoid dangerous climate change and ecological breakdown. Staying within planetary boundaries may require a de-growth of production and consumption in high-consuming nations, and a shift away from the narrow growth-focused development agenda in the global South. Combatting climate change might require not only new clean and efficient energy technologies, but also a reduction and re-composition of consumption, with a shift from carbon-intensive to low or zero carbon sectors. Legislative limits, green taxes, shifts in public investment and working hour-reductions or new social security institutions such as a basic income all have a role to play in such a transition. The objective could be to find ways to decouple prosperity and development from growth rather than to continue to chase the phantom of green growth.
It seems likely that the insistence on green growth is politically motivated. The assumption is that it is not politically acceptable to question economic growth and that no nation would voluntary limit growth in the name of the climate or environment; therefore green growth must be true, since the alternative is disaster. But it might well be the case that the politically acceptable is ecologically disastrous while the ecologically necessary is politically impossible. As scientists we should not let political expediency shape our view of facts. We should assess the facts and then draw conclusions, rather than start with palatable conclusions and then foreclose inconvenient facts.