Use of a Tradable Pollution Allowance
Simulation in
Teaching Resource and Environmental Policy*
William M. Park
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-4518
Phone: (865) 974-7231
Email: wpark@utk.edu
Fax: (865) 974-7484
Kurt Stephenson
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060
Phone: (540) 231-5381
Email: Kurts@vt.edu
Fax: (540) 231-7417
*This paper was written as a follow-up to presentation of a workshop at the 2003 National Conference on Student Writing and Critical Thinking in Agriculture, held in Jackson, Wyoming, April 3-5,2003. The paper describes how a pollution allowance trading simulation (which was demonstrated in the workshop) can be used to help students understand the economic principles underlying so-called market-based environmental policy. The paper makes the case that participation in the simulation, along with oral discussion or writing assignments based on follow-up questions can foster critical thinking on the part of students.
Use
of a Tradable Pollution Allowance Simulation in
Teaching
Resource and Environmental Policy
Use of classroom games and simulations is increasingly being promoted as an innovative teaching strategy with potential to improve student interest in learning. By nature, games and simulations involve active learning and many require problem solving and foster critical thinking. Students discover lessons or simulations have been developed to illustrate the economic dimensions of (a) natural resource management (for example, those designed to provide insight into the implication of open-access property rights in managing fisheries, rangeland, or other renewable resources) and (b) environmental policy options (for example, those designed to demonstrate the advantage of pollution allowance trading systems versus traditional pollution control approaches). The relevance of these types of issues to students in fields such as forestry, fisheries, or environmental sciences is obvious. However, natural resource management and environmental policy issues are becoming increasingly important to students in all areas of agriculture. It is quite possible that farmers may one day be able to sell pollution credits, based on actions taken to reduce pollutant loading to waterways or to sequester greater amounts of carbon in their soil. Thus, use of games or simulations on these types of issues offers the potential for important subject matter lessons as well as more general gains in problem solving and critical thinking abilities.
Games and simulations represent one type of learner-centered approach in contrast to the conventional lecture format that treats students as passive receivers of information. Standard lectures may not adequately motivate students to develop a more sophisticated and deeper understanding of the material. Calls for learner-centered instruction are based on a straight-forward premise—students should be responsible for more of the learning process (McCombs and Whistler 1997). Rather than reciting what they have been told, students are more involved in an active process of inquiry and discovery (McKeachie 1994). Motivation to learn is heightened when students are able to exercise some discretion over their own course of action (Paris and Turner 1994).
Student motivation in the context of games and simulations also hinges on a critical balance. The tasks and rules of a classroom game should be challenging but not impossible. If outcomes of the simulation are obvious and the tasks too simple, student interest will quickly fade. Conversely, if tasks are unreasonably complex and the outcome is obscurely related to the subject material, students may refuse to make a significant investment in time and attention to participate. Games and simulations should motivate, not intimidate. If students are to apply their problem solving abilities to the game, the game should be sufficiently complex to motivate students to uncover underlying concepts and principles. Myers (1986) argues that, to foster critical thinking by exposing students to disequilibrium situations, instructors must maintain a proper balance between challenge and support.
Learning in
classroom games and simulations can be enhanced by providing opportunities for
student interaction. Paris and Turner
(1994) argue that social guidance and cooperation in classrooms have now been
recognized as fundamental for motivation.
Learning is partly a social process. By exchanging ideas with fellow
classmates, students not only develop good communication skills, but are able
to "weigh" their ideas against each other.
Group discussions also can facilitate a deeper understanding of the
material by providing a forum to synthesize different perspectives and
different abilities of members of the group.
As the simulation proceeds, students can become both instructor and student
to other members of the group.
But does activity and motivation
necessarily translate into gains in critical thinking? Myers (1986) argues that even logic and
problem-solving have serious limitations in fostering critical thinking. He goes on to emphasize the importance of
other ingredients of critical thinking: "the abilities to make sense of new
experiences and to envision possibilities outside one's own immediate
experiences (p. 26)" and "the ability to identify principles or concepts in
specific experiences that can be generalized to other experiences (p 27)." Participation in the type of game described
in this paper (including the standard debriefing discussion) hopefully
contributes to students' development of these abilities to some extent. However, a set of follow-up questions are
provided in the final section of the paper, questions which are designed to
push students further along the learning curve toward critical thinking. These questions can be used in class for an
oral discussion within small groups or outside of class as the basis for a
written assignment.
This section
of the paper describes a pollution allowance trading game designed to be an
active, learner-centered, exercise.
Tradable pollution allowance systems are drawing increasing policy
attention as a way to add flexibility and cost effectiveness to environmental
regulation (USEPA 1996; Burtraw 1996; Shabman, Stephenson, and Shobe
2002). A pollution allowance trading
system allows different discharge sources to exchange pollution control
responsibilities. This exchange of
allowances at a price determined in the allowance market will result in a
voluntary shift of pollution control responsibilities from high control cost
sources to low control costs sources, thus lowering the joint costs of control.
While the
policy relevance draws most students' attention, the economic logic and
processes behind pollution allowance trading systems are not readily apparent
to many students. The specific
educational objectives of the game and the follow-up discussions are three
fold: 1) to demonstrate how a tradable pollution allowance system taps
self-interest motivations to lower the cost of achieving an environmental goal,
2) to provide students with practical use of marginal principles, and 3) to
demonstrate the equi-marginal principle.
Setting Up the Classroom
Game
This game
has been developed and conducted in a junior level environmental economics
course. The game is played during the
first third of the semester when students are introduced to alternative policy
instruments that can be used to achieve a given environmental goal. Prior to conducting the game, conventional
technology-based performance standard approaches ("command-and-control") have
been described and discussed in a lecture.
Tradable allowance systems are then briefly identified as an
alternative, but the primary purpose of the classroom experiment is to provide
a substitute for the introductory lecture.
The game is
designed for a class of 16 to 32 students and can be conducted in one class
period. The class is divided into eight private "firms" and the students are
informed that they are responsible for jointly managing their firm. Students are told that through their firm's production
practices, each firm is currently discharging 200 tons of nitrogen into the
same body of water. Part of their job
responsibilities involves managing their firm's effluent discharge. The instructor plays the role of the
regulatory agency assigned to protect ambient water quality.
Students are
then given a nitrogen abatement marginal cost schedule (see Figure 1). The marginal cost schedules are different for
each firm and discharges can be reduced in 20 pound increments (see Appendix). The students are not told their competitors'
cost schedules. Working with the other
"managers" of their firm, the students are asked to calculate total
nitrogen control costs for each level of nitrogen discharge. The students work
cooperatively to calculate total nitrogen control costs while the instructor's
role is limited to checking the final calculations for each firm. The class is then informed that current
collective discharge levels of 1,600 tons of nitrogen (200 tons for each of the
eight firms) is adversely impacting local water quality. The instructor informs the eight firms that
the state legislature has decided that a forty percent reduction in total
nitrogen discharges is needed to restore water quality to a level compatible
with recreational uses. To add to the
relevance of the game, the forty percent reduction goal is also the actual
nitrogen reduction target established for the Chesapeake Bay. The regulator's duty is to design a policy to
reduce aggregate nitrogen discharges to 960 tons.
Running the Game
Students are
told that the regulator has decided to create a tradable nitrogen allowance
system to achieve the legislated environmental goal. Each allowance permits the firm to discharge
one ton of nitrogen into the receiving water body within a fixed time frame,
such as one year. Each firm is then
granted 120 allowances, a 40 percent reduction for each firm. The instructor may wish to point out to the
class that if all firms are required to reduce discharges to 120 pounds, then
the environmental goal will be achieved through a performance standard.
The class is
then informed that future regulatory duties will require the managers to
specialize. The managers of the firms
will be required to perform two duties, accounting and negotiation. The students of each firm then select one
person to perform the accounting duties.
The remaining "managers" of the firm are negotiators. The accountants of each firm are handed a
pollution accounting balance sheet (see Figure 2). The balance sheet is briefly
explained and the accountants are asked to record the total number of
allowances each firm now holds (120) and the total cost of reducing nitrogen
discharge to this level.
At this
point the "regulator" announces that a tradable nitrogen allowance system is
going to be created. The instructor
explains that a firm can either buy allowances from one of the other seven
firms or can sell some of their current allowance holdings (120
allowances). The instructor asks each
firm two questions sequentially -- "What is the maximum price your firm would be
willing to pay for 20 allowances?" and "What is the minimum price your firm
would be willing to accept to sell 20 allowances?" Students are reminded to discuss each
question only with members of their firm.
