You are on page 1of 336

Instructors Manual V 6.

0b

For use with Environmental Science and International


Politics

Reacting Consortium Press

Acid Rain in Europe 1979-1989

Reacting to the Past™

David E. Henderson and Susan K. Henderson


Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 6
“How to Teach with Reacting to the Past” ..................................................................................... 7
1. Game Set-up ..........................................................................................................................................................7
2. From Instructor to Gamemaster .............................................................................................................................7
3. Student-Centered Classroom .................................................................................................................................8
4. Role Playing ..........................................................................................................................................................8
5. Liminality ..............................................................................................................................................................9
6. Student discomfort .................................................................................................................................................9
7. Victory ...................................................................................................................................................................9
8. Assignments...........................................................................................................................................................9
9. Schedule .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
10. Ahistorical outcomes ......................................................................................................................................... 10
11. Debriefing .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
12. Modifications ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
13. How to teach this game as a non-scientist ......................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 12
Game Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Learning Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Key Concepts ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
Model Schedules ........................................................................................................................... 13
Expanded Schedule.................................................................................................................................................. 14
Compressed Schedule .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Short 1984 Game Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Short 1987 Game Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Long Class Meetings Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 17
Additional Information on Customizing the Schedule ............................................................................................ 18
Roles and Factions ........................................................................................................................ 18
Factions for Geneva ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Changing Factions for Helsinki ............................................................................................................................... 20
Changing Factions for Sophia ................................................................................................................................. 20
Important notes on distribution of roles ................................................................................................................... 21
Suggested Order for Distribution of Roles .............................................................................................................. 22
Order of Distribution in Numerical Order ............................................................................................................... 23
Additional Roles ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
Game Setup ................................................................................................................................... 24
Rules and Procedures ............................................................................................................................................... 24
Game Sessions ...................................................................................................................... 24
Leadership issues .................................................................................................................. 24
Voting ................................................................................................................................... 25
The Role of Money in the Game........................................................................................... 25
Air Pollution Data ......................................................................................................................... 27
Contingent Events and Role Changes ...................................................................................................................... 27
Guide to Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Writing Assignments ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Items you will need .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Recommended Texts ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Managing the Game ...................................................................................................................... 40
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Setup Session 1 - Introduction to Acid Rain ............................................................................................................ 40
Discussion Questions for Acid Base Chemistry ................................................................... 41
Optional Session - Lab activity Acids and Bases (class activity or full lab) Faction Meetings. .............................. 41
Session 2 – Environmental Philosophy ................................................................................................................... 41
Questions on Environmental Philosophy .............................................................................. 41

2
Session 3- Ecology .................................................................................................................................................. 42
Questions on Lovelock Gaia ................................................................................................. 42
Optional Session- Using Numbers to make Arguments – Environmental Economics ............................................ 44
Discussion of Economics and policy .................................................................................... 44
Game Session 1 and 2 - 1979 Geneva ..................................................................................................................... 45
Items you Need ..................................................................................................................... 46
Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 46
Assignments .......................................................................................................................... 46
Guidance for Discussion ....................................................................................................... 46
Gamemaster Intervention ...................................................................................................... 47
Transition to Helsinki ........................................................................................................... 47
Game Session 3 and 4- 1985 Helsinki ..................................................................................................................... 48
Items you need ...................................................................................................................... 48
Learning Objectives .............................................................................................................. 48
Assignments .......................................................................................................................... 48
Guidance for discussion ........................................................................................................ 48
Gamemaster Intervention ...................................................................................................... 49
Transition to Sophia ................................................................................................................................................. 49
Game Session 5 and 6 - 1988 Sophia ...................................................................................................................... 50
Items you will need ............................................................................................................... 50
Readings ................................................................................................................................ 50
Assignments .......................................................................................................................... 50
Guidance for discussion ........................................................................................................ 50
Gamemaster Intervention......................................................................................................................................... 51
Debriefing ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Exiting the Game ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Victory Objectives and Scoring Checklist ............................................................................................................... 53
What Really Happened ............................................................................................................................................ 55
What Happened Afterwards .................................................................................................................................... 56
Results ................................................................................................................................... 56
Lessons from the Environmental Front................................................................................. 64
Gamemaster Handouts .................................................................................................................. 65
Gamemaster News Service – Examples .................................................................................................................. 66
If Chernobyl Disaster occurs ................................................................................................ 66
Send this before Helsinki ......................................................................................................................................... 68
Changes to Roles for Helsinki Conferences ............................................................................................................ 70
France - Change in Victory Objectives For Helsinki............................................................ 70
United Kingdom- Change for Helsinki 1984 ........................................................................ 72
Role Change Great Britain 3 –Lord Walter Marshall, Head CEGB .................................... 74
West Germany- New Victory Objectives for Helsinki ........................................................ 76
Change for Norway for Helsinki........................................................................................... 78
Poland- Change for Helsinki ................................................................................................. 80
Italy Role Change for Helsinki ............................................................................................. 82
1984 Changes for East Germany .......................................................................................... 84
Send this to entire class before the Sophia Conference ........................................................................................... 86
West Germany Change in Role for Sophia ........................................................................... 90
Sophia objectives for West Germany ................................................................................... 90
Change for Walter Wallmann, FRG-3 .................................................................................. 92
Britain Changes for Sophia Conference - For all GB roles .................................................. 94

3
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 96
Instructor Materials ....................................................................................................................... 97
Role Sheets .............................................................................................................................................................. 97
Faction Briefing ....................................................................................................................................................... 97
Executive Secretary of the UNECE for the Geneva Conference ............................................................................. 98
UN Representative Worksheet ............................................................................................ 102
UNECE Executive Secretary for the Helsinki Conference .................................................................................... 104
UNECE Executive Secretary for the Sophia Conference ...................................................................................... 106
Great Britain -1 Foreign Minister ...................................................................................................................... 108
Great Britain -2 – Head of Alkali Inspectorate ...................................................................................................... 122
Great Britain -3 Head of CEGB ............................................................................................................................. 128
Great Britain 4 – Cabinet Minister ........................................................................................................................ 134
Federal Republic of Germany-FRG (West Germany) 1 Foreign Minister ............................................................ 140
Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) 2 – Minister for the Environment ............................................... 154
Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) 3- Assistant Minister for the Environment ................................. 160
Federal Republic of Germany-FRG (West Germany) 4- Opposition Leader ........................................................ 164
France -1 Deputy Foreign Minister ....................................................................................................................... 168
France -2 Minister for the Environment ................................................................................................................ 172
France -3 Minister for Energy ............................................................................................................................... 176
Sweden-1 Minister of Agriculture ......................................................................................................................... 182
Sweden-2 Secretary General Swedish Red Cross .................................................................................................. 190
Sweden-3 Director Swedish EPA .......................................................................................................................... 196
Norway-1 Minister of Trade and Industry ............................................................................................................. 200
Norway-2 Minister of the Environment ................................................................................................................. 206
Norway 3 Conservative Party Leader .................................................................................................................... 214
Finland – Minister of Foreign Affairs .................................................................................................................... 218
Austria 1- Foreign Minister ................................................................................................................................... 222
Austria 2 – Minister of the Interior ........................................................................................................................ 228
Greece – Minister for Economic Coordination ...................................................................................................... 232
Spain – Minister of Foreign Affairs ....................................................................................................................... 238
The Netherlands –Minister of Foreign Affairs ...................................................................................................... 244
Ireland – Minister of Foreign Affairs .................................................................................................................... 250
Italy 1- Prime Minister........................................................................................................................................... 256
Italy 2 – Foreign Minister ...................................................................................................................................... 262
Czechoslovakia – Minister of Foreign Affairs ....................................................................................................... 266
Poland – Foreign Minister ..................................................................................................................................... 271
Hungary – Foreign Minister .................................................................................................................................. 276
East Germany (GDR) - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Democratic Republic
of Germany ............................................................................................................................................................ 282
Soviet Union (USSR) – Foreign Minister .............................................................................................................. 288
Content Quiz ............................................................................................................................... 291
Answer key to quiz ................................................................................................................................................ 292
Quiz ....................................................................................................................................................................... 294
Laboratory Experiments – General information ......................................................................... 300
Lab Instructions and Preparation ................................................................................................ 301
Experiment 1.......................................................................................................................................................... 301
Demonstration of Weak and Strong Acids ................................................................................. 302
Experiment 1. - Weak and Strong Acids .................................................................................... 304
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 304
Experiment Part #1 – Measuring pH with a pH electrode ..................................................................................... 305
Experiment Part #2 – Measuring total H+ ion concentration of standard acids using the Method of Titration ..... 306
Experiment Part #3 – Measuring total H+ ion concentration of rain samples using Titration................................ 307
Experiment 1 - Kitchen Chemistry version of Acid Base lab – Instructions and materials ....... 310
Experiment 1 - Acid Base Experiment Kitchen Version ............................................................ 312

4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 312
Part #1 – Measuring pH with pH Test Papers........................................................................................................ 313
Part #2 – Measuring total H+ ion concentration using the Method of Titration ..................................................... 313
Part #3. Analysis of Data ....................................................................................................................................... 314
Instructors information for Kitchen Chemistry Lab .............................................................................................. 318
Experiment 2 Setup and Equipment ........................................................................................... 320
Experiment 2 -Ecology and Food Webs – A Simulation Exercise ............................................. 321
Experiment 3- Exploration of SO2 Scrubbers: ........................................................................... 325
Experiment 4- Demonstration of Catalysts ................................................................................. 333

Tables

Table 1 1988 Pollution Data ........................................................................................................ 30


Table 2 Money Available to Countries and Costs for various levels of Reduction ...................... 32
Table 3 Table of Investments and Die Rolls for Financial Victory Point ................................... 33
Table 4 Money Scoring Table for Failed Treaty .......................................................................... 33
Table 5 Actual Emissions for each level of reduction .................................................................. 34
Table 6 Victory Objective and Scoring Checklist ....................................................................... 53

5
Acknowledgments
We thank the faculty and students who played early versions of this game for their useful
suggestions for improving it.

Prof. Scott Smedley reviewed the Ecology and Food Web lab and helped insure the accuracy of
the discussion.

6
“How to Teach with Reacting to the Past”
Reacting to the Past is a series of historical role-playing games. Students are given
elaborate game books which place them in moments of historical controversy and
intellectual ferment. The class becomes a public body of some sort; students, in role,
become particular persons from the period, often as members of a faction. Their purpose is
to advance a policy agenda and achieve their victory objectives. To do so, they will
undertake research and write speeches and position papers; and they will also give formal
speeches, participate in informal debates and negotiations, and otherwise work to win the
game. After a few preparatory lectures, the game begins and the players are in charge; the
instructor serves as adviser or “Gamemaster.” Outcomes sometimes differ from the actual
history; a post-mortem session at the end of the game sets the record straight.

1. Game Set-up
Before the game begins, instructors must help students to understand the historical
background. During the set-up period, students will read several different kinds of
material:
 The game book, which includes historical information, rules and elements of the game, and
essential documents; and
 Their roles, which describes the historical figures they will play in the game.

You may also assign primary and secondary sources outside the game book (perhaps
including one or more accompanying books). Some texts are recommended in the
annotated bibliography that appears in the Gamebook. Others may be suggested in the
schedule section of this IM. If you want players to use these readings, they need to be tied
in to the functioning of the game. Figure out how they tie into the game by relating them to
specific roles and particular assignments.
Characterize the set-up sessions as a brief introductory overview. Remind players that they
should go back and reread these materials throughout the game. A second reading while in
role will deepen their understanding. Remind players that players who have carefully read
the materials and who know the rules of the game will invariably do better than those who
rely on general impressions and uncertain recollections.
This IM provides prompts for leading discussions during these set-up sessions.

2. From Instructor to Gamemaster


Once the game begins, you become a Gamemaster (GM). During regular game sessions, this
means you will often take a seat in the back of the room. While no longer in control, you
may do any of the following:
 Pass notes to spur players to action;
 Announce the effects of actions taken inside the game on outside parties (e.g., neighboring
countries) or the effects of outside events on game actions (e.g., a declaration of war); and
 Interrupt and redirect proceedings that have gone off track.

Much more of your work will occur outside of the classroom. Guide players by responding
to their oral presentations and written work. Probably the best way you can help students

7
is to provide nearly immediate feedback of both. Quick feedback is important because the
game issues often shift rapidly.
In addition, it is quite likely that students (individually or in groups) will seek your counsel.
Sometimes these consultations will involve confusion with the situation or game
mechanics. Other times, they will involve students who are seeking some sort of in-game
advantage. Thus, the more familiar you are with the game the better.

3. Student-Centered Classroom
Once the game begins, certain players preside over the class sessions. These presiding
officers may be elected or appointed. The schedule section of this IM explains how this
process works. Make sure that you have taken the necessary steps to select the first
presiding officer before the game begins.
Presiding officers may act in a partisan fashion, speaking in support of particular interests,
but they must observe basic standards of fairness. As a failsafe device, most Reacting
games employ the “Podium Rule,” which allows a player who has not been recognized to
approach the podium and wait for a chance to speak. Once at the podium, the player has
the floor and must be heard.
Encourage students to avoid the colloquialisms and familiarities of today’s college life.
Never should the presiding officer, for example, open a session with the salutation, “Hi
guys.”

4. Role Playing
Role sheets are extremely important to players. Given their unfamiliarity with role-playing
and the chaotic and unpredictable nature of many of the class sessions, they will cling to
them like life preservers in a stormy sea. Encourage them to keep their role sheets close
and stress their confidential nature. Role sheets contain secrets!
It is unlikely that you will be able to master the contents of all the role sheets in this game –
particularly the first time you use it. Consequently, encourage students to bring their role
sheets along if they want to consult with you. Similarly, if you are corresponding with a
student, pull their role sheet up on a screen so that you can consult it with ease.
Roles are often clumped into factions. This gives these players allies. In many games, one
faction represents utopian theorists who seek to accommodate mankind to their
intellectual visions; another faction represents social “realists” who seek to adapt these
ideas to fit the obdurate shapes of human nature.
Remind faction members that in order to achieve their objectives, they will need the
support of other students. They will never have the strength to prevail without allies.
Consequently, collaboration and coalition-building are at the heart of every game. Along
these lines, discourage them from resorting to violence in order to achieve their objectives.
(Unless that is part of the learning objectives of this particular game). Remind these faction
members that every game includes roles that are undecided (or “indeterminate”) about
certain issues. Similarly, encourage indeterminate roles by reminding them that they are
the true kingmakers. Without their support, no faction can hope to prevail.

8
5. Liminality
Most games begin with some sort of “liminal moment.” For example, Threshold of
Democracy begins every session of the Athenian assembly with a pig sacrifice. These are
odd rituals that are not unlike the cry of “play ball” at the beginning of a baseball game.
They signal that the classroom has become a different place in which the students will be
interacting in strange, unusual, and delightful ways. As the game continues, students may
find that their liminality deepens.

6. Student discomfort
This sense of being immersed in a role may be particularly challenging to students charged
with promoting worldviews that are antithetical to their own beliefs. If this causes
discomfort, remind them that they are merely playing roles. Also remind them to direct
their criticisms at one another’s roles rather than one another as persons. (For example,
you may need to intervene if someone repeatedly says, "Sally's argument is ridiculous."
But encourage them to say, "Governor Winthrop's argument is ridiculous"). Similarly,
remind students that it is inappropriate to trade on out-of-class relationships when asking
for support within the game. ("Hey, you can't vote against me. We're both on the tennis
team!")
Remind students to always assume, when spoken to by a fellow player—whether in class
or out of class—that that person is speaking in role. Some roles may include elements of
conspiracy or deceit. Such roles will cause some students stress, so you should encourage
students to talk with you if they become uncomfortable with their roles. In the vast
majority of cases, you will be able to talk them through their discomfort. To encourage
these students make it clear that everyone is merely playing a role.

7. Victory
The challenges of achieving their victory objectives highly motivate many students even if
the impact on their grades is insignificant.

8. Assignments
In general, RTTP games require several distinct but interrelated activities:
 Reading: This standard academic work is carried on more purposefully in a
Reacting course, since what students read is put to immediate use.
 Research and Writing: The exact writing requirements depend on you, but in most
cases students will be writing to persuade others (particularly the indeterminates).
 Public Speaking and Debate: Expect most of your students to deliver at least one
formal speech from the podium.
 Strategizing: Communication among students is a pervasive feature of Reacting
games. Encourage them to continue the game outside of class. You may want
facilitate this by organizing their initial faction meetings – perhaps during a regular
class meeting.

9
Some game-specific variations on these requirements are described in the Assignments
section of the Gamebook, but for the most part, the particular structure of these
assignments is up to you. Tailor the game to fit your learning objectives by consulting the
suggestions in the Assignments section of this IM.

9. Schedule
Similarly, this IM includes a number of sample schedules. They should help you to fit the
game to a variety of formats as well as learning objectives.

10. Ahistorical outcomes


Every game includes the potential for ahistorical outcomes. These fall within a “plausibility
corridor” of possible counterfactual outcomes that have been designed by the author. If it is
important for you to retain historical verisimilitude you may want to keep this corridor
narrow. You can do this by nudging players to take certain actions or through deus ex
machina interventions. In either case, it is usually best to do this outside of regular game
sessions. Otherwise, students begin to feel as if they are your puppets.
Alternatively, if your learning objectives feature leadership, writing, and speaking you may
want to release these controls. As you balance between encouraging students and staying
true to the history, you may find yourself in a dilemma. For example, if a weak student who
rarely speaks makes a presentation that is riddled with historical errors, should you
immediately correct those errors publicly, which will ensure that the class learns the
correct history, or should you wait, let the mistakes go uncorrected, and build the student’s
confidence? Alternatively, what if an irrepressible student manages to cobble together an
implausible coalition? Should you jump into the fray by forcefully reminding each faction of
its purposes, or do you let it play out? This requires subtle judgment on complicated
matters of content, student psychology, and pedagogy. That is to say, you must be a good
teacher.

11. Debriefing
Every game ends with at least one session dedicated to debriefing. Comparing the historical
record with student experiences is often an excellent pedagogical exercise, which helps
students to understand historical causation and contingency. If nothing else, it provides
you with an opportunity to set the record straight.
In addition, this session allows students to exit the game. They put aside their game names,
reveal their secrets, and disclose any skullduggery. Encourage them to tell all – it is
important for them to put the conflicts between their roles behind them.

12. Modifications
Once you are familiar with the workings of the game, feel free to modify the game as you
see fit (to go off on your own, in readings, written assignments, etc.). It’s your game now.

10
13. How to teach this game as a non-scientist
This game has been used in both science and non-science courses. It was purposely developed to
bridge the unfortunate division that often exists in students’ minds between natural science and
the humanities and social sciences. It is important when using this game in a non-science course
to impress on the students the importance for everyone to be able to evaluate the scientific claims
that appear daily in the media. Without this ability, it is difficult for students to make decisions
on what to eat, how to deal with personal health, and how to vote on important issues of policy
related to the environment. Similarly, it is important for science students to understand the policy
implications of scientific research and how it may be applied.

To facilitate multiple uses of the game, the more detailed scientific material has been placed in
appendices. When used in a non-science course, instructors can omit this material completely.
The days in the setup of the game that would be devoted to this material can be spent instead
helping students understand how to evaluate popular scientific material in the media. You can
also use this time to work with factions to help them understand the summaries of technical
material provided in the gamebook. The bottom line for instructors is that you should omit
anything in the appendices that you are uncomfortable with. The game will function without that
material.

There is some scientific content as well as some quantitative material that is essential to many
games at the interface of science and policy. For example, the Acid Rain game expects that
students and instructors can divide emissions by GDP to get emissions per dollar of GDP and
similar ratios. Most RTTP science games require students to read simple graphs. We consider
these core college level skills. Instructors should never hesitate to refer students to their science
or math colleagues if students ask questions that they really can’t answer. Again, this will model
the import interdisciplinary aspects of the subjects of the games and the importance of
interdisciplinary collaboration for applying science to public policy.

How to teach this game as a non-scientist

This game is designed for use in both science and non-science courses. It was purposely
developed to bridge the unfortunate division that often exists in students’ minds between natural
science and the humanities and social sciences. In particular, it is designed to impress on the
students the importance for everyone to be able to evaluate the scientific claims that appear daily
in the popular media. Without this ability, it is difficult for students to make decisions on what to
eat, how to deal with personal health, and how to vote on important issues of policy related to the
environment. Similarly, it is important for science students to understand the policy implications
of scientific research and how it may be applied.

To facilitate multiple uses of the game, optional material has been placed in appendices.
Instructors can omit this material completely. The days in the setup of the game that would be
devoted to this material can be spent instead helping students understand how to evaluate popular
scientific material in the media. You can also use this time to work with factions to help them
understand the summaries of technical material provided in the core documents in the gamebook.

11
There is some scientific content as well as some quantitative material that is essential to many
games at the interface of science and policy. For example, the Acid Rain game expects that
students and instructors can divide emissions by GDP to get emissions per dollar of GDP and
similar ratios. Most RTTP science games require students to read simple graphs. We consider
these core college level skills. This game also includes summaries of technical papers that are
important to various roles. The student Gamebook has a section that discusses how to approach
technical material. Instructors should never hesitate to refer students to their science or math
colleagues if students ask questions that they really can’t answer. Again, this will model the
import interdisciplinary aspects of the subjects of the games and the importance of
interdisciplinary collaboration for applying science to public policy.

Introduction

Game Synopsis

This game covers a ten-year period in which the nations of Europe formulated and expanded the
Long Range Transport Air Pollution Treaty (LRTAP). This treaty continues to be expanded and
is a model for regional cooperation on environmental issues. However, the road to this treaty was
not smooth. The game consists of three of the negotiating settings that represented critical
junctures. The game begins in 1979 at the Geneva, Switzerland UNEC meeting. This meeting led
to a treaty with no specific goals and no enforcement. It did provide money for research that
showed the extent of the problem and provided the scientific data to support a stronger treaty.
The second section of the game is the Helsinki, Finland meeting in 1984 at which binding limits
were finally included in the treaty. The final session in Sophia, Bulgaria expanded the treaty
beyond sulfur dioxide pollution and included nitrogen oxide pollution as well. The game is
designed to include as many of the pressures and political forces at work in Europe at this time
and will often lead to an outcome similar to the actual historical one. However, this is by no
means guaranteed.

The subtexts for the negotiations on pollution were the effort to form the European Union as a
unified economic force and the desire of Eastern European nations to gain acceptance and
support from Western Europe.

The goal of this game is to introduce students to a complex issue of environmental science,
specifically acid precipitation, in the context of the economic, political, social, and philosophical
factors that come into play in the effort to protect the environment. Students will need to learn
sufficient background in chemistry and environmental science to understand the fundamental
issues. The Game Book contains a background section on acid base chemistry and acid rain
which should be sufficient background for a first year college student with no previous college
science but with the normal high school science background.

12
Learning Objectives

The primary learning objective is for students to understand the fact that the entire ecosystem is a
linked system where damage to any part damages the whole. Specifically, the focus is on acid
forming pollution and the damage that results. However, the game is a proxy for any of the
ongoing international pollution control debates. The parallels with climate change negotiations
are clear and direct. Students also learn the various ways in which people relate to the
environment and the economic factors that are considered by policymakers in forming
environmental policy.

Key Concepts

 The nature of Acids and Bases and how they react with each other
 Chemical Equilibrium and the difference between strong and weak acids
 The impact of acid precipitation on ecology, health, and infrastructure
 Food webs in the interconnectedness of living things
 The chemistry involved in the formation of SMOG
 The role of catalysts in chemical reactions
 The primary sources of sulfur dioxide pollution
 The primary sources of nitrogen oxide pollution
 Pollution control strategies
 The toxicity of lead
 The role of lead in gasoline
 The role and relative safety of nuclear power
 Economic disparities between nations
 The concept of environmental justice in the context of transfer of resources from wealthy polluters to
poor polluters for the benefit of all.
 Transnational nature of pollution
 Philosophical differences in approach to pollution in various countries

Model Schedules
The game is broken into different sessions, each of which should last about 60-75 minutes. In
most cases, these correspond to separate class meetings. One setup session can be cut for classes
that require compression by combining the environmental philosophy and Ecology sessions. This
is not ideal, but the game should still function normally. If game sessions need to be cut, it is
recommended that the Sophia session be eliminated.

For non-science courses, there should be a discussion of how students should approach reading
the technical articles. This will often happen in the second setup session. The gamebook has a
section on this in the How to React section.

To prepare players for the game, 2-3 sessions should be devoted to background and historical
context. The setup sessions can also be used to help students understand the core text material for
the games included in the gamebook. These should be followed by 5-6 game sessions and one

13
debriefing session. If 4 sessions are available for setup, it is recommended that a setup session be
added between the Helsinki and Sophia sessions to discuss lead pollution and smog.

Standard Schedule
1 Setup session 1 Introduction to game, acids, bases, and the chemistry of rain GB
pp. 14-40 & 44-46
2 Setup session 2 (optional)
Environmental Philosophy discussion and Faction Meetings GB pp. 110-120
This session can also be used to help students read and understand the technical
papers. GB pp. 44-52
3 Setup session 3 Ecology using Optional texts GB pp. 103-4
Optional Experiment 2 IM p. 317
Discussion of Food Webs and ecology.
Faction Meetings
4 Game session 1 Geneva 1
Geneva News and Scientific Reports in Core Documents GB pp. 46-52
5 Game session 2 Geneva 2
6 Game session 3 Helsinki 1
Helsinki News and Research in Core Documents GB pp. 52-83
7 Game session 4 Helsinki 2
8 Game session 5 Sophia 1
Sophia News and Technical Background in Core Document GB pp. 83-103
9 Game session 6 Sophia 2
10 Debriefing

Expanded Schedule
The schedule in the Gamebook mentions a possible extra set-up day. If you take this option, you
may want to use this to provide more in-depth study of the historical context, or the examination
of the historical documents using more traditional methods of instruction. Depending on the
nature of the course, there are several labs that can be included in an expanded schedule. The
strong acid/weak acid lab is an excellent choice to emphasize the underlying chemistry while the
food web lab emphasizes ecology. Alternatively, more attention can be placed on the readings
from Lovelock and Leopold. Such a session should probably fall between setup session one and
setup session two.
For non-science courses, time can be spent going over strategies for dealing with the technical
summaries and helping students find the relevant material for their arguments.

14
Expanded Schedule
1 Setup session 1 Introduction to the game, acids and bases GB pp.
14-40
2 Setup session 2 Optional Lab - Experiment 1 Acids and Bases IM
pp. 297-316
This session can also be used to help students read and
understand the technical papers.
3 Setup session 3 Environmental Philosophy and Environmental
Economics.GB pp. 110-120 discussion and Faction Meetings
4 Setup session 4 Ecology
Geneva News and Scientific Reports in Core Documents
GB pp. 46-52
5 Game session 1 Geneva 1
6 Game session 2 Geneva 2
7 Game session 3 Helsinki 1
Helsinki News and Research in Core Documents pp. 52-83
8 Game session 4 Helsinki 2
9 Setup session 5 Smog, ozone, and lead poisoning Sophia News
and Technical Background in Core Document GB pp. 83-103
10 Game session 5
11 Game session 6
12 Debriefing

Compressed Schedule
If you are really pressed for time, you may eliminate setup session three and game sessions five
and six.

There are shorter versions of this game available that require even less class time. European
Response to SO2 Pollution and European Response to NOx Pollution involve only two sessions
of game play. The short forms of this game involve revised roles and other features designed to
facilitate use in a very compressed schedule. Alternate roles are provided for this in a separate
document.

Compressed Schedule
1 Setup session 1 Introduction to game, acids, bases, and the chemistry of
rain GB pp. 14-40 & 44-46
2 Setup session 2 (optional)
Environmental Philosophy discussion and Faction Meetings GB pp. 110-
120
This session can also be used to help students read and understand the
technical papers. GB pp. 44-52

15
3 Setup session 3 Ecology using Optional texts GB pp. 103-4
Optional Experiment 2 IM p. 317
Discussion of Food Webs and ecology.
Faction Meetings
4 Game session 1 Geneva 1
Geneva News and Scientific Reports in Core Documents GB pp. 46-52
5 Game session 2 Geneva 2
6 Game session 3 Helsinki 1
Helsinki News and Research in Core Documents GB pp. 52-83
7 Game session 4 Helsinki 2
8 Debriefing

Short 1984 Game Schedule

The short 2 session game is centered on the Helsinki meeting. The game setup for this game
includes the fact that a treaty was approved in 1979 that did not have any specific goals for
reduction of sulfur emissions. The students need to understand that the factions have shifted and
the German delegation is no longer supporting Great Britain.

Separate roles are available for the short version that have some differences from the roles of the
long game.
Helsinki Conference News in the Core Documents contains summaries of a number of articles
from Nature that set the stage for current situation in 1984. Helsinki Country Specific articles
section contains summaries of country specific articles from technical journals and some general
articles on acid rain for Europe.

Compressed Schedule
1 Setup session 1 Introduction to game, acids and acid precipitation GB pp. 14-40
2 Setup session Ecology and Environmental Philosophy
Helsinki News and Research in Core Documents This session can be used to help
students read and understand the technical papers. GB pp. 53-82
3 Game session 1 Helsinki 1
4 Game session 2 Helsinki 2
5 Debriefing

16
Short 1987 Game Schedule

The short 2 session game is centered on the Sophia meeting. The game setup for this game
includes the fact that a treaty was approved in 1984 to produce 30% reductions in SO2 emissions
in continental Europe with Britain doing less. The students need to understand that the factions
have shifted and the German delegation is now somewhat isolated as the only country that
strongly supports requirements for catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline.

Separate roles are available for the short version that have some differences from the roles of the
long game.

Reading assignments for this game include Appendices 8 and 9 in the Gamebook. Sophia
Conference News in Core Documents contains summaries of a number of articles from Nature
that provide students with a background on the context of the problem in 1987. The technical
background section summarizes several major articles on automotive technology, leaded
gasoline, and the serious problem of lead pollution.

Compressed Schedule
1 Setup session 1 Introduction to game, acids and acid precipitation GB pp.
14-40
2 Setup session Ecology and Environmental Philosophy (optional) GB pp.
110-120
Sophia News and Technical Background in Core Document This session
can be used to help students read and understand the technical papers. GB
pp. 83-103
3 Game session 1 Sophia 1
4 Game session 2 Sophia 2
5 Debriefing

Long Class Meetings Schedule


For classes with meetings that last 120 minutes or more, sessions can be combined. Make sure to
have a break between game sessions two and three because the handouts that players get to set
up game session three is lengthy. Similarly, a break between session four and five is necessary
due to additional readings.
Long class meetings
1 Setup session 1 & 2 Introduction to game, acids and acid rain,
GB pp. 14-40, Ecology using Optional texts GB pp. 103-4
Optional Experiment 2 IM p. 317
Discussion of Food Webs and ecology.
Faction Meetings
2 Setup session 3 environmental philosophy Geneva News and Scientific Reports
in Core Documents GB pp. 41-52
and Game session 1

17
3 Game session 2 & setup Helsinki News and Research in Core GB pp. 53-82
4 Game session 3 & 4 Helsinki
5 Setup Sophia
Sophia News and Technical Background in Core Document GB pp. 83-103
and Game session 5
6 Game session 6 & Debriefing

Additional Information on Customizing the Schedule

The game has been designed so that it can be used in a variety of settings. For courses where the
emphasis is on the science, there are several full length labs that can be used. Some of the labs
are provided in short form or as demonstrations which can be done by faculty members
unfamiliar with the science and who lack access to laboratory supplies and equipment. Other
users may wish to place more emphasis on the economic and philosophical issues and minimize
the science content. The game will function equally well in this environment. The quantitative
aspects of the game can also be emphasized or minimized as desired. A spreadsheet version of
Table 2 is provided which can be used to lead students through the process of doing calculations
using MS Excel.

For non-science courses, part of the setup should include time spent discussing the section of the
How to React on reading the technical literature and helping students with the specific articles
they need for their roles.

The number of classes used for this game can be adjusted in several ways beyond those in the
tables above. It is possible to expand the game by including more labs, quantitative exercises,
and discussion of scientific papers. It is also easy to shorten the game by deleting Game sessions
5 & 6. These two classes deal with a different form of acid pollution, NOx and SMOG and can
be removed to focus only on sulfur dioxide pollution.

Roles and Factions


The factions for the game are changed between each phase of the game. The students will not be
able to anticipate this and the game book only warns that alliances may change in RTTP games.
The factions will change during the game due to local political changes that occur during the 10
year course of the game. The Gamemaster will announce these changes periodically between
game sessions using the Gamemaster News Service. This can take the form of emails to the class
or postings on the class web site. There are also some changes in victory objectives which will be
communicated as a result of these changes. This will prove disconcerting to the factions as they
did in real life.

18
Factions for Geneva

The countries in the game can be roughly divided by those who want a strong treaty and those
who don’t want to do anything to reduce their emissions. The indeterminates generally are in
favor of a treaty but can only sign under certain conditions. Within these factions, the countries
and even the representatives of the same country may not be in agreement. Some country
delegations include both environmentalists and industry leaning members.

Opposed to a Strong Treaty

The UK and West Germany lead the faction of major polluters at the beginning of the game.
Both are opposed to significant pollution reductions. The UK exports much of its pollution and
will benefit less from pollution controls. The desire of West Germany and the UK to move
toward a more united Europe is the only real incentive for an agreement. Their roles are written
such that it should be virtually impossible for them to accept any SPECIFIC reductions in a
treaty at Geneva. They will only agree to general statements and will insist on “economic
feasibility” as a way for them to resist reductions. Italy is in this group as well and is generally
opposed to any agreement, particularly if it will cost money. Due to the rules of the EEC, Britain,
France, Italy, and West Germany must all agree in order for the EEC to do anything. Thus, the
UK. West Germany, and Italy can all block action at Geneva.

Supporting a Strong Treaty

The lead Plaintiffs who are asking for pollution reduction are Norway and Sweden. The
Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden, and Finland receive most of their acid pollution from
other countries. No amount of pollution control on their part will make a significant difference.
They are dependent on other nations’ efforts. Thus, they expect to receive major environmental
benefits from a treaty.

France and the Netherlands have already committed to major pollution reductions France is
planning an 80% reduction by a switch to nuclear power plants. The Netherlands has
implemented a program of major emission reductions by installing scrubbers on power plants.
France wants everyone else to implement pollution controls for economic reasons. France is
probably most interested in European unity and the French role is critical to convincing the
others to sacrifice for the good of a common European position. The Netherlands expects to
receive credit for their reductions and to be exempt from further requirements.

The Eastern European nations, the USSR, Poland, East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia
form a separate faction, but they also generally want a treaty if they can get money from the
West to help pay for it. They all have weak economies and are major polluters. Their main
reason for participation in the treaty is a desire for recognition as partners in Europe. They may
feel that they can agree to a treaty and then just not follow through. There are only minor
differences in their roles which reflect slightly different economic and political conditions. Since
they are not in a position to pay the costs of extensive pollution control, they will expect
financial support from the West in return for reducing their pollution. They may also wish a two
tiered system or exemption from limits. They are joined in this faction by Austria and Finland.

19
Austria receives much of its pollution from the East, and needs their participation to achieve real
improvements. They also have the closest ties to the East. Finland is also close to the Communist
block and the cost-benefit analysis by the OECD shows no financial benefit for them to spend
money on pollution reduction unless someone else pays for it.

Indeterminate Countries

The Indeterminate faction in the game consists mainly of countries with weak economies and
low energy intensity. These are also countries that do not receive major inputs of acid from other
countries. This group includes Spain, Ireland, and Greece. Each has slightly different economic
interests and each suffers the impact of acid in different ways. The fraction of acid pollution
generated locally varies from 75% for Italy to 2% for Greece. Some country delegations include
both environmentalists and industry leaning members.

Changing Factions for Helsinki

Before the beginning of the Helsinki phase, West Germany will shift and join Norway, Sweden,
and France in pressing for a 30% treaty. This will leave the UK isolated and alone. However,
they still have veto power in the EEC and you will need to reassure them that they still have
considerable control. The UK will also take a softer stance and should be willing to accept a 20%
treaty. But the Helsinki phase provides an intractable break between those who want at least 30%
and the UK which cannot go beyond 20%. Someone will lose this argument. It is possible that a
30% treaty will emerge and that the UK will refuse to sign it.

Changing Factions for Sophia

For the final Sophia phase, the UK has lost its veto but gains some allies. In this phase, there are
really three factions. The UK, France, Norway, and Spain are united in two ways. They are
willing to freeze NOx pollution but not to require catalytic converters. Austria, Netherlands,
Sweden, and West Germany will all push for a 30% reduction of NOx. West Germany is
adamant about requiring catalytic converters on all cars. They will have little support on this.
Finally, Italy and the East Bloc form a group that wants no limits on NOx. In all cases, they want
to expand car ownership and depend on small, cars. They may argue for a two tiered approach or
exemptions from the limits.

Role Names for the roles all represent real people and but not necessarily their actual positions.
We do not know the names of the people actually attending the conferences. During the 10 year
period covered by the game, political changes would have led many of the people in Foreign
Minister roles to have changes. This is not reflected in the game since it adds unnecessary
complications. However, if the initial role assignments are not working, people can be given new
names and assigned to new countries if needed. The normal shifts in factions are fairly disruptive
of the classroom environment, so this drastic step is not recommended except when the
classroom dynamics really need to be shaken up. The short game Instructors Manuals for

20
Helsinki and Sophia can be consulted for the names of people holding the roles in 1984 and
1987.

Important notes on distribution of roles


The Secretary General’s Envoy is a key role and the Gamemaster needs to work with this person
to insure she knows that she must pressure all sides to compromise on their objectives during the
Geneva sessions. If the Envoy succeeds, she will receive a role sheet for the next sessions. If not,
she may be given an Indeterminate role and the Gamemaster will choose another student to be
the Special Envoy. That person should normally be chosen from the Indeterminates so that the
balance of the game is not disrupted. However, if one faction appears to be too strong, the game
can be rebalanced by removing someone from any of the major factions. If the Envoy does a
good job in her role, and of course this is the expectation, then she will continue in the role.

In addition to the UN Representative, there are 3-5 other roles that should be given to strong
students if possible. That will insure a good balance in the debates. A good strategy is to divide
the class into several groups.
Great Britain 1- This role needs to make a strong Utilitarian case and runs the British
delegation.
West Germany 2- This is a secret Deep Ecology role and is challenging.
Norway 2- This is the other Deep Ecology role.
Austria – This role is needed to make a strong case for Eastern European participation
Ireland or Spain - This is a key less developed country role.

One way to manage the distribution of roles is to put the strong students (possibly those scoring
best on the quiz or based on previous games) in one group and have them choose from among
the above roles. If you have played another Reacting game before this, place the indeterminates
from that game in a group and have them chose from envelopes containing roles from Britain,
West Germany, and Scandinavia so they will have the experience of working with a faction. This
approach to distributing insures that each major topic is covered by at least one strong student
while maintaining a sense of fairness through a lottery.

Because students will sometimes diverge from the historical trajectory of events, the Envoy role
can be modified as needed for the second and third portions of the game to reflect the reality of
the ongoing discussions. The Gamemaster News announcements can also be used by the
Gamemaster to apply pressure to specific countries delegates to adjust the trajectory of the game
if needed.

Some roles, specifically Britain and West Germany, have changes which students do not receive
until the specified time. Changes can be distributed by email or in print form as desired.

21
Suggested Order for Distribution of Roles
Roles and factions are shown in the table below. The list that follows is the recommended order
for distribution of roles by name. For classes of only 12 students, it is necessary to have one
student represent both Czechoslovakia and Poland. Without this there are problems in scoring the
money at the end of the game.

Class Size Role list * this symbol denotes EEC countries Faction
12 UN Representative
*United Kingdom 1 - Under Secretary of State Polluter
*United Kingdom 2 -Chief Alkali Inspector Polluter
*West Germany 1 Green
* West Germany 2 Green
Norway 1 Green
Norway 2 Green
*France Green
Czechoslovakia (plus Poland if only 12 students) East Block
Austria East Block
*Ireland Indeterminate
*Italy Indeterminate
13 Poland East Block
14 Spain Indeterminate
15 *United Kingdom 3 Polluter
16 *Sweden 1 Green
17 *Italy 2 Indeterminate
18 *France 2 Green
19 *West Germany 3 Green
20 *Greece Indeterminate
21 *Sweden 2 Green
22 East Germany East Block
23 USSR East Block
24 *France 3 Green
25 *Netherlands Green
26 *United Kingdom 4 Polluter
27 Hungary East Block
28 Finland East Block
29 *West Germany 4 Green
30 Norway 3 Green
31 *Sweden 3 Green

*EEC countries

22
Order of Distribution in Numerical Order

1. UN Representative
2. Foreign Minister – Great Britain 1
3. Foreign Minister – West Germany 1
4. Foreign Minister – France 1
5. Minister of Trade and Industry – Norway1
6. Foreign Minister – Austria
7. Foreign Minister – Czechoslovakia
8. Foreign Minister – Ireland
9. Chief Alkali Inspector – Great Britain 2
10. Minister for Environment – West Germany 2
11. Prime Minister – Italy 1
12. Minister for the Environment – Norway 1
13. Foreign Minister – Poland
14. Foreign Minister – Spain
15. Head CEGB – Great Britain 3
16. Minister for Agriculture – Sweden 1
17. Foreign Minister – Italy2
18. Minister for the Environment – France 2
19. Assistant Minister for the Environment– West Germany 3
20. Foreign Minister -Greece
21. Foreign Minister – Sweden 2
22. First Secretary - East Germany
23. Foreign Minister -USSR
24. Minister of Energy – France 3
25. Foreign Minister – The Netherlands
26. Special Asst. to Undersecretary of State – Great Britain 4
27. Foreign Minister – Hungary
28. Foreign Minister – Finland
29. Opposition Leader – West Germany 4
30. Conservative Party Leader – Norway 3
31. Director, Swedish EPA – Sweden 3

Additional Roles

If more roles are needed Austria, Ireland, Spain, and the East Bloc roles can be duplicated.

23
Game Setup

Rules and Procedures

Game Sessions

Each game session will consist of plenary sessions of the UNECE. These sessions will be led by the UN
Representative, who has been given the task of insuring that a treaty is produced. The UN
Representative is responsible only to the UN Secretary General (the Gamemaster in this case)
and does not represent a specific country. The Gamemaster may replace a UN Representative
who is not successful in leading the conference to a reasonable outcome. Conference sessions
may be adjourned at any time for meetings of the various national factions. It will also be
necessary to have the EEC representatives hold a joint faction meeting since they must all agree
on any action before any member can vote for it. These EEC meetings will normally occur near
the end of the last session of each conference.

The Gamemaster may also conduct a die roll during each game session. These die rolls are used
to determine various political and environmental events that may or may not occur during the
game. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster is the main focus of this die roll, but the students should
not be informed of this fact. The die roll with no obvious outcome adds a sense of mystery and
uncertainty. If the GM decides to invoke the Chernobyl disaster, this may be done based on any
die roll outcome she chooses.

Leadership issues

The Leadership of the Conference is in the hands of the UN Representative role. The instructor
should insure that the person chosen for this role is capable to manage the sessions. This role is
challenging and requires the student to pressure the other students to reach an agreement. The
UN Representative role is assigned for only the Geneva sessions. The role includes the fact that
if the student does not do a good job, they can be replaced by the Secretary General. Should you
feel you need a stronger person in the role, you may assign another student, preferably one of the
indeterminates, to the role and give the former UN Rep a country role for the remainder of the
game.

EEC Meetings –Since each EEC country has a veto in the EEC, they will need to meet to discuss
the proposals and come to an agreement. Part of the time for the Geneva sessions will be devoted
to the EEC meeting. France will hold the rotating chair of the EEC during this period. The non-
EEC countries can meet as a faction or can observe the EEC meeting and comment if allowed.

During the Helsinki session, the EEC will be chaired by West Germany. Again, faction meetings
will include EEC meetings. The leadership of the German faction can be transferred to the secret

24
“Green party” role if she has done a good job of keeping her role secret and also articulating the
green position in writing that has been made available to the class.

For the Sophia conference, the EEC faction meetings become less important and may be
dropped. In 1987, the EEC removed the veto power of each nation and moved to a simple
majority rule to which all EEC members must comply. This reduces the power of countries
within the EEC.

A faction meeting for the EEC will presumably involve some discussion and then a vote. Each
delegate from each country has one vote, which means that England and West Germany have
more votes than the small countries. This reflects the historical reality nicely.

