Main objectives
:
1. Students will be able to make evaluations of the sulfur dioxide trading rights scheme by using visual representations of data and playing a game.
2. Students will be able to prioritize the possible solutions to the problem of acid rain and discuss the moral and ethical concerns of each possibility.
Instructional Input:
This lesson will be well suited to high- level juniors and seniors in a high school environmental science course.
Materials:
Handout of EPA Trading Rights section of the narrative, handouts of the Table 1 through 4 and 7&8, graph paper, materials to make a board game.
Procedure:
1. Have students read the handout aloud in class and facilitate a class discussion on the issue. Discuss the ethical implications of being allowed to trade pollution credits, especially focusing on the geographical distribution of territories.
2. Divide the class into groups of about four and have them adopt a position on the issue. The groups will represent various perspectives on the issue. One group can represent older companies that have the “grandfather” clause, another group can represent a new company that has new, environmentally friendly equipment, one group representing the EPA, one group representing pollution allowance brokers, other groups representing various states in Northeast and the Midwest.
3. Give the class a scenario involving these groups and haven them debate the issue.
4.Place tables 1 through 4 on an overhead and have students draw graphs that represent the sources of sulfur and nitrogen emissions in the Unites States and Canada and have the students compare the two countries.
5. Place tables 7 and 8 on an overhead and have students draw graphs of the changes in air quality and emissions since 1982. Have the students use this data and compare it to the change in acid rain prevalence where they live (or nearby) and have students note any trends in the dada that might show a relationship.
Alternate assignments:
1. Have students develop a game that will model the activity of pollution credit trading. This game can be modeled after monopoly where the properties are companies that give off emissions containing SO2. Each player can purchase companies but must also find ways to reduce the SO2 emissions, if they don’t they will face steep fines from the EPA. The players will be allowed to or trade their pollution credits with other players, they will also be able to buy scrubbers and other pieces of equipment for their companies. The player with the highest profit will win. If designed properly, the student with the least number of pollution credits will loose because they will be fined heavily for each allowance at the end of the game. (An example of this game can be found on teachersinstitute.yale.edu)
2. Give students a blank map of the United States and have them draw in the areas that are being affected the most by acid rain. Then have them put in the areas that are producing the most acid rain causing emissions. Have them compare the two and facilitate a class discussion about the implications of their findings. (A great map can be found in
Environmental Science
, Karen Arms, Holt 1997)
Table 1: Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in United States
Source
|
Percentage of Total Emissions
|
Transportation
|
7%
|
Fuel combustion
|
3%
|
Industrial sources
|
15%
|
Other
|
8%
|
Electric Utilities
|
67%
|
Source: www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain
Table 2: Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in Canada
Source
|
Percentage of Total Emissions
|
Transportation
|
5%
|
Fuel Combustion
|
1%
|
Industrial Sources
|
74%
|
Electric Utilities
|
20%
|
Source: www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain
Table 3: Sources of Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions in United States
Source
|
Percentage of Total Emissions
|
Transportation
|
53%
|
Fuel Combustion
|
5%
|
Electric Utilities
|
25%
|
Industrial Sources
|
12%
|
Other
|
5%
|
Source: www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain
Table 4: Sources of Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions in Canada
Source
|
Percentage of Total Emissions
|
Transportation
|
53%
|
Fuel Combustion
|
3%
|
Electric Utilities
|
1%
|
Industrial Sources
|
26%
|
Other
|
7%
|
Source: www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain
Table 5: Showing the Acid Tolerances of Various Aquatic Organisms
Organism
|
Range of pH tolerance
|
Trout
|
6.5 - 5.0
|
Bass
|
6.5 - 5.5
|
Perch
|
6.5 - 4.5
|
Frogs
|
6.5 - 4.0
|
Salamanders
|
6.5 - 5.0
|
Clams
|
6.5 - 6.0
|
Crayfish
|
6.5 - 5.5
|
Snails
|
6.5 - 6.0
|
Mayfly
|
6.5 - 5.5
|
Source: www.epa.gov
Table 6: Table Summarizing the Effects of pH on Aquatic Life
pH
|
Effect
|
3.5 - 3.0
|
Toxic to most fish
|
4.0 - 3.5
|
Lethal to salmonids
|
4.0 - 4.5
|
Harmful to salmonids, bream, roach, goldfish and the common carp.
|
|
All stock of fish disappears because embryos fail to mature at this level.
|
5.0 - 4.5
|
Harmful to salmonid eggs. The lake is usually considered dead as it is unable
|
|
to support a wide variety of life
|
6.0 - 5.0
|
Critical pH level, when the ecology
|
|
of the ecology of the lake changes greatly the number and variety of species
|
|
begin to change rainbow trout do not occur and mollusks become rare
|
|
- Most of the green algae disappear
|
|
- This reduction in green plants allows light to penetrate further so acid
|
|
lakes seem crystal clear and blue snails and phytoplankton disappear
|
9.0 - 6.5
|
Harmful to most fish
|
9.5 - 9.0
|
Harmful to salmonids, harmful to perch if persistent
|
10.0 - 9.5
|
Slowly lethal to salmonids
|
11.0 -10.5
|
Lethal to salmonids, carp, goldfish and pike
|
11.5 -11.0
|
Lethal to all fish
|
Source: www.epa.gov
Table 7: Improvements in Air Quality and Decreased Emissions Since 1982
____
____
Percent Change in Air Quality
Pollutant
|
1982-2001
|
1999-2001
|
NO2
|
-24
|
-11
|
O3
|
-38
|
-3
|
SO2
|
-52
|
-35
|
PM10
|
---
|
-14
|
PM25
|
Trend Data
|
Not Available
|
CO
|
-62
|
-38
|
Pb
|
-94
|
-25
|
Table 8: Improvements in Air Quality and Decreased Emissions Since 1982
____
____
Percent Change in Emissions
Pollutant
|
1982-2001
|
1999-2001
|
NO2
|
+9
|
-3
|
VOC
|
-16
|
-8
|
SO2
|
-25
|
-24
|
PM10
|
-51
|
-73
|
PM25
|
---
|
-16
|
CO
|
0
|
+6
|
Pb
|
-93
|
-3
|
Source: www.epa.gov