This is the most time consuming portion of the experiment and some
students have some initial difficulty fully understanding the answers to these
two questions. At this point the role of the instructor is to individually
confirm that each firm has come up with its correct answer or prod group
members with additional questions until at least one individual in each firm
understands the concept. Inevitably,
some students grasp the concept quicker than others and this presents an
excellent opportunity for student guided instruction.
The "market"
for allowances is then opened. Each firm
sends a negotiator to the front of the room where eight chairs are arranged in
a circle. Students are then permitted to
exchange allowances. As students begin
negotiating, some students may become confused about what bid and sell price to
offer. At this point, students are not
yet aware whether their firm will be a buyer or seller of allowances.
Consequently, during the initial round, it is often helpful for another student
to accompany the appointed negotiator to the "market" to act as an
advisor.
In most
cases, the exchange of allowances generates a great deal of excitement among
the students. As negotiators search for
acceptable deals, they often receive ample advice from other members of their
firm. Often the exchange of allowances
resembles a cross between trading on the commodities exchange and the game show
the "Price is Right."
After
negotiators finalize a trade, they return to their respective firms with the
sale price information. Given the buy or
sale price, the accountant then records and calculates the new discharge level
of the firm and the new total allowance holdings. Net pollution control costs are calculated as
total nitrogen control expenditures less revenue from the sale of allowances
plus expenditures of new allowances.
Many students are surprised to learn that they could spend money to
purchase allowances and still reduce the overall net pollution control costs.
Given the
cost structures of the eight firms, three separate rounds of trading will
occur. For simplicity, firms are only
allowed to exchange 20 allowances in each round (one transaction per
round). In each round the firms are told
they must utilize a different negotiator, thus ensuring some minimal level of
participation from each student in the class.
Given the cost structures of these particular firms, there will be four
buyers and four sellers among the eight firms. Thus, each firm should be able
to trade allowances with another firm during the first two rounds. During the
third round, only one trade is possible.
The third round is intended to remind the students that trading cannot
continue indefinitely and that an equilibrium will be established after the
third round of trading.
During most
of the class, the instructor's goal is to intervene as little as possible. The aim is to ensure that the bid and sell
price information is correctly understood and recorded into the accounting
balance sheet. The students are
responsible for conducting the lesson.
Post-Game Classes
The
classroom game forms the basis for subsequent discussions on pollution
allowance trading. During the course of
the game, each student has witnessed the net pollution control costs of their
firm decrease. Some students seem to sense
that trading is a zero sum game and that their good fortune is coming at the
expense of other firms. In subsequent
class periods it is important to take firm level perceptions and successfully
connect them to a broader understanding of the overall functioning of a trading
system. Furthermore, follow-up classes
can be conducted outside the traditional lecture format by having the students
piece together the big picture from their individual experiences.
At the end
of the game, the instructor collects the pollution accounting balance sheets
from the accountants. In the next class
period, the instructor provides each student a copy of his/her firm's balance sheet. The information from each firm will be
collected during the course of the class period and will be used to construct
four tables. The rows of each table are
labeled with the name of each of the eight firms with a summary row at the
bottom of the table. The column headings
will include the two alternative pollution control strategies being investigated
-- performance standard ("command-and-control") and tradable allowances. The students use the information created in
the previous day's game to construct a lecture.
The four
tables summarize the different aspects of a tradable pollution allowance system
and compare the results to a performance standard (command-and-control
approach). The four tables are: 1)
"Total Nitrogen Discharge", 2) "Net Pollution Control Costs", 3) "Nitrogen
Control Costs", and 4) "Marginal Cost of Pollution Control." Starting with the "Total Nitrogen Discharge"
table, the instructor will ask each firm to report its total nitrogen discharge
before and after trading. The answers
are recorded on the table displayed on either the chalkboard or overhead. The results of the performance standard and
tradable allowances columns will be summed and shown to be equal.
The "Net
Pollution Control Costs", "Nitrogen Control Costs", and "Marginal Cost of
Control" tables are then constructed in succession. The "Net Pollution Control
Costs" table is intended to show the class that all eight firms reduced their
total pollution compliance costs (allowance trades and nitrogen control
expenditures). The "Nitrogen Control
Costs" table shows that while the total expenditures on nitrogen control went
up, the total amount of societal resources devoted to pollution control
decreased through trading. The results
are often surprising to the students.
More importantly, the students have their own behavioral responses and
experience from the game to anchor with the economic concepts being
revealed. The "Marginal Cost of Control"
table provides a hands-on demonstration of the equi-marginal principle: equalization of marginal costs between firms
lowers the total cost of achieving a given environmental goal. After trading, students are shown that the
marginal cost of control for their firms are now roughly equal to the other
seven firms. It is stressed that the very
existence of differences in marginal costs makes gains from trade possible.
The game emphasizes the economic advantages of grading given existing technologies. However, the game does not reflect an important economic feature present in most trading systems—the incentive for cost reduction through new technologies. In actual applications of trading systems, significant cost savings can be achieved without trading. The establishment of a trading system offers firms an incentive to reduce costs (the price of an allowance) and provides firms decision-making flexibility to respond to this price signal. A tradable pollution allowance system fosters and encourages the development of new, low cost ways to control pollution. In essence, the trading system creates incentives for firms to reduce their marginal cost of control schedules (Stephenson and Shabman 1996). Follow-up class discussions should point out this important dynamic aspect of a tradable pollution allowance system
Modifications and
Extensions
There are a number of possible modifications
that could be made to the simulation, with a view toward increasing realism and
helping students understand practical challenges actually implementing in
trading programs. One logical extension,
based on the final paragraph in the previous section, would be to incorporate
an option for investments in research and development that may produce new
cost-reducing technologies. Another
simple extension would be to introduce other groups into the trading system by
permitting an environmental group to purchase allowances. For example, in the national SO2
allowance trading program, trading is open to anyone. The game could also be
modified to focus on design issues of a trading system. A negotiating framework between the
regulator, environmental groups, and the firms could be created to address
monitoring issues and potential effluent distribution problems. The basis for the initial assignment of
allowances could be changed, allowing exploration of the economic and political
implications.
As was
mentioned at the end of the introductory section, questions such as those
listed below can be used for oral discussion or written assignments. These questions are designed to challenge
students to think critically, through the process of exploring issues related
to the real-world application of policies based on the economic principles
demonstrated in this simple game.
QUESTION 1
Economists have suggested that conceptually, a pollution tax of a certain amount per unit of pollutant discharged would lead to exactly the same outcome as a pollution allowance trading system, with respect to the overall reduction in pollution discharges and the overall cost of pollution control efforts to achieve that reduction. Which approach do you think would be preferred by the following stakeholder groups, and why?
·
Environmentalists, who highly value
pollution reductions
·
Businesses, who face pollution discharge
regulations
·
Bureaucrats, who must enforce pollution
control policy
QUESTION 2
In some watersheds, point source pollution dischargers are already strictly regulated and face relatively high marginal costs for further nutrient discharge reductions. Yet, water quality problems still exist. Relatively low marginal cost options exist for reducing nutrient discharges from agricultural nonpoint sources (e.g., cropping, tillage, and nutrient management practices). What factors must be considered in design and implementation of a point-nonpoint trading system, wherein point dischargers could avoid having to achieve further discharge reductions by purchasing credits generated by actions on the part of agricultural nonpoint sources? What equity issues between point and nonpoint sources are involved in point/nonpoint trading schemes?
QUESTION 3
Based largely on the success of the Acid Rain Allowance trading (ARAT) Program for sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired electrical utility plants in the U.S., most policy analysts recommend an international trading system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GGE's) to counter the treat of global warming. Countries would be assigned caps for their GGEs which could only be exceeded if excess allowances were purchased from other countries. Identify the important ways in which this situation differs from the situation to which the ARAT Program was applied. Discuss the implications of these differences for the potential cost savings from a trading system for GGEs and the challenges/complications of designing and implementing such a system.
QUESTION 4
The
general logic of a pollution allowance trading system can conceivably be
applied to a variety of resource management and environmental quality
goals. Brainstorm to identify two or
three of such goals with respect to agriculture production, forestry practices,
or fisheries management. Discuss how these
goals might be characterized or defined in a way that would allow a
"cap-and-trade" type of approach to be implemented as a way to minimize the
social costs of achieving these goals.
Attempt to identify any major drawbacks or limitations to applying such
an approach in these cases.
Figure 1.
Nitrogen Abatement Marginal Cost Schedule
Firm
1
|
|
CONTROL
COSTS |
|
Tons of Nitrogen Discharged |
Tons
Reduced |
Marginal
Cost |
Total Nitrogen Control Costs |
200 |
|
|
|
180 |
20 |
$50 (per ton) |
|
160 |
20 |
$100 |
|
140 |
20 |
$150 |
|
120 |
20 |
$200 |
|
100 |
20 |
$250 |
|
80 |
20 |
$350 |
|
60 |
20 |
$450 |
|
40 |
20 |
$800 |
|
Figure 2.
Pollution Accounting Balance Sheet
Firm
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Number of N Allowances Held |
Total N Control Costs |
Number of Allowances Bought |
Price Per Allowance |
Total Cost of Allowances |
Number of Allowances Sold |
Price Per Allowance |
Total Revenue from Sale of Allowances |
Net
Pollution Control
Costs* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Net pollution costs are total nitrogen control
costs plus/minus what was spent or received from allowance transfer
NET
POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS = (Total Nitrogen Control Cost) + (sum of column 5) -
(sum of column 8)
Firm
Managers:
Appendix
Firm
1 Firm
2
Tons of Nitrogen
Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
|
Tons
of Nitrogen Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
200 |
|
|
200 |
|
180 |
$50 (per ton) |
|
180 |
$300 (per ton) |
160 |
$100 |
|
160 |
$650 |
140 |
$150 |
|
140 |
$900 |
120 |
$200 |
|
120 |
$1,300 |
100 |
$250 |
|
100 |
$2,000 |
80 |
$350 |
|
80 |
$2,500 |
60 |
$450 |
|
60 |
$3,000 |
40 |
$800 |
|
40 |
$4,000 |
Firm 3 Firm
4
Tons of Nitrogen
Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
|
Tons
of Nitrogen Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
200 |
|
|
200 |
|
180 |
$25 (per ton) |
|
180 |
$150 (per ton) |
160 |
$50 |
|
160 |
$300 |
140 |
$100 |
|
140 |
$500 |
120 |
$150 |
|
120 |
$750 |
100 |
$200 |
|
100 |
$1,100 |
80 |
$300 |
|
80 |
$1,500 |
60 |
$475 |
|
60 |
$2,000 |
40 |
$850 |
|
40 |
$3,500 |
Firm 5 Firm
6
Tons of Nitrogen
Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
|
Tons
of Nitrogen Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
200 |
|
|
200 |
|
180 |
$150 (per ton) |
|
180 |
$50 (per ton) |
160 |
$300 |
|
160 |
$100 |
140 |
$450 |
|
140 |
$150 |
120 |
$700 |
|
120 |
$200 |
100 |
$1,000 |
|
100 |
$250 |
80 |
$1,500 |
|
80 |
$375 |
60 |
$2,000 |
|
60 |
$600 |
40 |
$2,500 |
|
40 |
$1,500 |
Firm 7 Firm
8
Tons of Nitrogen
Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
|
Tons
of Nitrogen Discharged |
Marginal Cost |
200 |
|
|
200 |
|
180 |
$25 (per ton) |
|
180 |
$200 (per ton) |
160 |
$50 |
|
160 |
$400 |
140 |
$100 |
|
140 |
$650 |
120 |
$150 |
|
120 |
$900 |
100 |
$225 |
|
100 |
$1,200 |
80 |
$350 |
|
80 |
$1,500 |
60 |
$800 |
|
60 |
$2,000 |
40 |
$1,500 |
|
40 |
$3,000 |
REFERENCES
Burtraw, Dallas. 1996. Trading Emissions
to Clean the Air: Exchanges Few but Savings Many. Resources 122 (Winter): 3-6.
McCombs, Barbara L. and Jo Sue Whisler.
1997. Creating Learner-Centered
Classrooms and Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1994. Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and
Theory for College and University Teachers: Lexington MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Myers, Chet. 1986. Teaching Students to Think Critically. The Jossey-Bass Higher
Education Series. San Fransico, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Paris, Scott G. and Julianne C. Turner.
1994. Situated Motivation. In Student
Motivation, Cognition and Learning: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie.
Ed. Paul R. Pintrich, Donald R. Brown and Claire Ellen Weinstein. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shabman, Leonard, Kurt Stephenson, and
William Shobe, "Trading Programs for Environmental Management: Reflections on
the Air and Water Experiences." Environmental
Practice 4 (September 2002) 3: 153-162.
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). May 1996. Draft Framework
for Watershed-Based Trading. Office of Water, EPA 800-R-96-001.