We have observed that for larger classes, it is useful to work with the leader to organize the
debate and insure issues are heard in a timely manner. A recent leader used a short faction
meeting immediately after the introduction of the session to allow each faction to select one
person to make the primary presentation. Some factions used more or all of their members to
make the presentation, but the idea of a faction presentation sped up the process and allowed
more time for debate. During the initial sessions, he also refused to allow any discussion of
money which kept the session focused on scientific and philosophical issues.

Voting

Each country casts one vote in the UNECE sessions, the role casting the vote for larger countries
is identified in the role sheets. The entire national delegation needs to agree and can be polled if
desired.

During EEC meetings, the rotating Chair of the EEC replaces the UN Representative as leader.
Britain, West Germany, France, and Italy have 2 votes each. Other EEC members have 1 vote.
During the Geneva and Helsinki sessions, each country has a veto in that all votes must be
unanimous. During the Sophia sessions, the majority vote is binding on all members.

The Role of Money in the Game

The biggest challenge in writing this game was to include financial incentives into the roles in a
realistic manner. The assumptions and calculations used to develop the resulting roles and
incentives are based on the OECD models in The Costs and Benefits of Sulphur Oxide
Control, 1981. The general principle was that no country could afford to spend more than about
0.25 % of their annual GDP on sulfur reduction. The data from this report was used to construct
the models for this game.

Each country begins the game with a fixed amount of money which can be spent on pollution
reduction or not, as the students choose. The total money in the game is sufficient to achieve an
overall 30% reduction, but students will not know that and will not know how much each
country has. They will also be reluctant to part with their money unless everyone is going to join

25
the treaty. Eastern European countries have very few resources available and the only way for
them to succeed is for wealthy countries to provide resources for pollution reduction.

France does not get any money. The French government has recently committed to spend
approximately 1% of GDP per year to build nuclear power plants. This is at least four times the
commitment of any other country in the game. As a result, France cannot spend anything else in
the game. But France will also exceed the 30% pollution reduction. The French role in the game
is to pressure the nations of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to pass a
treaty. They do not have any money to help this along, but have already made a much bigger
financial commitment than any other country is being asked to do. So they hold the moral high
ground. They can only win the financial victory point if the total spent by all countries reaches
the threshold.

During the game, if a treaty is adopted which requires expenditures for pollution control, each
country must pay the associated costs for their country to the game master. The total amount
spent on pollution control will determine one victory point for each country based on whether the
total spent is high enough to produce significant pollution reductions throughout Europe.

There are two possible outcomes for the money. If the total money committed to the treaty
implementation is greater than the amount needed in Table 3 Table of Investments and Die Rolls
for Financial Victory Point, then everyone wins a victory point for a successful treaty, whether
they gave money or not. If the total committed falls short of the needed amount, then the only
people who get a victory point are those who kept at least 75% of their total money. Every
country that spent at least 25% of their money fails to get a victory point.

To add contingency to the game, there are two degrees of uncertainty. The actual amount
required for the treaty to succeed varies from 74-86% of the total money available depending on
a die roll. Furthermore, this amount is not announced and is unknown to the students. All they
know is the amount required for their own country to reach each level of pollution control and
the total needed for all of Europe. This is designed to apply peer pressure for everyone to
participate but represents a game theory scenario similar to the actual situation.

Students may attempt to propose Cap and Trade or other market mechanisms. If they do this, you
need to ask them to focus on overall reductions and not to worry about specific mechanisms.
Make it clear that they are welcome to implement such mechanisms internally, but not for the
overall treaty due to the lack of markets in Eastern Europe.

In one recent workshop, faculty playing the game realized that it made more sense to spend
money to reduce emissions from high polluting country like Czechoslovakia than a very low
polluting country like Ireland. Using the table of emissions (Gamebook Table 2), the class was
able to devise a scenario in which every country had different levels of reductions. They took
advantage of the fact that in 1984 West Germany was reducing by 50% and the French nuclear
program was going to make a 70% reduction in France. By carefully allocating their money, they
were able to get an overall 40% reduction of total European emissions while the British spent
only about 2/3 of their money. This is not an expected scenario, but should the class discover this
strategy, it essentially allows everyone to win, since the reductions for Britain can be only 20%

26
and the overall European 30% target is met. If this happens, it is an opportunity to discuss market
mechanisms and the opportunities that Cap and Trade and similar mechanisms allow.

West Germany is a special case. They start the game in a strong anti-regulatory position and with
lots of money. Their roles make it almost impossible that they would spend their money at the
end of the Geneva Conference. However, before the Helsinki sessions begin, they receive a role
update that shifts this position completely. At the same time, they are required to pay the
Gamemaster $9,000 to meet the 50% reduction in pollution that their government decides to
make. At this point, they really need to get everyone else to agree to a treaty to reap the benefits
of the expenditure. If the treaty fails to reach its threshold, they cannot win the money point. This
puts them in a position similar to France and they change factions. If the Green delegate has done
a good job, she can also be elevated to lead the delegation. The Chernobyl disaster is assumed to
have two canceling impacts on the game money. The shift away from nuclear power will
presumably increase the costs to West Germany of pollution control. At the same time, the
population becomes more willing to accept these costs. Therefore, the game does not require any
changes in money due to this event.

Air Pollution Data


The Game book contains historical air pollution data for the period up to the beginning of the
first game session in 1979. (GB pp. 21-22) The information which follows is divided into three
sections. They are designed to bring the class up to date on progress in pollution control which
has occurred between the game sessions.

At the end of the Geneva phase, each nation should decide if they will spend any of their funds to
control pollution. They may also give money to other countries to reduce their pollution. The
overall pollution reduction for Europe will be estimated based on a simple model using the total
money spent and the total needed for pollution reduction. This is a simplification that assumes
the money is spent in the most efficient way.

Contingent Events and Role Changes

The disaster at Chernobyl occurred on April 25, 1986. There are several ways that this can be
incorporated into the game play.
 If the French faction has done a very strong job of pushing for nuclear power plants, the GM can
announce this event at any time.
 The random nature of this event can be simulated with a Dice Roll – a pair of dice are rolled each
class. The presumption is that this was a random event due to operator error and could have
occurred at any time. It is suggested that a roll of 2 represent the disaster, but the odds can be
increased by making any pair cause the disaster. The dice can be rolled one more time in each
successive session, making the odds of the disaster rise during the game. Students should not be
informed of the purpose of this dice roll. They can be told only that it determines various historical
factors which the Gamemaster will communicate as needed.
 The disaster can be announced between the Helsinki and Sophia sessions where it actually occurred.
 It can be ignored. If nuclear power has not been actively discussed, it will have little impact on the
debate.

27
If the Chernobyl disaster occurs, new role sheets will be distributed to some factions.

West Germany- Green party gains seats in Bundestag and nuclear plants start to close.
.
Scandinavia and Finland take strong anti-nuclear stands.

France expands nuclear even more.

If no disaster occurs, then all nations are free to use nuclear as an alternate power source to avoid
pollution.

28
Guide to Abbreviations

BTU – British Thermal Units, a measure of energy

CMEA – Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

CSCE – Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe

CDU – Christian Democratic Union a West German political party

EEC – European Economic Community

EMEP – Evaluation of Long Range Transport of Air Pollution in Europe

EU – European Union

FGD- Flue Gas Desulfurization

FRG – Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GDR – Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany)

H+ - hydrogen ion, chemical species that is used to measure the level or degree of acidity of an
aqueous solution

MW – megawatts- term used to describe a quantity of electricity

NGO – Non Governmental Organization

NOx – generic term for nitrogen oxides

OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

pH- the Hydrogen Ion concentration expressed as the negative logarithm-used to describe the
acidity of an aqueous solution expressed in numbers between 1-7, where 1 indicates a very
strong acid and 7 indicates a very weak acid.

ppm – parts per million – a measure of concentration

SO2 – sulfur dioxide, pollutant associated with burning of coal and coal fired plants

UK- United Kingdom (Britain, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland)

UNECE- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

29
WTO – World Trade Organization

Table 1 1988 Pollution Data

30
31
Do not distribute this table. Students should not have a clear understanding of how much money
each country has or the total costs. This is part of negotiations.
Table 2 Money Available to Countries and Costs for various levels of Reduction 1

Money for each Country and the Cost of Various % Reductions in SO2 in Millions of
Constant US Game Dollars
County Money 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
available
UK 5,500 20 250 1,100 2,500 4,300 7,000 10,000
Austria 800 20 50 200 350 500 700 900
Czechoslovakia 300 500 750 1,100 2,000 2,800 3,600 4,800
West Germany 11,000 2,200 2,800 4,400 6,000 8,000 10,600 13,400
Ireland 50 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,600
Italy 600 300 400 500 650 900 1,100 1,400
Norway 900 600 700 1,600 2,500
Poland 400 700 1,000 1,800 2,800 3,800 5,000 6,000
Subtotal 12-13
19,550 4,740 6,300 10,200 16,100 22,300 31,000 40600
students
Spain 150 400 450 550 750 1,000 1,400 1,800
Subtotal 14
19,700 5,140 6,,750 10,750 16,850 23,300 32,400 42400
students
Sweden 600 200 300 600 900 1,200 1,600 2,000
Subtotal 16
20300 5340 7050 11,350 17,750 24,500 34,000 44400
students
Greece 50 1,100 1,200 1,550 2,000 2,100 2,550 3050
Subtotal 20
20,350 6,440 8,250 12,900 19,750 26,600 36,550 47450
students
East Germany 50 800 1,300 2,400 3,000 4,000 5,500 6,600
Subtotal 22
20,400 7,240 9,550 15,300 22,750 30,600 42,050 51050
students
Netherlands 500 8,500 9,500 11,000 12,700 14,500 16,400 1,000
Subtotal 25
20,900 17,740 19,050 26,300 35,450 45,100 58,450 52050
students
Finland 200 350 400 500 650 750 850 18000
Subtotal 27-31
students 21,100 18,040 19,450 26,800 36,100 45,850 59,300 70050

1
Subtotals are provided for each class size so you will know how much money is required to reach possible target
pollution reductions. These subtotals reflect overall reductions with all nations participating equally.

32
Scoring the Money Victory Point

Table 3 below shows the threshold of money committed to the treaty that allows the class to win
the money Victory Point. Because the amount of money available depends on the countries
present, the threshold varies with class size. The die roll also changes the value of the threshold
for victory. Use this table to determine whether the treaty agreed by the class reaches the
threshold.

If the threshold is met, each country gets one money Victory point.
If the threshold is not met, any country that kept at least 75% of their initial money wins a money
Victory Point.

Lower numbers on the die mean a lower threshold to meet the victory objective.

Table 3 Table of Investments and Die Rolls for Financial Victory Point
Die Roll
Number
of 1 2 3 4 5 6
Students
12-13 $12,150 $13,500 $15,000 $15,750 $16,538 $17,364
14-15 $12,312 $13,680 $15,200 $15,960 $16,758 $17,596
16-19 $12,920 $14,355 $15,950 $16,748 $17,585 $18,464
20-21 $14,337 $15,930 $17,700 $18,585 $19,514 $20,490
22 $15,390 $17,100 $19,000 $19,950 $20,800 $20,800
23-24 $15,795 $17,550 $19,500 $20,475 $20,800 $20,800
25-30 $16,100 $18,000 $19,900 $20,895 $21,000 $21,300

If the total money spent is less than that in the Table 3, use Table 4 to determine the victory
points for countries that saved their money.

Table 4 Money Scoring Table for Failed Treaty


Die Roll Percent of initial money saved
1 79
2 77
3 75
4 73
5 71
6 69

33
Table 5 Actual Emissions for each level of reduction

SO2
Country Emissions Reduction %

Million
metric
Country tons/year[1] 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

U.K. 4.7 4.23 3.76 3.29 2.82 2.35 1.88


East Germany 4.0 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.6
West Germany 3.5 3.15 2.8 2.45 2.1 1.75 1.4
France 3.4 3.06 2.72 2.38 2.04 1.7 1.36

Czechoslovakia 3.37 3.033 2.696 2.359 2.022 1.685 1.348


Italy 3.33 2.997 2.664 2.331 1.998 1.665 1.332

Poland 3 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.2


Hungary 1.5 1.35 1.2 1.05 0.9 0.75 0.6
Belgium 0.73 0.657 0.584 0.511 0.438 0.365 0.292
Finland 0.54 0.486 0.432 0.378 0.324 0.27 0.216
Netherlands 0.51 0.459 0.408 0.357 0.306 0.255 0.204
Austria 0.43 0.387 0.344 0.301 0.258 0.215 0.172

Sweden 0.25 0.225 0.2 0.175 0.15 0.125 0.1


Ireland 0.17 0.153 0.136 0.119 0.102 0.085 0.068
Norway 0.15 0.135 0.12 0.105 0.09 0.075 0.06

Total Emissions 29.58 26.622 23.664 20.706 17.748 14.79 11.832

34
Writing Assignments

Normally, every student should write a paper for the Geneva portion of the game if additional
time is possible, a third class session for this is helpful, but not necessary. Each faction should
produce a draft treaty detailing what they want to occur in terms of % pollution reduction over
10 years and how it will be paid for. Other papers will address the philosophical issues related to
the ecology and to the responsibility of nations for their pollution. Norway and Sweden should
also write a paper detailing the damage caused by acid rain.

To facilitate debate, the students addressing philosophical issues should write papers for the
same session. Students addressing the science should present papers in the same session. This
will enhance the discussion with solid arguments on both sides. England will have one paper
which challenges the science of acid pollution. Ireland, Spain, Greece, and the East Bloc will
write a paper detailing their weak economic positions and resulting inability to spend money on
pollution control.

For the other two conferences, Helsinki and Sophia, it is suggested that about half of the students
in the larger factions be assigned to write papers for sessions 3 and 4 and the other half assigned
to sessions 5 and 6. The Scandinavian factions, Ireland, the Eastern Europeans, and half the
students from England and West Germany should write papers for the Helsinki conference game
sessions. Italy and any remaining students from Germany and England should write papers for
the Sophia conference game sessions 5 and 6. Other students can be divided as they wish.

Depending on the time available, it may be necessary to give members of the German faction
advanced notice of their positions for Helsinki and Sophia so they have time to research their
papers. This should be done in secret and only to the people writing papers for those sessions.
Only after each session closes should a general distribution of the historical changes be made.

The suggested readings in environmental philosophy are designed to provide a background on


the history and development of environmental philosophy. Roles are defined so that students will
adopt different philosophical positions. The students will be instructed to bring their assigned
philosophical position into their writing and speeches in explicit ways and through references. In
this way, the philosophical debate should play out along with the scientific one. Victory points
are assigned to provide strong incentives to do this.

Political issues are imbedded in the game but will not be immediately obvious to the students.
Their role sheets establish their starting positions. Much of the political character of the game
will develop through secret instruction sheets to various players and through the Gamemaster
News. Because the game stretches over 10 years, there are political events that will not be known
to the students at the start of the game. Some of these changes will be disconcerting to the
students who may be instructed to completely change position on an issue as a result. The
specific historical events that are included in the game are:

1. The discovery of oil and natural gas in the North Sea. This allows Margaret Thatcher in
Great Britain to use the negotiations on acid rain to reduce the power of the miners’ union
by reducing dependence on coal. This causes a shift in the position of this faction.

35
Thatcher launches a national strategy to shift the energy economy of the UK from coal to
natural gas. Much of the gas used in the UK is synthesis gas made from coal. (Synthesis
gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen). The recent tapping of gas reserves in
the North Sea makes it possible to replace the synthesis gas with natural gas. This greatly
reduces the need for coal. Thatcher also announces a program to convert coal power
plants to natural gas. The change to natural gas has a major impact on sulfur pollution
from the UK. Thatcher allows the Foreign Minister to modify his position at the Helsinki
meeting. Major reductions in emissions are now possible and economically feasible.
2. The growth of environmentalism in West Germany and the election of the Green Party to
the Bundestag. This changes the position of the German faction and they move from their
alliance with UK to one with Norway and France.
3. The Chernobyl disaster may occur during the game. This event can be used to add a note
of uncertainty to the game and to show the impact of unexpected events. The explosion at
Chernobyl is an event that should not have happened. It occurred during an unauthorized
experiment and is completely a result of human error. The fact that no other similar
reactors have exploded is further evidence that this was an unusual event. Frederic Pohl’s
fictional account of the disaster is an excellent source based on his extensive research.
Clearly, at many points leading up to the explosion, proper action would have prevented
it. There are three ways to include this event. It can be announced between the 1984 and
1987 meetings in keeping with the actual history. Alternatively, the Chernobyl disaster
can be included in the game as a dice roll. When used in this way, a dice roll can be held
during every game session. The third approach is to simply announce the disaster at any
point of your choosing, most commonly when the French have made a strong push for
nuclear power. Either approach works, but students should not know the reason for the
dice roll. This can build tension in the class. If the disaster occurs, then there will be a
major shift in European policy away from nuclear power. If the disaster does not occur,
then this shift will not be as radical. It is suggested that a pair of dice be rolled at the end
of each game session. If the dice is 2, then announce that radiation has been detected
coming from the Soviet Union. Follow up with a Gamemaster News announcement of the
disaster and the changes in politics. You can increase the odds of this happening if you
roll the dice twice after the second session, three times after the third, etc. Students do not
need to know the reason for the dice roll, only that it concerns things which may or may
not happen and affect the game. Since the students do not know the rules of the dice roll,
you may decide at any point to announce the Chernobyl disaster to shake up the game or
leave it out altogether.

Finally, the issues of environmental economics will intrude in the game due to the need of all
countries to protect their standard of living while also protecting the environment. Even in the
most strongly environmental faction, some roles have specific instructions to consider costs and
benefits of regulation. Thus a treatment of environmental economics and the costs of various
control strategies will be unavoidable.

Items you will need


Students should have signs showing their name and the country they represent. These can be
made from folded cardstock or simple nametags. Ideally, the signs should also identify which

36
nations are in the EEC and which are in the CMA. It is not recommended to color code the signs
by faction. The factional structure of this game changes after each conference.

A die will be required for the final dice roll.

Play money is needed for the economic aspect of the game. This can be managed by printing and
distributing the money in the role sheets. Alternatively, you can purchase inexpensive play
money. If using play money, the denominations are assumed to be in thousands of US$. So $1 =
$1,000 game money.

If you plan to use the Immediate Feedback self-grading sheets for the content quiz included,
order these well in advance from Epstein Educational Enterprises Series A 25 item sheet number
A022. http://www.epsteineducation.com/home/

Recommended Texts

Lovelock, James. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford university Press. ISBN-10:
0192862189

Leopold, Aldo, Sand County Almanac. Ballantine Books. ASIN: B001HZJCL0

For faculty planning to emphasize environmental philosophy, consider including:

Devall and Sessions, Deep Ecology, Gibbs Smith. ISBN-10: 0879052473

Journal Articles – These are contained in the zip file at rttp.org

Geneva Conference

Geneva Conference News - A collection of articles from Nature on Acid Rain summarized in
Core Documents of Gamebook

Devall and Sessions – Deep Ecology Chapters 2-4.

Scientific papers below are summarized in Core Documents of the Gamebook

Nilssen, J.P., Acidification of a Small Watershed in Southern Norway and Some


Characteristics of Acidic Aqueous Environments, Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol., 65 (2)
(1980) pp. 177-207. (The introduction and conclusions of this article are accessible to all
readers. The instructor will determine how much detail of the basic science is to be
included based on the level of the course.)

Chester, P.F., Acid Rain, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, and Fisheries., Special Publication
IEEE Power Engineering Society 20 (1981), pp. 13-18. (While this article was not

37
published until 1981, the data it contains cover the period ending in 1975. For purposes
of this game, it is assumed that the British delegation has access to this information

Ireland, F.E. et al., The Philosophy of Air Pollution Control in the United Kingdom,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 290 (1376) 1979,
pp. 625-37.

Helsinki Conference

Helsinki Conference News- A collection of articles from Nature on Acid Rain summarized in
Core Documents.

A collection of country specific journal articles are summarized in Core Documents.

General
Wright, R.F., Acidification of Freshwaters in Europe. Water Quality Bulletin, 8 (3)
(1983 ) pp. 137-42.

Kallend, A.S. et al., Acidity of Rain in Europe, Atmospheric Environment, 17, (1983)
pp. 127-137.

Sweden
Jacks, G. et al, Effects of Acid Rain on Soil and Groundwater in Sweden, Ecological
Studies: Analysis and Synthesis, 47 (1984) pp. 94-114.

Ireland
Fisher, B.E.A., Deposition of Sulfur and Acidity of Precipitation over Ireland,
Atmospheric Environment, 16 (1982) pp. 2725-2734.

Hungary
Meszaros, E., Les Pluies Acides en Hongrie, Pollution Atmospherique, 110 (1986) pp.
112-115. (French annotated with English translation of figure captions)

Austria
Smidt, S., Investigations about the Occurrence of Acid Precipitation in Austria.
Mitteilung def Forstlichen Bundesversuchsanstal Wein, 150 (1983) pp 1-92. (German
with a guide to abbreviations and terms used in Figure captions.)

West Germany
Georgii, H. –W, et al., Wet and Dry Deposition of Acid and Heavy Metal Components in
the Federal Republic of Germany. Acid Deposition - Proceedings of CEC Workshop,
Berlin (1982)
S. Beilke and A.J. Elshout Eds., D Reidel, Dordrecht pp. 142-149.

38
Knabe, W. Indication of Large Scale Forest Damage in North Rhine-Westphalia as a
Result of the Impact of Air Pollution. Wissenshaft und Umvelt, 2, (1982) pp. 51-71.
(German with English summary maps and figures)

Norway and Great Britain


Chester, P.F., Acid Rain, Catchment Characteristics and Fishery Status, Water Science
and Technology, 15 (1983) pp. 47-58.

Great Britain
Nicholson, I.A. and Patterson, I.S., Aspects of Acid Precipitation in Relation to
Vegetation in the United Kingdom, Water Quality Bulletin, 8 (2) (1983) pp. 58-66 and
108-9.

France
Zephoris, M., Pluies Acides en France, Pollution Atmospherique, 103 (1984) pp. 159-
165. (French with English translations for Figures and some annotations)

Italy
Pantani, F, et al., Relivamento di piogge acide in comprensori della Toscana, Ressagna
Chimica Maggio-Giugno 35 (1984) pp. 135-141. (Italian with English summary and
figures)

Sophia Conference

Sophia Conference News – articles from Nature are summarized in Core Documents.

The articles below are summarized in Core Documents of the Gamebook.

Kitman, J.L., “The Secret History of Lead: Special Report” The Nation, March 20,
(2000)

Reprinted articles from Nature (Sophia News)

Phasing Lead out of Gasoline, OECD, 1999

Needleman, H, the Removal of Lead from Gasoline, Environmental Research Section A


84, 20- 35 (2000)

Settle, D.M. and Patterson, C.C., Lead in Albacore, Science, 207, 4436, pp. 1167-1176.
(1980)

Owen, D. Octane and Knock, the Atlantic, 259 (1987) pp. 53-61

39
Managing the Game

Overview

Setup days are designed to teach core concepts and allow time for faction meetings.

The Geneva Conference focuses primarily on philosophical and economic issues due to the lack
of direct evidence of trans-boundary pollution. There are several roles with specific
philosophical positions that should come out and center the argument. The goal of this session
and the usual outcome is a weak treaty without specific reductions in emissions. The only other
possibility is that no treaty is approved. In this case, the transition to Helsinki proceeds in the
same way.

Transition to Helsinki – It is recommended that a lab or activity or discussion day follow the
Geneva Conference to allow students to adjust to the changes in roles and factional alignments.
This can also be used to help them understand the data in the papers available for the Helsinki
sessions.

The Helsinki Conference has sufficient data to allow a serious discussion in the first class
meeting of the national problems. The realignment of West Germany places intense pressure on
the British to agree to some reductions. The second half of this conference normally devolves
into horse trading and dealing with money to get a treaty that all can sign.

Transition to Sophia – Again, it is useful to have a class day between the game sessions to allow
for the adjustment to changing factions and to discuss the new scientific information. In this
case, a demonstration of the role of catalysts and discussion of lead in the environment is useful.

The Sophia Conference normally deals with NOx reduction. This is based on the assumption that
a reasonable treaty on SO2 has been formulated during the Helsinki conference. If Helsinki has
not been successful, the new rules of the EEC will allow the rest of the group to impose a strong
SO2 treaty quickly before the discussion of NOx pollution begins.

The description below provides a narrative of what should happen in each session. Note that
many of the setup sessions listed are optional.

Setup Session 1 - Introduction to Acid Rain- Read Game Book except


appendices. Acids and Bases and Acid Rain – Discussion of acid base chemistry and acid rain.
Roles Distributed

An excellent video introduction to acid rain and acid base chemistry is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANi709MYnWg&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPHzzYuWy6fYEaX9
mQQ8oGr&index=8
or simply search YouTube for Crash Course Chemistry number 8.

40
The video is about 11 minutes and is quite funny and engaging.

Discussion Questions for Acid Base Chemistry

1. What is the difference between a strong acid and a weak acid?

2. Which strong acids are common in rain?

3. Which weak acid is common in rain?

4. Why is rain normally acidic?

5. What is the meaning of pH? How does it relate to the amount of acid present?

6. What range of pH values is normal for ground water?

9. Why does acid rain damage concrete and stone buildings? What reactions are involved?

10. Why does acid rain damage steel buildings?

11. What are the economic costs of acid rain?

12. How does air pollution damage human health?

13. How does air pollution damage agriculture and forests?

Optional Session - Lab activity Acids and Bases (class activity or full
lab) Faction Meetings.

Session 2 – Environmental Philosophy - Read Game Book Appendix 1 and Land


Ethic By Leopold pp. 6-19, 25-36, 40-43, 70-82, 116-119, 188-202, 237-264 Deep Ecology by
Devall and Sessions– Chapter 3-5

Questions on Environmental Philosophy

1. Compare Aristotle and Plato to the Genesis position on man’s relationship to the world.

2. What three alternatives does Marsh suggest for the relationship of people to Nature?
How do these correspond to the 1951 UN statement on human progress?

3. Compare Naess’s concept of Milieu to Leopold’s idea of community

4. What is the function of an ethic?

41
5. How does an ethic differ from an instinct? What about modern life requires the
development of an environmental ethic?

6. What is the basic premise of an ethic?

7. What is the community on which Leopold’s Land Ethic is based?

8. Why cannot humans be “conquerors” of nature?

9. Why are economic arguments insufficient to develop an environmental ethic?

10. How does an ethic function to modify behavior?

11. Marsh and Leopold, almost a century apart, comment on the effects of human habitation
of various areas. Which areas do they find have the most resilient biological communities
and which have the least?

12. What is the number one factor which determines the violence of human impact on the
ecosystem?

13. How does an ethic develop and operate? This has direct relevance to the way in which the
Swedish and Norwegian factions should approach the problem of control of acid rain.

14. Compare the traditional world view with that of Deep Ecology. What are the potential
weaknesses of each?

Session 3- Ecology -Read Lovelock’s Gaia – Discussion Questions below


Discussion Questions
1. How does the stability of an ecosystem change with the number of species present?

2. What is a food web?

3. Why is the loss of one species from an ecosystem a problem when there are hundreds or
thousands of species present?

Questions on Lovelock Gaia

Chapter 1 – How did the search for life on Mars lead to the Gaia hypothesis?

The atmosphere of Mars was very close to chemical equilibrium. A similar analysis of
Earth’s atmosphere showed it was very far from equilibrium. Prior to this, atmospheric
composition was thought to be a physical characteristic of a planet. But Lovelock realized it was
actually a biological characteristic.

42
Chapter 2 – How does the relative constancy of the earth’s temperature support
Lovelock’s argument for a global organism in control of the environment?
Solar output and thus solar heating of the earth has increased substantially over the past 4
billion years. The fact that the surface temperature has remained relatively constant requires
some control mechanism.

Chapter 3- How does the comparison of the atmospheres of Mars, Earth, and Venus
support the Gaia hypothesis?
Only life has the capacity to drive a system far from equilibrium. Earth’s atmosphere shows the
effects of life, while Mars and Venus which do not have any (or at least not much) life are close
to equilibrium
Chapter 4 – What is the difference between positive and negative feedback loops in a
cybernetic system?
What examples of feedback systems does Lovelock use?

Positive feedback systems are unstable and lead to extremes.


Negative feedback systems tend to hold things constant. Examples are ovens, the regulation of
body temperature, steering a car.

Chapter 5 -Volcano and some biological processes produce sulfate and sulfuric acid.
Nitrates and nitric acid are also produced by oxidation of nitrogen. What does Gaia do to
neutralize this acid and prevent the earth from becoming too acidic for life?

Biotic systems make NH3 (ammonia which is a base) in just the right amounts to neutralize the
excess acids.
How does the anthropogenic production of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel
combustion threaten the balance of pH of the biosphere?

The large increase in human inputs of sulfur and nitrogen to the ecosystem could potentially
exceed the capacity of Gaia to neutralize them. This has happened locally in some areas.

Chapter 6- This chapter begins with the question “Why is the sea salty?” Why is this the
wrong question to ask?

The sea should contain very much more salt than it does. Biological systems remove the chloride
and sodium ions to keep a reasonable level of salt.

Chapter 7 – Lovelock conducted the early studies that showed CFC’s to be spread around
the globe and which supported the efforts to reduce human emissions of these Freon
gases. What is his opinion of this effort and how does he rationalize this in terms of Gaia?
Lovelock sees little problem for Gaia from human pollution. He does think that pollution could
pose problems for the human species, though.

What are the most serious human pollution challenges according to Lovelock?
Lovelock’s greatest fear is the effects of growing population and the demand this places on land
use.

43
The most valuable land for Gaia is probably the wetlands and ocean of the continental shelf.
These are the area’s most important to self-regulation and also most threatened by efforts to feed
a growing population.
Finally, humans are altering the carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles of the ecosystem. Lovelock
is concerned that these alterations may be greater than the ability to self-regulate.

Lovelock was writing at a time when the ozone hole had not yet been discovered. His comments
on ozone depletion were proven wrong.

What is the role of information technology and communication in humanity’s role in


Gaia?

What is the difference between “spaceship earth” and Gaia?


A spaceship is designed with all the necessary machinery to maintain life and has a clear
blueprint. Gaia is a very complex organism that did not come with any instructions.

Optional Session- Using Numbers to make Arguments –


Environmental Economics. Read Appendix 2 and 3
Appendix 2 is an essay on environmental economics and Appendix 3 contains examples of how
to evaluate various policy choices using numbers. The specific example in Appendix 3 involves
what kind of light bulbs to purchase. CFL’s are comparable to LED’s in terms of cost and
benefit. There are a variety of other examples. Ethanol vs gasoline is a case where the actual
benefit of raising corn to make ethanol for motor fuel are questionable at best. Diverting corn to
fuel has more than doubled the price of tortillas in Mexico. The amount of energy required and
CO2 produced raising corn mean that the overall impact of switching from petroleum to corn-
ethanol is essentially no change in terms of greenhouse emissions, and corn ethanol is more
expensive. The case of disposable diapers vs cloth is another case where students may thing that
cloth should be better. However, most analysis of this suggests that disposable diapers have a
slight advantage. There are variables including whether the diapers go to a landfill or a trash to
energy plant. Costs of cloth diapers include the hot water to wash them and the disposal of
wastewater from washing them.

A discussion of the problems with GDP can be started by asking what happens when air
pollution makes lots of people sick and they have to go to the hospital. What is the impact of all
these sick people on the GDP?

The questions below are provided to guide a discussion.

Discussion of Economics and policy

1. How do economists measure progress?


a. GDP
2. What are the assumptions and problems with this?
a. Assumes growth is good and necessary

44
b. Counts all flow of money as equally good
i. Health care due to pollution increases GDP
ii. Assumes natural resources are infinite
iii. Ignores external factors
3. What are External costs?
a. Wetlands loss
b. Species extinction
c. Health damage from pollution
d. Damage to infrastructure due to pollution
4. What do we mean by “Market Failure”
a. Price of goods and services do not reflect external costs
b. Markets don’t support most cost effective products
5. What does the Green GDP add to this?
a. Estimates external costs including resource depletion
6. What do “green Economists” have to say about economic “progress”?
a. Western economies show no real growth and in some cases contraction
7. What must be considered in cost benefit analysis in addition to immediate out of pocket
expenses for a product?
a. Long term cost of use
b. Cost of disposal
c. Cost of support infrastructure
d. “opportunity costs” what else could you have done with the money
8. Environmental costs of products
a. Paper vs plastic
b. Disposable diapers
c. Ethanol from corn as motor fuel
9. Discuss tools of policy
a. Cap and Trade
b. Polluter pays – tax on pollution
c. Command and control
10. Discus the state of Europe
a. 10 nation Common Market
i. Individual currencies
ii. Border control throughout Europe
b. Goal to compete with USA, USSR, and Japan
11. How do pollution controls fit into formation of EU
a. If one nation is polluting it causes damage in another
b. If one nation can pollute more than others it will shift production to that country
due to lower costs

Game Session 1 and 2 - 1979 Geneva

45
Items you Need

Signs or nametags are needed for this session and those that follow.

Play money will print with the roles. The amount of money available to each country is not
public knowledge, however, if the money is distributed as play money, the different sizes of the
envelops will make it obvious that there are severe disparities.

Role change sheets for Helsinki should be ready to hand out at the end of Game Session 1.

Dice for Chernobyl dice roll.

Objectives

The purpose of this first meeting is to formulate the Convention on Long Range Transport Air
pollution. These sessions will address philosophical issues of environment and international
cooperation. The session also presents limited data on acid precipitation that is ambiguous,
allowing the British faction to argue with Norway. Technical information for the Geneva
sessions is found in the Core Documents section.

Assignments

Papers will be written by each student presenting the philosophical and economic positions of
their nation. The Scandinavian faction should also present data on the damage done by acid rain.
The UK faction will write a paper disputing the connection between their emissions and the
damage.

Language of a general protocol must be approved with a framework developed for formulating
specific emission reductions. In some courses, every student writes a paper for the Geneva
sessions and then the factions divide the work so that not every student writes for Helsinki and
Sophia.

Each faction should consider submitting a draft proposal as part of their initial writing
assignment. Each nation has one vote in the UN Conference.

Guidance for Discussion

The UN Representative should open the session with a short speech. She should be encouraged
to call on Norway to make the first presentation since they are leading proponents of a strong
treaty. Norway should presenting their problem with acid rain and the evidence they have that
their pollution is coming from other countries. The British may then wish to respond with the
Chester paper. In general, the first day should focus on scientific evidence and philosophical
positions. Several roles have specific philosophical positions and will want to make their

46
arguments. The Gamemaster should intervene to redirect the discussion if it turns to financial
issues and students begin to negotiate and bargain about money.

Since the product of the Geneva sessions will probably be a very general framework treaty with
few specifics, it is advisable to frame the debate in a very general way. Students in each faction
will have a specified philosophical position and will know from their roles what the economic
factors are that they need to consider.

Issues of who pays the price of pollution control and who benefits from it will be central to the
debate during the second session. The Scandinavian countries will press for large, specific
reductions, but they will almost certainly fail to achieve this goal due to the power of Britain and
West Germany. They will need to be encouraged to accept a compromise if necessary. The game
is stacked against them at this stage and they will probably need to settle for a general statement.

Gamemaster Intervention

Chernobyl Dice Roll – This is an optional game feature. It adds tension to the game in that you
should not announce the reason for the dice roll, only make it a public event. Students will not
know why and will wonder. If the dice roll indicates that Chernobyl has exploded, you will
announce this fact and the Gamemaster News related to it will be distributed.

During these sessions, it will probably be necessary to recess the general UNEC session to allow
informal discussions. Time should be allocated during Game Session 2, for the EEC countries to
hold a caucus session to discuss their vote. The veto power of each country means that all
countries must vote the same way. So the results of the EEC caucus will determine the outcome
at this point. Given the adamant opposition of West Germany and England and their veto power,
it is virtually impossible to have any specific reductions agreed at the Geneva Conference.
However, individual countries may choose to invest in pollution control outside of any general
agreement.

France holds the rotating Presidency of the EEC during this period, and the Deputy Foreign
Minister of France will preside at any meetings of the EEC countries during these sessions.
England, France, Italy, and West Germany cast two votes and all other EEC countries cast one
vote in EEC meetings. England, France, and West Germany also have veto power in these
sessions.

At the end of Game Session 2, the EEC will announce their joint actions and each individual
country will announce what funds they will provide toward pollution reduction efforts (both
internal spending and grants to other countries). Funds will be transferred to the GM using one
play money or the national bank checks provided.

Transition to Helsinki

47
Distribute new victory objectives and role sheets at the end of the Geneva session. The
Gamemaster News Service will also post historical changes. The discovery of oil and gas in the
North Sea results in Norway receiving additional money for pollution control.

Reading Assignment

All students should read the Helsinki Conference News from Nature and students should study
the summaries of technical papers reporting recent research for their countries. These have been
summarized and translated in the Core Documents section.

Game Session 3 and 4- 1985 Helsinki

Items you need

Handouts for Sophia need to be prepared so they can be distributed at the end of the second
Helsinki session.

Name tags

Dice for Chernobyl Dice Roll

Learning Objectives

The first Helsinki session should focus on the newly available scientific papers on acid rain. The
true extent of the problem is becoming clear.

The purpose of this meeting is to develop a more specific protocol on sulfur pollution.

Assignments

Students who are assigned to write papers for Helsinki will have their papers posted and make
their presentations. It is possible to have every student write a paper, but recommended that half
of the students prepare for Helsinki and the other half for Sophia. This allows longer and more in
depth papers.

Guidance for discussion

The UN Representative will preside over the plenary sessions and should open with an
introductory speech of welcome and set forth the goals. The results of any spending in 1979 will
be announced by the GM (In most cases this will just be money for research that has produced
the data countries will present.) The initial presentations should focus on each country that now

48
has pollution data explaining their nations’ situations and goals. These may have changed since
the 1979 session. This is especially true for Germany.

Each faction should be prepared to propose specific changes to the agreement from Geneva, or to
propose a new agreement framework if the Geneva conference did not produce any agreement.

West Germany holds the Presidency of the EEC and the German Foreign Minister will preside at
meetings of the EEC during these sessions.

The actual protocol from 1984 required a 30% reduction in emissions. The Scandinavian faction
will propose 50% reductions and the UK will only accept 20%. So 30% represents a compromise
and is consistent with the money available. Students will have found a variety of ways to try to
reach this and may produce a treaty with different limits for different countries. The final
outcome depends on the ability of the British to stick to their victory objectives.

At the end of this Session 4, the EEC will announce their joint actions and each individual
country will announce what funds they will provide toward pollution reduction efforts (both
internal spending and grants to other countries). Funds will be transferred to the GM using the
game currency provided in the role sheets.

Gamemaster Intervention
Immediately before or early in this session, the note from Margaret Thatcher should be given to
the British faction to change their position and support some reductions in SO2 emissions.
Britain is in the middle of coal miners’ strike and she plans to close the coal plants and substitute
natural gas. This will break the miners’ union and their support for the Labor Party. This will
disrupt the English faction in the class.

Chernobyl Dice Roll – This is an optional game feature. It adds tension to the game in that you
should not announce the reason for the dice roll, only make it a public event. Students will not
know why and will wonder. If the dice roll indicates that Chernobyl has exploded, you will
announce this fact and the Gamemaster News related to it will be distributed.

The German faction will also be instructed before this session to change their position. This is in
keeping with a major, abrupt shift in German policy at this time. They will join the Scandinavian
faction at this point.

If any country strays too far from their objectives, they can be pushed back into line by the GM.
This can be done either during or after the session. The GM can announce publicly the news that
the PM or President of the offending country has announced that the country will not agree to the
proposals. You can also do this privately in a note. Or after a treaty is agreed to that deviates
from the goals of a faction, a Gamemaster News announcement can be emailed to the class
stating that the relevant parliament has rejected it. This will create some chaos and force
renegotiations in the next section to bring things closer to a realistic treaty.

Transition to Sophia
Optional Lab Catalytic Converter Lab (Optional)

49
Optional Setup Session (recommended if time allows) Discussion of NOx Smog and Lead
poisoning - Read Sophia Conference News and Technical Background sections of Core
Documents

Game Session 5 and 6 - 1988 Sophia

Items you will need

Dice for the Chernobyl dice roll and for the end of the final session

Readings

Readings for the Sophia conference are contained in the Sophia section of the Core Documents
These summarizes commentary from Nature that will bring students up to date on the state of
acid rain research and politics in Europe. The technical background section covers the formation
of smog, the role of lead in gasoline, and the problem of lead poisoning that results. There is also
a section on how the internal combustion engine works, catalytic converters, and lean burn
engines.

Assignments

Students who are assigned to write papers for Sophia will have their papers posted and make
their presentations. It is possible to have every student write a paper, but recommended that half
of the students prepare for Helsinki and the other half for Sophia. This allows longer and more in
depth papers.

Guidance for discussion

The UN Representative will open the session with a short speech to announce results of previous
efforts and set out the objectives for the current session. Ongoing research results will be made
available. While the primary purpose is to agree on a nitrogen protocol, it may also be necessary
to revise the sulfur pollution protocols, depending on the outcome of the previous sessions.
Again, all faction should arrive at the Conference with specific proposals to present.

The EEC presidency is held by Ireland for this session. England, France, Italy, and West
Germany still have two votes each, but no country has a veto power. All countries are now
bound by the majority decision. This means that the EEC meetings are not particularly relevant.

At the end of this Session 6, the EEC and the UN Conference will announce their actions and
each individual country will announce any remaining funds they will provide toward pollution

50
reduction efforts (both internal spending and grants to other countries). Funds will be transferred
to the GM using one of the national bank checks provided.

Gamemaster Intervention

Chernobyl Dice Roll – This is an optional game feature. It adds tension to the game in that you
should not announce the reason for the dice roll, only make it a public event. Students will not
know why and will wonder. If the dice roll indicates that Chernobyl has exploded, you will
announce this fact and the Gamemaster News related to it will be distributed.

At the end of the final session, a dice roll is done. The value of this is entered into the
spreadsheet to calculate the results. Results should not be announced to the class until the
debriefing.

Debriefing
Exiting the Game
At the end of the game, a die roll is conducted and the result will determine the threshold for
winning the money victory point. Add all money paid into the treaty and determine whether the
threshold is reached.

The Table 6 Victory Objective and Scoring Checklist which fillows can be filled out to
determine Victory Objectives

The traditional way to score Reacting games is to use the victory points and keep track of who
has the most points. Some of the points are mutually exclusive, and this will result in different
scores for each student. It is then up to the instructor to determine where to make the cutoff
between winners and losers. The table below is designed to help keep track of Victory points for
each faction. A few students have the opportunity to gain more points than the others if they do
particularly good work in bringing out special points of view. This may allow one student in a
faction to win while the rest do not.

In some cases, students may not achieve a treaty in Helsinki due to the English veto. In this case,
they may revisit the treaty in Sophia and finally pass a 30% treaty. In this case, realistically,
everyone is worse off than they would have been with a treaty. It would be possible to declare
the entire class losers in this case or to select only the students who did the best job with their
objectives. This scenario will typically mean the English have done a very good job of blocking
a treaty. They win on points, but everyone else loses as a result in the real world.

The money victory point depends on the money committed to the treaty. If the total money is
greater than or equal to the threshold value, then every country gets one victory point because
Europe has made significant pollution reductions and the benefits have outweighed the costs.

51
If the total money spent for the treaty is less than the threshold, some countries have not spent
their money on pollution. They will receive a money victory point if they have retained enough
of their initial money. The exact percentage of their initial money they must have saved to win
this point is determined by the die roll. In this scenario, the entire class basically loses on this
aspect of the game. There will still be winners and losers based on the individual victory
objectives.

52
Victory Objectives and Scoring Checklist

Table 6 Victory Objective and Scoring Checklist


Country/Session Geneva Helsinki Sophia
Austria Treaty approved 30% or better Treaty requires 30%
including East Block reductions approved reductions below 1985
with 20% reductions by all with East levels but allows flexible
+2 Block solutions to NOx and does
Treaty including East +2 not mandate one solution.
Block approved Treaty does not +1
without specifics +1 include East Block
Treaty does not -1
include East BlockE
-1
England Specific emission Prevent required Prevent Catalytic
targets not included reductions >20% Converters being required
+1 on all cars
+1 +1
France No treaty accepted by All sign 30% Catalytic Converters not
all -2 reduction or better required on all cars
Treaty without +1 +1
specific limits
+1
Treaty with 20%
reductions
+2
FRG #2 Treaty approved with All sign 30% Catalytic converters
specifics +1 reduction or better required on all cars
Articulates Deep +1
Ecology +1 +1
West Germany Specific emission All sign 30% Catalytic converters
targets agreed reduction or better required on all cars
+1 +1 +1
Netherlands Treaty approved Treaty approved 30% reduction and
without specifics credits previous catalytic converters
+1 reductions +1 required
Treaty approved with +1
specific reductions
+2
Norway Treaty approved with 30% reduction or A treaty to freeze NOx is
specific reductions better accepted by agreed, regardless of
+2 all including East technology. Unleaded
Any treaty agreed by Block +2 gasoline required +1
all +1 30% or better
Norway 1 role add without East Block
Deep Ecology to -1
treaty +1

53
Victory Objectives and Scoring Table – Page 2
Country/Session Geneva Helsinki Sophia
Czechoslovakia You are accepted as Treaty provides Allowed to continue
signatory on treaty money to meet increase in NOx
+1 requirements +2 +1
Finland Any treaty signed Any treaty signed Freeze NOx levels
costs you nothing costs you nothing +1
+3 +3
Ireland Any treaty signed Any treaty signed Catalytic Converters not
costs you nothing costs you nothing required for all cars +1
+2 +2
Italy No specific Treaty with specific Catalytic Converters not
reductions approved reductions provides required for all cars and
by all substantial financial no freeze
+1 support for Italy +2 +1

Poland You are accepted as Treaty provides Allow to continue


signatory on treaty money to meet increase in NOx +1
+1 requirements +2
Spain Articulate position of Indeterminate, will Indeterminate on
developing country write victory technology but support
+1 objectives freeze +1
Sweden Treaty approved with 30% reductions A treaty on NOx is
specific reductions accepted by all agreed to reduce by
20% including East Block 30%, regardless of
+2 +2 technology. Unleaded
Any treaty agreed by 30% better without gasoline required. +1
all +1 East Block -1
Sweden 1 role add
Deep Ecology to
treaty +1
East Germany You are accepted as Treaty provides Allow to continue
signatory on treaty money to meet increase in NOx and use
+1 requirements from an leaded gasoline +1
international pool +2
USSR You are accepted as Treaty provides Allowed to continue to
signatory on treaty money to meet increase NOx
+1 requirements +2 +1

54
What Really Happened
A Power Point Presentation cotaining much of this information is available at rttp.org.

Geneva- British resisted but decided that their shift to nuclear power would allow them to
comply. Scandanavia pushed for firm reduction mandates. West Germany stonewalled the plans
but were convinced by the French that the EEC should not be seen as sabotaging the whole plan.
Germans got the term “economically feasible” added to the language. East Block then raised
technical objections about the European Community’s ability to sign a convention on behalf of
the 9 participating nations. The EEC had never before entered into a treaty as a whole. But since
Breshnev has started the whole process, he ultimately accepted the validity of the EEC as a treaty
signing body.

Document pledged signatory nations to “endeavor to limit and, as far as is possible, reduce and
prevent air pollution”…. And to adopt the “best available control technology that is
economically feasible”2

This was a very non-specific agreement but the best that could be done at the time. It had no
goals or timetables. It did establish a framework of monitoring, research, and reporting of
pollution data to the Cooperative Program for Monitoring and Evaluation of Long Range
Transport or Air pollutants in Europe (EMEP). It has been argued that the non-specific nature of
the initial treaty was a good thing because it allowed more countries to adopt the treaty which
didn’t seem threatening to them.

The EMEP released its first report on actual pollution in 1981 and this helped build momentem
for more stringent controls. In 1982, the Swedish sponsored a meeting in Stockholm to review
the situation and it issued a report stressing the importance of the problem and the need for real
action. The Scandanavian countries were joined by West Germany in calling for stronger action.
The Germans and Swiss change of position was due to the increasing realization of forest death
or at least forest damage. This left the British as the primary obstacle to an agreement. The
Stockholm conference called for a 30% reduction in SO2 pollution, but failed to mandate it. A
group of nations did form the 30% Club which agreed to implement the reductions.

The meeting in Helsinki produced a specific target of 30% reduction of SO2 in the treaty. This
treaty came into force in 1987, when 16 of the 21 nations of Helsinki involved had officially
ratified it.

The Sophia meeting produced an agreement to freeze NOx levels at 1987 values by 1994. The
treaty also required that negotiations for reducing NOx begin within 6 months of ratification of
the Sophia accord. Just before the signing of the Sophia protocol, West Germany and 11 other
nations pledged to reduce their NOx emissions by 30% by 1998 from a baseline year in the 1980-
1985 period. Different countries were allowed to choose different baseline years. Presumable

2
Whetstone and Rosencranz, p. 145.

55
they would pick the highest emission year in that period. Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Ireland.
Greece and the UK refused to agree to this.

What Happened Afterwards

In the early 1990’s a new element was introduced into the negotiations. Rather than focus
broadly on total pollution, analytical tools in the form of computer models were developed to
allow a more fine tuned approach to environemental protection. The Regional Acidification
Information and Simulation (RAINS) computer model was developed. This model was based on
ideas of “critical load”, the amount of pollution which a specific ecosystem could absorb without
any obvious damage. The computer model suggested that overall reductions in acid pollutants
would need to reach almost 90% to protect the environment. The RAINS model allowed specific
targets to be developed for each country and industry and the costs of implementation to be
estimated. Using this tool and the critical load concept, European negotiations moved into a new
phase. The RAINS model was eventually extended to the area of global warming negotiations as
well. Britain continued to be a holdout. It refused to accept the concept of critical load and
instead insisted it would use something called “Target Load”. This was the critical load modified
to incorporate the economic and political fesibility of the changes required. The result of RAINS
was that individual nations negotiated targets for their pollution control which took into account
their impact on specific ecosystems where their pollution fell. Thus the nations polluting
Scandanavia, where critical loads were low, were required to adopt more stringent controls than
polluters whose output fell in more buffered ecosystems where the critical loads were higher.

Results

West Germany 3– Spent $7 billion on FGD and $3.5 billion on catalytic reduction for NOx
removal in power plants. By 1990, total emissions from power plants were already 10% below
the target for 1993 of a 75% reduction. NOx emissions in 1990 were reduced by 50% and by the
mid 1990’s were reduced by over 70%. Total benefits from these changes are estimated as
between $5 and $20 billion. But total NOx continued to rise due to more cars on the road.
German auto makers delayed catalytic converters due to the fear that unleaded gas would not be
available throughout Europe.

In 1987, Professor Topfer, the new environment minister announced $25 billion for pollution
reductions. Tax incentives were used to make catalytic converter equipped cars more popular.
These ranged from $500 for small cars to $1,100 DM for large cars over 2 liters. In 1986, leaded
fuel began to be phased out and by 1989, over half of European fuel was unleaded. In the 1990’s
West Germany added new incentives to reduce NOx from cars based on actual pollution rather
than engine size. A variety of tax relief, low interest loans and other economic incentives were
used to implement pollution reductions in small and medium size companies.

3
Boehnner-Christiansen and Shea, pp 200-2004

56
Britain 4– Finally in 1988, the UK agreed to begin SO2 reductions from coal plants. There were
three targets, 20% by 1993, 40% by 1998, and 60% by 2003 using 1980 values as a benchmark.
This agreement was passed as the Environment Protection Act of 1990 and required
establishment of uniform requirements for new plants and a market based aproach to dealing
with existing companies and industries. This is a form of cap and trade in that each company will
have a total emission target and can move emissions around within the company as long as it
does not exceed the total cap.

1987– Montreal Protocol brings phaseout of CFC’s


1988- Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change formed. Negotiations would lead to the
Kyoto Treaty.

Auto emissions – 1985 Luxembourg agreement. Cars below 1.4 liters could use lean burn
engines. 1.4-2 liter would use oxidation catalysts to remove CO and hydrocarbons. This was not
ratified till 1987 and in 1988 the requirements for small cars were tightened. The Germans and
Danish refused to go along with the agreement but were outvoted in the EU. Then France
withdrew under pressure from Peugeout which objected to German subsidies for clean cars. They
felt this placed their cars at a major disadvantage in the German market. In 1989, Ford and
British Leyland finally capitulated and regulations were passed that required all cars less than 1.4
liters to have tertiary catalytic converters. This meant that they were more tightly regulated than
larger cars. It was not until 1992, when all cars required to use “best available” technology.5

Eastern Europe – Not much was done until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The
reunification of Germany in 1990 brough the pollution in East Germany under the direct control
of the German government and included it in pollution reduction plans. Much of the air pollution
from East Germany was removed by the general collapse of the state industries of East Germany.
The German government moved quickly to close the Soviet style nuclear power plants in East
Germany. Independent governments in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia moved very
rapidly to impose pollution controls and achieved results quickly due to pent up popular desire
for improvements in the environment. The latter quickly split into the Czech Republic and
Slovakia.

4
Boehnner-Christiansen and Shea pp. 220-227
5
Ibid. pp. 259-261.

57
58
European Environmental Agency Report

Austria

450

400

350

300

250 SOx (as SO2)

200 NOx (as NO2)

150

100

50

0
80

81

82

83

84

85
86

87

88

89

90

91

92
93

94

95

96

97

98
19

19

19

19

19

19
19

19

19

19

19

19

19
19

19

19

19

19

19

59
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000

0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Germany

1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2005
2010
SOx (as SO2)
NOx (as NO2)

60
Italy

7000

6000

5000

4000
SOx (as SO2)
NOx (as NO2)
3000

2000

1000

0
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Sweden

600

500

400

SOx (as SO2)


300
NOx (as NO2)

200

100

0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2005
2010

61
United Kingdom

6000

5000

4000

SOx (as SO2)


3000
NOx (as NO2)

2000

1000

0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2005
2010
The End of Coal

It is now possible to predict the end of the use of coal for electric power generation in Europe.
By 2025, Finland will be the only European country still burning coal for power plants. This is a
result of efforts to combat climate change and reflects the rapidly falling cost of wind and solar
energy. The side benefit of this will be the complete elimination of sulfur dioxide pollution from
power plants as well. This will not mean total elimination of this pollutant since coal will
continue to be used in other processes, but is shows how much things can change in 50 years.

Lead Pollution success story

The present US limit for blood lead has been reduced to 5 ug/dl. Note that this is below the
average values for most European countries at the time of the game. The average blood level in
the US has been reduced from 15 ug/dl in the 1970’s to just 3 ug/dl. This is the result of
eliminating leaded gasoline and also removing leaded paint. However, inner city children in the
US still have higher levels than those in suburban and rural areas.

Evidence continues to mount for a direct link between lead levels and criminal behavior. Studies
of bone lead in juveniles and young adults show a correlation between lead and frequency of
incarceration. MRI studies on humans and studies with rats also show that early life exposure to
lead reduces the size of the brain areas responsible for impulse control, emotional regulation and
decision making. (Wolf, Laura, C&EN, Feb 3, 2014 p. 29)

Data for US blood lead and violent crimes are shown in the figure below. While correlation does
not prove causation, the animal studies, MRI studies, and the growing understanding of the way
in which lead interferes with dopamine, nerve pruning, and its inhibition of the N-methyl-D-

62
aspartate receptor prove sufficient evidence to convince most researchers that lead plays a role in
violent crime. As reported in C&EN, most US children are now below 2 ug/dl lead in their blood
but roughly a half million children ages 1-5 are still above the CDC limit of 5 ug/dl. Most of
these children live in inner city neighborhoods where the housing still had lead paint on the walls
and woodwork.

https://cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/92/i5/Crimes-
Lead/_jcr_content/articlebody/subpar/articlemedia_1.img.jpg/1391194986876.jpg

The removal of lead from gasoline and reductions in emissions from metal smelting and coal
plants with advanced emissions controls have drastically reduced the amount of lead entering the
environment. A recent study of Canadian peat bogs concluded that airborne lead was now back
to preindustrial levels. (C&E News, Oct 10, 2016, p. 11) The current Canadian levels were
comparable to those in a 6000 year old peat bog in Switzerland.

63
This does not mean that the problem of lead poisoning has been eliminated. Lead is still present
in lead pipes and old plumbing fixtures. There is also still lead paint in old buildings. But the
problem of airborne lead pollution in the USA and Canada has been essentially solved.

Lessons from the Environmental Front

1. The public tends to be ahead of the politicians.


2. It takes a long time to turn things around
3. Cost of pollution are higher than most estimates. A 2009 estimate by the US National
Research Council found that the effects of coal fired power plants in the USA, even after
the improvements in the 1991 Clean Air Act could be measured as 20,000 premature
deaths and $63 billion in annual damages. Half of this amount was attributed to only 10
coal fired power plants (the dirtiest of the 406 plants in operation). Transportation fuel
production and use accounted for $56 billion in damages. Natural gas contributed only $1
Billion. These figures do not include climate change costs which were estimated to range
from $7-$700 billion/year.
4. Regulation works
a. Command and Control – Freon
b. Cap and Trade - SO2
i. Actual costs less than most optimistic projection
1990 Clean Air Act in the US was estimated by environmental groups to
cost $4 billion and by industry to cost up to $100 billion. Actual cost was
around $1 billion due to efficiencies of cap and trade system. Also, early
implementation by industry led to more rapid reductions than required under
the law. Companies built in control technology as part of regular
maintenance and didn’t wait till the deadline because they could sell the
extra pollution credits. This provided an incentive for early action.
c. Nitrates in Long Island Sound – cap and trade. Some CT towns built nitrogen
removal plants early and got favorable loans for construction and made money
trading pollution credits to other towns.

64
d. Cap and trade for mercury emissions from coal plants was not implemented due
to the fact that concentrating such a toxic pollutant around a few plants was
deemed too great a health risk.
5. Early adopters benefit the most – long term
a. Japan - auto industry vs US
In 1970’s the Arab oil embargo frightened Japanese policy makers into drastic action
to reduce dependence on imported oil. This led to more efficient autos and the
development of energy saving technology. At the same time in the US, the auto
industry managed to undermine CAFE standards by shifting the market away from
cars and toward light trucks (vans and SUV’s) which were not regulated. They also
ignored energy efficiency and the small vehicle segment. When oil prices started to
rise, the early adopters, the Japanese, were set with the products the market needed
and the US car companies went into serious decline in market share.
6. Success Stories
a. Acid Rain
b. Freon and Ozone layer – Montreal Protocol has worked. But it will take at least
50 years to reverse the damage.
7. Works in Progress
a. Global Warming
i. Strict cap and trade or carbon tax
ii. Industry wants it for planning
iii. Industry needs it to focus R&D and insure markets for efficient products.

Gamemaster Handouts

65
Gamemaster News Service – Examples
Typical examples of Gamemaster news announcements. These can be used directly or
modified to adapt to the situation in each class.

If Chernobyl Disaster occurs

19xx - Stockholm

Swedish scientists today announced that they had detected a sudden increase in radiation levels
in air coming from the direction of the Soviet Union. Suspicions have been raised in the Swedish
press that this may be the result of some as yet unreported nuclear accident in the Soviet Union.
Soviet authorities have thus far refused to comment on the questions being raised.

19xx- Moscow

The Soviet government today confirmed what had been suspected for several days. A major
nuclear reactor accident occurred at one of the four reactors at Chernobyl. Soviet authorities
attribute the accident to unauthorized experiments being run at the time and contend that their
reactor design is safe. They have also refused to shut down any of the other reactors of similar
design, including the other three at Chernobyl.

Highly placed officials say that there were numerous fatalities among the brave reactor workers
and conscripted soldiers who struggled to put on the fine and contain the plume of radioactive
smoke. The entire population of the Chernobyl area will now be relocated and the region around
the reactors, which is now highly radioactive, will be accessible only to workers going to and
from their jobs at the remaining reactors. A large increase in cancer rates is expected in the area
due to delays in alerting the population to the accident and removing them from the area.

Western nuclear experts have long questioned the safety of the Soviet style reactors which use a
large quantity of combustible graphite instead of heavy water as used in Western designs. They
also note that this is the first ever nuclear reactor accident to result in loss of life and significant
radiation release.

Health authorities in Sweden and other countries which received the plume of radiation have
warned against consumption of milk and certain other foods which may have become
contaminated.

66
67
Send this before Helsinki

Bonn- West Germany,

Chancellor Helmut Schmidt today announced sweeping changes in German environmental


policy. This comes after the Green Party took several seats in the Bundestag in recent elections.
Analysts believe Schmidt is trying to avoid any further erosion of his party's strength as the
German electorate becomes increasingly interested in the environment.

The most dramatic change was the surprising announcement that West Germany will reduce
sulfur emissions by 50% over the next few years. He has committed his government to spend $6
billion on pollution controls. Schmidt also called on the other nations of Europe to make similar
changes. This marks a total change for the German delegation which will attend the upcoming
Helsinki Conference. Schmidt also called for the formation of a 50% club, a group of nations that
would commit to 50% reductions even if the entire EEC cannot agree to such a pact. This is seen
by many as a direct challenge to Great Britain which as thus far refused to implement significant
pollution reductions.

In another move designed to placate the environmental lobby, Schmidt announced that Ignaz
Kiechle will be appointed Director of the new German Ministry for the Environment (BMU) and
will take over as leader of the German delegation to Helsinki. Hans Dietrich Genscher will no
longer have direct authority on environmental policy but will continue to participate in the
negotiations. Many environmentalists have not forgotten the strong stance against emission
controls taken by Genscher at the Geneva Conference. Others in the government say this change
is unfair to Genscher who was only carrying out the orders he was given. This move is clearly an
attempt to placate environmentalists within Schmidt's party by appointing Ignaz Kiechle who has
a long record of working behind the scenes with the environmental community.

Speaking on German TV, Schmidt said, "Our government has never been opposed to
environmental protection, but the recently discovered damage to our forests has made it clear
that there is no time to wait for international negotiations. West Germany must act at once to
protect our land and our future."

Gamemaster News London 1984– The miners’ union in the UK have just gone on strike. Britain
is faced with a severe energy crisis as the winter begins. Margaret Thatcher sees this as an
opportunity to strengthen the position of the Tory party. The unions are a mainstay of the Labor
Party. If she can break the union, it will enhance the prospects for the Tories for the foreseeable
future.

68
69
Changes to Roles for Helsinki Conferences
France - Change in Victory Objectives For Helsinki

Until now, your support for air pollution controls has been based more on politics and the
nuclear commitment of France than on any direct evidence of damage to France by acid rain.
However, recent research in the Vosges Forest of Eastern France has shown significant damage.
The 1984 survey results just in show this damage is worsening rapidly. Thus France now has
direct reasons to limit the damage and is committed to a 50% SO2 reduction from the 1980 value.
This will strengthen your resolve to get all of Europe to agree to similar reductions. Failure will
put France at an economic disadvantage as well as accelerating damage. The new concern is that
acidification is reaching levels that will actually acidify the soil, something that is not easily
reversed and can cause serious damage to forests and agriculture.

70
71
United Kingdom- Change for Helsinki 1984

You are instructed to immediately change your position and support modest reductions up to
20% in sulfur emissions. This change will probably require the closing of several major coal
fired power plants and other significant changes. You should not support a move that is too
rapid. You will stop all opposition to the idea of making emission limits retroactive to existing
plants. However, the overall costs of changes must be economically feasible.

Margaret Thatcher

The national miners’ strike is now well under way. Clearly, this strike was an effort to
undermine the Conservative government and force Thatcher from power. But the Conservatives
had prepared for just this possibility. Coal had been stockpiled and the new natural gas supplies
from the North Sea were coming on line at a perfect time. Thatcher is determined to break the
union and will probably close most of the nation’s coal mines. Instead of bringing down her
government, she hopes to use the strike to undermine support for the Labor party and keep the
Conservatives in office. You have recently been instructed to take a more accepting stance on
reductions in sulfur emissions. These reductions still must be economically feasible, but you will
specifically NOT oppose making them retroactive. This will allow old coal power plants to be
closed and replaced with new natural gas plants without the Thatcher government appearing
responsible. This will provide some political cover for Thatcher who will be able to blame some
of the mine closings on the LRTAP rather than as a purely political move. You should not speak
publicly about the anti-union plans of the government to avoid making this a political issue.

Note that the West Germans have abandoned you and have joined the faction with Norway and
Sweden. You are now pretty much alone. But you still have veto power in the EEC.

Victory Objective + 1 point for a treaty signed by all that requires specific reductions as long as
the reductions for UK are 20% or less.

72
73
Role Change Great Britain 3 –Lord Walter Marshall, Head CEGB

Biography

You are a scientist and a leading supporter of the nuclear power industry in Britain. You are
often described as colorful, so you can be as outspoken and vigorous in your role as you wish.

You are specifically a fan of the Westinghouse Light Water reactors. One of your goals is to be a
strong advocate of nuclear power.

Margaret Thatcher removed the previous head of the CEGB last year due to his close ties to the
coal industry and reluctance to embrace her governments program’s for reducing the power of
unions.

Last year, you laid in large reserves of coal in anticipation of the strike of the miners’ union. This
allowed the CEGB to weather the strike and played a role in reducing the power of the union as
Thatcher wished. However, in public, you will play down the role of your actions at the CEGB in
this highly political battle. Your goal was to support Thatcher’s goals while making it appear that
the CEGB was acting in a non-political manner. Your deception will be generally successful.

Objective

You are instructed to immediately change your position and support modest reductions up to
20% in sulfur emissions. This change will probably require the closing of several major coal
fired power plants and other significant changes. You should not support a move that is too
rapid. You will stop all opposition to the idea of making emission limits retroactive to existing
plants. However, the overall costs of changes must be economically feasible.

Strategy

The French delegates at the conference have considerable information on nuclear safety that they
may share with you. Should there be any negative publicity surrounding nuclear power, you will
work to downplay the risks.

74
75
West Germany- New Victory Objectives for Helsinki

The German government has recently committed to a 50% reduction in air pollution over
the next decade. You must pay the Gamemaster $9,000 from your funds to cover the cost of
this. (This value includes any investments you made after Geneva)

Your expenditure on pollution control reduces your cash in hand. Your best strategy for winning
the game at this point is to convince the countries of Europe to approve at least a 30% pollution
reduction. This will maximize the benefits by reducing imported air pollution. You can use your
remaining funds to support this effort.

The Green Party reached the 5% level of support and took seats in the Bundestag, the lower
house of national government. The growth of the Green Party places increasing pressure on the
main parties such as yours to support solutions to environmental problems. The Greens
specifically attacked the failure of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to address acid rain and
other forms of air pollution. Thus, as a member of the SPD, you feel considerable pressure to
make progress on these issues to prevent further growth of the Greens and erosion of the power
of the SPD.

A study in 1982 found that nearly 8% of the German Forests were suffering from pollution
related dieback in which the tops of the trees die. When the forests were surveyed the following
year, the damage had spread to 30% of the trees. This year, 1984, the results of the summer
survey have just arrived and show fully 50% of the nation’s trees are damaged to some extent.
Damage to the popular Black Forest has become visible to all. Scientific reports now link this
directly to air pollution. The fear now is that acid rain has reached such a serious level that soil
acidification is occurring which will have long term detrimental effects on all of West Germany.

Visits by German researchers to regions in the triangle between Czechoslovakia, Poland, and
East Germany have also documented the same type of dieback of trees. The Eastern Black
forests are, in some cases, totally dead. The German people have a visceral connection to the
forests, and the growing evidence for the damage of acid rain causes a sudden shift in popular
sentiment and government policy. This changes everything for you and your faction.

West Germany has taken the lead in development of pollution abatement technology and its
applications. The FRG now has more flue gas desulphurization (FGD) capacity than any country
in Europe and has the only fluidized bed coal power plant as well. As a result, pollution control
offers an economic opportunity for German industry. This is not an ulterior motive for you in the
negotiations but it does provide a silver lining to the dark cloud of the cost of pollution
abatement.

West Germany has officially committed to a 50% reduction in its own sulfur pollution and
adopted strict limits on auto emissions similar to those enacted in the United States and not yet
accepted anywhere else in the world. You are now leading the charge, along with the
Scandinavians, to stop the scourge of air pollution.

76
The 50% reduction in pollution in West Germany costs you $9,000 million and you must give
this amount to the Gamemaster. Any payments made at Geneva are deducted from this $9,000
million.

New Victory Objectives:

1. You will abandon your coalition with Great Britain and begin to work with the
Scandinavian countries to obtain specific, enforceable reductions in air pollution. This
means target reductions for both SO2 and NOx. The FRG believes that at least a 30%
overall reduction should be implemented over the next decade by all European countries.
(+1 point if at least a 30% reduction in emissions is approved by all countries)

77
Change for Norway for Helsinki

The recent discovery of major deposits of both oil and natural gas in the North Sea has greatly
strengthened the economy of Norway. Your government is committed to using some of this new
wealth to support more aggressive pollution reductions in Europe. The money you have available
for pollution control has been increased by $500 million.

78
79
Poland- Change for Helsinki

The high rate of respiratory disease and forest damage has led to a fledgling environmental
movement in Poland. The Polish Ecological Club was founded in 1980 in Cracow and has spread
to all major cities. Pressure on local officials has led to the closing of a few small plants, and
pressure is mounting to close the large Skawine aluminum plant. Plans are also underway to
modify the Lenin steel plant in Cracow to reduce emissions.

80
81
Italy Role Change for Helsinki

Your position on the issues at the Helsinki Conference remain unchanged. You do have access to
information on pollution in Italy in the Core Documents.

The major change is that the Italian government has changed. Andreotti is no longer Prime
Minister. He is now Foreign Minister in the new government. Forlani is now Deputy Foreign
Minister, however, Andreotti will continue to cast the votes for Italy.

82
83
1984 Changes for East Germany
The UN this year has branded East Germany as the third largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in
Europe after the Soviet Union and Great Britain. This makes the smaller East Germany the most
polluted country in Europe. East German emissions per square meter are estimated to be three
times those of West Germany. You can no longer make arguments that the communist system
solves all problems. Furthermore, you have increased industrial production to provide more
consumer goods and export products. This has led to a 10% increase in pollution since 1979 and
your experts predict another 10% increase in the next 5 years.

Current emissions are estimated to be between 4 and 4.5 million tons per year of sulfur dioxide.
There are substantial nitrogen oxide emissions from the inefficient cars you produce. You
produce the Trabant car which has a 2 cycle engine burning a mixture of gasoline and oil. In the
West, these engines are only used in motorcycles and small engines. They are noted for
producing clouds of oily smoke and high levels of pollutants. The only control of NOx pollution
has been through aggressive speed limits.

The East German government has begun to take measures to reduce pollution, though the lack of
money to invest in pollution control technology has limited your success. The most successful
effort has been through conservation and recycling of raw materials. Adding limestone to brown
coal when it is burned has had only a limited impact on emissions. The GDR gets over 80% of its
electricity from brown coal. Plans to expand nuclear power are dependent on help from the
Soviet Union to provide the plants. You already have two Soviet style nuclear power plants.
Your government has pledged a 30% reduction in sulfur emissions by 1993, but at the current
time this is an empty pledge since there is no strategy or money to implement the required
changes

West Germany has begun to provide money for pollution reductions in East Germany. This is
primarily due to self-interest since the pollution crosses the border to West Germany. West
Germany has invested $6 million for a sewage treatment plant on the Roden River which flows
from East Germany into West Germany. West Germany is also pressing East Germany to
purchase scrubbers for their coal plants from West Germany. However, the lack of hard currency
is a limiting factor.

You have begun to import trash from West Germany to earn hard currency and dispose of it in
landfills. This has led to increased pollution of your massively polluted lakes and rivers. The
West Germans are not aware of the lack of regulation of the landfills you use.
The Soviet Union is concerned by the growing ties between East and West Germany. Your plan
for the first ever state visit to West Germany was cancelled due to Russian pressure in 1983. You
can’t be seen as too close or dependent on the West Germans. They will have you removed from
your post if they believe you are becoming too close.

84
85
Send this to entire class before the Sophia Conference

1987 - Brussels

The expanding EEC today approved a new structure which removes the veto power of the major
members. While Britain, West Germany, and France still have more delegates than the smaller
countries, they no longer have the power to block proposals made by the majority. This
represents a major shift for the alliance and may allow for more action in a number of areas
including environmental pollution control, trade, and monetary policy. Some observers believe
this action was a consequence of the actions of Great Britain over the past decade which have
held up treaty action due to their veto power. Other nations, including France, have also taken
advantage of the veto, but none has been as aggressive in their use of it as Britain. Environmental
activists are particularly pleased that this change occurred in time for the Sophia Conference on
LRTAP.

1987- Bonn, FRG (West Germany)


The Green Party, running on a strong anti-nuclear platform, has captured 8.3% of the vote in
German federal elections. The strong showing of the Green Party is, no doubt, due in part to the
Chernobyl disaster of last year. It is clear that West Germany will now move away from plans to
rely more on nuclear power. There is even talk of phasing out all existing nuclear power plants.
This change will probably not prevent West Germany from complying with the Helsinki Treaty,
but it will make the effort to reach a 50% reduction in sulfur emissions more difficult.

The political changes will certainly effect the bargaining at the UNECE Conference scheduled to
begin soon in Sophia to continue the LRTAP protocols. As West Germany moves to close all its
nuclear reactors, alternatives for power generation will be required and any solution other than
nuclear will certainly increase acid emissions. However, the strength of the Greens will require
the government to be even more aggressive in efforts to control pollution.

86
87
Chernobyl Disaster does not occur by the end of the 1987 session, you may announce the
following:

1987 Gamemaster News – Dateline Chernobyl. A major nuclear disaster was averted in the
Soviet Union. One of the four reactors at Chernobyl was tested to determine the safety of the
design. Russian nuclear experts report that in spite of pushing the reactor beyond the design
limits, the safety systems were successful in shutting down the reactor safely. Soviet
authorities cited this recent event when announcing their plans to build an additional 10
similar reactors to reduce Soviet use of coal.

1988 Gamemaster News - Dateline Koln, West Germany. The Green party, running on a
strong anti-nuclear platform, has captured only 1.3% of the vote in German federal
elections. The failure of the Greens to gain seat in the government will clearly strengthen the
hand of the parties who wish to expand West Germany’s use of nuclear power to reduce air
pollution. This change will certainly effect the bargaining at the Sophia Conference
scheduled to meet next year to continue the LRTAP protocols.

88
89
West Germany Change in Role for Sophia

Sophia objectives for West Germany

In 1986, Helmut Kohl tried to limit the support for the Greens by increasing regulation of the
nuclear industry. He combined several agencies into a new Federal Ministry for Environment,
Natural Protection, and Reactor Safety. This move was an effort to halt the call by the Greens
and even some in the Social Democratic Party (SPD) for the elimination of all nuclear reactors.
The new agency strengthened overall environmental regulation in FRG and led negotiators to
take stronger positions in international negotiations. These changes free you to finally move to
place significant restrictions on acid rain causing pollutants. In all international environmental
negotiations, West Germany is now pro-regulation.

By the late 1980’s West Germany had become a leader in the drive for international agreements
to protect the environment. This can be seen in negotiations of the reduction of CFCs, treaties on
global climate change, and acid rain. At this point your primary goal is to obtain strong
regulations to protect the environment. Much of the impetus for this comes from the strength of
the Greens and the desire of the ruling party to limit their electoral appeal by competing with
them as protectors of the environment. Clearly the German electorate is interested in the
environment.

West Germany has led Europe with the removal of leaded gasoline and the requirement that all
cars have tertiary catalytic converters to remove nitrogen oxides. There has been some internal
opposition to this from the German auto industry, but the government is committed to move
forward with 30% reductions in emissions from 1985 values. The French and the English will
oppose it strongly. To be effective, the entire European market must adopt the same regulations.
Failure to do this will lead to German’s being forced to buy leaded gasoline when they travel
which will destroy the catalytic converters. And tourists who drive through West Germany
should not bring pollution with them. Your position is that all new cars need to be equipped with
catalytic converters. If you fail to get overall adoption of catalytic converters, you must at least
insure that unleaded gasoline is available on all major highways in Europe.

West Germany has also placed major restrictions on NOx emissions from both existing and new
power plants. These will result in a substantial reduction of local NOx emissions, no matter what
is decided at Sophia.

Note that some of your old allies in your faction may not support reducing NOx. You will need
to form a new faction of those supporting strong action on NOx.

Victory Objective

If all of Western Europe adopts the catalytic converter rule and 30% reductions, +1 point.

90
91
Change for Walter Wallmann, FRG-3

Your work in the UN conferences has brought you to the attention of the Prime Minister. The
government has recently created the German Ministry for the Environment (BMU) and you have
been chosen to head this important new agency. Much of the impetus for the BMU came in
response to the growing concern about the risks of nuclear power.

Your new position gives you an even larger role in setting environmental policy. This position
can also lead to higher national or state offices if you are effective.

92
93
Britain Changes for Sophia Conference - For all GB roles

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who is trained as a chemist, has recently embraced
environmentalism and has charged you to work for all economically sustainable pollution
controls. However, the British government’s investment in British Leyland and the importance to
the economy of British Ford mean that you must oppose catalytic converters for small cars,
which are the major category manufactured in England. A major investment in research and
development of lean burn engines has already been made and will be lost if catalytic converters
are required. Also, the incremental cost of adding $500 or more to each car is much more
important for a low cost car than for a big Mercedes or Audi.

You will find a new group of allies in this conference who support your position.

94
95
Bibliography
The list of books below was used in preparing this game and the roles for the students. The text
by Wetstone and Rosencranz was particularly helpful in defining the roles. The cost-benefit
decisions used in defining the winners and losers are based on the models and case studies in the
OECD report.

Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz,
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, 1983

The Costs and Benefits of Sulfur Oxide Control, OECD, Paris, 1981

Sulphur Emission from Large Point Sources in Europe, Mark Barrett and Rodri Protheroe, 2nd
Ed. Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain

Acid Politics. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Jim Skea, Belhaven Press, London, 1991

Ecological Numeracy, Robert Herendeen, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1998
This has excellent problems, examples, and discussion of quantitative calculations related
to the environment.

Ecology and Utility, Lincoln Allison, Associated university Presses, 1991


This book takes a utilitarian position on the environment and offers a comparison of
green, grey, and utilitarian positions

Life’s philosophy: reason and feeling in a deeper world, Arne Naess, University of Georgia
Press, Athens, 2002

96
Instructor Materials

Role Sheets
Blank pages have been added so roles can be printed double sided directly from this file.

Faction Briefing

The class can be divided into two groups for the initial briefing. One group consists of those who
want a treaty, the Norway, Sweden, France, and Eastern Europe. The other group are those
opposed to a treaty or who need money before they will agree. This group includes Germany,
the UK, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland, and Finland.

Treaty supporters
This group should be instructed to prepare an argument based on the damage being caused by
acid rain and the need for a treaty. Norway should look for pictures of fish kills. Pictures of dead
forests make a good visual for Eastern Europe. They should consider the UN statement from
1972 about the responsibility of polluters whose pollution crosses borders and use the data in the
table to show that pollution is a regional problem requiring a regional solution. After the initial
briefing, the Western European and Eastern European groups should separate to discuss their
specific problems.

Treaty Opponents

The German and UK delegations are under instructions not to accept any limits. All of the group
are opposed to a treaty for economic reasons. In the case of the rich countries, UK and Germany,
there is opposition to anything that will reduce economic growth. The poor countries also are
concerned about economic growth. For them, agreeing to a treaty will require money from the
wealthy countries. They need to make the point that their planned growth will increase their
emissions, so if money is not invested, their pollution will get worse. None of them have enough
money to prevent increased emissions in the future. This group is really two factions and after
the initial briefing, they need to be separated. The UK and Germany will examine the paper by
Chester to counter Norway on the science. The poor nations should discuss issues of fairness.
Why should they accept slow growth to solve a problem created by the rich countries.

97
Executive Secretary of the UNECE for the Geneva Conference

Biography

You were born in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Your mother was the niece of
the local Catholic Archbishop and in your youth, you were active in the church and considered
the priesthood. You were close to several of the major intellectuals of the Christian Socialist
party. As you finished high school and entered the University to study Law, you moved away
from the church before the war. During World War II, you were imprisoned by the Italian
occupying army due to your work in the Liberation Front for the Slovene People. When released
from prison, you returned to your activity to liberate Slovenia. After the war, you continued to be
politically active and joined the Communist Party. Possibly due to the death of your first wife
shortly after the birth of your second son, you lost all interest in religion. Your previous ties to
the Christian Socialists made you politically effective in bringing them together with the
Communists.

You have degrees in Economics and have divided your professional life between a variety of
high government posts and university teaching. You have served in the Yugoslav delegation to
the UN and are currently the Executive Secretary of the UNECE.

Objectives

You must achieve some kind of agreement during the Geneva sessions. It is not necessary that
specific reductions be mandated, but everyone must agree to at least the idea of reductions and to
meet again to move further on the issue in the future. If you fail in this goal, you will no doubt be
replaced by Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim. You may even be forced to leave the UN and
return to your home country.

Responsibilities

Your responsibilities as Executive Secretary of the UNECE include organizing the


UN Conference in Geneva. You will personally chair the sessions and will work behind the
scenes with the representatives of the various nations to reach an agreement.

Assignments

You will make an opening speech at the conference in which you welcome the participants,
summarize the problem, and encourage them to reach an agreement on both practical and
philosophical grounds. You should also emphasize the UN 1972 statement.

You will open each session with a short speech aimed at furthering your goals. This may involve
summarizing what has happened or chastising the delegates to solve their differences. You may
also use these to make specific proposals.

98
Your written speeches will be short and one will be prepared for each game session as long as
you are chairing the Conference.

Relationships

UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim is very strongly committed to a successful conference for
several reasons.

First, as an Austrian, he recognizes the problems that air pollution are causing in the region and
in his home country. Thus he feels a personal stake in the outcome.

Second, Waldheim wants to bring the Eastern European countries into the negotiations as a way
to foster closer relationships between East and West. He sees this as an important aspect of
international relations and as a way to diffuse tensions in Europe.

Third, Waldheim is eager to establish the principle of international accountability for pollution,
which was started by the UN in 1972 but has not yet led to any progress. This treaty will be a
useful model for future work by the UN. The success of these negotiations will enhance the
prestige of the UN for solving international problems.

Strategy Advice

During the first session, you should begin by asking each faction to present their proposals. The
Plaintiff faction will probably want to go first. After these presentations, there will need to be a
general discussion of both the scientific basis for the proposals and the philosophical reasons.
Try to get the students to do these in an organized way. You may want to get the scientific
evidence papers presented first, or you may want to have the philosophical papers. But you
should avoid having a mix of these. That will lead to an unfocused discussion.

Because time will likely be tight, you need to make it clear that speakers should not read their
entire papers. Also, you should urge everyone to read the complete texts posted on Blackboard to
get all the details. This is especially important after the first session so that all of the details in the
proposals are clear. You can also suggest that students print and distribute specific proposals that
require careful attention to the details.

The most important aspect of your role is to work both behind the scenes and within the
conference to facilitate an agreement. This means trying to find compromises that all sides can
accept. The UN has no money to bribe or reward people for cooperation, so you will need to use
persuasion of every kind you can muster. You can also threaten to embarrass countries that don’t
go along by publicly blaming them for the failure of the talks.

The EEC must all vote together in the Conference, thus you will want to meet with them when
the EEC has their faction meeting to convince them to go along with the treaty. Your only
responsibility regarding the specifics of the treaty is that it be something that everyone can agree
to. If you can’t get specific reductions in the treaty, it should at least contain a promise research

99
on the uncertainties in the science and to meet again in 1984 to reconsider the evidence and the
issues.

If things get bogged down, you may find it useful to present your own proposal at the second
session. If you do this, it should be based on your sense of what kind of compromise will be
successful. You will then have to get all the sides to go along. This will not be easy. You can be
guided by the actual Geneva document.

Voting in the Conference is one vote per country. The delegates within each country must agree
on how their vote will be cast. In the multi-delegate countries, one delegate is assigned to cast
the vote in their role. You should make a list an poll the countries one at a time for their vote on
the final decision. Other votes can be done by show of hands if you wish.

To LearnMore

Biography based on Janez Stanovnik – You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives – Geneva Conference

1. You must achieve some kind of agreement during the Geneva sessions.
+2 Points for specific reductions
+1 Victory point if you get a non-specific treaty

If you succeed in your first challenge at the Geneva meetings, you will, no doubt, be retained in
your highly paid job and will plan the next phase of the negotiations. If this occurs, your victory
objectives for the next meeting will be provided. In general, the next conference will demand
further progress toward specific targets and commitments from all parties. (Note that if you do
stay in your position, you may be given a new name to reflect the historical changes in
leadership.)

100
101
UN Representative Worksheet

Collect money from each country and enter the amount in the table below. Each country
must give you the money they are spending internally and also any being spent to help
other countries. For the purpose of scoring these are treated the same way. Countries
receiving money must only give you the money they are spending themselves, however, if
they have received money from other countries during the game for pollution reductions,
they give you this money as well.

Country Percent Reduction of SO2 Money Spent on Pollution


Treaty
Austria
Finland
West Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Norway
Spain
Sweden
UK
Czechoslovakia
East Germany
Hungary
Poland
France
Netherlands

102
103
UNECE Executive Secretary for the Helsinki Conference

Biography

You are from Finland and were born to a bilingual family in Helsinki. This was a good start to
what would become a distinguished career in the Foreign Service. After receiving an advanced
degree in economics, you joined the Foreign Service with postings to West Germany, Egypt, and
other countries. You represented Finland at the UN for several years. You were appointed in
1975 as Executive Director of the United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations. Your
time in the Centre on Transnational Corporations led to a variety of interesting anecdotes that
you love to share. In one case, you were summoned to Trinidad by the Prime Minister who was
under the mistaken impression that you could provide the appraisal of a jet airplane for him. In
another case, you were invited to meet with the Pope during his visit to the UN. The Pope clearly
had no idea what the Centre did, but you reminded him that the Church was the largest
transnational corporation of all. This led to your being quickly dismissed from the audience.
You took your current post as Executive Secretary of the UNECE in 1983.

Objectives

UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar expects you to continue the process begun at
Geneva. No matter the outcome of that meeting, the new conference must establish defined and
mandatory reductions in emissions. The Sophia Conference will address nitrogen oxides. The
nations do not all have to agree to one specific target. But there must be an overall decrease that
is significant. A good target would be 30%. Greater reductions will improve life for everyone in
Europe even more but may be too ambitious. Some countries have already committed to much
deeper cuts and will push others to follow their lead.

Responsibilities

You will open the first Helsinki session with a short speech in which you will speak about the
results of the Geneva Conference and state the problems and objectives of the Helsinki session.
Then you will work both within the conference and behind the scenes to convince everyone to
compromise. Because the pollution data are better than they were in 1979, your job is probably
easier than it was then. But there are still many hurdles to overcome.

Assignments

You will open each session with a short speech aimed at furthering your goals. This may involve
summarizing what has happened or chastising the delegates to solve their differences. You may
also use these to make specific proposals.

104
Your written speeches will be short and one will be prepared for each game session as long as
you are chairing the Conference.

Strategy Advice
Because time will likely be tight, you need to make it clear that speakers should not read their
entire papers. Also, you should urge everyone to read the complete texts posted on Blackboard to
get all the details. This is especially important after the first session so that all of the details in the
proposals are clear. You can also suggest that students print and distribute specific proposals that
require careful attention to the details.

The EEC must all vote together in the Conference, thus you will want to meet with them when
the EEC has their faction meeting to convince them to go along with the treaty.

If things get bogged down, you may find it useful to present your own proposal at the second
session. If you do this, it should be based on your sense of what kind of compromise will be
successful. You will then have to get all the sides to go along. This will not be easy. You can be
guided by the actual Helsinki document.

Voting in the Conference is one vote per country. The delegates within each country must agree
on how their vote will be cast. In the multi-delegate countries, one delegate is assigned to cast
the vote in their role. You should make a list and poll the countries one at a time for their vote on
the final decision. Other votes can be done by show of hands if you wish.

To LearnMore

Biography based on Klaus Sahlgren -You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Obtain agreements which make specific reductions in sulfur oxide pollution that will reduce
overall acid pollution by at least 30%.
(+1 Victory point if you succeed)

If you fail to meet your objectives, the Secretary General will probably remove you from this
highly paid job and you will be forced to return home. This may require a change of roles for the
final sessions. (Note even if you succeed you may be given a new name to reflect the actual
change of leadership before the next session in Sophia)

105
UNECE Executive Secretary for the Sophia Conference

Biography

You are from Austria and studied a broad range of topics from music to law, but received your
Bachelor’s degree in international studies at the University of Mississippi before returning to
Austria for a Ph.D. in Philosophy followed by a law degree. Your career has been in the Austrian
Foreign Service including postings in Madrid, Moscow, and Washington. You have represented
Austria at the UN. You have just been appointed to your new role as Executive Secretary for the
UNECE this year. Your experience means that you know the people involved in this meeting
well, but you have not been involved in the previous negotiations.

Objectives

UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar expects you to continue the process begun at
Geneva. No matter the outcome of that meeting, the new conferences must accomplish defined
and mandatory reductions in emissions. The Sophia Conference will address nitrogen oxides.
The nations do not all have to agree to one specific target. But there must be an overall decrease
that is significant. A good target would be 50%, but you can live with 30%. It may also be
necessary to provide exemptions or delays for some countries to get them to agree to a treaty.

Responsibilities

You will open the first session with a short speech in which you summarize the results of the
Helsinki conference and state the problems and objectives of the Sophia session. Then you will
work both within the conference and behind the scenes to convince everyone to compromise.
Because the pollution data are better than they were in 1984, your job is probably easier than it
was then. But there are still many hurdles to overcome. Another advantage you have is that the
EEC has recently removed the veto power of the major nations. Only a simple majority of EEC
members is required to force all EEC countries to comply. However, England, West Germany,
and France each have two votes, giving them more power than the small countries like Ireland.
You will need to attend the faction meeting of the EEC to try to convince them to approve the
treaty.

When you open the second session, you may wish to summarize the status of the debate and
make a specific proposal to bridge the gap between the factions.

Assignments

You will open each session with a short speech aimed at furthering your goals. This may involve
summarizing what has happened or chastising the delegates to solve their differences. You may
also use these to make specific proposals.

106
Your written speeches will be short and one will be prepared for each game session as long as
you are chairing the Conference.

Strategy Advice

Because time will likely be tight, you need to make it clear that speakers should not read their
entire papers. Also, you should urge everyone to read the complete texts posted on Blackboard to
get all the details. This is especially important after the first session so that all of the details in the
proposals are clear. You can also suggest that students print and distribute specific proposals that
require careful attention to the details.

Voting in the Conference is one vote per country. The delegates within each country must agree
on how their vote will be cast. In the multi-delegate countries, one delegate is assigned to cast
the vote in their role. You should make a list and poll the countries one at a time for their vote on
the final decision. Other votes can be done by show of hands if you wish.

To LearnMore

Biography based on Gerald Hintereger- You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Obtain agreements which make specific targeted reductions in nitrogen oxide pollution that
will reduce overall acid pollution by at least 30%.
(+1 Victory point if you succeed)

107
Great Britain -1 Foreign Minister
EEC Member Country

Biography

You are a member of the British aristocracy, with noble parents on both sides of your family.
You received the finest education England has to offer, studying at Eaton and then at the Royal
Military College at Sandhurst. You served with distinction as an officer in World War II
reaching the rank of Major before you left the service in 1949. You succeeded your father as a
Conservative member of the House of Lords in 1945 and have served under Winston Churchill
and Anthony Edon among other notables. You have held a wide variety of positions in the
British government including posts as ambassador and a member of the Cabinet.

You have recently been appointed by the new Thatcher government to this important cabinet
post. Since your portfolio includes all international negotiations, you have chosen to lead the
delegation to this conference. You will cast the vote for Britain at all Conference sessions and
one of two British votes in the EEC sessions. But you will have to depend on the other
members of your faction to help you determine how to vote. Before each vote you must have the
agreement of your entire delegation before you can cast the vote for the UK

Objectives

At Geneva, your goal is to prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution
that has specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without numerical
standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”.

You will receive specific objectives from the government before the Helsinki meeting.

At Sophia you must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but no
reduction in NOx.

Finally, you need to clearly articulate the utilitarian environmental philosophy and argue
effectively against Deep Ecology.

Responsibilities

You must lead the British argument against specific limits on air pollution. There are several
strong arguments you can make against any international agreement to limit pollution.

1. There is not yet any significant science connecting SO2 pollution from the UK to
acidification in other countries. There are other sources of acidity such as NOx which also
contribute (The NOx pollution from the UK is much less than the SO2 pollution).
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB is causing acidification in
Scandinavia.

108
3. Even if British emissions are to blame for problems in Norway, they would represent, at
most, 10% of the pollution in Norway. Thus GB would need to reduce its emissions by
50% to reduce acid deposition in Scandinavia by 5%. That is just not economically
sensible.
4. Britain considers the UNECE the only legitimate forum for discussing transnational
boundary pollution. Other countries are welcome to work outside that organization, but
Britain will only work through the UNECE. (The reasoning for this is that the UNECE is
very weak and thus not considered a threat).

Relationships to People and Ideas

You have a tempestuous relationship with Margaret Thatcher. Even though you are a committed
Conservative, your sense of noblesse oblige makes you sympathetic to the problems of the
common working class. Thus, you are often at odds with some of Thatcher’s policies.

You have little understanding of the problems of environmental pollution and will need to get up
to speed on this topic quickly. However, you understand the give and take of international
politics well. You are a strong leader. You have the support of Lord Marshall, the Head of the
Central Electricity Generating Board, and the Chief Alkali Inspector who are both very familiar
with the concerns of British Industry and the limitations on the basic science. You will depend
on them for their help in supporting your position. But you are the leader of the delegation and
will behave as such. You will also insure that the other members follow the Thatcher policy in all
their decisions.

Thatcher is committed to reducing the role of government in the industrial sector and also to
reducing the power of unions, which she sees as a component in Britain’s decline in the world.
She wants to reverse this as quickly as possible. She also seeks to reassert Britain’s historic role
as the leading country of Europe.

Your philosophical position on the issue of pollution could best be described as “utilitarian”.
There are several aspects of this. First and foremost, you believe that humans are in some sense
superior to other species and that our welfare and happiness take priority over that of all others
(teleological position). This position is not based on a religious belief, though you understand
that some fundamentalist Christians use religion to justify a similar position. Furthermore, you
are not focused on the weakest or poorest humans but rather on the greatest happiness for the
largest number. If this results in some minority being unhappy, that is just an unhappy
consequence of maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number. You judge all political
decisions on the basis of their effects on people. Since you are a British citizen, you place the
welfare of your fellow citizens above that of other nations. This philosophical position does not
imply that you would rape and pillage the environment for a bit more power to run TV sets to
make people happy. You are well aware of the need to protect the environment, but the goal of
the protection is to maximize the ability of the environment to make people happy.

There are some problems with your philosophical position. One is the time scale on which
happiness is measured. Since British governments have a lifetime of only 5-10 years, this is your
basic frame of reference. But recent discoveries by scientists suggest you need to extend this

109
timeline somewhat in your mind and insure that future generations can be as happy as the present
one. This requires you to temper your decisions based on their longer term consequences. Still,
you have confidence in technological development to solve some of the problems of the
environment.

In developing your role and writing your papers, you need to research the utilitarian
philosophical position. Your writing should clearly demonstrate your belief in the utilitarian
position. One of your secondary goals is to have some form of utilitarianisms built into the final
decisions written by the conference. You will also need to be prepared to argue against the
radical “green” and “deep ecology” positions, which suggest that humans are not special and that
it is equally important for horses and foxes and jellyfish to be happy.

Your religious beliefs and your training tell you that humans are a special creation, different
from and more important that all other living things. That is how you read Genesis. You have
traveled all over England and to Africa to hunt various animals, both to eat the game and, in
some cases, for the thrill of the hunt. You believe this is your God given right. You also love to
participate in fox hunting. There is pressure from various groups including the Animal Liberation
Front and some radical environmentalists to ban fox hunts. You feel this would be as damaging
to the very fabric of the English soul as banning the sale of beef or beer. You will need to
elaborate this philosophical position as a counter weight to the Deep Ecology position which will
certainly emerge from the Norwegians.

The history of air pollution in Britain is filled with irony. As a major industrial nation, Britain is
well acquainted with air pollution. In fact, the first scientific report of acid rain was in the 1872
book Acid and Rain: The Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology by Angus Smith. Air pollution
controls began in 1863 with the Alkali Act. Modern pollution control laws trace their origin to
the killer fog of 1952 which caused thousands of deaths in London.6 Sadly, for Norway and
Sweden, a major component of British pollution control has been to build tall smokestacks to
move the pollution away from urban and industrial areas and thus spread it to the rest of Europe.
This has been an effective strategy for Britain, but the countries downwind are beginning to
complain. Sweden and Norway have conducted research that seems to implicate GB in their acid
rain problems.

Little attention had been given to actual reductions in pollution by shifting to low sulfur fuel oils
or the installation of scrubbers on power plants to remove pollution. There has been a 25%
reduction in total SO2 emissions over the past decade. This is due in part to the Alkali
Inspectorate’s imposition of standards on small polluters and to the construction of nuclear
power plants to replace old coal plants. The AI has yet to assert any real control on the large
polluters, which now make up almost 67% of total British SO2 emissions. Current policy calls
for a continued increase in nuclear power, but more as a replacement for expensive Middle East
oil rather than to reduce the use of English coal. Over 70% of the total electric generation is from
coal and this will not change in the near future.

6
Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1983 pp. 66-7.

110
The reliance on coal is due in part to the historical power of the miners unions and the past Labor
governments. The other factor is the abundance of coal in Britain that limits the need to import
fuel. You will need to be fully convinced before you recommend that anything be done that
would slow industrial growth or require major investments. You also must not accept any air
pollution controls that would damage the British balance of foreign exchange.

Strategy Advisory

Your primary allies will probably be the West Germans. You share their dependence on coal and
heavy industrial base. Both of your countries are building nuclear plants for generating
electricity. You should begin to work with them at your earliest opportunity. They share your
concerns on most points. You will need to work closely with them to develop a strategy. The
Eastern bloc countries are also heavily industrialized, and they may also be good allies. You will
have to determine this by talking to them about their position.

A further way to complicate the negotiations and block an agreement is to use the idea that the
agreement is between the EEC as a single international entity and the other nations at the
conference. This requires that all members of the EEC agree. Since England and West Germany
have virtual control the EEC, this will be a way to prevent the other members of the EEC from
supporting the treaty. The Eastern Bloc may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as an
entity. There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner. This
is another issue that may arise, and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an agreement.
The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)
has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC has. This may become an issue
as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $5,500
million.

111
% Reduction SO2 within a
country if the same money
is spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP Difference due to imported Cost in million US
Local Emissions for the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.004 4 $20
10 0.053 8 $250
20 0.237 17 $1,100
30 0.537 26 $2,500
40 0.954 34 $4,300
50 1.486 43 $7,000
60 2.134 51 $10,000
75 3.324 64 $15,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Peter Alexander Rupert Carington, 6th Baron Carrington You may
use this name as your game name but realize that your actual positions may not be identical to
the actual historical person.

Ireland, F.E. et al., The Philosophy of Air Pollution Control in the United Kingdom,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 290 (1376) 1979, pp.
625-37.

The Deep Ecology position is truly radical. The selection by Barbara Kingsolver in the Deep
Ecology section of the game book may be helpful in seeing this. The quotation below is from
another of her books, Prodigal Summer. You should note that this philosophy does not require
the extreme positions of groups like PETA. But it does require a different approach to all living
things. In this collection of passages she is talking about an old man named Walker who has
spent much of his life trying to breed an American chestnut tree that is immune to the Dutch elm
disease. She tells how the disease, which came to this country on a plant imported from Europe,
killed virtually the entire chestnut population and how important the trees were for the economy.
This section is an exchange of letters between Mr. Walker and his neighbor, Nanny Rawley. It
begins as an argument over the fate of a local species of salamander popular as bait for bass
fishing. Since fishing is an important pastime for many Europeans, your opponents may use this
argument as a way to get their ideas into the debate. You need to be prepared to counter them.7

Dear Miss Rawley,

On the matter of setting free the “lizards” sold at Grundy’s bait store on the grounds that
some of them belong to species that are vanishing from our region, having given it some
thought, I propose three questions:
1) Are we humans to think of ourselves merely as one species among many, as you
always insist in our discussions of how a person might live in “harmony” with

7
This material is copied and paraphrased from “Prodigal Summer” by Barbara Kingsolver. Pp 185-7, 214-219, 279-
280, 389-390

112
“nature” while still managing to keep the Japanese beetles from entirely destroying
his trees? Do you believe a human holds no more special authority in this world than,
say, Japanese beetle or a salamander? If so, then why is it our duty to set free
salamanders, any more than it is the salamander’s place to swim up to the state
prison and liberate the criminals incarcerated there?
2) Or are we to think of ourselves as keepers and guardians of the earth, as God
instructed us to do in Genesis. “So God created man in his own image;… and God
blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it!.... Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face
of the earth and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree-yielding seed; to you it shall
be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
everything that creepeth upon the earth’” – such as salamanders, Miss Rawley –
“wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat’; and it was so.” If the
Holy Bible is to be believed, we must view God’s creatures as gifts to his favored
children and use them for our own purposes, even if this occasionally causes this one
or that to go extinct; after a while.
3) If one species or another of those muddy little salamanders went extinct, who would
care anyway?
Just Wondering,
Garnett Walker III

Miss Rowley’s reply letter.

Dear Mr. Walker,

Since you asked, yes, I do believe humankind holds a special place in the world. It’s the
similar place held by a mockingbird, in his opinion, and a salamander in whatever he has
that resembles a mind of his own. Every creature alive believes this: The center of
everything is me. Every life has its own kind of worship, I think, but do you think a
salamander is worshiping some God that looks like a big two-legged man? Go on! To
him, a man’s a shadowy nuisance (if anything) compared to the sacred business of
finding food and a mate and making progeny to rule the mud for all times. To themselves
and one another, those muddly little salamander lives mean everything.

Of all things, I’d never expect you, Garnett Walker III, to ask “Who cares if one species
is lost?” The extinction of one kind of tree wrecked pure havoc on the folks all through
these mountains- your own family more than any other. Suppose some city Yank said to
you, “Well, sir, the American chestnut was just one tree – why, the woods are full of
trees!” You’d get so mad you’d spit. It would take you a day and a night to try and
explain why the chestnut was a tree unlike any other, that held a purpose in our world
that nothing else can replace. Well sir, the loss of one kind of salamander would be a
tragedy on the same order of to some other creature that was depending on it. It wouldn’t
be you this time, but I assume you care about all tragedies, not just the ones that affect
the Walker fortunes.

113
Just think: if someone had shown you a little old seedling tree potted in a handful of dirt
coming in on a ship from Asia all those years ago, asked you to peek into it, and
remarked, “These piddly little strands of fungus will knock down a million majestic
chestnut trees, starve out thousands of righteous mountain folk, and leave Garnett Walker
a bitter old man,” would you have laughed?

If God gave Man all the creatures of this earth to use for his own ends, he also counseled
that gluttony is a sin- and he did say, flat out, “Thou shalt not kill.” He didn’t tell us to
go ahead and murder every beetle or caterpillar that wants to eat what we eat (and, by
the way, other insects that pollinate what we eat). He did not mean for us to satisfy our
every whim for any food, in every season, by tearing down forests to make way for fields,
ripping up fields to make way for beasts, and transporting everything we can think of to
places it doesn’t belong. To our dominion over the earth, Mr. Walker, we own our thanks
for the chestnut blight. Our thanks for kudzu, honeysuckle, and the Japanese beetle also. I
think that’s God’s little joke on us for getting too big for our britches. We love to declare
that God made us in his image, but even so, he’s three billion years old and we’re just
babies. … We’re that foolish to think we know how to rule the world.

I’m partial to the passage from Genesis you quoted, but I wonder if you really understand
it. God gave us every herb bearing seed, it says, and every tree in which is the fruit of a
tree-yielding seed. He gave us the mystery of a world that can re-create itself again and
again. To you the fruit shall be food, he’s saying, but just remember, to the tree it’s a
child. “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that
creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat.”
He’s looking out for the salamanders there, you see, reminding us that there’s life in
them, too, and even weeds and pond algae are sacred because they’re salamander food.
You’re a religious man, Mr. Walker. Seems to me you’d think twice about spraying
poison all over God’s hard work.

Never mind. We all have our peeves. Myself, I hate goats, and I sorely despise snapping
turtles. It’s sure God loves them as much as he loves you or me, but I’ve got new baby
ducklings on my pond, and an evil old turtle in there is gobbling them down like the troll
under the bridge. … I can’t stand it. I’d shoot that old S-O-B in the head if I had a gun
and the heart to use it, so help me. But I have neither, and God knows that is surely for
the best.

Yours very sincerely,


Nanny Land Rawley

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without
numerical standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – You will receive specific objectives from the government before this meeting.

114
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but
no reduction in NOx. (+1 point)
4. Clearly articulate the utilitarian environmental philosophy and argue effectively against Deep
Ecology. (+1 point)

115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Great Britain -2 – Head of Alkali Inspectorate

EEC Member Country

Biography

Little is known about your personal background, but you are the head of the Alkali Inspectorate
(AI) and will cast the second British vote in the EEC meetings. This century old government
agency is responsible for inspection and regulation of air pollution sources. Your background is
in chemistry and chemical engineering, so you are very familiar with all of the details of
combustion processes, the formation of air pollution, and control strategies. The AI has a long
history of working hand in hand with industry to find the most cost effective and least intrusive
ways to reduce pollution. It has rarely brought prosecution or public action against any polluter.
You are very much a friend of the industries you regulate, and your appointment to the team for
this conference is an indication of the government’s desire that no regulations be approved that
will damage British industry. It is noteworthy that there is not a single flue gas scrubber system
installed or planned in Britain in spite of the huge dependence on coal. If you have a philosophy
about the environment, it is “what is good for British industry is good for Britain”.

You have written fairly extensively about your opinions on air pollution control and your
philosophy for controlling it. You are very proud of the work of the AI over its long history and
will defend your work to reduce pollution against anyone who tries to make Great Britain look
bad in this respect.

You have tried to maintain a level of transparency in the work of the AI. You recently were
quoted saying “I am a great believer in informing the public but not giving them figures they
can’t interpret. You could get amateur environmental experts and university scientists playing
around with them. People can become scared of figures, they can get their wind up.”8

Objectives

At Geneva, your goal is to prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution
that has specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without numerical
standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”.

You will receive specific objectives from the government before the Helsinki meeting.

At Sophia you must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but no
reduction in NOx.

Responsibilities

8
Tinker, J, Britains Environment- Nanny knows Best. New Scientist, March 9, 1972, p 533.

122
You will help your faction make the arguments against limits on air pollution. There are several
strong arguments you can make against any international agreement to limit pollution.

1. There is not yet any significant science connecting SO2 pollution from the UK to
acidification in other countries. There are other sources of acidity such as NOx which also
contribute (The NOx pollution from the UK is much less than the SO2 pollution).
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB is causing acidification in
Scandinavia.
3. Even if British emissions are to blame for problems in Norway, they would represent, at
most, 10% of the pollution in Norway. Thus GB would need to reduce its emissions by
50% to reduce acid deposition in Scandinavia by 5%. That is just not economically
sensible.
4. Britain considers the UNECE the only legitimate forum for discussing transnational
boundary pollution. Other countries are welcome to work outside that organization, but
Britain will only work through the UNECE. (The reasoning for this is that the UNECE is
very weak and thus not considered a threat).

Relationship to Big Ideas

The AI has been particularly secretive in its dealings. It has refused to publish any information
on the extent of emissions from various polluters, who the polluters are, or what actions it has
taken against polluters. This is done, in the words of one official of the AI “to prevent the public
from being confused by large masses of data, provide ammunition to environmental extremists,
damage the trust between the AI and its industrial partners, waste time, and reduce efficiency.”9

Your philosophical position could best be described as “Cornucopian”. You are confident that
political, technological, and scientific progress will allow the solution of any difficulty that
arises. You are an optimist about the ability to improve the lot of everyone if pro-growth policies
are uniformly adopted.

As the leading authority on pollution control in the British government, you are convinced that
your career in pollution control has produced the best possible outcomes for the people of the
UK. You will take great offense if anyone accuses you otherwise.
The history of air pollution in Britain is filled with irony. As a major industrial nation, Britain is
well acquainted with air pollution. In fact, the first scientific report of acid rain was in the 1872
book Acid and Rain: The Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology by Angus Smith. Air pollution
controls began in 1863 with the Alkali Act. Modern pollution control laws trace their origin to
the killer fog of 1952 which caused thousands of deaths in London.10 Sadly for Norway and
Sweden, a major component of British pollution control has been to build tall smokestacks to
move the pollution away from urban and industrial areas and thus spread it to the rest of Europe.
This has been an effective strategy for Britain, but the countries downwind are beginning to
complain. Sweden and Norway have conducted research that seems to implicate GB in their acid

9
Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1983 adapted from p 75.
10
Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1983 pp. 66-7.

123
rain problems. You are not convinced of this conclusion and the AI has also done research in
Norway. Your research seems to show that the obvious problem of acidification is not due to air
pollution at all.

Little attention had been given to actual reductions in pollution by shifting to low sulfur fuel oils
or the installation of scrubbers on power plants to remove pollution. There has been a 25%
reduction in total SO2 emissions over the past decade. This is due in part to the AI’s imposition
of standards on small polluters and to the construction of nuclear power plants to replace old coal
plants. The AI has yet to assert any real control on the large polluters which now make up almost
67% of total British SO2 emissions. Current policy calls for a continued increase in nuclear
power, but more as a replacement for expensive Middle East oil rather than to reduce the use of
English coal. Over 70% of the total electric generation is from coal and this will not change in
the foreseeable future. Coal is also used to make “synthesis gas” which is used instead of natural
gas for heating and cooking.

The reliance on coal is due in part to the historical power of the miners unions and the past Labor
governments. The other factor is the abundance of coal in Britain which limits the need to import
fuel. You will need to be fully convinced before you recommend that anything be done that
would slow industrial growth or require major investments. You also must not accept any air
pollution controls that would damage the British balance of foreign exchange.

On the issue of acid rain, you are very skeptical of the basic science. You will question the scale
of the problem and whether it is really a serious threat. While there have been some reports of
acidification of lakes and bogs in Scotland, Britain as a whole has not seen significant
environmental impact. Thus any costs Britain assumes will come with little obvious benefit. One
way you can obstruct agreements is to emphasize the uncertainties in the scientific data and
delay until these are resolved. You will also challenge regulation on philosophical and economic
grounds. Finally, you may offer to accept a “pay to pollute” model in which British industry pays
a small premium for their pollution with this money going to fund remediation efforts in the
affected countries.

Strategy Advisory

Your primary allies will probably be the West Germans. They share your concerns on most
points. You will need to work closely with them to develop a strategy. The Eastern bloc
countries are also heavily industrialized, and they may also be good allies. You will have to
determine this by talking to them about their position. You have a strong position in the game
because you hold a veto in the EEC. Since all of the EEC nations must vote together, you can
block the approval of any treaty you dislike. However, you will be under pressure to agree to
some kind of minimal treaty. International pressure from the Scandinavian countries cannot be
totally ignored. And the French will no doubt be trying to hold the EEC together and find
common ground.

The USSR and the Eastern Bloc may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as an entity.
There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner. This is
another issue that may arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an agreement.

124
Since you do support the future of the EEC, you will need to argue for the ability of the EEC to
sign a treaty even though you don’t want a treaty. This could be one reason why you will agree
to some kind of treaty as a better option than allowing the treaty to be blocked on a technical
ground. The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
(CMEA) has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC has. This may become
an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $5,500
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money
is spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP Difference due to imported Cost in million US
Local Emissions for the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.004 4 $20
10 0.053 8 $250
20 0.237 17 $1,100
30 0.537 26 $2,500
40 0.954 34 $4,300
50 1.486 43 $7,000
60 2.134 51 $10,000
75 3.324 64 $15,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Frank E. Ireland:You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Ireland, F.E. et al., The Philosophy of Air Pollution Control in the United Kingdom,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 290 (1376) 1979, pp.
625-37. This article is available in the library through JSTOR.

Chester, P.F., Acid Rain, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, and Fisheries., Special Publication IEEE
Power Engineering Society 20 (1981), pp. 13-18. (While this article was not published until
1981, the data it contains cover the period ending in 1975. For purposes of this game, it is
assumed that the British delegation has access to this information. Summary on GB pp. 49-50

Victory Objectives

125
1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without
numerical standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – You will receive specific objectives from the government before this meeting.
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but
no reduction in NOx. (+1 point)

126
127
Great Britain -3 Head of CEGB

EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in South Wales and after primary school began working rather than attending
university. During World War II, you were stationed in India where you became fascinated by
Mahatma Gandhi. While you were not able to remain in India, but you kept a lifelong interest in
Gandhi’s philosophy. All in all you have dedicated your life to making the world a better place.

Returning to England, you began working as a night shift supervisor at the power stations. You
rose gradually through the ranks at the Central Electric Generating Board, the British national
utility. Finally, two years ago in 1977, you were promoted to Chairman. You control the largest
single electrical utility company in the world and have almost 60,000 people working for you.
The CEGB is the governmental body that oversees all electricity generation in Great Britain.
The CEGB has a value of around 40 Billion pounds sterling.

You became active in politics in the 1950’s and held local posts. You were one of the founders
of the Social Democratic Party, and have held to your Liberal roots in your political activities. In
spite of Prime Minister Thatcher’s Conservative Party victory in the recent elections, you have
kept your position at the CEGB. You need to remember that the Conservative government can
replace you if you fail to support the rest of your faction.

You consider yourself an environmentalist. Near your home, you have been working to establish
a nature preserve planted with flowers and trees to attract wildlife.

Your position in the negotiations is, firstly, that GB has been very responsible in its pollution
control policies. You believe that both SO2 pollution and particulate pollution have been
significantly reduced by current policies and particulate pollution has also been reduced.
Secondly, you remain unconvinced that British pollution is actually contributing to pollution in
Scandinavia. Your scientific staff are planning a series of experiments which you are confident
will demonstrate the accuracy of this belief. You will fight any efforts to change British policy
on the environment until there is concrete proof that the specific SO2 pollution from your coal
plants is winding up in Norwegian or Swedish lakes.

Objectives

At Geneva, you will try to prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution
that has specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without numerical
standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”. The paper by Ireland will
provide some of the background on the British approach to controlling pollution without specific
limits.

Before the Helsinki Conference, you will receive specific objectives from the government.

128
In Sophia you must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but no
reduction in NOx.

Responsibilities

There are several strong arguments you can make against any international agreement to limit
pollution.

1. There is not yet any significant science connecting SO2 pollution from the UK to
acidification in other countries. There are other sources of acidity such as NOx which also
contribute (The NOx pollution from the UK is much less than the SO2 pollution).
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB is causing acidification in
Scandinavia.
3. Even if British emissions are to blame for problems in Norway, they would represent, at
most, 10% of the pollution in Norway. Thus GB would need to reduce its emissions by
50% to reduce acid deposition in Scandinavia by 5%. That is just not economically
sensible.
4. Britain considers the UNECE the only legitimate forum for discussing transnational
boundary pollution. Other countries are welcome to work outside that organization, but
Britain will only work through the UNECE. (The reasoning for this is that the UNECE is
very weak and thus not considered a threat).

Recently you read the book, Gaia, by James Lovelock. You find his argument very interesting
and will use it as the philosophical support for your position that Britain should not be required
to reduce sulfur pollution. In your first paper, you will use Lovelock’s arguments to support your
position.

Relationships

The surprise victory of the Conservatives has brought Thatcher to power, and she has given you
your marching orders. She wants Great Britain to regain its leadership position in Europe and the
World. She also has a clear agenda to reduce the power of the British trade unions, especially the
miners’ union.

The politics of electricity in the UK are more complex than at any time in recent memory. The
CEGB purchases about 70% of all British coal production. So the price you pay has a direct
bearing on the economics of the coal industry. Importing and exporting coal is complicated due
to the frequent fluctuations in the exchange rates of European currencies. There is pressure from
the Thatcher government to replace coal plants with oil and nuclear power. However, the price of
oil is even more unstable than the price of coal and the UK has little power over the price of oil.
Therefore, you have a strong desire to continue the use of coal to insure stable pricing for
electricity.

129
The history of air pollution in Britain is filled with irony. As a major industrial nation, Britain is
well acquainted with air pollution. In fact, the first scientific report of acid rain was in the 1872
book Acid and Rain: The Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology by Angus Smith. Air pollution
controls began in 1863 with the Alkali Act. Modern pollution control laws trace their origin to
the killer fog of 1952, which caused thousands of deaths in London.11 Sadly for Norway and
Sweden, a major component of British pollution control has been to build tall smokestacks to
move the pollution away from urban and industrial areas and thus spread it to the rest of Europe.
This has been an effective strategy for Britain, but the countries downwind are beginning to
complain. Sweden and Norway have conducted research that seems to implicate GB in their acid
rain problems.

Little attention had been given to actual reductions in pollution by shifting to low sulfur fuel oils
or the installation of scrubbers on power plants to remove pollution. There has been a 25%
reduction in total SO2 emissions over the past decade. This is due in part to the Alkali
Inspectorate’s imposition of standards on small polluters and to the construction of nuclear
power plants to replace old coal plants. The AI has yet to assert any real control on the large
polluters, which now make up almost 67% of total British SO2 emissions. Current policy calls
for a continued increase in nuclear power, but more as a replacement for expensive Middle East
oil rather than to reduce the use of English coal. Over 70% of the total electric generation is from
coal and this will not change in the foreseeable future.

The reliance on coal is due in part to the historical power of the miners unions and the past Labor
governments. The other factor is the abundance of coal in Britain that limits the need to import
fuel. You will need to be fully convinced before you recommend that anything be done that
would slow industrial growth or require major investments. You also must not accept any air
pollution controls that would damage the British balance of foreign exchange.

On the issue of acid rain, you are very skeptical of the basic science. You will question the scale
of the problem and whether it is really a serious threat. While there have been some reports of
acidification of lakes and bogs in Scotland, Britain as a whole has not seen significant
environmental impact. Thus any costs Britain assumes will come with little obvious benefit. One
way you can obstruct agreements is to emphasize the uncertainties in the scientific data and
delay until these are resolved. You will also challenge regulation on philosophical and economic
grounds. Finally, you may offer to accept a “pay to pollute” model in which British industry pays
a small premium for their pollution with this money going to fund remediation efforts in the
effected countries.

Strategy Advisory

Your primary allies will probably be the West Germans. They share your concerns on most
points. You will need to work closely with them to develop a strategy. The Eastern bloc
countries are also heavily industrialized, and they may also be good allies. You will have to
determine this by talking to them about their position. You have a strong position in the game
because you hold a veto in the EEC. Since all of the EEC nations must vote together, you can

11
Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1983 pp. 66-7.

130
block the approval of any treaty you dislike. However, you will be under pressure to agree to
some kind of minimal treaty. International pressure from the Scandinavian countries cannot be
totally ignored. And the French will no doubt be trying to hold the EEC together and find
common ground.

The Eastern Bloc may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as an entity. There is not yet a
precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner. This is another issue that may
arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an agreement. Since you do support the
future of the EEC, you will need to argue for the ability of the EEC to sign a treaty even though
you don’t want a treaty. This could be one reason why you will agree to some kind of treaty as a
better option than allowing the treaty to be blocked on a technical ground. The EEC’s
counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) has never
participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC has. This may become an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $5,500
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money
is spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP Difference due to imported Cost in million US
for the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.004 4 $20
10 0.053 8 $250
20 0.237 17 $1,100
30 0.537 26 $2,500
40 0.954 34 $4,300
50 1.486 43 $7,000
60 2.134 51 $10,000
75 3.324 64 $15,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Glyn England: You may use this name as your game name but realize that
your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Ireland, F.E. et al., The Philosophy of Air Pollution Control in the United Kingdom,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 290 (1376) 1979, pp.
625-37.

131
Chester, P.F., Acid Rain, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, and Fisheries, Special Publication IEEE
Power Engineering Society 20 (1981), pp. 13-18. (While this article was not published until
1981, the data it contains cover the period ending in 1975. For purposes of this game, it is
assumed that the British delegation has access to this information. Summary pp. 49-50.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without
numerical standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – You will receive specific objectives from the government before this meeting.
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but
no reduction in NOx. (+1 point)

132
133
Great Britain 4 – Cabinet Minister
EEC

Biography

You are Charles Patrick Fleeming Jenkin, Baron Jenkin of Roding and Secretary of State for the
Environment. You were born in Scotland to a family with a long history as scientists. Your
grandfather, Fleeming Jenkins, invented the cable car. Your father was a chemist working for
Shell. However, during your education at Oxford and Cambridge, you decided that you were
more interested in politics. You were active in the Conservative party during college. You
studied law and worked as a lawyer in chemical industry before you entered Parliament in 1964.
The seat you took was that occupied by Winston Churchill before you. You were briefly Minister
for Energy in the last Conservative government. Now that Thatcher and the Conservatives are
back in power, you have again become a member of the cabinet. (Note that during the course of
the game you held three different cabinet positions).

You were assigned to attend the conference by MI-6. (This is a contrafactual premise.) There is
no evidence that Patrick Flemming was actually a member of MI-6.) Because the conference
brings representatives from Soviet satellite countries to Helsinki, MI-6 has taken the opportunity
to assign you to the British faction. You will work with the rest of your faction to support the
overall position of the government. This will be a difficult task. Most of the countries of Europe
will want you to agree to a treaty that the Thatcher government would never accept. Your faction
must stand firm.

However, there is money available to commit to the overall European pollution reduction effort.
Certainly, the conference will result in transfer of money from Britain and West Germany to
poorer countries to help them reduce pollution if a treaty is approved. MI-6 hopes to use this to
make ties with people in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

Objectives

At Geneva, you will try to prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution
that has specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without numerical
standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”. The paper by Ireland will
provide some of the background on the British approach to controlling pollution without specific
limits.

You will use the money available for pollution reduction to try to obtain insights into economic
and environmental conditions in the East Bloc countries attending the conference.

Responsibilities

You should meet privately with them individually and determine whether they would be willing
to provide information about their economies and air pollution in return for a share of this

134
money. You should get a secret signed statement to this effect from them. Even without this,
Britain can give them money, but you get an extra victory point if you can obtain a secret
agreement to share information. Be cautious, if a person you approach reveals your identity as a
spy, you could lose the game and your government will be embarrassed.

You position in MI-6 is top secret and no one else in your faction must know of this. If they do,
your usefulness to MI-6 will be over and you will lose.

You will help your faction make the arguments against limits on air pollution. There are several
strong arguments you can make against any international agreement to limit pollution.

Relationship to Big Ideas

The history of air pollution in Britain is filled with irony. As a major industrial nation, Britain is
well acquainted with air pollution. In fact, the first scientific report of acid rain was in the 1872
book Acid and Rain: The Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology by Angus Smith. Air pollution
controls began in 1863 with the Alkali Act. Modern pollution control laws trace their origin to
the killer fog of 1952 which caused thousands of deaths in London.12 Sadly, for Norway and
Sweden, a major component of British pollution control has been to build tall smokestacks to
move the pollution away from urban and industrial areas and thus spread it to the rest of Europe.
This has been an effective strategy for Britain, but the countries downwind are beginning to
complain. Sweden and Norway have conducted research that seems to implicate GB in their acid
rain problems. You are not convinced of this conclusion and the Alkali Inspectorate (AI) has also
done research in Norway. This research seems to show that the obvious problem of acidification
is not due to air pollution at all.

Little attention had been given to actual reductions in pollution by shifting to low sulfur fuel oils
or the installation of scrubbers on power plants to remove pollution. There has been a 25%
reduction in total SO2 emissions over the past decade. This is due in part to the AI’s imposition
of standards on small polluters and to the construction of nuclear power plants to replace old coal
plants. The AI has yet to assert any real control on the large polluters which now make up almost
67% of total British SO2 emissions. Current policy calls for a continued increase in nuclear
power, but more as a replacement for expensive Middle East oil rather than to reduce the use of
English coal. Over 70% of the total electric generation is from coal and this will not change in
the foreseeable future. Coal is also used to make “synthesis gas” which is used instead of natural
gas for heating and cooking.

The reliance on coal is due in part to the historical power of the miners unions and the past Labor
governments. The other factor is the abundance of coal in Britain, which limits the need to
import fuel. You will need to be fully convinced before you recommend that anything be done
that would slow industrial growth or require major investments. You also must not accept any air
pollution controls that would damage the British balance of foreign exchange.

12
Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1983 pp. 66-7.

135
On the issue of acid rain, you are very skeptical of the basic science. You will question the scale
of the problem and whether it is really a serious threat. While there have been some reports of
acidification of lakes and bogs in Scotland, Britain as a whole has not seen significant
environmental impact. Thus any costs Britain assumes will come with little obvious benefit. One
way you can obstruct agreements is to emphasize the uncertainties in the scientific data and
delay until these are resolved. You will also challenge regulation on philosophical and economic
grounds. Finally, you may offer to accept a “pay to pollute” model in which British industry pays
a small premium for their pollution with this money going to fund remediation efforts in the
affected countries.

Strategy Advisory

Several scientific articles are available for you to present to the Conference. These are
summarized in Core Documents of the Gamebook.

GB Water Quality Bulletin 1983


Chester Acid Rain and Fisheries 1981

These articles provide the scientific evidence that your faction will want to present to the
Conference to support your argument.

There are several strong arguments you can make against any international agreement to limit
pollution.

1. There is not yet any significant science connecting SO2 pollution from the UK to
acidification in other countries. There are other sources of acidity such as NOx which also
contribute (The NOx pollution from the UK is much less than the SO2 pollution). The
Chester article is an excellent source for this argument.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB is causing acidification in
Scandinavia.
3. Even if British emissions are to blame for problems in Norway, they would represent, at
most, 10% of the pollution in Norway. Thus GB would need to reduce its emissions by
50% to reduce acid deposition in Scandinavia by 5%. That is just not economically
sensible.
4. Britain considers the UNECE the only legitimate forum for discussing trans boundary
pollution. Other countries are welcome to work outside that organization, but Britain will
only work through the UNECE. (The reasoning for this is that the UNECE is very weak
and thus not considered a threat).

Finally, as an authority on pollution control in the British government, you are convinced that
your career in pollution control has produced the best possible outcomes for the people of the
UK. You will take great offense if anyone accuses you otherwise.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the

136
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $5,500
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money
is spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP Difference due to imported Cost in million US
for the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.004 4 $20
10 0.053 8 $250
20 0.237 17 $1,100
30 0.537 26 $2,500
40 0.954 34 $4,300
50 1.486 43 $7,000
60 2.134 51 $10,000
75 3.324 64 $15,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Charles Patrick Fleeming Jenkin: You may use this name as your game
name but realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Ireland, F.E. et al., The Philosophy of Air Pollution Control in the United Kingdom,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 290 (1376) 1979, pp.
625-37.

Chester, P.F., Acid Rain, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, and Fisheries., Special Publication IEEE
Power Engineering Society 20 (1981), pp. 13-18. (While this article was not published until
1981, the data it contains cover the period ending in 1975. For purposes of this game, it is
assumed that the British delegation has access to this information. Summary pp. 49-50.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. You support a general statement of purpose to reduce emissions without
numerical standards if it includes the term “to the extent economically feasible”. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – You will receive specific objectives from the government before this meeting.

137
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are NOT required for small cars to allow
British automakers to use lean burn engine technology instead. You can accept a freeze but
no reduction in NOx. (+1 point)
4. Convince at least two East Bloc representatives to agree to provide you with inside
information on their countries. This must be in writing (+1 point)

138
139
Federal Republic of Germany-FRG (West Germany) 1 Foreign Minister

EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in the part of Germany that became East Germany after World War II. In 1943
you were drafted as a helper for the Luftwaffe. You then became a soldier near the end of the
war, and were briefly held as a prisoner of war. After the war, you studied law and economics
and joined the East German Liberal Democratic Party. You fled East Germany in 1952 and
passed the West German bar exam. Then you began a law practice in Bremen.

You joined the Free Democratic Party in West Germany and rose from the position of a research
assistant to National Secretary of the party by 1962. In 1965, you were elected to the West
German Parliament and have held a number of important posts including Minister of the Interior,
Vice Chancellor and Federal Foreign Minister. In 1972 while serving as Minister of the Interior,
you rejected the offer by Israel to send their special forces to rescue the hostages taken by
Palestinian terrorists at the Munich Olympics. Then you watched as the German rescue attempt
ended with the deaths of eleven hostages, five terrorists, and a policeman.

You report directly to Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Your presence at the Conference indicates
how important the Chancellor feels this meeting is. You are the leader of the FRG delegation and
must insure that all of the representatives of the FRG speak with one voice and that Schmidt’s
objectives are met.

Objectives

You must take a strong position against regulation of the environment, especially any change
which would affect the energy economy of West Germany. However, you do not want to appear
anti-environment, just anti-regulation. So you can support statements of principle for pollution
reduction as long as they do not involve specific restrictions or regulation. You will also support
more research on the problem, especially if the Eastern European countries can be convinced to
be more open about their activities.

Responsibilities

You will cast West Germany’s vote in the Conference and one of two German votes at
meetings of the EEC. While you cast the vote, you must have the agreement of your entire
delegation on how you vote.

Relationships

Air pollution is a complex issue in the FGR. As the second largest polluter in Western Europe,
there is considerable pressure from industry to resist pollution controls as well as considerable
international pressure to impose new restrictions. The German electorate has not spoken strongly
on this issue, even though some national measures to control pollution have begun. New

140
stationary sources face increased control and the government has been actively seeking more
controls on auto emissions throughout Europe. While SO2 emissions have remained relatively
constant, NOx emissions have nearly doubled in the past decade. This is a cause of some
concern.

While the FRG is a major exporter of pollution to Scandinavia and other areas, it is also a major
importer, receiving about the same amount of pollution from Britain, France, and Eastern Europe
as it exports. This balance of pollution may explain in part the reasons for the lack of interest in
pollution control. Any reduction in German air pollution will have minimal impact on local air
quality and only if other major polluters reduced their exports would German pollution improve.
The general lack of information on the situation in Eastern Europe and the lack of any prospect
of reductions there, also contribute to the lack of interest in any major changes in policy.

It is not clear whether the East Germans will participate in these discussions. They are a major
source of pollution imported into West Germany, and though a much small country, there is
some evidence that they produce more total pollution. Therefore, you are particularly interested
in getting them involved. Your government is also committed to eventual reunification of the
two Germanys. Any bonds you can form can help move that process forward. Be aware that the
USSR and their puppet government in East Germany are totally opposed to reunification. So you
should not raise this as a possibility because that will alienate the East Germans.

The environmental movement began to gain political influence in the 1970’s in West Germany
as it did in the US spurred in part by the publication of Silent Spring. The Social Democratic
Party (SPD)/Free Democratic Party (FDP) coalition ended 20 years of control of the government
by the Christian Democrats and came to power with a platform that specifically included control
of pollution.13 This was a policy directed from the top by Willy Brandt and a few of his senior
advisors. They established the Federal Environmental Program in 1971. However, in 1974, the
election of Helmut Schmidt led to the loss of the main supporters of this program from the
government. The oil embargo of 1973 also had a major effect with the rapid increase in oil prices
and energy shortages which led to a general economic recession. This gave the energy and
industrial sectors the upper hand in environmental issues. While the enthusiasm for
environmental protection declined in the government, it was becoming more popular with the
public. The elections in 1979 of Green Party candidates in two Länder placed increased pressure
on the ruling parties to take a stronger stance on environmental protection. Thus, as you
approach the first international meeting to control transnational pollution, you realize that there is
growing popular support for environmental protection in your country. At the same time, the
government must try to insure economic growth. Another recession will surely result in the fall
of the present government and your loss of position.

Regulation of air pollution in the FRG is managed independently by each Land (state). Policies
vary between heavily industrial states and more rural ones. The overall air pollution standard for
SO2 is one of the least restrictive in Europe at 140 µg/m3, which is more than twice that
recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Pollution control, as in Britain, has
often been accomplished using tall smokestacks rather than emission reductions. The most
positive aspect of the current control regime is that it has relied on a trading process in which
13
Schreurs, M.A.; Economt, E; The internationalization of environmental protection. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.

141
new sources can be constructed only if old sources are retired to offset the pollution of the new
source. This kind of trading approach, which is being strongly advocated by the United States, is
thought to provide a less expensive approach to pollution control than simple mandates. Also, the
current environmental legislation, Bundes-Immissionsschutzesetz, the Federal Emission Control
Law, has been interpreted by German courts to allow the imposition of controls on existing
sources if evidence proves it is needed to protect people and the environment. Since the law does
not specify any specific emission limits and speaks only generally of protecting the environment,
it can be adjusted as evidence proves necessary.

Your environmental philosophy could best be described as Grey. You have a utilitarian view of
the environment that falls short of aligning with the Green position, but you do not support
unfettered use of the environment as a waste bin which might be termed a Black position. This is
basically a utilitarian position that society’s goal is to satisfy the demand of its citizenry, and the
role of government is to facilitate the working of the economy that makes that possible. You do
not think deeply about the relationship between humanity and the ecosystem, but your unspoken
assumption is that people are most important and the Earth’s resources are ours to use. This
position does not mean that you support abusing the ecosystem. You recognize the need to be
intelligent in our use of resources. But you have confidence in the combination of technological
and political solutions to solve problems which arise. The German government has some of the
most well organized and controlled use of nature of any European nation. It seems that every tree
in the forest is recorded somewhere. But the trees are there to be used by people when they are
needed.

You will need to do some research on your Grey philosophical position so that you can articulate
it against the coming challenge by those who have alternate “Green” views.

Strategy Advisory

Your primary allies will probably be the British. They share your concerns on most points. You
will need to work closely with them to develop a strategy. The Eastern bloc countries are also
heavily industrialized, and they may also be good allies. You will have to determine this by
talking to them about their position.

A further way to complicate the negotiations and block an agreement is to use the idea that the
agreement is between the EEC as a single international entity and the other nations at the
conference. This requires that all members of the EEC agree. Since England and West Germany
have virtual control over the EEC, this will be a way to prevent the other members of the EEC
from supporting the treaty. The Eastern Block may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as
an entity. There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner.
This is another issue that may arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an
agreement. The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (CMEA) has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC has. This
may become an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the

142
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $11,000
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a country if


% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP for country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.25 3 $2,200
10 0.33 6 $2,800
20 0.50 13 $4,400
30 0.70 20 $6,000
40 0.95 26 $8,000
50 1.25 32 $10,600
60 1.50 40 $13,400
75 2.00 49 $18,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Hans-Dietrich Genscher: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – This objective will be provided before the Helsinki conference.
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are required for all cars and that overall
emissions are frozen at 1985 levels. (+1 point.)

143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) 2 – Minister for the
Environment

EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born on your family’s farm in Reinhart in 1930and were too young to be drafted into
World War II. You studied agriculture and then went to the US for a six month internship shortly
after the way. When you returned you studied at the Agricultural College. You completed a
master’s degree in 1960. By this point, you were running the family farm. Working in agriculture
for much of your adult life has given you a deep appreciation for nature and the environment.

You joined the Christian Socialist Union (CSU) party in 1952 and rose from local offices to
become a member of the German Parliament in 1969. IN 1971, you became the Chairman of the
CSU Committee for Food, Agriculture, and Forestry. In your position, you oversee grants for
environmental research and make policy for protection of forest lands. You like your job very
much and would not want to jeopardize your position. As a political appointee, you must always
be sensitive to the wishes of the ruling party. While your appointment is political, you have been
able to keep your job through changes in government by being very competent in your work and
by avoiding any overtly political actions or positions. You will cast the second German vote at
meetings of the EEC. This gives you at least a little bit of power in shaping the outcome of the
negotiations.

Objectives

Your overriding goal is to move West Germany toward a more environmentally responsible
position. While the Prime Minister has charged your delegation to avoid any specific
requirements for reduction of emissions, you would personally like to see them. So you will
work in Geneva for a treaty that includes the strongest philosophical language on emissions that
you can achieve. Much of this will be done behind the scenes and with anonymous writing so
you don’t lose your job. Your public speeches must be moderate, though you can push your
faction toward signing a treaty as much as possible.

For the Helsinki meeting, you will receive a new set of victory objectives based on the situation
in 1984. At the Sophia meeting, you will press hard to reduce NOx emissions as much as
possible and support the government decision to require catalytic converters and remove lead
from gasoline.

Responsibilities

You will need to do several things. First you must study the philosophical position of Arne Naess
and internalize it so that you can apply it to any problem that comes before the conference.
Second, you need to keep your position secret from the German faction members. Third, you
need to find ways to support the countries arguing for strong measures to protect the

154
environment. How you do this will require some thought. You may talk to indeterminate
members privately and try to convince them of Naess’ philosophy.

You should write a document that the Gamemaster will post as an anonymous newspaper
editorial before the beginning of the second Geneva session. You can also slip small references
to Naess’s ideas into your public papers. You can present data to support the damage to the
forests which will weaken the position of your faction. As the game progresses, you may even be
able to convince your faction members of your position, especially if more data on forest damage
becomes available from your studies. You should research the topic and present such data as it
becomes published. (Please note that papers published after 1979 cannot be used in the Geneva
session. Papers after 1985 cannot be used for Helsinki, and those after 1988 cannot be used for
Sophia.) You may be able to think of other strategies as well.

Relationships

You are very much an outdoor person. Before you went into politics, you were a farmer, so your
roots are in the outdoors and the land. You spend most of your 6 weeks of vacation in the
Schwarzwald (Black Forest) each year. Hiking and painting are your two passions. You have
done this for most of your adult life. Over the past decade, you have begun to notice a difference
in the forest. Your first clue was the need to add a tube of burnt umber and of burnt sienna to
your paint kit. The color of the trees was subtly changing. This year you noticed that the tops of
some of the trees had to be painted entirely with sienna brown. When you returned home and
compared your work to previous years, you were bothered by the changing colors of the trees.
You have recently commissioned researchers at Freiberg University to study the forests and
report back to you, but you already think you know the answer. Air pollution is damaging your
beloved forests. Something will have to be done.

On a third front, your many days spent communing with the forests have begun to change the
way you view yourself and the world. You have come to see yourself as a part of nature and to
recognize that the milieu in which we live is a part of us. Thus to damage the forest is to damage
oneself. In search for an understanding of these feelings, you began to read the writing of Arne
Naess from Norway. You were so taken by his thought that you visited him and even went skiing
with him. Since returning home from that meeting, you have been secretly working with
members of the Green Party to plan strategy for making the FRG a more sustainable economy
and reducing the ecological damage of German life.

All of this puts you in something of a personal and professional dilemma. If you suddenly
proclaim yourself a radical Green, you will certainly lose your job and your appointment to the
Conference. The Federal Foreign Minister has made it clear that he will allow no deviation from
state policy. Such a step would make major headlines, but you would be left without any power
to influence the research agenda of the FRG and would be out of work. Yet you feel you must
find some way to move the negotiations toward the most positive outcome possible.

Strategy Advice

155
The Foreign Minister casts the vote for West Germany in the UN conference, but you do have a
vote within the EEC meetings. You can vote your conscience on the issues in the EEC, but will
have to accept the fact that the FRG vote in the UN Conference may not go as you would like..
However, the Foreign Minister is required to have your agreement before he casts the vote. This
will make it possible for you to keep your feelings private and to work behind the scenes to
undermine the German position without being overt about it. However, you should speak up in
faction meetings to try to convince your faction to take a more environmentally friendly position.
You can also press gently for more environmental controls when the Foreign Minister needs to
cast a vote.
The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $11,000
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a country if


% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
for the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.25 3 $2,200
10 0.33 6 $2,800
20 0.50 13 $4,400
30 0.70 20 $6,000
40 0.95 26 $8,000
50 1.25 32 $10,600
60 1.50 40 $13,400
75 2.00 49 $18,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Ignaz Kiechle: You may use this name as your game name but realize that
your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Devall and Sessions Deep Ecology is an excellent discussion of the Deep Ecology Position

Wikipedia entry on Deep Ecology is accurate and a good starting point


The Deep Ecology position can be difficult to really internalize. The selection by Barbara
Kingsolver in the Deep Ecology section of the game book may be helpful. The quotation below
is from another of her books, Prodigal Summer and also may help you internalize the Deep
Ecology position. You should note that this philosophy does not require that you sign on to the
extreme positions of groups like PETA. But it does require you to think differently about all
living things and what it means for them to all be equal. In this collection of passages she is

156
talking about an old man named Walker who has spent much of his life trying to breed an
American chestnut tree that is immune to the Dutch elm disease. She tells how the disease, which
came to this country on a plant imported from Europe, killed virtually the entire chestnut
population and how important the trees were for much of the economy. This section is an
exchange of letters between Mr. Walker and his neighbor, Nanny Rawley. It begins as an
argument over the fate of a local species of salamander popular as bait for bass fishing. Since
fishing is an important pastime for many Europeans, this may be a useful way to get your ideas
into the debate.14

Dear Miss Rawley,

On the matter of setting free the “lizards” sold at Grundy’s bait store on the grounds that
some of them belong to species that are vanishing from our region, having given it some
thought, I propose three questions:
1) Are we humans to think of ourselves merely as one species among many, as you
always insist in our discussions of how a person might live in “harmony” with
“nature” while still managing to keep the Japanese beetles from entirely destroying
his trees? Do you believe a human holds no more special authority in this world than,
say, Japanese beetle or a salamander? If so, then why is it our duty to set free
salamanders, any more than it is the salamander’s place to swim up to the state
prison and liberate the criminals incarcerated there?
2) Or are we to think of ourselves as keepers and guardians of the earth, ad God
instructed us to do in Genesis. “So God created man in his own image;… and God
blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it!.... Behold, I have given you every herb bering seed which is upon the face
of the earth and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree-yielding seed; to you it shall
be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
everything that creepeth upon the earth’” – such as salamanders, Miss Rawley –
“wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat’; and it was so.” If the
Holy Bible is to be believed, we must view God’s creatures as gifts to his favored
children and use them for our own purposes, even if this occasionally causes this one
or that to go extinct; after a while.
3) If one species or another of those muddy little salamanders went extinct, who would
care anyway?
Just Wondering,
Garnett Walker III

The she reads Miss Rowley’s reply letter.

Dear Mr. Walker,

Since you asked, yes, I do believe humankind holds a special place in the world. It’s the
similar place held by a mockingbird, in his opinion, and a salamander in whatever he has
that resembles a mind of his own. Every creature alive believes this: The center of

14
This material is copied and paraphrased from “Prodigal Summer” by Barbara Kingsolver. Pp 185-7, 214-219,
279-280, 389-390

157
everything is me. Every life has its own kind of worship, I think, but do you think a
salamander is worshiping some God that looks like a big two-legged man? Go on! To
him, a man’s a shadowy nuisance (if anything) compared to the sacred business of
finding food and a mate and making progeny to rule the mud for all times. To themselves
and one another, those muddly little salamander lives mean everything.

Of all things, I’d never expect you, Garnett Walker III, to ask “Who cares if one species
is lost?” The extinction of one kind of tree wrecked pure havoc on the folks all through
these mountains- your own family more than any other. Suppose some city Yank said to
you, “Well, sir, the American chestnut was just one tree – why, the woods are full of
trees!” You’d get so mad you’d spit. It would take you a day and a night to try and
explain why the chestnut was a tree unlike any other, that held a purpose in our world
that nothing else can replace. Well sir, the loss of one kind of salamander would be a
tragedy on the same order of to some other creature that was depending on it. It wouldn’t
be you this time, but I assume you care about all tragedies, not just the ones that affect
the Walker fortunes.

Just think: if someone had shown you a little old seedling tree potted in a handful of dirt
coming in on a ship from Asia all those years ago, asked you to peek into it, and
remarked, “These piddly little strands of fungus will knock down a million majestic
chestnut trees, starve out thousands of righteous mountain folk, and leave Garnett Walker
a bitter old man,” would you have laughed?

If God gave Man all the creatures of this earth to use for his own ends, he also counseled
that gluttony is a sin- and he did say, flat out, “Thou shalt not kill.” He didn’t tell us to
go ahead and murder every beetle or caterpillar that wants to eat what we eat (and, by
the way, other insects that pollinate what we eat). He did not mean for us to satisfy our
every whim for any food, in every season, by tearing down forests to make way for fields,
ripping up fields to make way for beasts, and transporting everything we can think of to
places it doesn’t belong. To our dominion over the earth, Mr. Walker, we own our thanks
for the chestnut blight. Our thanks for kudzu, honeysuckle, and the Japanese beetle also. I
think that’s God’s little joke on us for getting too big for our britches. We love to declare
that God made us in his image, but even so, he’s three billion years old and we’re just
babies. … We’re that foolish to think we know how to rule the world.

I’m partial to the passage from Genesis you quoted, but I wonder if you really understand
it. God gave us every herb bearing seed, it says, and every tree in which is the fruit of a
tree-yielding seed. He gave us the mystery of a world that can re-create itself again and
again. To you the fruit shall be food, he’s saying, but just remember, to the tree it’s a
child. “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that
creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat.”
He’s looking out for the salamanders there, you see, reminding us that there’s life in
them, too, and that even weeds and pond algae are sacred because they’re salamander
food. You’re a religious man, Mr. Walker. Seems to me you’d think twice about spraying
poison all over God’s hard work.

158
Never mind. We all have our peeves. Myself, I hate goats, and I sorely despise snapping
turtles. Its sure God loves them as much as he loves you or me, but I’ve got new baby
ducklings on my pond, and an evil old turtle in there is gobbling them down like the troll
under the bridge. … I can’t stand it. I’d shoot that old S-O-B in the head if I had a gun
and the heart to use it, so help me. But I have neither, and God knows that is surely for
the best.

Yours very sincerely,


Nanny Land Rawley

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva – Insure the passage of some treaty at Geneva, however week it may be, that
includes language from Deep Ecology. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – This objective will be provided before the Helsinki conference.
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are required for all cars and emissions
are reduced by 30% from 1985. (+1 point.)
4. Articulate the philosophy of Naess in every way possible during the Geneva Conference,
including writing an anonymous document before the second Geneva session. While you
are expected to continue to do this throughout the meetings, it is vital that you do this
before the end of the Geneva sessions. (+1 point if the Gamemaster feels you have done a
good job of bringing this into the discussion.)
5. Don’t lose your job. If you do you will lose. This could happen if you become known to
strongly oppose the positions of your government. (-1 point)

159
Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) 3- Assistant Minister
for the Environment

EEC Member Country

Biography

You are currently Mayor of Frankfort. Little is known about your early life and education other
than that you were born in 1932 in Uelzen and thus didn’t become involved in the Nazi party or
military during the war. You are a member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) but are on
the conservative fringe of the party. While you have asked that a play with anti-Semitic themes
not be produced in Frankfort, you have also recommended an author considered to be anti-
Semitic for a major award. You are also strongly anti-immigrant and want to restrict who can
come to West Germany to live.

You have a long standing interest in the environment and also aspire to higher political office.
You will work with the Foreign Minister to insure that West Germany’s interests are well
represented. As a political appointee of Chancellor Schmidt, you must also insure that the
outcome of the negotiations is the correct one to insure your continued position. You will follow
the lead of the Foreign Minister in all decisions. However, he is not a scientist as you are, so
there may be times when you need to inform him, and possibly the other delegates, of scientific
findings that may complicate West Germany’s position. You will need to do this cautiously so
that you do not become a political liability to the Chancellor.

Objectives

Your goal in Geneva is to pass a weak treaty that maintains European unity and involves Eastern
European Countries without having any specific pollution reduction requirements that would
slow German economic growth.

You will receive additional directives from the government before the Helsinki meeting. At
Sophia, you will try to gain broad support for the German plan to require catalytic converters for
all new cars and secure a treaty that actually reduces NOx pollution significantly.

Responsibilities

You will need to research your utilitarian “Grey” philosophical position so that you can
articulate it against the coming challenge by those who have alternate “Green” views.

Relationships

Air pollution is a complex issue in the FGR. As the third largest polluter in Europe, there is
considerable pressure from industry to resist pollution controls as well as considerable
international pressure to impose new restrictions. The German electorate has not spoken strongly
on this issue, even though some national measures to control pollution have begun. New
stationary sources face increased control and the government has been actively seeking more

160
controls on auto emissions throughout Europe. While SO2 emissions have remained relatively
constant, NOx emissions have nearly doubled in the past decade. This is a cause of some
concern.

While the FRG is a major exporter of pollution to Scandinavia and other areas, it is also a major
importer, receiving about the same amount of pollution from Britain, France, and Eastern Europe
as it exports. This balance of pollution may explain in part the reasons for the lack of interest in
pollution control. Any reduction in German air pollution will have minimal impact on local air
quality and only if other major polluters reduced their exports would German pollution improve.
The general lack of information on the situation in Eastern Europe and the lack of any prospect
of reductions there, also contribute to the lack of interest in any major changes in policy.

The environmental movement began in the 1970’s in West Germany as it did in the US as a
result of the publication of Silent Spring. The Social Democratic Party/Free Democratic Party
coalition ended 20 years of control of the government by the Christian Democratic Party and
came to power with a platform that specifically included control of pollution.15 This was a policy
directed from the top by Willy Brandt and a few of his senior advisors. They established the
Federal Environmental Program in 1971. However, in 1974, the election of Helmut Schmidt led
to the loss of the main supporters of this program from the government. The oil embargo of 1973
also had a major effect with the rapid increase in oil prices and energy shortages which led to a
general economic recession. This gave the energy and industrial sectors the upper hand in
environmental issues. While the enthusiasm for environmental protection declined in the
government, it was becoming more popular with the public. The elections in 1979 of Green Party
candidates in two Länder placed increased pressure on the ruling parties to take a stronger stance
on environmental protection. Thus, as you approach the first international meeting to control
transnational pollution, you realize that there is growing popular support for environmental
protection in your country. At the same time, the government must try to insure economic
growth. Another recession will surely result in the fall of the present government and your loss
of position.

Regulation of air pollution in the FRG is managed independently by each Land (state). Policies
vary between heavily industrial states and more rural ones. The overall air pollution standard for
SO2 is one of the least restrictive in Europe at 140 µg/m3, which is more than twice that
recommended by the WHO. Pollution control, as in Britain, has often been accomplished using
tall smokestacks rather than emission reductions. The most positive aspect of the current control
regime is that it has relied on a trading process in which new sources can be constructed only if
old sources are retired to offset the pollution of the new source. This kind of trading approach,
which is being strongly advocated by the United States, is thought to provide a less expensive
approach to pollution control than simple mandates. Also, the current environmental legislation,
Bundes-Immissionsschutzesetz, the Federal Emission Control Law, has been interpreted by
German courts to allow the imposition of controls on existing sources if evidence proves it is
needed to protect people and the environment. Since the law does not specify any specific
emission limits and speaks only generally of protecting the environment, it can be adjusted as
evidence proves necessary.

15
Schreurs, M.A.; Economt, E; The internationalization of environmental protection. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.

161
As a result of these political forces, you must take a strong position against regulation of the
environment, especially any change which would affect the energy economy of West Germany.
However, you do not want to appear anti-environment, just anti-regulation. So you can support
statements of principle for pollution reduction as long as they do not involve specific restrictions
or regulation. You will also support more research on the problem, especially if the Eastern
European countries can be convinced to be more open about their activities.

Your environmental philosophy could best be described as Grey. This is basically a utilitarian
position. But the deeper understanding it involves is that the society’s goal is to satisfy the
demand of its citizenry and role of government is to facilitate the working of the economy which
makes that possible. You do not think deeply about the relationship between humanity and the
ecosystem, but your unspoken assumption is that people are most important and the Earth’s
resources are ours to use. This position does not mean that you support abusing the ecosystem.
You recognize the need to be intelligent in our use of resources. The German government has
some of the most well organized and controlled use of nature of any European nation. It seems
that every tree in the forest is recorded somewhere. But the trees are there to be used by people
when they are needed.

Strategy Advisory

Your primary allies will probably be the British. They share your concerns on most points. You
will need to work closely with them to develop a strategy. The Eastern bloc countries are also
heavily industrialized, and they may also be good allies. You will have to determine this by
talking to them about their position.

A further way to complicate the negotiations and block an agreement is to use the idea that the
agreement is between the EEC as a single international entity and the other nations at the
conference. This requires that all members of the EEC agree. Since England and West Germany
have virtual control over the EEC, this will be a way to prevent the other members of the EEC
from supporting the treaty. The Eastern Block may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as
an entity. There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner.
This is another issue that may arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an
agreement. The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (CMEA) has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC has. This
may become an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $11,000
million.

162
% Reduction SO2 within a country if
% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP for country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.25 3 $2,200
10 0.33 6 $2,800
20 0.50 13 $4,400
30 0.70 20 $6,000
40 0.95 26 $8,000
50 1.25 32 $10,600
60 1.50 40 $13,400
75 2.00 49 $18,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Walter Wallman: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – This objective will be provided before the Helsinki conference.
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are required for all cars and that NOx
emissions are reduced by 30% from 1985 levels. (+1 point.)

163
Federal Republic of Germany-FRG (West Germany) 4- Opposition Leader

EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in Munich in 1925, and served in World War II. You were an officer beginning in
1943. As part of your entry into the officer corps, you were also required to join the Nazi party.
After the war, you joined the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU). You also received a
Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Munich. You became a lawyer in 1963. After your
university study you worked as a civil servant in Bavaria and then began a series of positions in
the CSU. In 1956 you were elected to the German Parliament. You have been General Secretary
of the CSU as well as treasurer. Your current position is Vice-Chairman.

You are present at the Geneva Conference primarily as an observer for the opposition of the
Schmidt government. If the CSU is successful in future elections, you will certainly have a
cabinet position in the government.

Objectives

Your goal in Geneva is to pass a weak treaty that maintains European unity and involves Eastern
European Countries without having any specific pollution reduction requirements that would
slow German economic growth.

You will receive additional directives from the government before the Helsinki meeting.

At Sophia, you will try to gain broad support for the German plan to require catalytic converters
for all new cars and secure a treaty that actually reduces NOx pollution significantly.

Responsibilities

You will need to research your utilitarian “Grey” philosophical position so that you can articulate
it against the coming challenge by those who have alternate “Green” views.

Relationships

Air pollution is a complex issue in the FGR. As the third largest polluter in Europe, there is
considerable pressure from industry to resist pollution controls as well as considerable
international pressure to impose new restrictions. The German electorate has not spoken strongly
on this issue, even though some national measures to control pollution have begun. New
stationary sources face increased control and the government has been actively seeking more
controls on auto emissions throughout Europe. While SO2 emissions have remained relatively
constant, NOx emissions have nearly doubled in the past decade. This is a cause of some
concern.

164
While the FRG is a major exporter of pollution to Scandinavia and other areas, it is also a major
importer, receiving about the same amount of pollution from Britain, France, and Eastern Europe
as it exports. This balance of pollution may explain in part the reasons for the lack of interest in
pollution control. Any reduction in German air pollution will have minimal impact on local air
quality and only if other major polluters reduced their exports would German pollution improve.
The general lack of information on the situation in Eastern Europe and the lack of any prospect
of reductions there, also contribute to the lack of interest in any major changes in policy.

It is not clear whether the East Germans will participate in these discussions. They are a major
source of pollution imported into West Germany, and though a much small country, there is
some evidence that they produce more total pollution. Therefore, you are particularly interested
in getting them involved. Your government is also committed to eventual reunification of the
two Germanys. Any bonds you can form can help move that process forward. Be aware that the
USSR and their puppet government in East Germany are totally opposed to reunification. So you
should not raise this as a possibility because that will alienate the East Germans.

The environmental movement began in the 1970’s in West Germany as it did in the US as a
result of the publication of Silent Spring. The Social Democratic Party/Free Democratic Party
coalition ended 20 years of control of the government by the Christian Democratic Party and
came to power with a platform that specifically included control of pollution.16 This was a policy
directed from the top by Willy Brandt and a few of his senior advisors. They established the
Federal Environmental Program in 1971. However, in 1974, the election of Helmut Schmidt led
to the loss of the main supporters of this program from the government. The oil embargo of 1973
also had a major effect with the rapid increase in oil prices and energy shortages which led to a
general economic recession. This gave the energy and industrial sectors the upper hand in
environmental issues. While the enthusiasm for environmental protection declined in the
government, it was becoming more popular with the public. The elections in 1979 of Green Party
candidates in two Länder placed increased pressure on the ruling parties to take a stronger stance
on environmental protection. Thus, as you approach the first international meeting to control
transnational pollution, you realize that there is growing popular support for environmental
protection in your country. At the same time, the government must try to insure economic
growth. Another recession will surely result in the fall of the present government and your loss
of position.

Regulation of air pollution in the FRG is managed independently by each Land (state). Policies
vary between heavily industrial states and more rural ones. The overall air pollution standard for
SO2 is one of the least restrictive in Europe at 140 µg/m3 , which is more than twice that
recommended by the WHO. Pollution control, as in Britain, has often been accomplished using
tall smokestacks rather than emission reductions. The most positive aspect of the current control
regime is that it has relied on a trading process in which new sources can be constructed only if
old sources are retired to offset the pollution of the new source. This kind of trading approach,
which is being strongly advocated by the United States, is thought to provide a less expensive
approach to pollution control than simple mandates. Also, the current environmental legislation,
Bundes-Immissionsschutzesetz, the Federal Emission Control Law, has been interpreted by
German courts to allow the imposition of controls on existing sources if evidence proves it is
16
Schreurs, M.A.; Economt, E; The internationalization of environmental protection. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.

165
needed to protect people and the environment. Since the law does not specify any specific
emission limits and speaks only generally of protecting the environment, it can be adjusted as
evidence proves necessary.

As a result of these political forces, you must take a strong position against regulation of the
environment, especially any change which would affect the energy economy of West Germany.
However, you do not want to appear anti-environment, just anti-regulation. So you can support
statements of principle for pollution reduction as long as they do not involve specific restrictions
or regulation. You will also support more research on the problem, especially if the Eastern
European countries can be convinced to be more open about their activities.

Your environmental philosophy could best be described as Grey. This is basically a utilitarian
position that the society’s goal is to satisfy the demand of its citizenry, and role of government is
to facilitate the working of the economy which makes that possible. You do not think deeply
about the relationship between humanity and the ecosystem, but your unspoken assumption is
that people are most important and the Earth’s resources are ours to use. This position does not
mean that you support abusing the ecosystem. You recognize the need to be intelligent in our use
of resources. The German government has some of the most well organized and controlled use of
nature of any European nation. It seems that every tree in the forest is recorded somewhere. But
the trees are there to be used by people when they are needed.

Strategy Advisory

Your primary allies will probably be the British. They share your concerns on most points. You
will need to work closely with them to develop a strategy. The Eastern bloc countries are also
heavily industrialized, and they may also be good allies. You will have to determine this by
talking to them about their position.

A further way to complicate the negotiations and block an agreement is to use the idea that the
agreement is between the EEC as a single international entity and the other nations at the
conference. This requires that all members of the EEC agree. Since England and West Germany
have virtual control over the EEC, this will be a way to prevent the other members of the EEC
from supporting the treaty. The Eastern Block may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as
an entity. There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner.
This is another issue that may arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an
agreement. The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (CMEA) has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC has. This
may become an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the

166
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $11,000
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a country if


% Reduction SO2 Cost as % GDP for the same money is spent but no other
within a Country the Country for the country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.25 3 $2,200
10 0.33 6 $2,800
20 0.50 13 $4,400
30 0.70 20 $6,000
40 0.95 26 $8,000
50 1.25 32 $10,600
60 1.50 40 $13,400
75 2.00 49 $18,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Fredrich Zimmerman: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - Prevent the passage of any transnational agreement on acid pollution that has
specific requirements that must be met. This means that it not include any rollback of
emissions. (+1 point)
2. Helsinki – This objective will be provided before the Helsinki conference.
3. Sophia - You must insure that catalytic converters are required for all cars and that NOx
emissions are reduced by 30% from 1985 levels. (+1 point.)

167
France -1 Deputy Foreign Minister
EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in 1928, the son of a prominent French diplomat. Your father was Ambassador to
West Germany during the 1930’s and witnessed the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. You were
educated first in the United States where you graduated from Wesleyan University and then
received a MA at the Fletcher School at Turfs University. You then obtained a PhD in
Economics at the Paris Law School.

After university, you entered the Foreign Service and held a variety of diplomatic posts. In 1967
you entered politics, but left politics in 1971 to become CEO of a company owned by your
wife’s family. Then in 1974, with the election of President Giscard d'Estaing, you were
appointed as Secretary of State. In 1976 you became the Secretary General in the Office of the
President. Most recently, you were appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs. (You actually left this
position in 1981, but for purposes of the game, you will keep this post and name throughout the
game if you do an effective job of presenting the French case.)

Objectives

Your goals are to primarily economic. You want to support the efforts of France to switch to
nuclear power by insuring that all other European nations also invest in pollution control. You
also want to convince other European countries to use the nuclear technology you are
developing. This means you want a treaty on SO2 emissions with specific and binding reductions
as quickly as possible. When the discussion moves on the NOx pollution, you will oppose a
requirement for catalytic converters which would damage the French auto industry.

Responsibilities

You will cast the vote for France at the Conference and one or two votes for France in the EEC
meetings depending on whether there are other members of the French delegation present.

While France does not have money to donate to poor countries to reduce pollution, you are
willing to donate nuclear technology and material to the extent of $500 million to match an equal
investment if one country will build a nuclear power plant as part of their pollution control
strategy.

Relationships

France is leading the charge on European unification in the Common Market and now the
European Community. You are proud that France has regained a sense of leadership in Europe
and you will do all in your power to preserve unity. This means that you will need to marshal all
your arguments for unity and a common approach to problems. You will have to persuade
various countries to take actions that they may not agree with in order to preserve the dream of
European unity. This dream, of a united Europe with France in a leading role and able to stand

168
against the USA on one side and the Soviet empire on the other, has been with you so long that
you feel it in your soul.

In the negotiations at Geneva, you will probably find the British and the Germans lining up to
prevent any strong measure. There is probably nothing you can do to sway the British, but the
Germans have a strong Green party. You can use this as a threat to the present government. If the
Germans scuttle the talks, and nothing is achieved, you will suggest that the Greens may finally
make it into the government. This is a threat that Helmut Schmidt must be convinced not to
ignore. Since the negotiations are not within the EEC but a much larger group of nations, you
will also argue that you don’t want the EEC to be the group that prevents an agreement. Try to
get the Germans to find a compromise that will allow at least the appearance of progress on the
acid rain problem.

France has a rather unique; some would say schizophrenic, relationship with technology and the
environment. This has led many to speak of France as a “Light-Green” country. The French
public clearly loves technology. They show this in the cars they drive and in their embrace of
nuclear weapons and nuclear power. They show it through their support of the Concorde
supersonic aircraft which has now been flying for a few years. Some argue that the Concorde
will never be viable, but the beauty of being the only country with a supersonic airliner (well, the
British did help pay for it) is worth it. France has shunned the international community by being
the last country still doing atmospheric nuclear testing. Your countrymen want to be leaders of
the world in technology and modernization. You have even recently built a 2.5 Megawatt solar
power plant.

On the other hand, the French value the peasant life and the beauty and simplicity of rural life.
People long for the simple life and farmers have considerable political power. People value fresh
produce from local farms. Food and wine are life. They should be produced in as natural a way
as possible.

What is missing from this picture is an environmental movement as a political force in France.
The attempts to form a Green party have fragmented into multiple such parties, none of which
can gain enough votes to join the government. This gives the government a fairly free hand in the
upcoming negotiations.

The French commitment to nuclear power, which was made only recently, is strong and widely
supported. It grows out of three facts:

a) France has little coal or natural gas to fuel its desire for electricity.
b) Efforts to cultivate Arab countries to insure a secure supply of oil failed in the 1973
embargo.
c) Nuclear research is strong in France due to the large nuclear weapons program.

Last year, the government announced a long term plan to build nuclear power plants. This plan
includes building breeder reactors which make more fuel than they burn and reprocessing this
fuel for other reactors. It is expected that over 80% of France’s electricity will eventually be

169
produced by nuclear plants. This plan is quite controversial in the rest of the world. The United
States is working to prevent any reprocessing of nuclear fuel, in hopes of slowing the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Green parties and environmental groups in the rest of Europe
also oppose the plan due to their opposition to all things nuclear. But the French public is in
support of this plan by a large margin. The total cost of this plan will be on the order of 1% of
GDP each year for at least a decade. To put this in context, the other countries in the game are
considering spending no more than 0.25% of GDP. Your commitment will allow France to
exceed the Case 3 scenario which will be at the center of negotiations at Geneva and Helsinki.

One side effect of this commitment is that in the negotiations in Geneva, you can support large
reductions of sulfur dioxide pollution. You can argue that France has already made a huge
commitment and try to pressure others to do the same. Since your own emissions are fairly low,
any plan should not be very costly in terms of additional expenses.

Since France is already spending so much money to go nuclear, you think it is only fair for
England and West Germany to have to do something comparable. In some sense, this will keep
their economies in check against yours. It will also provide possible markets for French nuclear
technology, if other countries meet the emission standards by increasing their use of nuclear
power. So all of the economic factors for France call for an agreement. The other reason for
taking a strong environmental stance is to undo some of the damage to France’s international
reputation that your nuclear plan and weapons testing has produced.

Strategy Advisory

You are deeply committed to strengthening the European Economic Community. West Germany
and England can be expected to oppose controls on acid rain. The rules of the EEC give each
nation a veto. Since the EEC wants to deal as a group at the UN conference, no plan can be
accepted without the support of all EEC members. This will require all of your skill as a
negotiator. You can try to shame them into the agreement with the argument that they don’t want
to be even less green than France. There is considerable skepticism in the rest of the world about
the possibility of a unified Europe within the EEC. France sees the EEC as a critical
counterweight to the power of the USA and the USSR. In fact, your government has
considerable credibility at stake in maintaining a unified EEC front. You can argue in the EEC
caucus that this is a time for a clear show of unity in the EEC so that the rest of the world will
take you seriously. This is not a time for division. You have the advantage that France is the
rotating President of the EEC during the Geneva conference. This means you will convene and
control the agenda of the EEC faction meeting.

You need to find a country willing to accept a nuclear power plant and also the financing to build
it with your matching money. Any of the poor countries seeking aid for pollution control might
be candidates for this, including the Eastern European countries.

To Learn More

Biography based on Jean François-Poncet: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

170
Hazards of Electricity Generation in United States in 1975
Table 6– Estimated Deaths per Year per 1000 MW(e) Power Plant
(Data derived from Table 7)

Fuel Number of Fatalities


Coal 15-120
Oil 2-100
Gas 0.13
Nuclear 0.7-1,6

Table 7 Estimated Health Effects in 1975 Associated with Production of Electric Power17
Fuel 1975 KWh Equivalent No. Estimated Estimated
x1018 1000 MW(e) Deaths Disabilities
plants
Coal 844 128 1,900-15,000 25,000-39,000
Oil 292 44 33-4,400 4,000-7,900
Gas 297 45 6 600
Nuclear 168 26 18-42 130-470
Total 1,604 243 2000,19,000 29,000-48-000

Source “The Health and Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation.” Brookhaven National
Labs-20582, 1974.

Victory Objectives

You have spent so much money on your nuclear program that you have no additional resources
to use to help bring the Eastern European nations and others into an overall European agreement.
Your victory will be based entirely on your ability to get the other nation of Europe to commit to
significant pollution reduction. This will both improve the environment and level the economic
playing field for France in the EEC.

1. Geneva – If all nations sign a treaty with at least 20% reduction +2 Points
2. Geneva – If all nations sign a treaty without specific cuts. +1 Point
3. Geneva – If no treaty is agreed by all - 2 points
4. Helsinki – If all nations accept a treaty that includes at least a 30% reduction in emissions
+ 1 Point
5. Sophia – If no catalytic converters are required for all cars +1 Point
6. You convince at least one country to build a nuclear power plant using your technology. +
1 Point

17
Preliminary data from Electric World, 185(6), 54, 1976
18
Calculated from estimates of health effects of 1000 MW(e) plant operating at 75% power factor for one year.

171
France -2 Minister for the Environment
EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in Saint-Etienne in 1935. While studying philosophy at the University of Lyon
you became active in the National Union of Students. You married after university and had three
children while pursuing a career as a professor. You helped launch one of the first academic
programs in feminist studies at Lyon University.

You were also active in politics and help found the United Socialist Party in 1960. You have run,
unsuccessfully, for public office for the USP numerous times. Your two major interests in
politics are to increase the number of women in elected office and to protect the environment.
You have been very active in Friends of the Earth, and international environmental movement.

You are currently the National Secretary of the Unified Socialist Party of France. You are also
very active in the environmental movement and it is highly probable that at some point you will
become Minister for the Environment for France.

Objectives

Your goals are primarily economic. You want to support the efforts of France to switch to
nuclear power by insuring that all other European nations also invest in pollution control. You
also hope to sell them your nuclear technology.

This means you want a treaty on SO2 emissions with specific and binding reductions as quickly
as possible. When the discussion moves on the NOx pollution, you will oppose a requirement for
catalytic converters which would damage the French auto industry.

Responsibilities

You will cast the second French vote at meeting of the EEC.

While France does not have money to donate to poor countries to reduce pollution, you are
willing to donate nuclear technology and material to the extent of $500 million to match an equal
investment if one country will build a nuclear power plant as part of their pollution control
strategy.

Relationships

France is leading the charge on European unification in the Common Market and now the
European Community. You are proud that France has regained a sense of leadership in Europe
and you will do all in your power to preserve unity. This means that you will need to marshal all
your arguments for unity and a common approach to problems. You will have to persuade
various countries to take actions that they may not agree with in order to preserve the dream of
European unity. This dream, of a united Europe with France in a leading role and able to stand

172
against the USA on one side and the Soviet empire on the other, has been with you so long that
you feel it in your soul. There are many advantages of this union, and you will need to sell these
advantages to the more reluctant countries such as Britain.

In the negotiations at Geneva, you will probably find the British and the Germans lining up to
prevent any strong measure. There is probably nothing you can do to sway the British, but the
Germans have a strong Green party. You can use this as a threat to the present government. If the
Germans scuttle the talks, and nothing is achieved, you will suggest the Greens may finally make
it into the government. This is a threat that Helmut Schmidt must be convinced not to ignore.
Since the negotiations are not within the EEC but a much larger group of nations, you will also
argue that you don’t want the EEC to be the group that prevents an agreement. Try to get the
Germans to find a compromise that will allow at least the appearance of progress on the acid rain
problem. In the early phase, a weak treaty that preserves unity is better than no treaty at all.

France has a rather unique; some would say schizophrenic, relationship with technology and the
environment. This has led many to speak of France as a “Light-Green” country. The French
public clearly loves technology. They show this in the cars they drive and in their embrace of
nuclear weapons and nuclear power. They show it through their support of the Concorde
supersonic aircraft which has now been flying for a few years. Some argue that the Concorde
will never be viable, but the beauty of being the only country with a supersonic airliner (well, the
British did help pay for it) is worth it. France has shunned the international community by being
the last country still doing atmospheric nuclear testing. Your countrymen want to be leaders of
the world in technology and modernization. You have even recently built a 2.5 Megawatt solar
power plant.

On the other hand, the French value the peasant life and the beauty and simplicity of rural life.
People long for the simple life and farmers have considerable political power. People value fresh
produce from local farms. Food and wine are life. They should be produced in as natural a way
as possible.

What is missing from this picture is an environmental movement as a political force in France.
The attempts to form a Green party have fragmented into multiple such parties, none of which
can gain enough votes to join the government. This gives the government a fairly free hand in the
upcoming negotiations.

The French commitment to nuclear power, which was made only recently, is strong and widely
supported. It grows out of three facts:

a) France has little coal or natural gas to fuel its desire for electricity.
b) Efforts to cultivate Arab countries to insure a secure supply of oil failed in the 1973
embargo.
c) Nuclear research is strong in France due to the large nuclear weapons program.

Last year, the government announced a long term plan to build nuclear power plants. This plan
includes building breeder reactors which make more fuel than they burn and reprocessing this

173
fuel for other reactors. It is expected that over 80% of France’s electricity will eventually be
produced by nuclear plants. This plan is quite controversial in the rest of the world. The United
States is working to prevent any reprocessing of nuclear fuel, in hopes of slowing the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Green parties and environmental groups in the rest of Europe
also oppose the plan due to their opposition to all things nuclear. But the French public is in
support this plan by a large margin. The total cost of this plan will be on the order of 1% of GDP
each year for at least a decade. To put this in context, the other countries in the game are
considering spending no more than 0.25% of GDP per year. Your commitment will allow France
to exceed a 40% overall pollution reduction by 1990 which will be at the center of negotiations
at Geneva and Helsinki.

One side effect of this commitment is that in the negotiations in Geneva, you can support large
reductions of sulfur dioxide pollution. You can argue that France has already made a huge
commitment and try to pressure others to do the same. Since your own emissions are fairly low,
any plan should not be very costly in terms of additional expenses.

Since France is already spending so much money to go nuclear, you think it is only fair for
England and West Germany to have to do something comparable. In some sense, this will keep
their economies in check against yours. It will also provide possible markets for French nuclear
technology, if other countries meet the emission standards by increasing their use of nuclear
power. Thus all of the economic factors for France call for an agreement. The other reason for
taking a strong environmental stance is to undo some of the damage to France’s international
reputation that your nuclear plan and weapons testing has produced.

Strategy Advice

You are also deeply committed to strengthening the European Economic Community. West
Germany and England can be expected to oppose controls on acid rain. The rules of the EEC
give each nation a veto. Since the EEC wants to deal as a group at the UN conference, no plan
can be accepted without the support of all EEC members. This will require all of your skill as a
negotiator. You can try to shame them into the agreement with the argument that they don’t want
to be even less green than France. There is considerable skepticism in the rest of the world about
the possibility of a unified Europe within the EEC. France sees the EEC as a critical
counterweight to the power of the USA and the USSR. In fact, your government has
considerable credibility at stake in maintaining a unified EEC front. You can argue in the EEC
caucus that this is a time for a clear show of unity in the EEC so that the rest of the world will
take you seriously. This is not a time for division. You have the advantage that France is the
rotating President of the EEC during the Geneva conference. This means you will convene and
control the agenda of the EEC faction meeting.

To Learn More

Biography based on Hugerette Bouchardeau: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

174
Hazards of Electricity Generation in United States in 1975
Table 6– Estimated Deaths per Year per 1000 MW(e) Power Plant
(Data derived from Table 7)

Fuel Number of Fatalities


Coal 15-120
Oil 2-100
Gas 0.13
Nuclear 0.7-1,6

Table 7 Estimated Health Effects in 1975 Associated with Production of Electric Power19
Fuel 1975 KWh Equivalent No. Estimated Estimated
x1020 1000 MW(e) Deaths Disabilities
plants
Coal 844 128 1,900-15,000 25,000-39,000
Oil 292 44 33-4,400 4,000-7,900
Gas 297 45 6 600
Nuclear 168 26 18-42 130-470
Total 1,604 243 2000,19,000 29,000-48-000

Source “The Health and Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation.” Brookhaven National
Labs-20582, 1974.

Victory Objectives

You have spent so much money on your nuclear program that you have no additional resources
to use to help bring the Eastern European nations and others into an overall European agreement.
Your victory will be based entirely on your ability to get the other nation of Europe to commit to
significant pollution reduction. This will both improve the environment and level the economic
playing field for France in the EEC.

1. Geneva – If all nations sign a treaty with at least 20% reduction +2 Points
2. Geneva – If all nations sign a treaty without specific cuts. +1 Point
3. Geneva – If no treaty is agreed by all - 2 points
4. Helsinki – If all nations accept a treaty that includes at least a 30% reduction in emissions
+ 1 Point
5. Sophia – If no catalytic converters are required for all cars +1 Point
6. You convince at least one country to build a nuclear power plant using your technology
+1 Point

19
Preliminary data from Electric World, 185(6), 54, 1976
20
Calculated from estimates of health effects of 1000 MW(e) plant operating at 75% power factor for one year.

175
France -3 Minister for Energy
EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in 1930 to a humble family in Sable-sur-Sarthe. You were quite academically
gifted and rose to Associate Professor of history and geography at LeFliche Military Academy
by the age of 24. In 1958, you won election to the legislature against a popular candidate. You
were a Gaullist. You are also mayor of your home town and have held that post for twenty years.
Much of your work in the French National Assembly has been related to national defense and the
military. You have also held several cabinet posts including Secretary of State. You have a
reputation as a political manipulator.

You are currently Minister of Transport for France (In actual fact, died of a heart attack in 1981
before the Helsinki meeting. However, in the game, your character will continue through
Sophia.)

Objectives

Your goals are primarily economic. You want to support the efforts of France to switch to
nuclear power by insuring that all other European nations also invest in pollution control. This
means you want a treaty on SO2 emissions with specific and binding reductions as quickly as
possible. When the discussion moves on the NOx pollution, you will oppose a requirement for
catalytic converters which would damage the French auto industry.

Responsibilities

You should take the lead in making the French arguments related to catalytic converters during
the Sophia meeting. You will also provide strong support by researching the advantages of
nuclear power.

While France does not have money to donate to poor countries to reduce pollution, you are
willing to donate nuclear technology and material to the extent of $500 million to match an equal
investment if one country will build a nuclear power plant as part of their pollution control
strategy.

Relationships

You are a close friend of the Minister for the Environment, having worked together to plan the
change in France to nuclear energy. You are proud that France has regained a sense of leadership
in Europe and you will do all in your power to strengthen this leadership. This means that you
will need to marshal all your arguments for unity and a common approach to problems. You will
have to persuade various countries to take actions that they may not agree with in order to
preserve the dream of European unity. This dream, of a united Europe with France in a leading
role and able to stand against the USA on one side and the Soviet empire on the other, has been
with you so long that you feel it in your soul.

176
In the negotiations at Geneva, you will probably find the British and the Germans lining up to
prevent any strong measure. There is probably nothing you can do to sway the British, but the
Germans have a strong Green party. You can use this as a threat to the present government. If the
German’s scuttle the talks, and nothing is achieved, you will suggest the Greens may finally
make it into the government. This is a threat that Helmut Schmidt must be convinced not to
ignore. Since the negotiations are not within the EEC but a much larger group of nations, you
will also argue that you don’t want the EEC to be the group that prevents an agreement. Try to
get the Germans to find a compromise that will allow at least the appearance of progress on the
acid rain problem.

France has a rather unique; some would say schizophrenic, relationship with technology and the
environment. This has led many to speak of France as a “Light-Green” country. The French
public clearly loves technology. They show this in the cars they drive and in their embrace of
nuclear weapons and nuclear power. They show it through their support of the Concorde
supersonic aircraft which has now been flying for a few years. Some argue that the Concorde
will never be viable, but the beauty of being the only country with a supersonic airliner (well, the
British did help pay for it) is worth it. France has shunned the international community by being
the last country still doing atmospheric nuclear testing. Your countrymen want to be leaders of
the world in technology and modernization. You have even recently built a 2.5 Megawatt solar
power plant.

On the other hand, the French value the peasant life and the beauty and simplicity of rural life.
People long for the simple life, and farmers have considerable political power. People value fresh
produce from local farms. Food and wine are life. They should be produced in as natural a way
as possible.

What is missing from this picture is an environmental movement as a political force in France.
The attempts to form a Green party have fragmented into multiple such parties, none of which
can gain enough votes to join the government. This gives the government a fairly free hand in the
upcoming negotiations.

The French commitment to nuclear power, which was made only recently, is strong and widely
supported. It grows out of three facts:

a) France has little coal or natural gas to fuel its desire for electricity.
b) Efforts to cultivate Arab countries to insure a secure supply of oil failed in the 1973
embargo.
c) Nuclear research is strong in France due to the large nuclear weapons program.

Last year, the government approved your long term plan to build nuclear power plants. This plan
includes building breeder reactors which make more fuel than they burn and reprocessing this
fuel for other reactors. It is expected that over 80% of France’s electricity will eventually be
produced by nuclear plants. This plan is quite controversial in the rest of the world. The United
States is working to prevent any reprocessing of nuclear fuel, in hopes of slowing the

177
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Green parties and environmental groups in the rest of Europe
also oppose the plan due to their opposition to all things nuclear. But the French public is in
support this plan by a large margin. The total cost of this plan will be on the order of 1% of GDP
each year for at least a decade. To put this in context, the other countries in the game are
considering spending no more than 0.25% of GDP. Your commitment will allow France to
exceed the Case 3 scenario which will be at the center of negotiations at Geneva and Helsinki.

One side effect of this commitment is that in the negotiations in Geneva, you can support large
reductions of sulfur dioxide pollution. You can argue that France has already made a huge
commitment and try to pressure others to do the same. Since your own emissions are fairly low,
any plan should not be very costly in terms of additional expenses.

Since France is already spending so much money to go nuclear, you think it is only fair for
England and West Germany to have to do something comparable. In some sense, this will keep
their economies in check against yours. It will also provide possible markets for French nuclear
technology, if other countries meet the emission standards by increasing their use of nuclear
power. Therefore all of the economic factors for France call for an agreement. The other reason
for taking a strong environmental stance is to undo some of the damage to France’s international
reputation that your nuclear plan and weapons testing has produced.

You are also deeply committed to strengthening the European Economic Community. West
Germany and England can be expected to oppose controls on acid rain. The rules of the EEC
give each nation a veto. Since the EEC wants to deal as a group at the UN conference, no plan
can be accepted without the support of all EEC members. This will require all of your skill as a
negotiator. You can try to shame them into the agreement with the argument that they don’t want
to be even less green than France. There is considerable skepticism in the rest of the world about
the possibility of a unified Europe within the EEC. France sees the EEC as a critical
counterweight to the power of the USA and the USSR. In fact, your government has
considerable credibility at stake in maintaining a unified EEC front. You can argue in the EEC
caucus that this is a time for a clear show of unity in the EEC so that the rest of the world will
take you seriously. This is not a time for division. You have the advantage that France is the
rotating President of the EEC during the Geneva conference. This means you will convene and
control the agenda of the EEC faction meeting.

Strategy Advisory

In your role as head of the Transportation Ministry, you are an outspoken proponent of nuclear
energy. You will want to try to convince the rest of Europe to follow the same route. This means
you need to research the arguments for and against nuclear power and be prepared to make the
best possible case for nuclear energy as the solution to all air pollution problems. Not only will it
solve most acid rain problems, but will help reduce the looming problem of greenhouse gases.
This is not a major issue in 1984, but has already been raised by some leading scientists. You
need to be aware that the Green party is a major opponent of nuclear power. This can work for
you in discussions with West Germany. If the Greens come to power, they may close West
Germany’s nuclear plants, which will be a huge waste and a tragic loss to the nuclear industry.
The German government will not want to see that happen.

178
You must also hope that there are no nuclear accidents. The recent (March, 1979) near meltdown
at Three Mile Island in the USA has made some people nervous about the safety of nuclear
power. You will need to reassure people that this was an isolated incident and not a risk for the
(much superior?) French nuclear reactors.

To Learn More

Biography based on Joël Le Theule: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Hazards of Electricity Generation in United States in 1975


Table 6– Estimated Deaths per Year per 1000 MW(e) Power Plant
(Data derived from Table 7)

Fuel Number of Fatalities


Coal 15-120
Oil 2-100
Gas 0.13
Nuclear 0.7-1,6

Table 7 Estimated Health Effects in 1975 Associated with Production of Electric Power21
Fuel 1975 KWh Equivalent No. Estimated Estimated
x1022 1000 MW(e) Deaths Disabilities
plants
Coal 844 128 1,900-15,000 25,000-39,000
Oil 292 44 33-4,400 4,000-7,900
Gas 297 45 6 600
Nuclear 168 26 18-42 130-470
Total 1,604 243 2000,19,000 29,000-48-000

Source “The Health and Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation.” Brookhaven National
Labs-20582, 1974.

Victory Objectives

You have spent so much money on your nuclear program that you have no additional resources
to use to help bring the Eastern European nations and others into an overall European agreement.
Your victory will be based entirely on your ability to get the other nation of Europe to commit to

21
Preliminary data from Electric World, 185(6), 54, 1976
22
Calculated from estimates of health effects of 1000 MW(e) plant operating at 75% power factor for one year.

179
significant pollution reduction. This will both improve the environment and level the economic
playing field for France in the EEC.

1. Geneva – If all nations sign a treaty with at least 20% reduction +2 Points
2. Geneva – If all nations sign a treaty without specific cuts. +1 Point
3. Geneva – If no treaty is agreed by all - 2 points
4. Helsinki – If all nations accept a treaty that includes at least a 30% reduction in emissions
+ 1 Point
5. Sophia – If no catalytic converters are required for all cars +1 Point
6. You convince at least one country to build a nuclear power plant using your technology. +
1 Point

180
181
Sweden-1 Minister of Agriculture

Little is known about your life. You were born in 1925 and were elected to the lower house
of parliament in 1961. When the Swedish government went to a single house of parliament in
1970, you continued to hold your seat in the government. Due to the shifting nature of the
Swedish government, your posts have changed several times in recent years. Your position in
this game is Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is the lead government
agency on environmental policy, and that is why you are present at these meetings. Your job
has been to develop policies and regulations to reduce pollution within Sweden.

Now you come to the conference with a mandate to bring pollution control to all of Europe.
Your experience working with both environmentalists and industry give you a good sense of
the balance that must be maintained between environmental protection and the need to
maintain a healthy economy. In your role, you believe you have proven that protecting the
environment can be done without hurting industry. You will need to convince the delegates
from all over Europe that this is true.

(Your character was actually Minister of Defense in 1984 and died in 1986.)

Objectives

Your goal in the negotiations is to convince the nations of Europe to join in an unprecedented
treaty which will limit transnational boundary pollution. Nothing like this has happened
before. So you will need to present the case for the damage being caused and provide a
philosophical framework to support this treaty.

Responsibilities

You have also been charged to cast Sweden’s vote at the Conference, but you should not do
so without agreement of your entire delegation.

Relationships

It has been said that Sweden is composed of 1/3 people, 1/3 lakes, and 1/3 forests. The
people of Sweden take their natural environment very seriously. There is even a law that says
anyone can camp for up to two nights on any non-agricultural land anywhere in the country.
Even Stockholm is filled with parks and large tracts devoted to walking trails. This close
association with nature is, no doubt, the reason that the Swedish people and their government
take such a strong position on anything that can damage the natural resources that are so
central to their lives. Don’t hesitate to allow your passion for the environment to be seen
during the negotiations to come.

Your country, along with your neighbor, Norway, are leading the fight to regulate acid
causing pollution. Your government is investing in research to quantify the problem of acid
pollution and its sources. What is clear is that the vast majority (possibly 70-80%) of the air
pollution causing acid rain in your country comes from other countries. The biggest source is

182
Great Britain. Their heavy use of coal results in massive SO2 emissions. They then use tall
smokestacks to transport this pollution away from their lakes and forests and it ends up in
Sweden. Thus, your highest priority in the negotiations ahead is to do something to reduce
pollution from Great Britain. Any agreement which does not include them will be
meaningless.

One reason Sweden suffers so greatly from acid pollution is the geology of the country.
Glaciers during the ice ages have scraped away much of the soil and the underlying bedrock,
granite and gneiss, has very low buffering ability. Thus, even small amounts of acid have a
major impact. The soil and the rock lack the chemicals needed to neutralize the acid.

The economy of Sweden is very strong with a strong manufacturing sector and substantial
exports. The majority of electric generation is hydroelectric with the remainder, about a third,
from nuclear power. Thus the power generating sector is not a problem for Sweden. The
small acid emissions produced are from gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil burned in industrial
plants and home heating. These are regulated to require low sulfur fuels. There is a major
effort to shift home heating from single building furnaces to larger central units heating entire
districts. This approach allows for better pollution control. The bottom line is that there is
little Sweden can do to improve its own acid rain pollution. Only an international agreement
with severe limits will help.

On the practical side, you can point to the fact that Sweden has reduced its emissions of SO2
by over 40% in the past decade and will reduce it by 80% by the mid 1990’s. This reduction
has little impact on acid pollution in Sweden since the pollution is carried to Norway,
Finland, and the Soviet Union before it comes to earth. Thus your nation is actively working
to reduce transnational pollution which benefits others. You need to argue that others need to
do the same thing, and that if everyone does this, all will benefit.

The other acid problem is due to NOx pollution, and on this front, things are not going as
well. Sweden has implemented controls on emissions from autos, but they are not well
enforced. Projections suggest that within 20 years, this form of pollution will account for
almost half of the acid pollution in Sweden. Thus, it is important to implement strong
controls on all forms of acid pollution.

Your colleague at the meeting is an outspoken “Green”, and espouses the ideology that
people are alienated from the world through the increase in industrialization and the drive for
material wealth. The Greens see this materialism as a cause of poverty and suffering. They
want to return to a simpler, agrarian life. As Minister of Agriculture, you have some
sympathy with this position. On the other hand, you have seen the hard life of the farm and
are unconvinced that it is as idyllic as the Greens suggest. Most of them have no direct
experience with the life of the farmer. You also question the ability of Sweden, or any other
European country, to support its population in a traditional agrarian manner. Population
growth has closed off this option. The Green’s recognize this but don’t have any ideas how
population could be reduced. On the other hand, you do understand the disaffection with the
crime and pollution of the cities which has prompted this position. You will need to consider

183
the various positions and develop your own philosophy of the environment. It may be
utilitarian or Green. Read, listen, and then decide.

Some opponents of pollution control have suggested that adding lime to lakes is a solution to
the problems of acid rain. You will need to point out the problems with this practice. It is
currently being used on about 2000 lakes in Sweden, but at great cost and with great
difficulty. Before liming can begin, the lake must be thoroughly studied so that the inputs and
outflows of water are fully known. The amount and timing of lime additions must be
calculated and the results must be monitored by regular chemical and biological analysis.
Because the spring snowmelt causes an especially strong acid influx, liming must be timed
carefully with the weather. If liming is not done correctly, it causes problems equal to or
greater than the addition of acid by killing fish and aquatic life.

Strategy Advice

You must take a very strong and proactive position on these negotiations. However, there are
some areas in which you will compromise. The Netherlands has already put significant pollution
controls in place. Thus they would be exempted from any further roll back provisions. This may
help gain their support. They also receive significant pollution from Great Britain, so you may be
able to enlist them as allies in this. Ireland and other nations with weak economies which are not
highly industrial should also be exempted. They produce little pollution and you need all the
support you can get.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $1,500
million, but $900 million of this is already committed to meet the 30% reduction planned by
your government.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for Difference due to imported Cost in million US
the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.17 1 $200
10 0.26 2.5 $300
20 0.47 5 $600
30 0.71 7.5 $900
40 1.00 10 $1,200
50 1.30 12.5 $1,600
60 1.70 15 $2,000
75 2.25 18 $3,000

184
There are several strong arguments your opponents can make against any international
agreement to limit pollution. You need to be prepared to counter these arguments with your own
evidence.

1. The science connecting SO2 pollution to acidification is weak. There are other sources of
acidity such as NOx which also contribute.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB, or any other specific
country is causing acidification in Scandinavia.
3. Even if foreign emissions are to blame for problems in Norway and Sweden, what is the
evidence that reducing these foreign emissions will actually improve the situation in your
country?

To Learn More
Biography based on Anders Dahlgren: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Resources – Swedish Ministry of Agriculture, Acidification Today and Tomorrow, prepared


for the 1982 Stockholm Conference, translated from Swedish by Simon Harper, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1982

Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz,
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, 1983

Victory Objectives

You begin the game with a purse of $1,500 million. However, your government has already
committed to a major air pollution reduction program which will cost 900 million. The
Gamemaster will give you only 600 million. You do not have to pay any additional money if
you agree to any treaty up to 30% reduction. The money remaining may be used to help other
nations reduce their pollution and to encourage them to sign an agreement. Your benefits
from pollution reduction will be much greater if a treaty is signed, since most of your
pollution is imported.

1. Geneva -Obtain a treaty with specific and mandatory reductions of at least 20% on all
acid causing emissions. All major pollution exporters need to agree to this treaty. (+2
Victory point for success)
2. Geneva – Obtain any treaty on emissions which all countries agree to, even without
specific reductions (+1 Victory point for success)

3. Helsinki – A treaty is signed by all countries including the Eastern European block which
includes 30% reductions. This must include financial support for the East to meet at least
a 25% reduction. (+1 Victory point for success)

185
1. Sophia - You are technically an indeterminate on the issue of catalytic converters, but
your “green” philosophy means you will support the technology which you are convinced
will provide the greatest overall reductions of air pollution. You are also strongly
opposed to lead in gasoline. Sweden wants a 30% reduction of NOx pollution. (+1 for
any NOx treaty reducing emissions)

186
187
188
189
Sweden-2 Secretary General Swedish Red Cross

Biography

You were born in Stockholm in 1944. During your college years, you were the leader of the
Free Conservative Students Association and were elected to the parliament in 1971 shortly
after you graduated. You were a member of the Moderate Party. You are leaving politics now
to accept the position of Secretary General of the Swedish Red Cross starting next year
(1978).

You have two passions, health and the environment. You hope your work at the Red Cross
will allow you to address both. You want to work to prevent disasters by insuring that
development and environmental policies reduce the risk of natural disasters.

You are also very active in the Swedish Society for the Conservation of Nature (Svenska
Naturskyddsforenignen) and are becoming widely known as one of Sweden’s leading young
environmentalist. Your appointment as a delegate to this conference is a particularly strong
statement by the Swedish government about the importance of this issue. In the debates you
will focus on the benefits for both health and then environment if acid rain is reduced.

Objectives

Your goal in the negotiations is to convince the nations of Europe to join in an unprecedented
treaty which will limit transnational boundary pollution. Nothing like this has happened
before. So you will need to present the case for the damage being caused and provide a
philosophical framework to support this treaty. You should also insure that the treaty states
Green philosophical positions in its language.

Responsibilities

Your major task is to bring the strong Green philosophical position to the initial discussions
in Geneva and throughout the meetings that follow. You should read James Lovelock and use
his work to support your position.

Relationships

You are very concerned with the use of GDP as a measure of improvement of a country.
GDP only measures the total flow of money in the economy. You feel that if measures that
increase GDP also damage the environment by destroying trees, wetlands, and the ecology,
then the increase in GDP actually makes peoples lives worse. Some measures that increase
the GDP also lead to increased disparity between rich and poor. You are opposed to these
measures as well. So while you support growth, especially for less wealthy countries in
Southern Europe, you want to insure growth actually improves people’s lives and the
environment in which they live.

190
It has been said that Sweden is composed of 1/3 people, 1/3 lakes, and 1/3 forests. The
people of Sweden take their natural environment very seriously. There is even a law that says
anyone can camp for up to two nights on any non-agricultural land anywhere in the country.
Stockholm is filled with parks and large tracts devoted to walking trails. This close
association with nature is, no doubt, the reason that the Swedish people and their government
take such a strong position on anything that can damage the natural resources that are so
central to their lives. You will bring your personal passion for protecting the environment as
well as your long background in studying acid rain to the negotiating table.

Your country, along with your neighbor Norway, is leading the fight to regulate acid causing
pollution. Your government is investing in research to quantify the problem of acid pollution
and its sources. What is clear is that the vast majority (possibly 70-80%) of the air pollution
causing acid rain in your country comes from other countries. The biggest source is Great
Britain. Their heavy use of coal results in massive SO2 emissions. They then use tall
smokestacks to transport this pollution away from their lakes and forests and it ends up in
Sweden. Thus, your highest priority in the negotiations ahead is to do something to reduce
pollution from Great Britain. Any agreement which does not include them will be
meaningless.

One reason Sweden suffers so greatly from acid pollution is the geology of the country.
Glaciers during the ice ages have scraped away much of the soil and the underlying bedrock,
granite and gneiss, has very low buffering ability. Thus, even small amounts of acid have a
major impact. The soil and the rock lack the chemicals needed to neutralize the acid.

The economy of Sweden is very strong with a strong manufacturing sector and substantial
exports. The majority of electric generation is hydroelectric with the remainder, about a third,
from nuclear power. Thus the power generating sector is not a problem for Sweden. The
small acid emissions produced are from gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil burned in industrial
plants and home heating. These are regulated to require low sulfur fuels. There is a major
effort to shift home heating from single building furnaces to larger central units heating entire
districts. This approach allows for better pollution control. The bottom line is that there is
little Sweden can do to improve its own acid rain pollution. Only an international agreement
with severe limits will help.

On the practical side, you can point to the fact that Sweden has reduced its emissions of SO2
by over 40% in the past decade. This reduction had little impact on acid pollution in Sweden
since the pollution is carried to Norway, Finland, and the Soviet Union before it comes to
earth. Thus your nation is actively working to reduce transnational pollution which benefits
others. You need to argue that others need to do the same thing and, that if everyone does
this, all will benefit.

The other acid problem is due to NOx pollution, and on this front, things are not going as
well. Sweden has implemented controls on emissions from autos, but they are not well
enforced. Projections suggest that within 20 years, this form of pollution will account for

191
almost half of the acid pollution in Sweden. Thus, it is important to implement strong
controls on all forms of acid pollution.

You have recently read the new book by James Lovelock, Gaia, and it has made you rethink
your underlying philosophy of the environment. In your first paper, you will try to bring
Lovelock’s arguments to bear on this problem and use them to support your main goal to
reduce pollution. Lovelock’s book has also prompted you to examine some of the new
radical ecological theories which place humanity within nature and remove us from a special
place. You find these positions compelling and will need to research radical
environmentalism (Green) and bring its ideas to the table. If you can convince the
Conference of these philosophical positions, then you will have won the fight.

Strategy Advice

You begin the game with a purse of $1,500 million. However, your government has already
committed to a major air pollution reduction program which will cost $900 million. The
Gamemaster will give you the balance of $600 million. You do not have to pay any
additional money if you agree to any treaty up to 30%. The money remaining may be used to
help other nations reduce their pollution and to encourage them to sign an agreement. Your
benefits from pollution reduction will be much greater if a treaty is signed, since most of
your pollution is imported.

You must take a very strong and proactive position on these negotiations. However, there are
some areas in which you will compromise. The Netherlands has already put significant pollution
controls in place. Thus they would be exempted from any further roll back provisions. Ireland
and other nations with weak economies which are not highly industrial could also be exempted.
They produce little pollution and you need all the support you can get.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $1,500
million, but $900 million of this is already committed to meet the 30% reduction planned by
your government.

192
% Reduction SO2 within a
country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for Difference due to imported Cost in million US
the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.17 1 $200
10 0.26 2.5 $300
20 0.47 5 $600
30 0.71 7.5 $900
40 1.00 10 $1,200
50 1.30 12.5 $1,600
60 1.70 15 $2,000
75 2.25 18 $3,000
There are several strong arguments your opponents can make against any international
agreement to limit pollution. You need to be prepared to counter these arguments with your own
evidence.

1. The science connecting SO2 pollution to acidification is weak. There are other sources of
acidity such as NOx which also contribute.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB, or any other specific
country is causing acidification in Scandinavia.
3. Even if foreign emissions are to blame for problems in Norway and Sweden, what is the
evidence that reducing these foreign emissions will actually improve the situation in your
country?

To Learn More
Biography based on Ivar Sven Wijkman: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Resources – Swedish Ministry of Agriculture, Acidification Today and Tomorrow, prepared


for the 1982 Stockholm Conference. Translated from Swedish by Simon Harper, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1982

Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz,
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, 1983

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva -Obtain a treaty with specific and mandatory reductions of at least 20% on all
acid causing emissions. All major pollution exporters need to agree to this treaty. (+2
Victory point for success)
2. Geneva – Obtain any treaty on emissions which all countries agree to, even without
specific reductions (+1 Victory point for success)

193
3. Helsinki – A treaty is signed by all countries including the Eastern European block which
includes 30% reductions. This must include financial support for the East to meet at least
a 25% reduction. (+1 Victory point for success)

4. Include statements of “Green” political and philosophical thought such as Deep Ecology
in the treaties produced by the conference. (+1 Victory point for success)

5. Sophia - You are technically an indeterminate on the issue of catalytic converters, but
your “green” philosophy means you will support the technology which you are convinced
will provide the greatest overall reductions of air pollution. You are also strongly
opposed to lead in gasoline. Sweden wants a 30% reduction of NOx pollution. (+1 for
any NOx treaty reducing emissions)

194
195
Sweden-3 Director Swedish EPA

Little is known about your personal life, you have managed to maintain a level of privacy in
your affairs. You are a conservation biologist and a leader of the conservation movement in
Sweden. You have been Director General of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
for many years. In this position, you have worked to develop policies to preserve the natural
environment. This includes efforts to reduce pollution within Sweden. You have also been
active in negotiations with the Soviet Union and East Germany on issues of pollution and
conservation. You believe you have proven that protecting the environment can be done
without hurting industry. You will need to convince the delegates from all over Europe that
this is true.

Objectives

Your goal in the negotiations is to convince the nations of Europe to join in an unprecedented
treaty that will limit transnational boundary pollution. Nothing like this has happened before.
Therefore, you will need to present the case for the damage being caused and provide a
philosophical framework to support this treaty.

Responsibilities

You will help the Swedish team press for a strong treaty. You also should focus on the
impact of air pollution and acid rain on agricultural productivity and the advantages of
pollution control. You will be particularly interested in insuring that the East Bloc countries
are included in the treaty.

Relationships

It has been said that Sweden is composed of 1/3 people, 1/3 lakes, and 1/3 forests. The
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is the key agency that manages how people
interact with the lakes, fields and forests. The people of Sweden take their natural
environment very seriously. There is even a law that says anyone can camp for up to two
nights on any non-agricultural land anywhere in the country. Even Stockholm is filled with
parks and large tracts devoted to walking trails. This close association with nature is, no
doubt, the reason that the Swedish people and their government take such a strong position
on anything that can damage the natural resources that are so central to their lives. Don’t
hesitate to allow your passion for the environment to be seen during the negotiations to come.

Your country, along with your neighbor, Norway, are leading the fight to regulate acid
causing pollution. Your government is investing in research to quantify the problem of acid
pollution and its sources. What is clear is that the vast majority (possibly 70-80%) of the air
pollution causing acid rain in your country comes from other countries. The biggest source is
Great Britain. Their heavy use of coal results in massive SO2 emissions. They then use tall
smokestacks to transport this pollution away from their lakes and forests and it ends up in
Sweden. Thus, your highest priority in the negotiations ahead is to do something to reduce
pollution from Great Britain. Any agreement that does not include them will be meaningless.

196
One reason Sweden suffers so greatly from acid pollution is the geology of the country.
Glaciers during the ice ages have scraped away much of the soil and the underlying bedrock,
granite and gneiss, has very low buffering ability. Thus, even small amounts of acid have a
major impact. The soil and the rock lack the chemicals needed to neutralize the acid.

The economy of Sweden is very strong with a strong manufacturing sector and substantial
exports. The majority of electric generation is hydroelectric with the remainder, about a third,
from nuclear power. Thus, the power generating sector is not a problem for Sweden. The
small acid emissions produced are from gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil burned in industrial
plants and home heating. These are regulated to require low sulfur fuels. There is a major
effort to shift home heating from single building furnaces to larger central units heating entire
districts. This approach allows for better pollution control. The bottom line is that there is
little Sweden can do to improve its own acid rain pollution. Only an international agreement
with severe limits will help.

On the practical side, you can point to the fact that Sweden has reduced its emissions of SO2
by over 40% in the past decade and will reduce it by 80% by the mid 1990’s. This reduction
has little impact on acid pollution in Sweden since the pollution is carried to Norway,
Finland, and the Soviet Union before it comes to earth. Thus your nation is actively working
to reduce transnational pollution which benefits others. You need to argue that others need to
do the same thing, and that if everyone does this, all will benefit.

The other acid problem is due to NOx pollution, and on this front, things are not going as
well. Sweden has implemented controls on emissions from autos, but they are not well
enforced. Projections suggest that within 20 years, this form of pollution will account for
almost half of the acid pollution in Sweden. Thus, it is important to implement strong
controls on all forms of acid pollution.

Your colleague at the meeting is an outspoken “Green”, and espouses the ideology that
people are alienated from the world through the increase in industrialization and the drive for
material wealth. The Greens see this materialism as a cause of poverty and suffering. They
want to return to a simpler, agrarian life. As Director General of the EPA, you have some
sympathy with this position. On the other hand, you have seen the hard life of the farm and
are unconvinced that it is as idyllic as the Greens suggest. Most of them have no direct
experience with the life of the farmer. You also question the ability of Sweden, or any other
European country, to support its population in a traditional agrarian manner. Population
growth has closed off this option. The Green’s recognize this but don’t have any ideas how
population could be reduced. On the other hand, you do understand the disaffection with the
crime and pollution of the cities which has prompted this position. You will need to consider
the various positions and develop your own philosophy of the environment. It may be
utilitarian or Green. Read, listen, and then decide.

Some opponents of pollution control have suggested that adding lime to lakes is a solution to
the problems of acid rain. You will need to point out the problems with this practice. It is
currently being used on about 2000 lakes in Sweden, but at great cost and with great

197
difficulty. Before liming can begin, the lake must be thoroughly studied so that the inputs and
outflows of water are fully known. The amount and timing of lime additions must be
calculated and the results must be monitored by regular chemical and biological analysis.
Because the spring snowmelt causes an especially strong acid influx, liming must be timed
carefully with the weather. If liming is not done correctly, it causes problems equal to or
greater than the addition of acid by killing fish and aquatic life.

Strategy Advice

You must take a very strong and proactive position on these negotiations. However, there are
some areas in which you will compromise. The Netherlands has already put significant pollution
controls in place. Thus they would be exempted from any further roll back provisions. This may
help gain their support. They also receive significant pollution from Great Britain, so you may be
able to enlist them as allies in this. Ireland and other nations with weak economies which are not
highly industrial should also be exempted. They produce little pollution and you need all the
support you can get.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $1,500
million, but $900 million of this is already committed to meet the 30% reduction planned by
your government.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for Difference due to imported Cost in million US
the Country pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.17 1 $200
10 0.26 2.5 $300
20 0.47 5 $600
30 0.71 7.5 $900
40 1.00 10 $1,200
50 1.30 12.5 $1,600
60 1.70 15 $2,000
75 2.25 18 $3,000

There are several strong arguments your opponents can make against any international
agreement to limit pollution. You need to be prepared to counter these arguments with your own
evidence.

198
1. The science connecting SO2 pollution to acidification is weak. There are other sources of
acidity such as NOx which also contribute.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB, or any other specific
country is causing acidification in Scandinavia.
3. Even if foreign emissions are to blame for problems in Norway and Sweden, what is the
evidence that reducing these foreign emissions will actually improve the situation in your
country?

To Learn More
Biography based on Lars-Erik Esping: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Resources – Swedish Ministry of Agriculture, Acidification Today and Tomorrow, prepared


for the 1982 Stockholm Conference, translated from Swedish by Simon Harper, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1982

Acid Rain in Europe and North America, Gregory Wetstone and Armin Rosencranz,
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, 1983

Victory Objectives

You begin the game with a purse of $1,500 million. However, your government has already
committed to a major air pollution reduction program which will cost 900 million. The
Gamemaster will give you only 600 million. You do not have to pay any additional money if
you agree to any treaty up to 30% reduction. The money remaining may be used to help other
nations reduce their pollution and to encourage them to sign an agreement. Your benefits
from pollution reduction will be much greater if a treaty is signed, since most of your
pollution is imported.

1. Geneva -Obtain a treaty with specific and mandatory reductions of at least 20% on all
acid causing emissions. All major pollution exporters need to agree to this treaty. (+2
Victory point for success)
2. Geneva – Obtain any treaty on emissions which all countries agree to, even without
specific reductions (+1 Victory point for success)

3. Helsinki – A treaty is signed by all countries including the Eastern European block which
includes 30% reductions. This must include financial support for the East to meet at least
a 25% reduction. (+1 Victory point for success)

4. Sophia - You are technically an indeterminate on the issue of catalytic converters, but your “green”
philosophy means you will support the technology which you are convinced will provide the
greatest overall reductions of air pollution. You are also strongly opposed to lead in gasoline.
Sweden wants a 30% reduction of NOx pollution. (+1 for any NOx treaty reducing emissions)

199
Norway-1 Minister of Trade and Industry

Biography

You were born in a seaside community in Southern Sweden where your family had a small farm.
Because the farm was not prosperous, you left school at 16 and began working as a journalist.
This allowed you to complete high school. You also served in a Norwegian military unit in West
Germany. You spent 15 days in a military prison for writing a critical article about alcohol
consumption by officers in the military.

You continued to work as a journalist, but moved into politics in the late 1950, first as chairman
of the Workers Youth League and then as a secretary for the Labor Party. You were elected to
Parliament in 1965 and have held a variety of cabinet posts. In 1976, you were appointed to head
of the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry. It is in that role that you are attending the
Geneva Conference. You have also talked to the Prime Minister about the possibility of
becoming Minister for Petroleum and Energy.

Your portfolio in the government involves maintaining strong support for Norway’s industrial
base. Your Ministry works closely with the Ministry of the Environment to insure that
environmental protection is accomplished in a way that does not cause major disruptions for
Norwegian industry. This industrial bias does not mean you are in any way opposed to strong
environmental protection. It does mean you will look closely at costs and benefits in selecting
between various options.

Objectives

Your goal in the negotiations is to convince the nations of Europe to join in an unprecedented
treaty that will limit trans-boundary pollution. Nothing like this has happened before. So you will
need to present the case for the damage being caused and provide a philosophical framework to
support this treaty. Most important will be to convince Great Britain to agree to the treaty and
comply with its limits. Without their participation, little will change.

Responsibilities

You have been charged to cast Norway’s vote at the Conference, but you should not do so
without close collaboration with your entire delegation.

Relationships

The people of Norway, along with those of Sweden, have a deep love for the natural world. One
only need look at the city of Oslo, with its acres of forest and fields and the crystal waters of the
fjords, to understand why. The most popular pastimes of your countrymen are hiking and fishing.
There is a large park for hiking and skiing only a short tram ride from central Oslo. Many people
trek through the back country in the summer as well. This close contact with nature may be one
reason why Norwegians are so upset about the damage they see on a regular basis in the
mountains and rivers.

200
Your country, along with your neighbor Sweden, suffers from the worst effects of acid pollution
in Western Europe. While Sweden is a highly industrialized country, Norway has a smaller and
less developed economy. Historically it has focused on the sea with shipping and fishing being
important industries. Fishing is also a popular pastime for most Norwegians. You can remember
fondly the salmon and trout you caught as a child in the rivers of southern Norway. Now those
fish are gone. The last time you went fishing during your summer vacation, you did not catch a
single fish. You have stopped fishing now out of frustration. A recent study found that salmon
had disappeared from all of the rivers in the south and brown trout were almost gone as well.
You also remember that terrible day in 1975 when dead fish littered a 10 km stretch of the
Tovdal River due to a particularly bad spring fish kill.

Norway is especially sensitive to acid rain for several reasons. The bedrock, like that of Sweden
is granite and cannot neutralize the acid. The other problem is that about half of the annual
precipitation falls as snow. This accumulates during the long winter and the spring snowmelt
sends this acid into the rivers as a sharp pulse of very acidic water. The pulse of acid occurs at
the worst possible time when fish are spawning and brings with it a pulse of toxic aluminum
dissolved from the rock and soil. The loss of fish and fishing, more than any other factor, has led
to the outcry in your country for a solution to the problem.

The recent discovery of oil in the North Sea has provided a substantial boon to the nation which
is using the oil revenue to provide services for the population. One area of investment has been
in research to track the sources and impacts of acid pollution. The newfound control of a major
oil supply also provides some leverage in the negotiations with countries which need your fuel.

What has been learned in the acid pollution research is that over 80% of all acid pollution in
Norway originates from other countries, most prominently Great Britain. Norway gets most of its
electricity from hydropower and requires the use of low sulfur fuels for transportation. Thus,
little can be done to protect the environment without international cooperation.

Some of the major polluters have suggested that polluters should pay for damage caused by their
air pollution instead of reducing their emissions. You must fight this at all cost. Such an
approach fails to address the underlying pollution problem and has the effect of sanctioning
continued pollution. Furthermore, the money will not really be sufficient to solve the problems.

Your colleague from Norway will take a fairly radical philosophical position on the environment
called Deep Ecology. You share his passion for environmental protection, but your reasons are
more practical than philosophical. You need to research environmentalism and find a position
that is practical and utilitarian but which will achieve your goal of protecting the environment of
Norway from imported air pollution.

Some opponents of pollution control have suggested that adding lime to lakes is a solution to the
problems of acid rain. You will need to point out the problems with this practice. It is currently
being used on about 2000 lakes in Sweden, but at great cost and with great difficulty. Before
liming can begin, the lake must be thoroughly studied so that the inputs and outflows of water
are carefully known. The amount and timing of lime additions must be calculated and the results

201
must be monitored by regular chemical and biological analysis. Because the spring snowmelt
causes an especially strong acid influx, liming must be timed carefully with the weather. If
liming is not done correctly, it causes problems equal to or greater than the addition of acid by
killing fish and aquatic life.

Strategy Advice

You begin the game with a purse of $900 million. However, your government has already
committed to a major air pollution reduction program which will cost $600 million. The
Gamemaster will give you only $300 million. You do not have to pay any additional money if
you agree to any treaty. The money remaining may be used to help other nations reduce their
pollution and to encourage them to sign an agreement. Your benefits from pollution reduction
will be much greater if a treaty is signed, since most of your pollution is imported.

You must take a very strong and proactive position on these negotiations. However, there are
some areas in which you will compromise. The Netherlands has already put significant pollution
controls in place. Thus they would be exempted from any further roll back provisions. This may
help gain their support. They also receive significant pollution from Great Britain, so you may be
able to enlist them as allies in this. Ireland and other nations with weak economies which are not
highly industrial should also be exempted. They produce little pollution and you need all the
support you can get.

There are several strong arguments your opponents can make against any international
agreement to limit pollution. You need to be prepared to counter these arguments with your own
evidence.

1. The science connecting SO2 pollution to acidification is weak. There are other sources of
acidity such as NOx which also contribute.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB, or any other specific
country is causing acidification in Scandinavia.
3. Even if foreign emissions are to blame for problems in Norway and Sweden, what is the
evidence that reducing these foreign emissions will actually improve the situation in your
country?

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $900
million.

202
% Reduction SO2 within a country if
% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP for country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.5
10 1
20 2
30 3
40 1.3 4 $700
50 2.8 5 $1,600
60 4.3 6 $2,500
75 6.6 7.5 $3,800

To Learn More

Biography based on Bjartmar Gjerde: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva -Obtain a treaty with specific and mandatory reductions of 20% on all acid
causing emissions. All major pollution exporters need to agree to this treaty.
(+2 Victory point for success)
2. Geneva – Obtain any treaty on emissions which all countries agree to, even without
specific reductions (+1 Victory point for success)
3. Helsinki – A treaty is signed by all countries including the Eastern European block which
includes 30% reductions. (+2 Victory point for success)
4. Helsinki – Treaty signed without East Europe (+1 Victory point)
5. Sophia - You are an indeterminate on the issue of how NOx should be reduced, but it is
important that a treaty be signed by all. (+1 Victory point for success in a freeze in NOx)

203
204
205
Norway-2 Minister of the Environment

Biography

You were born in Oslo in 1939. Your father was a physician and you followed in his footsteps
with a medical degree from the University of Oslo. You also went to Harvard Medical School for
a Master’s Degree in Public Health. You married in 1960 and have managed to raise four
children while working as a doctor.

In 1974 you were appointed to head of the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. You have a
deep commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection. You have gained
prominence in the Labor Party and some feel you may soon take on more important political
roles. There is even talk that you may become Prime Minister at some point. Still, your reason
for possibly seeking such an office would be related to your fundamental belief that
environmental protection is a key to public health. (Your actual position in the government
changes several times over the time period of the game.)

Your Ministry works closely with the Ministry of Trade and Industry in developing regulations
to insure that they do not place an undue burden on the nation’s industrial base. The Ministry of
Industry has, in practice, focused more on the costs and benefits of proposed regulation while
your staff has concentrated on the damage done by pollution and the optimal approaches to limit
that damage.

You also are a close follower of the writings of Arne Dekke Eide Næss, the founder of Deep
Ecology.

Objectives

Your goal in the negotiations is to convince the nations of Europe to join in an unprecedented
treaty that will limit transnational boundary pollution. Nothing like this has happened before. So
you will need to present the case for the damage being caused and provide a philosophical
framework to support this treaty. Most important will be to convince Great Britain to agree to the
treaty and comply with its limits. Without their participation, little will change.

One of your goals is to insure that any statements emerging from the negotiations specifically
use the language of Deep Ecology.

Responsibilities

A key part of your role in the game is to bring this philosophical position to the table. You
should research his writings and incorporate his philosophical position into your arguments.

You should get a collection of photos of dead lakes, fish kills, and brown forests and carry it
around with you to show people what you are talking about when you speak of ecological
damage. You can find these in journal articles and on Google Images.

206
Relationships

The people of Norway, along with those of Sweden, have a deep love for the natural world. One
only need look at the city of Oslo, with its acres of forest and fields and the crystal waters of the
fjords, to understand why. The most popular pastimes of your countrymen are hiking and fishing.
There is a large park for hiking and skiing only a 15 minute tram ride from central Oslo. Many
people trek through the back country in the summer as well. This close contact with nature may
be one reason why Norwegians are so upset about the damage they see on a regular basis in the
mountains and rivers.

Your country, along with your neighbor Sweden, suffers from the worst effects of acid pollution
in Western Europe. While Sweden is a highly industrialized country, Norway has a smaller and
less developed economy. Historically it has focused on the sea with shipping and fishing being
important industries. Fishing is also a popular pastime for most Norwegians. You can remember
fondly the salmon and trout you caught as a child in the rivers of southern Norway. Now those
fish are gone. The last time you went fishing during your summer vacation, you did not catch a
single fish. You have stopped fishing now out of frustration. A recent study found that salmon
had disappeared from all of the rivers in the south and brown trout were almost gone as well.
You also remember that terrible day in 1975 when dead fish littered a 10 km stretch of the
Tovdal River due to a particularly bad spring fish kill.

Norway is especially sensitive to acid rain for several reasons. The bedrock, like that of Sweden
is granite and cannot neutralize the acid. The other problem is that about half of the annual
precipitation falls as snow. This accumulates during the long winter and the spring snowmelt
sends this acid into the rivers as a sharp pulse of very acidic water. The pulse of acid occurs at
the worst possible time when fish are spawning and brings with it a pulse of toxic aluminum
dissolved from the rock and soil. The loss of fish and fishing, more than any other factor, has led
to the outcry in your country for a solution to the problem.

The recent discovery of oil in the North Sea has provided a substantial boon to the nation which
is using the oil revenue to provide services for the population. One area of investment has been
in research to track the sources and impacts of acid pollution. The newfound control of a major
oil supply also provides some leverage in the negotiations with countries which need your fuel.

What has been learned in the acid pollution research is that over 80% of all acid pollution in
Norway originates from other countries, most prominently Great Britain. Norway gets most of its
electricity from hydropower and requires the use of low sulfur fuels for transportation. Thus,
little can be done to protect the environment without international cooperation.

Some of the major polluters have suggested that polluters should pay for damage caused by their
air pollution instead of reducing their emissions. You must fight this at all cost. Such an
approach fails to address the underlying pollution problem and has the effect of sanctioning
continued pollution. Furthermore, the money will not really be sufficient to solve the problems.

207
The Deep Ecology position can be difficult to really internalize. A brief quote from Wikipedia
will point you in the direction of the ideas of Arne Naess ideas.23

The phrase deep ecology was coined in 1972 by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss and he
helped give it a theoretical foundation. "For Arne Naess, ecological science, concerned with facts and
logic alone, cannot answer ethical questions about how we should live. For this we need ecological
wisdom. Deep ecology seeks to develop this by focusing on deep experience, deep questioning and
deep commitment. These constitute an interconnected system. Each gives rise to and supports the
other, whilst the entire system is, what Naess would call, an ecosophy: an evolving but consistent
philosophy of being, thinking and acting in the world, that embodies ecological wisdom and
harmony."[1] Næss rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their relative value. For
example, judgments on whether an animal has an eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it has
consciousness have all been used to justify the ranking of the human animal over other animals. Næss
states that "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No
single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other
species." This metaphysical idea is elucidated in Warwick Fox's claim that we and all other beings are
"aspects of a single unfolding reality". As such Deep Ecology would support the view of Aldo
Leopold in his book, "A Sand County Almanac" that humans are not a superior species with the right
to manage and control the rest of nature, but rather that humans are ‘plain members of the biotic
community’. They also would support Leopold's "Land Ethic": "a thing is right when it tends to
preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise."

Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide
human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the
science of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by humans or other
external influences. Further, both hold that the actions of modern civilization threaten global
ecological well-being. Ecologists have described change and stability in ecological systems in various
ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux of nature"[2]. Regardless of which
model is most accurate, environmentalists contend that massive human economic activity has pushed
the biosphere far from its "natural" state through reduction of biodiversity, climate change, and other
influences. As a consequence, civilization is causing mass extinction. Deep ecologists hope to
influence social and political change through their philosophy.

Strategy Advice

You begin the game with a purse of $900 million. However, your government has already
committed to a major air pollution reduction program which will cost $600 million. The
Gamemaster will give you only $300 million. You do not have to pay any additional money if
you agree to any treaty. The money remaining may be used to help other nations reduce their
pollution and to encourage them to sign an agreement. Your benefits from pollution reduction
will be much greater if a treaty is signed, since most of your pollution is imported.

You must take a very strong and proactive position on these negotiations. However, there are
some areas in which you will compromise. The Netherlands has already put significant pollution
controls in place. Thus they would be exempted from any further roll back provisions. This may

23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology - Note, while Wikipedia is not always a reliable resource, the authors
have read this entry and believe it is a useful start in understanding this topic.

208
help gain their support. They also receive significant pollution from Great Britain, so you may be
able to enlist them as allies in this. Ireland and other nations with weak economies which are not
highly industrial may also seek to be exempted. You may also gain their support by paying for
their costs to meet the treaty.

There are several strong arguments your opponents can make against any international
agreement to limit pollution. You need to be prepared to counter these arguments with your own
evidence.

1. The science connecting SO2 pollution to acidification is weak. There are other sources of
acidity such as NOx which also contribute.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB, or any other specific
country is causing acidification in Scandinavia.
3. Even if foreign emissions are to blame for problems in Norway and Sweden, what is the
evidence that reducing these foreign emissions will actually improve the situation in your
country?

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $900
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is spent
% Reduction SO2 but no other country reduces their
within a Country Cost as % GDP for emissions. Difference due to Cost in million US
the Country imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.5
10 1
20 2
30 3
40 1.3 4 $700
50 2.8 5 $1,600
60 4.3 6 $2,500
75 6.6 7.5 $3,800

To Learn More

209
Biography based on Gro Harlem Brundtland: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Duval Deep Ecology is an excellent discussion of the Deep Ecology Position

Wikipedia entry on Deep Ecology is accurate and a comprehensive starting point.

The selection by Barbara Kingsolver in the Deep Ecology section of the game book may be
helpful. The quotation below is from another of her books, Prodigal Summer and also may help
you internalize the Deep Ecology position. You should note that this philosophy does not require
that you sign on to the extreme positions of groups like PETA. But it does require you to think
differently about all living things and what it means for them to all be equal. In this collection of
passages she is talking about an old man named Walker who has spent much of his life trying to
breed an American chestnut tree that is immune to the Dutch elm disease. She tells how the
disease, which came to this country on a plant imported from Europe, killed virtually the entire
chestnut population and how important the trees were for much of the economy. This section is
an exchange of letters between Mr. Walker and his neighbor, Nanny Rawley. It begins as an
argument over the fate of a local species of salamander popular as bait for bass fishing. Since
fishing is an important pastime for many Europeans, this may be a useful way to get your ideas
into the debate.24

Dear Miss Rawley,

On the matter of setting free the “lizards” sold at Grundy’s bait store on the grounds that
some of them belong to species that are vanishing from our region, having given it some
thought, I propose three questions:
1) Are we humans to think of ourselves merely as one species among many, as you
always insist in our discussions of how a person might live in “harmony” with
“nature” while still managing to keep the Japanese beetles from entirely destroying
his trees? Do you believe a human holds no more special authority in this world than,
say, Japanese beetle or a salamander? If so, then why is it our duty to set free
salamanders, any more than it is the salamander’s place to swim up to the state
prison and liberate the criminals incarcerated there?
2) Or are we to think of ourselves as keepers and guardians of the earth, as God
instructed us to do in Genesis. “So God created man in his own image;… and God
blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it!.... Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face
of the earth and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree-yielding seed; to you it shall
be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
everything that creepeth upon the earth’” – such as salamanders, Miss Rawley –
“wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meet’; and it was so.” If the
Holy Bible is to be believed, we must view God’s creatures as gifts to his favored
children and use them for our own purposes, even if this occasionally causes this one
or that to go extinct; after a while.

24
This material is copied and paraphrased from “Prodigal Summer” by Barbara Kingsolver. Pp 185-7, 214-219,
279-280, 389-390

210
3) If one species or another of those muddy little salamanders went extinct, who would
care anyway?
Just Wondering,
Garnett Walker III

Miss Rowley’s reply

Dear Mr. Walker,

Since you asked, yes, I do believe humankind holds a special place in the world. It’s the
similar place held by a mockingbird, in his opinion, and a salamander in whatever he has
that resembles a mind of his own. Every creature alive believes this: The center of
everything is me. Every life has its own kind of worship, I think, but do you think a
salamander is worshiping some God that looks like a big two-legged man? Go on! To
him, a man’s a shadowy nuisance (if anything) compared to the sacred business of
finding food and a mate and making progeny to rule the mud for all times. To themselves
and one another, those muddly little salamander lives mean everything.

Of all things, I’d never expect you, Garnett Walker III, to ask “Who cares if one species
is lost?” The extinction of one kind of tree wrecked pure havoc on the folks all through
these mountains- your own family more than any other. Suppose some city Yank said to
you, “Well, sir, the American chestnut was just one tree – why, the woods are full of
trees!” You’d get so mad you’d spit. It would take you a day and a night to try and
explain why the chestnut was a tree unlike any other, that held a purpose in our world
that nothing else can replace. Well sir, the loss of one kind of salamander would be a
tragedy on the same order of to some other creature that was depending on it. It wouldn’t
be you this time, but I assume you care about all tragedies, not just the ones that affect
the Walker fortunes.

Just think: if someone had shown you a little old seedling tree potted in a handful of dirt
coming in on a ship from Asia all those years ago, asked you to peek into it, and
remarked, “These piddly little strands of fungus will knock down a million majestic
chestnut trees, starve out thousands of righteous mountain folk, and leave Garnett Walker
a bitter old man,” would you have laughed?

If God gave Man all the creatures of this earth to use for his own ends, he also counseled
that gluttony is a sin- and he did say, flat out, “Thou shalt not kill.” He didn’t tell us to
go ahead and murder every beetle or caterpillar that wants to eat what we eat (and, by
the way, other insects that pollinate what we eat). He did not mean for us to satisfy our
every whim for any food, in every season, by tearing down forests to make way for fields,
ripping up fields to make way for beasts, and transporting everything we can think of to
places it doesn’t belong. To our dominion over the earth, Mr. Walker, we own our thanks
for the chestnut blight. Our thanks for kudzu, honeysuckle, and the Japanese beetle also. I
think that’s God’s little joke on us for getting too big for our britches. We love to declare
that God made us in his image, but even so, he’s three billion years old and we’re just
babies. … We’re that foolish to think we know how to rule the world.

211
I’m partial to the passage from Genesis you quoted, but I wonder if you really understand
it. God gave us every herb bearing seed, it says, and every tree in which is the fruit of a
tree-yielding seed. He gave us the mystery of a world that can re-create itself again and
again. To you the fruit shall be food, he’s saying, but just remember, to the tree it’s a
child. “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that
creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat.”
He’s looking out for the salamanders there, you see, reminding us that there’s life in
them, too, and that even weeds and pond algae are sacred because they’re salamander
food. You’re a religious man, Mr. Walker. Seems to me you’d think twice about spraying
poison all over God’s hard work.

Never mind. We all have our peeves. Myself, I hate goats, and I sorely despise snapping
turtles. It’s sure God loves them as much as he loves you or me, but I’ve got new baby
ducklings on my pond, and an evil old turtle in there is gobbling them down like the troll
under the bridge. … I can’t stand it. I’d shoot that old S-O-B in the head if I had a gun
and the heart to use it, so help me. But I have neither, and God knows that is surely for
the best.

Yours very sincerely,


Nanny Land Rawley

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva -Obtain a treaty with specific and mandatory reductions of 20% on all acid
causing emissions. All major pollution exporters need to agree to this treaty.
(+2 Victory point for success)
2. Geneva – Obtain any treaty on emissions which all countries agree to, even without
specific reductions (+1 Victory point for success)
3. Helsinki – A treaty is signed by all countries including the Eastern European block which
includes 30% reductions. (+2 Victory point for success)
4. Helsinki – Treaty signed without East Europe (+1 Victory point)
5. Sophia - You governments has taken an indeterminate position on the issue of how NOx
should be reduced, but it is important that a treaty be signed by all. Your personal beliefs are
that major reductions need to be made, but you cannot press this issue too hard due to the
position of your government. You are also strongly opposed to lead in gasoline. (+1 Victory
point for success in a freeze in NOx and removal of leaded gasoline)
6. Include statements of “Green” political and philosophical thought such as Deep Ecology in
the treaties produced by the conference. (+1 Victory point for success)

212
213
Norway 3 Conservative Party Leader

Biography

You were born in 1930, the son of a dentist. You completed your education with a law degree
from the University of Oslo in 1957. While a student, you became politically active in the
Conservative Party. You also married and had two children. You began work as a lawyer for a
company involved in shipping and deep sea drilling. But soon you also began a political career,
first on the Oslo city council and then with election to the Norwegian Parliament in 1969.

You are known for your skill as a speaker and debater. You are also passionately committed to
cooperation among the Baltic Countries and cooperation between various non-socialist political
parties. Because the Conservative Party has been out of power for most of the decade, you have
not held many cabinet posts, but you are clearly seen as a future leader of the Conservatives and
if your party regains the majority, you will certainly be among the leadership. (Your actual
position in the government changes several times over the time period of the game.)

The Prime Minister is deeply committed to the reduction of acid rain coming to Norway from
other countries and you are included in the Norway delegation as a representative of the
opposition and so that the Conservative party will be fully included in the process should they
come to power in the future.

Your portfolio in the government involves maintaining strong support for Norway’s industrial
base. Your Ministry works closely with the Ministry of the Environment to insure that
environmental protection is accomplished in a way that does not cause major disruptions for
Norwegian industry. This industrial bias does not mean you are in any way opposed to strong
environmental protection. It does mean you will look closely at costs and benefits in selecting
between various options.

Objectives

Your goal in the negotiations is to convince the nations of Europe to join in an unprecedented
treaty that will limit transnational boundary pollution. Nothing like this has happened before. So
you will need to present the case for the damage being caused and provide a philosophical
framework to support this treaty. Most important will be to convince Great Britain to agree to the
treaty and comply with its limits. Without their participation, little will change.

Responsibilities

You will work with the rest of your faction to make the case for a strong treaty.

Relationships

The people of Norway, along with those of Sweden, have a deep love for the natural world. One
only need look at the city of Oslo, with its acres of forest and fields and the crystal waters of the
fjords, to understand why. The most popular pastimes of your countrymen are hiking and fishing.

214
There is a large park for hiking and skiing only a short tram ride from central Oslo. Many people
trek through the back country in the summer as well. This close contact with nature may be one
reason why Norwegians are so upset about the damage they see on a regular basis in the
mountains and rivers.

Your country, along with your neighbor Sweden, suffers from the worst effects of acid pollution
in Western Europe. While Sweden is a highly industrialized country, Norway has a smaller and
less developed economy. Historically it has focused on the sea with shipping and fishing being
important industries. Fishing is also a popular pastime for most Norwegians. You can remember
fondly the salmon and trout you caught as a child in the rivers of southern Norway. Now those
fish are gone. The last time you went fishing during your summer vacation, you did not catch a
single fish. You have stopped fishing now out of frustration. A recent study found that salmon
had disappeared from all of the rivers in the south and brown trout were almost gone as well.
You also remember that terrible day in 1975 when dead fish littered a 10 km stretch of the
Tovdal River due to a particularly bad spring fish kill.

Norway is especially sensitive to acid rain for several reasons. The bedrock, like that of Sweden
is granite and cannot neutralize the acid. The other problem is that about half of the annual
precipitation falls as snow. This accumulates during the long winter and the spring snowmelt
sends this acid into the rivers as a sharp pulse of very acidic water. The pulse of acid occurs at
the worst possible time when fish are spawning and brings with it a pulse of toxic aluminum
dissolved from the rock and soil. The loss of fish and fishing, more than any other factor, has led
to the outcry in your country for a solution to the problem.

The recent discovery of oil in the North Sea has provided a substantial boon to the nation which
is using the oil revenue to provide services for the population. One area of investment has been
in research to track the sources and impacts of acid pollution. The newfound control of a major
oil supply also provides some leverage in the negotiations with countries which need your fuel.

What has been learned in the acid pollution research is that over 80% of all acid pollution in
Norway originates from other countries, most prominently Great Britain. Norway gets most of its
electricity from hydropower and requires the use of low sulfur fuels for transportation. Thus,
little can be done to protect the environment without international cooperation.

Some of the major polluters have suggested that polluters should pay for damage caused by their
air pollution instead of reducing their emissions. You must fight this at all cost. Such an
approach fails to address the underlying pollution problem and has the effect of sanctioning
continued pollution. Furthermore, the money will not really be sufficient to solve the problems.

Your colleague from Norway will take a fairly radical philosophical position on the environment
called Deep Ecology. You share his passion for environmental protection, but your reasons are
more practical than philosophical. You need to research environmentalism and find a position
that is practical and utilitarian but which will achieve your goal of protecting the environment of
Norway from imported air pollution.

215
Some opponents of pollution control have suggested that adding lime to lakes is a solution to the
problems of acid rain. You will need to point out the problems with this practice. It is currently
being used on about 2000 lakes in Sweden, but at great cost and with great difficulty. Before
liming can begin, the lake must be thoroughly studied so that the inputs and outflows of water
are carefully known. The amount and timing of lime additions must be calculated and the results
must be monitored by regular chemical and biological analysis. Because the spring snowmelt
causes an especially strong acid influx, liming must be timed carefully with the weather. If
liming is not done correctly, it causes problems equal to or greater than the addition of acid by
killing fish and aquatic life.

Strategy Advice

You begin the game with a purse of $900 million. However, your government has already
committed to a major air pollution reduction program which will cost $600 million. The
Gamemaster will give you only $300 million. You do not have to pay any additional money if
you agree to any treaty. The money remaining may be used to help other nations reduce their
pollution and to encourage them to sign an agreement. Your benefits from pollution reduction
will be much greater if a treaty is signed, since most of your pollution is imported.

You must take a very strong and proactive position on these negotiations. However, there are
some areas in which you will compromise. The Netherlands has already put significant pollution
controls in place. Thus they would be exempted from any further roll back provisions. This may
help gain their support. They also receive significant pollution from Great Britain, so you may be
able to enlist them as allies in this. Ireland and other nations with weak economies which are not
highly industrial should also be exempted. They produce little pollution and you need all the
support you can get.

There are several strong arguments your opponents can make against any international
agreement to limit pollution. You need to be prepared to counter these arguments with your own
evidence.

1. The science connecting SO2 pollution to acidification is weak. There are other sources of
acidity such as NOx which also contribute.
2. There is no direct evidence that pollution specifically from GB, or any other specific
country is causing acidification in Scandinavia.
3. Even if foreign emissions are to blame for problems in Norway and Sweden, what is the
evidence that reducing these foreign emissions will actually improve the situation in your
country?

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to

216
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $900
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a country if


% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP for country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.5
10 1
20 2
30 3
40 1.3 4 $700
50 2.8 5 $1,600
60 4.3 6 $2,500
75 6.6 7.5 $3,800

To Learn More

Biography based on Jan Peder Syse: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva -Obtain a treaty with specific and mandatory reductions of 20% on all acid
causing emissions. All major pollution exporters need to agree to this treaty.
(+2 Victory point for success)
2. Geneva – Obtain any treaty on emissions which all countries agree to, even without
specific reductions (+1 Victory point for success)
3. Helsinki – A treaty is signed by all countries including the Eastern European block which
includes 30% reductions. (+2 Victory point for success)
4. Helsinki – Treaty signed without East Europe (+1 Victory Point)
5. Sophia - You are an indeterminate on the issue of how NOx should be reduced, but it is
important that a treaty be signed by all. (+1 Victory point for success in a freeze in NOx)

217
Finland – Minister of Foreign Affairs

Biography

You were born to a farming family and thus have some appreciation for the environment.
However, immediately after your graduation from the University of Helsinki with a Political
Science degree, you entered politics. You won a seat in Parliament in 1970, the same year you
graduated. You have recently begun work on a PhD but with your heavy work load in politics,
you expect it to take a while to finish your thesis.

You had an unusually rapid rise in the Finnish Centre Party. By the age of 25 you were Vice
Chairman of the Centre Party and a confidant of President Kekkonen. You have served as
Minister of Education and then Minister of Labor. Your close relationship to the President was
the reason you were chosen to represent Finland at the conference.

There are rumors that you work for the KGB. You certainly see the Soviet Union as a strong and
permanent part of the world order. You are also skeptical that the European nations will be able
to build the unity they seek in the EEC.

Objectives

Your appointment to attend the Conference in Geneva comes directly from President Kekkonen
and he has instructed you to insure that Finnish sovereignty and the Finnish economy are fully
protected. You have looked at the cost-benefit analysis done by the OECD and realize that any
investment in pollution control is a no win situation for Finland. The costs outweigh the benefits.
Thus your country cannot afford to participate in any transnational agreement. If the rest of
Europe wants your cooperation, it will need to pay for any pollution controls that exceed the
expected benefits.

Relationships

Finland lies between Scandinavia and the Soviet Union. Since WW II, the Soviet government
has dominated Finnish political life. While you enjoy a market economy and are formally a
democracy, the President is essentially limited in action by the power of the USSR and the
people have had few choices in who to elect as President. Urho Kaleva Kekkonen has held this
office since 1956. He has managed to establish good relations with NATO as well and trade with
Western Europe is growing. Unlike other countries on the border of the USSR, you are not really
behind the Iron Curtain. Finns have more freedom than people in the Soviet Block. This is due to
the fact that Finland fought two wars against the Soviets during the 1940’s and won them. The
USSR still owes a war reparations debt to Finland, which it is gradually repaying. Geography is
destiny, though, and most foreign trade for Finland is with the Soviets.

Strategy Advice

218
The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $200
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a country


if the same money is spent but no
% Reduction SO2 other country reduces their
within a Country Cost as % GDP for emissions. Difference due to Cost in million US
the Country imported pollution dollars in 1985
0 0.58 0 $250
10 0.84 3 $400
20 1.10 6 $500
30 1.36 9 $650
40 1.62 12 $750
50 1.90 15 $850
60 2.14 18 $1,000
75 2.54 23 $1,300

To Learn More

Biography based on Paavo Matti Väyrynen: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives
1. If the treaty approved pays the full cost of modifying Finnish power plants to meet the requirements
of the treaty. (+3 victory points)
2. You will not agree to any treaty that does not meet condition 1. If you do so, you lose.

219
220
221
Austria 1- Foreign Minister

Biography

You were born in Vienna in 1930. You have made a career in politics and the diplomatic service
of Austria. You recently published a major book on Austrian Foreign Policy. Little else is known
about your personal life.

You are currently the Foreign Minister of Austria. You have been involved in a variety of
international negotiations. (Your character moved to another post before the Helsinki meeting,
however, for purposes of the game it will be assumed that you remained in this post till the end
of the game.)

Objectives

You have two main goals in this conference. First, your country needs a pan-European
agreement on air pollution. Since much of your pollution comes from Eastern Europe, only a
treaty that includes them will have a significant impact on your pollution problem.

Second, you are the Western European nation with the closest ties to Eastern Europe and you
seek to increase those ties and to improve the situation for the people of the East Bloc countries.

You are concerned about catalytic converters because it is clear the Eastern European countries
will not be able to provide unleaded gasoline or bear the added cost. You want a treaty that
provides them flexibility in this area.

Responsibilities

You will work closely with the Eastern European countries to try to get them to agree to more
openness on their pollution problems in exchange for money from wealthy Western nations to
help them reduce pollution.

Relationships

Austria receives much of its air pollution from Eastern Europe. A conference that included only
the EEC or the Western European nations would not be satisfactory in meeting your
government’s goals of reducing air pollution. Much of your pollution comes from
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and East Germany. These nations all burn low quality coal
called lignite which contains very high concentrations of sulfur. Your environmental experts who
have traveled to these areas report massive forest dieback and other extreme environmental
destruction from the SO2. Your officials have had more access to these areas due to your neutral
status in the Cold War. Thus you recognize more than other Western Europeans the extent of the
problem in the East. This means that you will work to find an agreement that both East and West
can accept and that will provide real reductions in emissions.

222
Austria, because it sits between Eastern and Western Europe, has a strong desire to build more
open communication and a reduction of tensions along the Iron Curtain. Austria has invested in
joint research initiatives with various Eastern European nations. You see the negotiations as an
opportunity to obtain more normal international relations on a number of issues including
transportation, energy, and weapons. So you will be working to have the East Bloc recognized as
a legitimate negotiating partner for the West. It is possible that some in the West may try to
challenge the credentials of the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) as a
legitimate international group on par with the EEC. You will need to be prepared to work against
this. There may also be disagreements between the Eastern European delegations. You will want
to work with them to attempt to find common ground and reach a mutually acceptable treaty.

Strategy Advisory

You will begin the game with a purse of $800 million, which can be spent to implement
pollution reductions. The cost of any treaty approved by the Conference must be paid from this
amount. If there is any money left over, you may use this to encourage other countries to
participate in the treaty so that all nations can sign.

The biggest challenge of your role is to broker aid for the Eastern bloc countries to pay for their
emission controls. There is adequate money available to provide this support if you can get
several of the wealthier countries to participate. This may take the form of money for pollution
control, transfer of control technology, or nuclear power plant technology to reduce air pollution.
You can’t do it alone. However, Austria has already begun to commit resources to helping these
countries and is involved in joint research activities with them. You can lead by example. Put
your own resources on the table and challenge others to do so as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds that have been allocated to you. Your total is $800
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a country if


% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP for country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.8
10 0.06 1.5 $50
20 0.24 3 $200
30 0.44 4.5 $350
40 0.65 6 $500
50 0.87 7.5 $700
60 1.11 9 $900
75 1.50 11 $1,200

223
To Learn More

Biography based on Willibald P. Pahr : You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - A Treaty approved by all nations, including East Block, with at least 20% reductions
and financial support for Eastern Europe. (+2 Victory points)
2. Geneva – A treaty approved by all nations, including East Block, without specific reductions
and financial support for Eastern Europe. (+ 1 Victory point)
2. Helsinki – A treaty with at least 30% reductions and financial support for Eastern Europe. (+2
Victory points)
4. Sophia –If any treaty is signed to reduce NOx by 30%. Treaty may allow flexibility on
technology to meet NOx requirements. The treaty may also allow longer time for the communist
countries to comply if necessary. (+1 Victory Point)

224
225
226
227
Austria 2 – Minister of the Interior

Biography

You were born in Vienna in 1930 and educated as a lawyer at the University of Vienna. Before
entering politics, you worked in banking and in various government offices. From 1960-70 you
served on the Vienna City Council. Then in 1970 you were elected to Parliament with the
Socialist Party. You are the Deputy Foreign Minister of Austria. You are a lawyer by training
and have had an extensive career in Austrian politics as a member of the Social Democratic
Party.

You are an avid handball player and are President of the Austrian Handball and Fistball
Association.

You have held a number of cabinet posts. From 1973-77 you were Minister of Transport.
Currently you are Minister for the Interior.

Objectives

You have two main goals in this conference. First, your country needs a pan-European
agreement on air pollution. Since much of your pollution comes from Eastern Europe, only a
treaty that includes them will have a significant impact on your pollution problem.

Second, you are the Western European nation with the closest ties to Eastern Europe and you
seek to increase those ties and to improve the situation for the people of the East Bloc countries.

You are concerned about catalytic converters because it is clear the Eastern European countries
will not be able to provide unleaded gasoline or bear the added cost. You want a treaty that
provides them flexibility in this area.

Responsibilities

You will work closely with the Eastern European countries to try to get them to agree to more
openness on their pollution problems in exchange for money from wealthy Western nations to
help them reduce pollution.

Relationships

Austria receives much of its air pollution from Eastern Europe. A conference that included only
the EEC or the Western European nations would not be satisfactory in meeting your
government’s goals of reducing air pollution. Much of your pollution comes from
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and East Germany. These nations all burn low quality coal
called lignite which contains very high concentrations of sulfur. Your environmental experts who
have traveled to these areas report massive forest dieback and other extreme environmental
destruction from the SO2. Your officials have had more access to these areas due to your neutral
status in the Cold War. Thus you recognize more than other Western Europeans the extent of the

228
problem in the East. This means that you will work to find an agreement that both East and West
can accept and that will provide real reductions in emissions.

Austria, because it sits between Eastern and Western Europe, has a strong desire to build more
open communication and a reduction of tensions along the Iron Curtain. Austria has invested in
joint research initiatives with various Eastern European nations. You see the negotiations as an
opportunity to obtain more normal international relations on a number of issues including
transportation, energy, and weapons. So you will be working to have the East Bloc recognized as
a legitimate negotiating partner for the West. It is possible that some in the West may try to
challenge the credentials of the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) as a
legitimate international group on par with the EEC. You will need to be prepared to work against
this. There may also be disagreements between the Eastern European delegations. You will want
to work with them to attempt to find common ground and reach a mutually acceptable treaty.

Strategy Advisory

You will begin the game with a purse of $800 million, which can be spent to implement
pollution reductions. The cost of any treaty approved by the Conference must be paid from this
amount. If there is any money left over, you may use this to encourage other countries to
participate in the treaty so that all nations can sign.

The biggest challenge of your role is to broker aid for the Eastern bloc countries to pay for their
emission controls. There is adequate money available to provide this support if you can get
several of the wealthier countries to participate. This may take the form of money for pollution
control, transfer of control technology, or nuclear power plant technology to reduce air pollution.
You can’t do it alone. However, Austria has already begun to commit resources to helping these
countries and is involved in joint research activities with them. You can lead by example. Put
your own resources on the table and challenge others to do so as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds that have been allocated to you. Your total is $800
million.

229
% Reduction SO2 within a country if
% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP for country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
5 0.8
10 0.06 1.5 $50
20 0.24 3 $200
30 0.44 4.5 $350
40 0.65 6 $500
50 0.87 7.5 $700
60 1.11 9 $900
75 1.50 11 $1,200

To Learn More

Biography based on Erwin Lanc: You may use this name as your game name but realize that
your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva - A Treaty approved by all nations, including East Block, with at least 20% reductions
and financial support for Eastern Europe. (+2 Victory points)
2. Geneva – A treaty approved by all nations, including East Block, without specific reductions
and financial support for Eastern Europe. (+ 1 Victory point)
2. Helsinki – A treaty with at least 30% reductions and financial support for Eastern Europe. (+2
Victory points)
4. Sophia –If any treaty is signed to reduce NOx by 30%. Treaty may allow flexibility on
technology to meet NOx requirements. The treaty may also allow longer time for the communist
countries to comply if necessary. (+1 Victory Point)

230
231
Greece – Minister for Economic Coordination
EEC

Biography

You were born in Crete in 1918 into a family who spent almost a century deeply involved in
Greek politics. You were educated in law at the University of Athens. You were elected to the
Greek government in 1946 and have served in various capacities since then. Greek politics are
complex and your party affiliation has changed many times. In 1965, you helped bring down the
government of Georgio Papendreou. In 1967 you were arrested by the military junta but were
able to escape into exile and lived in Paris until the end of the junta in 1974. You were reelected
to the government in 1977 and given the post of Minister for Economic Coordination.

You have two passions that motivate your life. One is protection of the environment. You are
working actively to have the government reforest Greece and Crete as a way to improve the
environment. It is this interest coupled with the economic implications of any EEC treaty that led
to your assignment to represent Greece at the UNEC meeting. You are eager to improve air
pollution in Greece, but you are realistic about the need for aid from richer countries if this is to
occur.

Your other passion is Cretan antiquities. You and your wife spend much of your free time
collecting these. You have a large collection of Minoan and Cretan artifacts.

Objectives

Your economy is one of the weakest in the EEC. Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis has
sent you to this conference to insure that the EEC does not take actions detrimental to the Greek
economy. This means that no treaty should place an economic burden on Greece. You are
indeterminate on whether a treaty is a good idea or not. However, you cannot sign a treaty that
costs Greece more than the $50 million you have available.

Responsibilities

You will help bring the problems of the underdeveloped nations of the EEC to the attention of
the negotiations and insure that any treaty provides the financial support necessary for poor
countries to meet the obligations. Like all members of the EEC, you have a veto in the EEC.

Relationships

Air pollution is certainly a problem in Greece, especially in Athens. The damage to the crown
jewel of Greek culture, the Acropolis, is being severely damaged by air pollution due to car
exhausts. You have lived in Athens for much of your life, and you can see the damage with your
own eyes. It is hard to comprehend that a structure that has survived 2000 years of wars and
abuse could be so rapidly damaged by auto exhaust.

232
The problem faced by Greece in the current debate is that Greece has very little industry and
does not really suffer from SO2 pollution. There is really no data to support any significant
problems. The planned growth of the Greek economy will increase emissions in the coming
decade, and it will be very expensive to implement controls on this pollution. As you will see in
the table below, Greece would need to spend over $600 million to keep your emissions to an
increase of only 10% (That is a -10% decrease). If the EEC attempts to require emission
reductions of 30% as some will certainly propose, this would cost almost $2 billon. There is no
way your country could afford this. You come to the meeting in Helsinki with a commitment
from your government of only $50 million toward pollution controls.

You will probably find allies with Ireland, Spain, and even Italy. They also have weak
economies and little pollution to deal with. Both you and Ireland hold veto power in the EEC, so
you really don’t have to worry too much about a treaty passing that you don’t like. All you have
to do is cast a NO vote in the EEC meeting and none of the 10 Common Market countries will be
able to sign the treaty.

You will use this power to your advantage to get money for development of less polluting energy
sources as Greece develops its economy. Your arguments can be either practical or
philosophical. On practical grounds, you have a veto and will use it. You really want a treaty, but
wealthy nations will have to pay for it. However, you should probably phrase your argument in
terms of fairness and the idea that the people who have caused the pollution need to pay to
reduce it.

The table below shows the money required for Greece to meet specific treaty requirements. You
will note in the table that Greece’s pollution will increase considerably if no money is spent.
Even if you spend all of your resources, you will still have more than a 50% increase by 1990.
Therefore, you will need considerable money ($950 million) just to stay even and still more to
actually reduce pollution. You can argue that it is in the interest of the other countries to help you
and that if they do not, you will export increasing amounts of pollution to the rest of Europe.

% Reduction SO2
within a Country Cost in million US
dollars in 1985
-10 $650
0 $950
10 $1,200
20 $1,550
30 $2,000
40 $2,100
50 $2,550

To Learn More

Biography based on Konstantinos Mitsotakis: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

233
Victory Objectives

If a treaty is signed that provides Greece all the money required for compliance. (+ 3 victory
points)

234
235
236
237
Spain – Minister of Foreign Affairs

Biography

You are from the Basque region of Spain. You studied law at the University of Salamanca, and
then received your PhD at the University of Madrid. You did postdoctoral work in various
international settings in preparation for work as a diplomat and professor. You entered the
Spanish Foreign Service in 1960.

You helped found a secret group of political figures seeking a transition to democracy and wrote
regular newspaper articles under a pseudo name between 1973 and 1975. With the death of
Dictator Franco in 1975, you became part of the transition to democracy. In 1976 you were
appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs. You were appointed to the Senate by the king in 1977
and won a seat in the parliament in the 1979 elections. You have played a major role in bringing
Spain into the Council of Europe and convincing the Spanish government to sign the UN
Declaration of Human Rights. You will represent the fledgling democracy of Spain at the
Geneva meeting. (Your character actually became Secretary General of the Council of Europe
for the period 1984-89. However, for purposes of the game, it will be assumed that you continue
to represent Spain in the negotiations.)

Objectives

Your primary objectives are to strengthen the economy of Spain and increase ties to Europe that
were strained since World War II by the government of Franco. This means you would like to
participate in the treaty being debated but only if it is in the economic interests of Spain.

Responsibilities

During the early phases of the negotiations, you will abstain from taking a position that would
potentially impose costs or limitations on Spain. You should emphasize the lack of pollution by
Spain and the need of your country to develop your industrial resources to increase the standard
of living.

This means you will be skeptical of any agreements until you can develop your position. By the
end of the Helsinki Conference, you should have done enough research on the particular interests
of Spain and have listened to the arguments and developed a specific position, supported by both
practical and philosophical arguments. Only then will you be in a position to vote on a final
agreement.

Relationships

Your nation only passed its constitution last year, in 1978. King Juan Carlos has handled the
transition from the dictatorship of Franco who died in 1975. Now Spain is finally moving to
become a part of the modern Europe. But the nation has suffered economically from the isolation
that the Franco regime caused. Spain is not a member of the EEC and has a relatively weak
economy. Air pollution has not been an issue for your government. There is little public interest

238
in air pollution. Simply stated, the people have had other concerns during this turbulent time. The
lack of major pollution problems and the fact that you are not a major polluter leaves you in a
very neutral position in the negotiations. Thus, you will have to formulate your position based on
the arguments presented at the conference. That position needs to take full account of the need
for economic development in Spain to catch up with the wealthy nations to the north.

You will need to consider various positions of environmental philosophy and how they relate to
national sovereignty and economic development. While Spain is not now a major economy, there
is a strong desire for growth and development. You should research the environmental
philosophies of the developing nations and the need to reduce the pollution impact of poverty on
the environment. The utilitarian philosophical position tends to maximize the “happiness” of the
greatest number of people. You fear that this means that poor nations and less developed nations
will be excluded from the calculation and that the interests of the majority will be optimized on
the backs of your own people. Thus you will argue that any utilitarian philosophy must explicitly
work to improve the happiness of the poorest and least developed people, even if that makes the
rich less happy. Alternatively you may adopt a more radical philosophical position.

You will need to think ahead to how any treaty will affect the future of Spain. There is also the
issue of precedent. If a nation is responsible for the sulfur oxides that it produces and which are
blown to other countries, this means that other trans-national issues may be raised in the future.
Thus it is important for you to develop a strong philosophical position and then evaluate each
proposal on this basis.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $150
million.

You will note in the table that Spain’s pollution will increase considerably if no money is spent.
Even if you spend all of your resources, you will still have more than a 50% increase by 1990.
Therefore, you will need considerable money ($350 million) just to stay even and still more to
actually reduce pollution. You can argue that it is in the interest of the other countries to help you
and that if they do not, you will export increasing amounts of pollution to the rest of Europe.

239
% Reduction SO2 within a country if
% Reduction SO2 the same money is spent but no other
within a Country Cost as % GDP country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
for the Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
(-50) 0.16 (-45) $150
(-30) 0.18 (-27) $250
(-10) 0.20 (-9) $300
0 0.21 0 $350
10 0.22 9 $450
20 0.23 18 $550
30 0.24 27 $750
40 0.25 36 $1,000
50 0.27 45 $1,400

To Learn More

Biography based on Konstantinos Mitsotakis: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Web Resource http://countrystudies.us/spain/

Victory Objective

1. You will write your own victory objectives before the second Helsinki session and give them
to the Game master. You are then to work toward these objectives. (+2 Victory points)
2. You need to articulate an environmental philosophy which gives strong consideration to the
needs of less developed countries like your own. (+1 Victory point if you do this well.)

240
241
242
243
The Netherlands –Minister of Foreign Affairs

EEC Country

Biography

You were born in 1924. Your experiences during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands during
World War II had a profound impact on your understanding of human rights. You often traveled
with your father, a doctor, as he made his rounds, and your political philosophy as a socialist was
formed by the disparities you witnessed between rich and poor.

You obtained your law degree at the University of Leiden and worked in various positions in the
Labor Party prior to your appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1973.

You are also a strong advocate for European unity. You could be described as “anti-nationalist”.
You believe so many of the problems of Europe and the world are the direct result of ethnic and
nationalist conflicts.

You are a highly respected official of the Dutch Labor Party. (Your position in the government
actually changes several times over the period of the game. For the purposes of the game, you
will be assumed to remain in your position.)

Objectives

You are the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Netherlands. You and your staff have come to the
Conference to argue for the entire European community to adopt the kind of emission reductions
already adopted in the Netherlands. Your government has implemented the strongest pollution
controls in the EEC. Flue gas desulphurization is being used along with low sulfur fuels to
achieve dramatic reductions in acid pollution. A tax is also levied on polluters, which is then
used both to compensate those injured by the pollution and to pay for abatement technologies on
existing and future pollution sources.

Relationships

You are embarrassed by the differences between rich and poor countries in Europe. You will
advocate for the rich nations to help support pollution control by poor countries to improve the
health and welfare of the poor.

You have a conflict with the government of Czechoslovakia. In 1977, while on an official visit
there, you met with dissident Jan Patočka and discussed human rights issues. This offended the
government and the President refused to meet with you.

Strategy Advice

244
You will begin the game with a purse of 500 million which can be spent to implement pollution
reductions. The cost of any treaty approved by the Conference must be paid from this amount. If
there is any money left over, you may use this to encourage other countries to participate in the
treaty so that all nations can sign. The final outcome will depend on a cost/benefit analysis of the
actions taken. You should study the OEDC cost and benefit data in the Game Book to see what
the parameters are. The potential benefits of pollution reduction are unclear, and will ultimately
be decided by a dice roll. The victory objectives below will modify the cost benefit results. The
higher the dice roll, the greater the benefits of pollution reduction.

You face several obstacles to meeting your goal. Possibly the most serious is the fact that the
EEC, of which you are a member, must have unanimous agreement before it can adopt any
policy. Thus you will need the agreement of the two major polluters, Britain and West Germany,
in order to accomplish anything.

Another problem is that the initial proposals from the Scandinavian countries call for fixed
percentage reductions in emissions from current levels. Since you have already made many of
the desired changes, you cannot accept any agreement that does not provide credit for the efforts
you have already made. To do so would require inordinately expensive pollution control
technology and place your nation at a more severe economic disadvantage.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years.

The problem you face is that the data are based on 1974 emission levels. You had already
implemented a 40% reduction prior to that time. Therefore, further reductions are very
expensive. You need a treaty which gives you credit for those reductions and does not require
additional changes unless all of Europe agrees to more than a 40% reduction. As a result of
previous expenditures, you have little money to spend. You can spend your $500 million to assist
other countries in reaching reductions of up to 40%. If reductions of 50% from current levels
were required, that would be impossible for you and you would veto any such proposal. Even if
you received credit for your 40% reductions, you could not afford an additional 10% reduction.

% Reduction % Reduction SO2 within a country if the


SO2 within a same money is spent but no other country
Country Cost as % GDP reduces their emissions. Difference due to Cost in million US
for the Country imported pollution dollars in 1985

0 4.60 0 $8,000
10 5.42 2.5 $9,500
20 6.30 5 $11,000
30 7.24 7.5 $12,700
40 8.24 10 $14,500
50 9.30 12.5 $16,400

245
To Learn More

Biography based on - Max van der Stoel: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. If a treaty is approved with specific reductions of at least 20% which gives you credit for
Netherlands previous reductions of 40%. (+2 Victory points)
2. If you obtain an agreement by all participating countries on pollution without specific
reduction. (+1 Victory point)
3. You are indeterminate on catalytic converters but want a 30% reduction in NOx from
1985 levels. (+1 Victory point)

246
247
248
249
Ireland – Minister of Foreign Affairs
EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in Tipperary to a family with ties to Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army.
During your education, you briefly studied for the priesthood, but then decided against it. After
taking a MA at University College Dublin, you taught in Switzerland. Then you returned to
Ireland and completed a degree in Law and joined the Bar.

You joined the Irish Republican Party in 1957 and after an unsuccessful election attempt in 1965,
you were elected to the lower house of the legislature in 1969 and joined the Cabinet in 1972.
You served briefly as Minister for Transportation and Power before your party lost the elections
in 1973. At that point you became spokesman for Foreign Affairs. In 1975, you became
prominent as a supporter of complete separation of Northern Ireland from Great Britain and a
champion of the Irish Republican cause. While this angered many in the party leadership, it may
have been partly responsible for a large election victory for the Republican Party in 1977.
Therefore, you are quite adversarial toward the British government and resentful of their
persecution of the Northern Irish. (Your character held a number of different cabinet posts during
the period of the game, but for purposes of the game you will be assumed to have remained in
this post.)

Objectives

The only objective you have is to insure that no mandates emerge that will require substantial
investment in new power plants or damage your government’s plans to create jobs to stem the
migration of your best and brightest your people to more prosperous areas in Europe and the
United States.

Responsibilities

You have one vote in the UN Conference and one vote in meetings of the EEC
You will chair the EEC meetings during the Sophia Conference.

Relationships

Ireland has one of the weakest economies in Western Europe. Because you are upwind from all
of Europe, you import almost no air pollution and have relatively pristine air. The weakness of
your industrial base means that you also do not produce extensive pollution, though you do have
an impact. As a result, you are relatively neutral on the issues of this Conference.

In terms of environmental philosophy, you, like many in Ireland, are lovers of the outdoors and
the beauty of nature. You have a real sensitivity to the value of the natural environment. Thus,
you are at least susceptible to arguments for environmental protection. You will need to explore
various environmental positions and find the one that makes the most sense to you. You may
find the radical ecological positions appealing, but you also need to consider the special

250
problems of developing countries as they deal with the pollution and environmental degradation
due to poverty.

The weakness of the Irish economy suggests that you need to be on the winning side of the
negotiations. The losers will get little support from the winners. Therefore, if you can come out
on the winning side, you have the leverage to gain support for the economic needs of Ireland. If
the EEC really wants a treaty, then they need to provide specific financial incentives for Ireland
to participate or they must exempt Ireland from anything that would be economically damaging.
If the wealthy nations want an agreement, they may be willing to provide some form of
economic help to Ireland for your cooperation. You also must not do anything that would lead to
the Irish economy being shut off from the rest of Europe. So you will need to be able to sign a
treaty in the end.

Your position on catalytic converters is dictated by your close ties to the British economy and the
fact that most Irish cars are small. You are convinced that the lean burn technology being
introduced at British Ford is the least expensive approach and will be the best for the Irish
people.

Strategy Advice

You need to emphasize the fact that Irish economic growth will increase your pollution unless
you receive money from wealthy nations to install scrubbers and other technology. Because you
have a veto over whatever the EEC wishes to do, you can use this to extract money to meet your
needs. Without your approval, no treaty can be completed by the EEC.

You begin the game with a purse of $50 million that could be spent on pollution controls.
However, there are other pressing needs in Ireland that demand this money as well. Your goal is
a treaty that you can sign that will not cost you anything. This means you will need to argue
poverty and the need to receive help in meeting the treaty mandates. You are free to make up
your mind based on economic and philosophical grounds whether to sign a treaty or not. You do
need to be a party to whatever is decided. You will articulate your position and the logic for it to
the Gamemaster before the final vote. Whatever your final position, you want to be on the
winning side.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $50
million.

251
% Reduction SO2 within a country if
% Reduction SO2 Cost as % the same money is spent but no other
within a Country GDP for the country reduces their emissions. Cost in million US
Country Difference due to imported pollution dollars in 1985
(-10) 5.01 (-5) $900
0 5.43 0 $980
10 5.85 5 $1,050
20 6.26 10 $1,100
30 6.70 15 $1,200
40 7.1 20 $1,300
50 7.5 25 $1,400

Note that the planned growth of your economy will increase emissions if nothing is done.
Also, you do not have even enough money to prevent these increases. So without help, your
contribution to pollution will worsen. The cost of pollution reduction in Ireland is high in part
because of the distributed nature of emissions. About 25% of your emissions are from
agriculture and a similar amount from residential and commercial heating with peat and dirty
coal. Because this is from a large number of small sources, it is difficult to develop a strategy
to reduce it. You can’t put scrubbers on everyone’s chimney. A 30% reduction would require
a 60% reduction from your power industry and from planned expansion for economic
growth.

To Learn More

Biography based on - Michael O'Kennedy: You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Any treaty you sign provides for the full costs of compliance. (+2 Vicotry points)
2. If catalytic converters are not required for all cars. (+1 Victory point)

252
253
254
255
Italy 1- Prime Minister

EEC Member Country

Biography

You had a difficult childhood. Your father died when you were two, and your mother was distant
and cold towards you. You were known to have a temper, and it is reported that you once stuck a
lit candle in the eye of another boy who made fun of you while you served as an altar boy.
However, your aunt, who was very close to you, taught you to have patience and avoid this kind
of outburst. You have grown up to have a surprisingly mild manner for an Italian politician. You
are noted for your sense of humor and ability to disarm your opponents with irony and wit.

You became politically active while studying law at the University of Rome and were a member
of the Italian Catholic University Federation. Many of the members there have been important
colleagues with you in the Christian Democratic Party. During World War II, you were forced to
write for a Fascist propaganda, but you also wrote for an underground newspaper Il Popolo.

In 1946, you were elected to the provisional parliament and helped write the new Italian
constitution. You were then elected to the government representing Rome in 1948, a post you
have held since then. You have held almost every possible post in the government and have
served several times as Prime Minister.

You have served as Prime Minister twice in the 1970’s and your current term began in 1976. One
of your most recent challenges has been dealing with the terrorist group, the Red Army Faction.
Last year they kidnapped the previous Prime Minister Aldo Moro. You refused to negotiate with
the terrorists and they killed Moro in May, 1978. During his imprisonment, he wrote angry
denunciations of you and your policies.

You are considered the most powerful and important politician in Italy. You will not remain as
Prime Minister for the entire period of the game, however, you will remain the Italian
representative in this game.

Objectives

You want the negotiations to succeed in building a strong EEC. That means a treaty needs to be
signed. However, Italy has little concern for air pollution and is poor and dealing with issues
including terrorism. Therefore, you will need financial support from wealthy countries to agree
to a treaty.

Responsibilities

You will cast Italy’s 2 votes in the EEC meetings and a single vote in the UN Conference.

Relationships

256
In spite of Italy’s position as Western Europe’s second largest producer of SO2 pollution, your
population and government have been singularly uninterested in the problems of air pollution.
While the Greek government has implemented significant controls on cars in Athens in an effort
to preserve its cultural heritage from the ravages of acid precipitation, Italy has not done
anything comparable. The government and the population at large seem willing to ignore this
growing problem. Italians love their cars and anything that limited them would be very
unpopular. The problem due to stationary emission sources like power plants just doesn’t seem
that pressing or important. The vast majority of Italian air pollution is generated in the industrial
north and is carried away to the rest of Europe by the prevailing winds. Thus, only a small
portion of the country is affected. But pollution from Italy does go to Austria and Switzerland.

As the representative of the Italian government, you are technically an indeterminate on the issue
of pollution. There is no political support for any action which would damage the Italian
economy in an effort to control pollution. Due to your membership in the European Community,
you must agree with Britain, West Germany, and France on any measure before the EEC as a
whole can agree to them. This gives you some power in the negotiations. If the others want your
cooperation, they will need to offer you incentives that protect your economy. You will probably
find common cause with the British and West Germans in efforts to block regulations. The
French are really hot on this EEC business and eager to have a prominent place in the new
Europe. They will have to make convincing arguments to bring you along. They may also have
to share the financial cost. But Italy does want to be a part of the emerging EEC as a way to have
more access to foreign markets. So you will want to insure that the EEC moves forward and
reaches some kind of agreement.

Strategy Advisory

You start the game with a purse of $600 million that can be used to pay for pollution controls,
but you are very reluctant to spend any of it for this purpose. The government has other priorities
for this money. Italian governments are fragile, and if you spend too much on unpopular treaty
obligations, the government may fall. You need to keep your actual costs for any treaty to a bare
minimum since the benefits of a treaty are so uncertain for your country.

You are officially part of the indeterminate faction. You share many things in common with
these countries. You all have weak economies and need to be allowed to develop energy
resources to improve the lives of your citizens. However, you are not truly indeterminate. You
produce more pollution than any other indeterminate country. So you may find yourself allied in
the EEC with the British. They will also oppose strong control requirements. You will need to
work closely with them to develop a strategy. You also have much in common with the Eastern
bloc countries. They are also heavily industrialized and need financial support to implement
pollution controls. You are in a unique position to broker a deal that meets the needs of many of
the players, but it will not be a deal that makes the Norwegian faction happy.

A further way to complicate the negotiations and block an agreement is to use the idea that the
agreement is between the EEC as a single international entity and the other nations at the
conference. This requires that all members of the EEC agree. Since England and West Germany

257
have virtual control over the EEC, this will be a way to prevent the other members of the EEC
from supporting the treaty. The Eastern Bloc may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as
an entity. There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner.
This is another issue that may arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an
agreement you don’t like. The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual
Economic Assistance (CMEA) has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC
has. This may become an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $600
million.

You will note in the table that Italy’s pollution will increase considerably if no money is spent.
Therefore, you will need considerable money ($200 million) just to stay even and still more to
actually reduce pollution. You can argue that it is in the interest of the other countries to help you
and that if they do not, you will export increasing amounts of pollution to the rest of Europe.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for Difference due to imported Cost in million US
the Country pollution dollars in 1985
(-25) 0.004 (-17.5) $20
(-10) 0.02 (-7) $100
0 0.05 0 $200
15 0.10 10.5 $400
20 0.12 14 $500
30 0.16 21 $650
40 0.22 28 $900
50 0.28 35 $1,100
60 0.35 42 $1,400

To Learn More

Biography based on - Giulio Andreotti : You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva – Any treaty that is passed must have no specific emission reductions. (+1 Victory
point)

258
2. Helsinki – Any treaty which requires specific reductions must include some support for the
cost of compliance by Italy. (+2 Victory points)
3. Catalytic converters are not required for all cars and no freeze on NOx. (+1 Victory point)

259
260
261
Italy 2 – Foreign Minister

EEC Member Country

Biography

You were born in Pesaro on the east coast of Italy. You are a contemporary of Prime Minister
Andreotti and have followed a career very much like his, holding a variety of posts in the
Christian Democratic party. You have a degree in Law. You also were briefly a professional
soccer player, but gave that up for your political career. Another fact about your background is
that you a member of a secret Masonic order called Lodge P2. The Italian Constitution bans
secret associations, so this group is very much out of public sight. Other members of P2 include
prominent politicians, journalists, businessmen, and military leaders. You feel that your contacts
in P2 have helped your career.

You are currently serving as Foreign Minister under Prime Minister Andreotti. Italian politics are
ever changing. It is not unreasonable to expect the cabinet post to change however, for purposes
of this game, it will be assumed that you remain as the Italian delegate to the UN negotiations.

Objectives

You want the negotiations to succeed in building a strong EEC. That means a treaty needs to be
signed. However, Italy has little concern for air pollution and is poor and dealing with issues
including terrorism. Therefore, you will need financial support from wealthy countries to agree
to a treaty.

Responsibilities

You may cast one of Italy’s 2 votes in the EEC meetings.

Relationships

In spite of Italy’s position as Western Europe’s second largest producer of SO2 pollution, your
population and government have been singularly uninterested in the problems of air pollution.
While the Greek government has implemented significant controls on cars in Athens in an effort
to preserve its cultural heritage from the ravages of acid precipitation, Italy has not done
anything comparable. The government and the population at large seem willing to ignore this
growing problem. Italians love their cars and anything that limited them would be very
unpopular. The problem due to stationary emission sources like power plants just doesn’t seem
that pressing or important. The vast majority of Italian air pollution is generated in the industrial
north and is carried away to the rest of Europe by the prevailing winds. Thus, only a small
portion of the country is affected. But pollution from Italy does go to Austria and Switzerland.

As the representative of the Italian government, you are technically an indeterminate on the issue
of pollution. There is no political support for any action which would damage the Italian
economy in an effort to control pollution. Due to your membership in the European Community,

262
you must agree with Britain, West Germany, and France on any measure before the EEC as a
whole can agree to them. This gives you some power in the negotiations. If the others want your
cooperation, they will need to offer you incentives that protect your economy. You will probably
find common cause with the British and West Germans in efforts to block regulations. The
French are really hot on this EEC business and eager to have a prominent place in the new
Europe. They will have to make convincing arguments to bring you along. They may also have
to share the financial cost. But Italy does want to be a part of the emerging EEC as a way to have
more access to foreign markets. So you will want to insure that the EEC moves forward and
reaches some kind of agreement.

Strategy Advisory

You start the game with a purse of $600 million which can be used to pay for pollution controls,
but you are very reluctant to spend any of it for this purpose. The government has other priorities
for this money. Italian governments are fragile, and if you spend too much on unpopular treaty
obligations, the government may fall. You need to keep your actual costs for any treaty to a bare
minimum since the benefits of a treaty are so uncertain for your country.

You are officially part of the indeterminate faction. You share many things in common with
these countries. You all have weak economies and need to be allowed to develop energy
resources to improve the lives of your citizens. However, you are not truly indeterminate. You
produce more pollution than any other indeterminate country. So you may find yourself allied in
the EEC with the British. They will also oppose strong control requirements. You will need to
work closely with them to develop a strategy. You also have much in common with the Eastern
bloc countries. They are also heavily industrialized and need financial support to implement
pollution controls. You are in a unique position to broker a deal that meets the needs of many of
the players, but it will not be a deal that makes the Norwegian faction happy.

A further way to complicate the negotiations and block an agreement is to use the idea that the
agreement is between the EEC as a single international entity and the other nations at the
conference. This requires that all members of the EEC agree. Since England and West Germany
have virtual control over the EEC, this will be a way to prevent the other members of the EEC
from supporting the treaty. The Eastern Bloc may challenge the EEC’s ability to sign treaties as
an entity. There is not yet a precedent in international affairs for the EEC to act in this manner.
This is another issue that may arise and it provides yet another avenue for preventing an
agreement you don’t like. The EEC’s counterpart in Eastern Europe, the Council for Mutual
Economic Assistance (CMEA) has never participated in treaty negotiations in the way the EEC
has. This may become an issue as well.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the

263
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $600
million.

You will note in the table that Italy’s pollution will increase considerably if no money is spent.
Therefore, you will need considerable money ($200 million) just to stay even and still more to
actually reduce pollution. You can argue that it is in the interest of the other countries to help you
and that if they do not, you will export increasing amounts of pollution to the rest of Europe.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for Difference due to imported Cost in million US
the Country pollution dollars in 1985
(-25) 0.004 (-17.5) $20
(-10) 0.02 (-7) $100
0 0.05 0 $200
15 0.10 10.5 $400
20 0.12 14 $500
30 0.16 21 $650
40 0.22 28 $900
50 0.28 35 $1,100
60 0.35 42 $1,400

To Learn More

Biography based on - Arnaldo Forlani: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1. Geneva – Any treaty that is passed must have no specific emission reductions. (+1 Victory
point)
2. Helsinki – Any treaty which requires specific reductions must include some support for the
cost of compliance by Italy. (+2 Victory points)
3. Catalytic converters are not required for all cars and no freeze on NOx. (+1 Victory point)

264
265
Czechoslovakia – Minister of Foreign Affairs

Biography

You were born in Bratislava in 1925, the son of a family of government employees. You were
educated in your home town. You joined the Communist party immediately after World War II
in 1945 and began a career as a journalist and Communist propagandist. You served as writer
and editor of several newspapers and magazines over the next 20 years. You also worked as
foreign correspondent for the Soviet newspaper Pravda.

You also rose to prominence in the Communist Party. By 1965 you were participating in Central
Committee meetings and in 1969 you became a member of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. You have a deep commitment to socialism and the
Communist Party. You opposed the liberalization of the Prague Spring in 1968 and participated
in purges of liberal members of the media.

After the Prague Spring was crushed by Soviet Tanks, you took prominent roles in the
Communist led government that followed. You served as Ambassador to the USSR from 1970-
72 and then you became Minister of Foreign Affairs. You are a strong supporter of the USSR.

Objectives

Your primary goal is to be accepted as a full partner in a treaty with the West. You do not really
have to worry about whether you can meet the requirements of the treaty. However, you will
press for enough foreign money to meet any requirements that are imposed in the treaty.

When the issue of catalytic converters arises at Sophia, you must insure that Czech cars are NOT
required to have the expensive converters.

Responsibilities

You are a committed Marxist. You should approach your role from that standpoint and try to
bring this point of view to all of your writing and speeches. You need to inform the Capitalists
from the West of the excellence of the Communist system.

Relationships

The negotiations sponsored by the UNECE represent a real opportunity for Czechoslovakia to
reach out to Western Europe. You are eager to have a treaty signed. The conclusion of any treaty
will elevate the countries of the East block and will represent a new era of acceptance by the
West. Thus, you will agree to almost anything that emerges from the conference if only to have
Czechoslovakia recognized by the West as a partner for such negotiations. While you will sign
any treaty, there is no real plan to implement reductions.

There are two reasons for your willingness to sign a treaty. One is the international recognition it
will bring to Czechoslovakia. The other is the fact that there is no way the West can enforce any

266
real sanctions against you. Thus, you can accept limits on pollution and it will be decades before
any lack of compliance is proved. Even the international negotiations which would emerge
would enhance the prestige of Czechoslovakia.

It has been 11 years since Soviet tanks rolled into Prague to crush the independent spirit of the
Czech people. Many Czechs long for the day when Czechs will again have a measure of
independence. You reject this anti-Soviet sentiment and believe that the future of
Czechoslovakia rests on a strong Communist government and close ties with the USSR.

The CMEA, of which Czechoslovakia is a member, has never been a party to an international
treaty. You may also question the ability of the EEC to enter into such agreements since they
have never made a treaty with the Eastern bloc nations.

As far as air pollution is concerned, Czechoslovakia has a major problem that is little known in
the West. The triangle between the GDR (East Germany), Czechoslovakia, and Poland (the
Black Triangle) is possibly the most polluted area on earth. Large tracts of forests are dead. The
local population suffers from respiratory disease at levels that create an economic drag on the
country. All of this is due to the reliance of your energy economy on the burning of lignite.
Lignite is a very low quality coal. It contains low amounts of carbon and large concentrations of
sulfur, sometimes up to 15%. It takes a lot of lignite to make a small amount of electricity and
produces extreme pollution. But lignite is the only form of coal available within your country
and you have no foreign exchange to import alternative fuels. The isolation of your economy is
part of the problem. The only other source of electricity is from nuclear power plants and most of
that must be imported from the Soviet Union. You also import some natural gas from the USSR,
but the amount available is limited due to the lack of money inside the USSR to develop their gas
infrastructure.

Strategy Advice

You start the game with a small amount of money, 200 million, which could be used to support
pollution reductions. This is not nearly enough to meet the real needs.

While you are committed to any treaty you can get, you hope to use the pollution your nation
exports as leverage for economic aid. You lack the resources to install scrubbers, build nuclear
plants, or switch to low sulfur fuels. You hope to use the threat of not signing a treaty and not
reducing your pollution as a bargaining tool to obtain economic development funding. So to fully
win the game, you need economic help from the West.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the

267
agreement. This is reflected in the funds that have been allocated to you. Your total is $300
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is
% Reduction SO2 spent but no other country reduces
within a Country Cost as % GDP for their emissions. Difference due to Cost in million US
the Country imported pollution dollars in 1985
0 0.47 0 $250
5 1.24 2 $700
10 2.02 4 $1,100
20 3.56 8 $2,000
30 5.11 12 $2,800
40 6.66 16 $3,600
50 8.21 20 $4,500
60 9.76 24 $5,400
75 12.08 30 $6,600

To Learn More

Biography based on - Bohuslav Chňoupek : You may use this name as your game name but
realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Carter, F.W. “Pollution Problems in Post-War Czechoslovakia.”


Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 10 (1985): 17-44.

Kramer, John M. “The Environmental Crisis in Eastern Europe: The Price of Progress.”
Slavic Review. 42 (1983): 204-220.

Victory Objectives

1. You want to achieve an agreement with the West. This applies to any agreement to which you
are accepted as a full partner. (+1 Victory point)
2. If any treaty you sign provides financial aid to meet the requirements. (+2 Victory points)
3. Your citizens are just beginning to purchase private cars, mostly small and inefficient ones.
You will resist any treaty that limits your NOx emissions. If such a treaty is to be signed, you
need an exemption. (+1 Victory point)
4. You will receive one victory point if you articulate a strong Marxist economic and social
philosophy in all your writings. (+1 Victory point)

268
269
270
Poland – Foreign Minister

Biography

You were born in Cracow in 1927, but your family moved to France where you were raised. You
fought in the French Resistance during World War II and spent time in a concentration camp. In
1946 you became commander of the Polish Scouting Association in France. From 1950-56 you
worked with the Polish Youth Union, a Communist youth organization patterned on the Soviet
Komsomol. You also graduated from the School of Social Sciences at the Central Committee of
the Communist Party having studied economics. In addition, you have held various posts at the
World Peace Council and the International Institute for Peace in Vienna. In the 1970’s you
became Undersecretary of State and served as Ambassador to France. You also worked briefly as
Minister for Administration, Economy, and Environmental Protection before becoming Foreign
Minister.

It should be clear that you are a committed Communist Party member.

(In actual fact, you left office in 1980, but for purposes of this game, you will be assumed to
continue in this post.

Objectives
Your primary goal is to be accepted as a full partner in a treaty with the West. You do not really
have to worry about whether you can meet the requirements of the treaty. However, you will
press for enough foreign money to meet any requirements that are imposed in the treaty.

When the issue of catalytic converters arises at Sophia, you must insure that Polish cars are not
required to have the expensive converters.

Responsibilities
You are a committed Marxist. You should approach your role from that standpoint and try to
bring this point of view to all of your writing and speeches. You need to inform the Capitalists
from the West of the excellence of the Communist system.

Relationships

You are particularly familiar with France, having lived there for many years and served as
Ambassador.

The negotiations sponsored by the UNECE represent a real opportunity for Poland to reach out
to Western Europe. You would love to be a party to a treaty with the West. The conclusion of
any treaty will elevate the countries of the East block and will represent a new era of acceptance
by the West. But you are reluctant to sign a treaty that you cannot comply with. Thus you will
need help in terms of money and technology to sign any treaty.

The CMEA, of which Poland is a member, has never been a party to an international treaty.
While the EEC has taken treaty obligations, and this provides a rationale for similar agreements

271
with the CMEA, you will resist anything that forces Poland to accept the actions or agreements
of the CMEA as a whole. After decades of Soviet domination, you are unwilling to accept any
additional loss of sovereignty that such an arrangement would imply. You may also question the
ability of the EEC to enter into such agreements since they have never made a treaty with the
Eastern bloc nations.

Pollution has risen rapidly in Poland in recent years. SO2 emissions were 1 million tons in 1975
and are projected to reach 1.7 million tons in 1980 in Upper Silesia alone. This value is 5 times
higher than the rate in West Germany’s most polluted area.

The air pollution problem in Poland is little known in the West due to the closed nature of the
East Bloc. The triangle between the GDR (East Germany), Czechoslovakia, and Poland (the
Black Triangle) is possibly the most polluted area on earth. Large tracts of forests are dead. The
local population suffers from respiratory disease at levels that create an economic drag on the
country. All of this is due to the reliance of your energy economy on the burning of lignite.
Lignite is a very low quality coal. It contains low amounts of carbon and large concentrations of
sulfur, sometimes up to 10%. It takes a lot of lignite to make a small amount of electricity and
produces extreme pollution. But lignite is the only form of coal available within your country
and you have no foreign exchange to import alternative fuels. The isolation of your economy is
part of the problem. The only other source of electricity is from nuclear power plants and most of
that must be imported from the Soviet Union. Economic planners want to build more nuclear
plants, but they are much more expensive to build than coal plants. You also import some natural
gas from the USSR, but the amount available is limited due to the lack of money inside the
USSR to develop their gas infrastructure.

Strategy Advice

You start the game with a small amount of money, $400 million, which could be used to support
pollution reductions. This is not nearly enough to meet the real needs.

You hope to use the pollution your nation exports as leverage for economic aid. You lack the
resources to install scrubbers, build nuclear plants, or switch to low sulfur fuels. You hope to use
the threat of not signing a treaty and not reducing your pollution as a bargaining tool to obtain
economic development funding. So to fully win the game, you need economic help from the
West. You may also want to argue for a multi-tier treaty in which poor countries have less
restriction than the wealthy ones. You will find several Western countries who agree with this
approach.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $400
million.

272
% Reduction SO2 within a
country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for the Difference due to imported Cost in million US
Country pollution dollars in 1985
(-5) 0.12 (-2) $100
0 0.50 0 $400
10 1.34 4.5 $1,000
20 2.33 9 $1,800
30 3.47 13.5 $2,800
40 4.76 18 $3,800
50 6.20 22.5 $5,000
60 7.80 27 $6,000
75 10.45 34 $8,400

To Learn More

Biography based on Emil Wojtaszek : You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Two scientific articles are available that may help you at the Conference. These are summarized
in Core Documents.

Central European sources


Europe Water quality bulletin

These articles provides the scientific evidence that your faction will want to present to the
Conference to support your argument about pollution in your country.

Victory Objectives

1. You want to achieve an agreement with the West. This applies to any agreement to which you
are accepted as a full partner. (+1 Victory point)
2. If any treaty you sign provides financial aid to meet the requirements for Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. (+2 Victory points) (You do not need them to cover your costs.)
3. You receive one additional victory point if you bring a Marxist point of view to all of your
writing and speeches. (+1 Victory point)
4. You don’t want to limit the growth of personal cars and will oppose any limits on your
emissions of NOx pollution. If a treaty is signed, you need an exemption. (+1 Victory point)

273
274
275
Hungary – Foreign Minister

Biography

You were born in 1921 in Battonya, Hungary into a large, poor family. By age 13, in order to
help your family, you were working as a type setter. You worked at this job through World War
II. After the war you joined the Communist Part. Within a few years, you were “accidentally
sucked into the foreign service”25 and found yourself serving as Ambassador to Sweden in 1953.
Years later you served as ambassador to Norway, Denmark, and Austria.

You are particularly proud of the work you did to help Hungarian refugees from the 1956
uprising. Many had illusions about life in the West and were totally unprepared for what they
would find there. The Austrian government gave you two awards for your help with the problem.
You were fortunate that the Communist government of János Kádár, installed by the Soviets in
1956, tolerated your work to help the refugees. You were not a person likely to make friends
with the leadership, go on hunting trips with them and the like. Fortunately, your wife was good
at making social connections and helped you form a good working relationship with him.

You were promoted to Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1973.

(Your character actually left this post in 1983, but for purposes of the game it will be assumed
that you remained in the post.)

Objectives

Your primary goal is to be accepted as a full partner in a treaty with the West. You do not really
have to worry about whether you can meet the requirements of the treaty. However, you will
press for enough foreign money to meet any requirements that are imposed in the treaty.

When the issue of catalytic converters arises at Sophia, you must insure that Hungarian cars are
not required to have the expensive converters.

Responsibilities

You are a committed Marxist. You should approach your role from that standpoint and try to
bring this point of view to all of your writing and speeches. You need to inform the Capitalists
from the West of the excellence of the Communist system.

Relationships

The negotiations sponsored by the UNECE represent a real opportunity for Hungary to reach out
to Western Europe. You are eager to have a treaty signed. The conclusion of any treaty will
elevate the countries of the East block and will represent a new era of acceptance by the West.

25
http://www.beol.hu/bekes/kozelet/puja-frigyes-az-ovei-kozt-battonyan-jart-a-kadar-korszak-kulugyminisztere-
150514 Accessed June 7, 2016.

276
Thus you will agree to almost anything that emerges from the conference if only to have
Hungary recognized by the West as a partner for such negotiations.

There are two reasons for your willingness to sign a treaty. One is the international recognition it
will bring to Hungary. The other is that you actually hope to implement the treaty. Thus you can
accept 30% reductions on pollution in a treaty

The CMEA, of which Hungary is a member, has never been a party to an international treaty.
While the EEC has taken treaty obligations, and this provides a rationale for similar agreements
with the CMEA, you will resist anything that forces Hungary to accept the actions or agreements
of the CMEA as a whole. After decades of Soviet domination, you are unwilling to accept any
additional loss of sovereignty that such an arrangement would imply. You may also question the
ability of the EEC to enter into such agreements since they have never made a treaty with the
Eastern bloc nations.

As far as air pollution is concerned, Hungary has a major problem that is little known in the
West. The triangle between the GDR (East Germany), Czechoslovakia, and Poland (the Black
Triangle) is possibly the most polluted area on earth. Large tracts of forests are dead. The local
population suffers from respiratory disease at levels that create an economic drag on the country.
All of this is due to the reliance of your energy economy on the burning of lignite. Lignite is a
very low quality coal. It contains low amounts of carbon and large concentrations of sulfur,
sometimes up to 10%. It takes a lot of lignite to make a small amount of electricity and produces
extreme pollution. But lignite is the only form of coal available within your country and you
have no foreign exchange to import alternative fuels. The isolation of your economy is part of
the problem. The only other source of electricity is from nuclear power plants and most of that
must be imported from the Soviet Union. Economic planners want to build more nuclear plants,
but they are much more expensive to build than coal plants. You also import some natural gas
from the USSR, but the amount available is limited due to the lack of money inside the USSR to
develop their gas infrastructure.

Strategy Advice

You start the game with a small amount of money, $250 million, which could be used to support
pollution reductions. This is not nearly enough to meet the real needs.

While you are committed to a treaty, you hope to use the pollution your nation exports as
leverage for economic aid. You lack the resources to install scrubbers, build nuclear plants, or
switch to low sulfur fuels. You should use the threat of not signing a treaty and not reducing your
pollution as a bargaining tool to obtain economic development funding. So to fully win the
game, you need economic help from the West.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital

277
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. Your total is $250
million.

% Reduction SO2 within a


country if the same money is
spent but no other country
% Reduction SO2 reduces their emissions.
within a Country Cost as % GDP for Difference due to imported Cost in million US
the Country pollution dollars in 1985
(-5) 0.09 (-2) $50
0 0.40 0 $200
10 1.14 4.5 $500
20 2.1 9 $1000
30 3.2 14 $1,500
40 4.6 18 $2,000
50 6.1 23 $2,800
60 7.9 27 $3,600
75 11 34 $5,000

To Learn More

Biography based on Frigyes Puja : You may use this name as your game name but realize that
your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Two scientific articles are available that may help you at the Conference. These are summarized
in Core Documents.

Central European sources


Europe Water quality bulletin

These articles provides the scientific evidence that your faction will want to present to the
Conference to support your argument about pollution in your country.

Victory Objectives

1. You want to achieve an agreement with the West. This applies to any agreement to which you
are accepted as a full partner. (+1 Victory point)
2. If any treaty you sign provides financial aid to meet the requirements for Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. (+2 Victory points) (You do not need them to cover your costs.)

278
3. You receive one additional victory point if you bring a Marxist point of view to all of your
writing and speeches. (+1 Victory point)
4. You do not want limits on NOx and need an exemption from any freeze or reductions. (+1
Victory point)

279
280
281
East Germany (GDR) - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party, Democratic Republic of Germany
Biography

You were born in 1912, the son of a coal miner and a political activist. You grew up in the Saar
basin, the industrial heartland of Germany. By your tenth birthday you were active in a
communist youth organization. You rose to lead the Communist party in Saar before the rise to
power of the Nazi party in the early 1930’s. You were arrested and worked in exile for several
years and then managed to sneak into Berlin and produce Communist materials there as part of
the resistance to the Nazis. You were arrested by the Gestapo in December 1935 and after 2
years you were tried and sentenced to 10 years in prison for treason.

Your years in prison lasted until the Soviet army captured Berlin in 1945. There are conflicting
reports of your time in prison. You have been accused of serving as an informer against your
fellow communists. You also managed to escape for a few days during a bombing raid. But you
went back to prison and managed to hide the fact of your escape from the authorities. Your
actions during the war years led to friction with others in the communist party who didn’t trust
you. However, you befriended Walter Ulbricht who would lead the East German Communist
Party for many years and rose quickly to be a member of the Central Committee.

After the formation of a Soviet style government in 1951, you spent time in the Soviet Union and
returned to join the Politbureau in 1958. You supported Ulbricht through some challenges to his
leadership and were rewarded with appointment as Party Secretary. In 1961, you led the effort to
build the Berlin wall and instituted a shoot to kill policy for people trying to escape from East
Germany to the West. This led to the killing of over 100 East Germans trying to flee the country.

In the 1970’s, you deserted Ulbricht and undermined him with the Soviets leading to his
dismissal and your appointment as First Secretary. You have recently attempted to gain the
loyalty of the people with a program to provide more consumer goods. This required hard
currency to buy things from the West and resulted in the accumulation of substantial debt with
the West. You established diplomatic relations with West Germany and began exporting goods
to try to gain hard currency. You also had East Germany join the UN and participate in UNECE
meetings such as this one. You recently began a program to sell Soviet oil that you received at a
discount to the West to get hard currency.

Objectives

You have come to the UNECE meeting with the hope of building stronger relationships with the
West and to get as much money as possible to support your economy. You want to be party to a
treaty that provides hard currency. You will ask for this currency to build scrubbers and reduce
pollution, though the actual use of the money may be difficult to track once you have it.

Relationships

282
You are very much a client of the Soviet Union and tend to support whatever they wish you to
do. There is a sense of growing friction between you and Mikhail Gorbachev. You keep your job
only as long as the Soviets approve of your actions. The last First Secretary, Ulbricht, was
removed by the Soviets due to ‘sudden illness’ allowing your rise to the position.

You have diplomatic relations with West Germany, but you and the Soviets strongly oppose any
efforts to reunify the country.

You established a ministry of environmental protection in 1968 and in the 1970 Five Year Plan,
$3 million was allocated for environmental protection. But nothing was allocated in the 1975
Five Year Plan. Most efforts at pollution reductions have focused on replacing brown coal with
nuclear power and by conservation and recycling. You have two nuclear power plants built by
the Soviet Union to their standards. In addition to massive air pollution, only a small fraction of
the lakes and rivers can be used for drinking water due to dumping of industrial chemicals and
untreated sewage. It is estimated that you need several hundred million dollars to clean up your
rivers.

Strategy Advice

You will make the argument that East Germany is a workers’ paradise. Because the economy is
owned by the workers, you have been able to achieve a high level of environmental harmony.
Pollution is a capitalist problem caused by the exploitation of workers. You will deny that East
Germany has a pollution problem. Because your country is so closed to the West, there is little
chance that anyone will know the real extent of your pollution.

You will want to form a united front with the other East Block countries, however, you should
not approach West Germany directly for financial aid. This could anger the Soviets. You want
aid to come from a general European pool of donations by wealthy countries.

You will only commit $50 million of your own money to pollution control. You may not actually
be able to find this much, but it will be difficult for the West to keep track of your actual
spending.

The table below summarizes the costs of various levels of pollution reduction. The costs are
shown in both % of your GDP and in constant US Game Dollars. These costs include both the
capital costs and the 5 year operating costs of the reductions. Most of the costs are the capital
costs. The OECD has suggested 0.25% of GDP as a reasonable benchmark for countries to
consider. This represents a total of 1.25% over 5 years. However, the political realities of your
own country will dictate how much money is actually available for you to commit to the
agreement. There are really no good measures of GDP for East Germany due to the nature of
your communist system. This is reflected in the funds which have been allocated to you. You
will only commit $50 million of your own money to pollution control.

283
% Reduction SO2 within a
country if the same money is
% Reduction SO2 spent but no other country reduces
within a Country Cost as % GDP for their emissions. Difference due to Cost in million US
the Country imported pollution dollars in 1985
0 0.47 0 $400
5 1.24 2 $800
10 2.02 4 $1,300
20 3.56 8 $2,400
30 5.11 12 $3,000
40 6.66 16 $4,000
50 8.21 20 $5,500
60 9.76 24 $6,400
75 12.08 30 $7,600

To Learn More

Biography based on - Eric Honecker: You may use this name as your game name but realize
that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.
Kramer, John M. “The Environmental Crisis in Eastern Europe: The Price of Progress.”
Slavic Review. 42 (1983): 204-220.
http://countrystudies.us/germany/81.htm

Victory Objectives

1. You want to achieve an agreement with the West. This applies to any agreement to which you
are accepted as a full partner. (+1 Victory point)
2. If any treaty you sign provides financial aid to meet the requirements. (+2 Victory points)
3. Your citizens are just beginning to purchase private cars, mostly small and inefficient ones.
You will resist any treaty that limits your NOx emissions. If such a treaty is to be signed, you
need an exemption. (+1 Victory point)
4. You will receive one victory point if you articulate a strong Marxist economic and social
philosophy in all your writings. (+1 Victory point)

284
285
286
287
Soviet Union (USSR) – Foreign Minister

Biography

You were born in Belarus to a poor family. Your father had only seasonal work in a local
factory. Neither of your parents had attended more than 4 years of school, but at least your father
could read and write. The area where you grew up was deeply religious in the Russian Orthodox
tradition, but from an early age you began to doubt everything relating to religion. By the age of
nine, after the Bolshevik revolution, you were reading atheist writings and Communist
documents. By 13 you were a member of the Communist Youth organization, the Komsomol.
Within a year you were the First Secretary of your local Komsomol.

Your mother encouraged you to leave your hometown and get an education. You were educated
in a variety of schools, and along the way, you were a major organizer of Communist students. A
member of the Central Committee noticed you and invited you to go to Minsk for graduate work
in Economics. You moved your wife and children there and were pleased to discover that the
Soviets treated their scientists and economists very well. Within a year you were moved to
Moscow for further study and soon you were a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
where you taught and did research. You published several books on the US economy while there.

Stalin’s purges of 1938 opened a lot of positions in the diplomatic corps, and you were
transferred from the SAS to the Foreign Service where your knowledge of the US economy led
to your assignment to the embassy in Washington. You felt it was critical to establish good
relations with the US. From there you became the Permanent Representative to the UN in 1946.

During your long career as Foreign Minister over the past 22 years, you have participated in
many important negotiations with the West. They are certainly familiar with your toughness in
insuring the strength of the USSR.

You are a committed Communist and have written about the depravity of the capitalist system
since your first trip to New York where you saw workers slaving away in the working districts of
the city. You believe Communism is the natural and best state of humanity.

(In actual fact, you left this post before the final session in Sophia, but for purposes of the game,
it will be assumed that you continued in this post.)

Objectives

Your primary goal is to achieve any agreement with the West that will enhance the prestige of
the USSR and its satellite states in Eastern Europe. This treaty, unlike the SALT nuclear
weapons treaties with the USA, will be with the entire region. It is important that the treaty be
signed by all countries of Europe to obtain the maximum impact as an international agreement.
You are less concerned with the actual content of the treaty than with the idea that everyone will
sign it. You have no illusions that the Soviet government will fully comply with the treaty, so the
actual details are of secondary importance.

288
Responsibilities

You will bring your strong Marxist philosophy to the debate and constantly criticize the capitalist
policies of the West. You will do this while trying to get as much money from them for the
satellite countries of the East Bloc. You expect much of this money will be spent buying
technology from the USSR, so any money they get will improve your economy.

Relationships

As the representative of the USSR, you see this conference as a real breakthrough in East-West
relations. The process which led to this conference was begun by Chairman Leonid Brezhnev in
Helsinki in 1975 and is a real victory of his plan for détente. The goal is to end decades of
isolation of the Eastern European countries and the USSR and to bring them into the
international community as full partners in negotiations. The East needs more trade and
investment from the West to develop your natural resources and improve the declining
economies of all of the East Bloc countries. The West does not fully realize the extent of
economic problems in the East. The military buildup and space program have drawn resources
away from other areas and left the overall economy very weak. Issues of transportation, energy,
and pollution are all important and require international negotiations. Air pollution is only the
first one of these to reach the stage of an international agreement. Success in this negotiation
will, you hope, lead to progress in other areas as well.

You are very aware of the problems of air pollution and that they are greater in the East block
than in Western Europe. The West has no real sense of the extent of the damage caused by
burning lignite in power plants. Few Western experts have been allowed to travel to the affected
areas. The USSR has an extensive program of building nuclear power plants to strengthen the
energy economy without additional pollution. But nuclear plants are expensive to build. The lack
of foreign currency and foreign investment is limiting the ability to develop the oil and gas
reserves in various parts of the USSR. These reserves could provide lower pollution and also
more financial stability.

The one detail of considerable importance to the USSR is that the treaty should regulate
transnational exports of pollution rather than total national emissions. Because the general flow
of air is toward the East, only the pollution generated in the most western regions of the USSR is
exported to Europe. Your plan is to build nuclear power plants in this area and to modify power
plants near your western boarder and leave emissions in the center of the country unchanged.
This would allow you to meet a limit on trans boundary exports without too much expense. You
will also resist any limits on NOx pollution being applied to the USSR.

The Soviet satellite countries are becoming somewhat difficult to keep in line. The weakness of
the Soviet economy has limited the ability to insure their loyalty through economic assistance.
Thus it has been necessary to use force to hold their loyalty. This is most true of the Czechs, who
were occupied by the Soviet army 11 years ago. Poland is similarly restive. Only the GDR (East
Germany) is fully under Soviet control due to the large number of Soviet troops in the GDR and
the total control of their government by the Soviets. The USSR is firmly opposed to any
possibility that the two Germanys be reunited as a single country. The West Germans may seek

289
to use financial aid to build stronger ties with East West Germany in the hope that this will
eventually lead to a united Germany. You will oppose anything that brings the two countries
closer together. If money is to be provided to East Germany, you want it to come from a general
fund rather than directly from West Germany. You can also threaten the First Secretary Erich
Honecker with removal from office if he becomes too close to the West Germans. The last First
Secretary was replaced due to a ‘mysterious and sudden illness’. The same could happen to
Honecker.

In spite of these tensions, you do not anticipate any problems with your colleagues in the East
bloc. They are all parties to the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) and they are
dependent on the USSR for supplies of natural gas and electricity. However, one issue which
may arise in the negotiations is the validity of the CMEA as a signatory to a treaty. Some of your
enemies in the West may use this issue to try to sabotage a treaty. The CMEA has never before
been a signatory to an international agreement such as this. You see it as a counterpart to the new
EEC. Within the EEC, each nation has veto power over any agreement of the EEC as a whole.
This is not true of the CMEA. The Soviets would never allow this much autonomy to the other
CMEA members. So the issue of whether the CMEA can sign a treaty and negotiations within
the CMEA over the details of the treaty and whether it is binding on all members will need to be
ironed out.

To Learn More

Biography based on Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko: You may use this name as your game
name but realize that your actual positions may not be identical to the actual historical person.

Victory Objectives

1) You want to have an agreement signed by the Eastern European countries which is also
accepted by the West. (+1 Victory Point)
2) You convince the West to provide money for pollution controls for the countries of the
CMEA. (+1 Victory Point)
3) Any treaty requires only that you reduce pollution exports, not total pollution. (+1 Victory
Point)
4) Receive an exemption for the USSR from any limits on NOx pollution. (+1 Victory Point)

290
Content Quiz
A 25 question multiple choice quiz is provided with this manual. This can be used to
“encourage” a greater attention to the readings. It may be administered either individually or by
faction. In the case of this game, winners can be awarded additional money.

The quiz was administered individually to a class of 16 students, none of whom had taken any
college science courses. The goal of administering the quiz individually was to assess the quiz
itself. The students required from 15-25 minutes to complete the quiz and the scores ranged from
10-17 correct answers out of 25. If the quiz were administered by faction, this would allow
discussion among the students and presumably result in more correct answers. Additional time
for this discussion would also be needed.

The quiz is coded for use with IF-AT Scratch off grading sheets. The pedagogy has several
advantages.
 Students learn the correct answer to all questions while taking the quiz
 Students gain partial credit if the correct answer is their second or third try
 The students do their own scoring and know their result immediately
 You don’t have to grade the quiz

Scratch off sheets can be ordered at nominal cost. Quiz is Series A 25 Item sheet A022
http://www.epsteineducation.com/home/

291
Answer key to quiz
This quiz is coded to Form A022 from Epstein Educational Enterprises. Immediate Feedback -
grading

Acids and Bases


1-b
2-a
3-d
4-a
5-a
6-b
7-a
8-a

Environmental Philosophy
9-c
10-a
11-a
12-d
13-d
14-b

Gaia
15-c
16-b
17-d
18-b

Environmental Economics
19-d
20-c
21-c
22-b
23-c
24-a
25-d

292
293
Quiz

Select the response below that is most accurate. Read questions carefully.
If scratch out answer sheets are provided, scratch off your answer. If you do not see the *
indicating it is correct, select your second choice and continue until you know the correct
answer. Partial credit for each question is based on whether you found the correct answer on the
first, second, or third attempt.

Basic Science of Acids and Bases

1. Every molecule of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted by a power plant produces how many
molecules of acid in the environment?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
2. Which statement best describes the difference between weak and strong acids?
a. A weak acid produces only a few hydrogen ions while the same number of moles
of a strong acid produces 10 or even 100 times more hydrogen ions.
b. A strong acid is very corrosive but a weak acid is not.
c. A weak acid takes less base to neutralize than a strong acid for a given number of
moles (molecules) of the acid.
d. Weak acids react more slowly than strong acids so are generally safer.
3. Which acid below is not a weak acid?
a. Citric acid
b. Acetic Acid
c. Carbonic acid
d. Nitric acid
4. Which of the following is NOT a way to reduce acid rain?
a. Replace natural gas fired power plants with oil fired power plants
b. Install scrubbers on coal fired power plants
c. Replace coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants
d. Reduce overall consumption of energy
5. Scrubbers use which chemical below to remove sulfur dioxide?
a. Limestone
b. Iron pyrite
c. Coal
d. Gypsum
6. Which statement below is TRUE?
a. When streams become more basic than about pH 5.5, fish become sick.
b. Normal rain has a pH of 5.6, but most streams are less acidic due to the natural
buffering of the soil and rock.
c. All animals and plants are sensitive to acid and decline at pH less than 5.0
d. Little damage to life in streams is observed until the pH falls below 5.0

294
7. Which of the following statements is FALSE?
a. Water of pH 4.0 has twice the acid of pH 5.0
b. A pH of 7.0 is said to be neutral
c. Water with pH of 4.0 has 10 times the acid of water of pH 5.0
d. Most beverages we consume contain weak acids and are slightly acidic.
8. Two water samples are analyzed. Both are found to have pH=3.2. One sample is a strong
acid and one is a weak acid. Which statement best describes what will happen when the
acid in the samples are titrated.
a. The weak acid sample will take more titrant to neutralize than the strong acid
since the weak acid does not release all its hydrogen ions in solution.
b. The weak acid sample will take less titrant to neutralize than the strong acid since
the acid is weak
c. The two samples have the same pH so they have the same amount of hydrogen
ions. Therefore, they will take the same amount of titrant to neutralize.
d. None of the above statements are correct.

Environmental Philosophy

9. Which of the following statements is FALSE?


a. Fire and rabbits determine the history of prairie oaks. Either is sufficient to
prevent the start of a tree. Both together insure a prairie.
b. Farming of the prairie led to the end of fires and this caused the rapid growth of
trees.
c. Fire was used by the early settlers to clear the trees on the prairie so they could
farm
d. You can read the history of the prairie in the tree rings of the oak trees.
10. Which statement below is the most intelligent in the view of Leopold?
a. Every part of the land is good, even if we don’t know why
b. What good is a Draba? You can’t eat it, smell it, or hardly see it.
c. We can have more game to hunt if we eliminate the predators
d. The success of conservation efforts is clearly displayed in many show pieces
throughout Wisconsin.
11. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
a. The Round River of Leopold is seen in the many cyclic interactions of Lovelock’s
Gaia.
b. Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis suggests that the Round River concept of Leopold is
wrong.
c. The Round River is the largest river in Wisconsin and runs all the way around the
state.
d. Paul Bunyan was the first governor of Iowa and named the Round River, which
he discovered.
12. Which of the following is not a reasonable definition of an ethic?
a. A limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence
b. A differentiation of social and anti-social behavior
c. A mode of guidance for meeting ecological situations
d. An instinct that prompts people to compete for their place in the community

295
13. Below are four statements about why humans can’t “conquer” nature? Which is FALSE
a. We don’t know enough about the working of nature to take control of it
b. The characteristics of the land determine the facts as much as the characteristics
of the people who live on it
c. Humans are just a part of nature, not something separate
d. Politicians cannot agree on where to start

14. Which of the following statements about systems of conservation based on economic
self-interest is FALSE?
a. They lead to the elimination of those elements of the land community which lack
economic value
b. None of the other answers is TRUE
c. It assumes the economic parts of the biotic clock will operate without the
uneconomic parts
d. It relegates to government many functions which are too complex or widely
dispersed to be performed by government

Gaia

15. If life on earth were all killed by radiation from a supernova, the atmosphere in a few
million years would:
a. Consist entirely of nitrogen
b. Consist of nitrogen and carbon dioxide
c. Be very similar to that of Venus, mostly carbon dioxide and steam
d. