Points: 5
This assignment will be based on the assumption that we could identify several strategies that would either reduce CO2 pollution or not, and there are uncertainties in global warming. The two strategies that you can assess deal with either promoting the strength of a negative feedback loops or mitigating the effects of a positive feedback loop. The third strategy is to do nothing, essentially maintain population and industrial growth at the current rate.
The negative feedback loop is to plant more trees to take up CO2 from the atmosphere. These trees will theoretically counter the increased CO2 put into the atmosphere by taking up the CO2 and sequestering this into biomass. This will cost a moderate amount of money are require that land and water used for agriculture be dedicated to biomass production.
The positive feedback loop is the release of CO2 from the soils during deforestation. At the boundary of a forested region, deforestation results in increased local temperature and thus increased input of CO2 into the atmosphere from soil and plant respiration processes. The strategy to combat this is to invest substantial money to protect these forests. This strategy would also require a decrease in industrial output in order.
Assignment:
Part 1 (2 points) Make up some scenarios for each strategy for the population, atmospheric CO2/Temperature, industrial growth. Your scenarios need to be self-consistent.
Part 2 (2 points) Compare your scenarios using the game against nature approach. Which scenario would you choose and why. The two outcomes for nature are 1) global warming wasn't actually as bad as predicted or 2) global warming caused major economic and social disruptions.
Part 3 (1 point) Suggest a modification to the game against nature set up that makes your strategy choice more appealing. Hint: This is similar to the approach we took to analyze the deforestation in Costa Rica.
John Rueter
ESR102
July 22, 2003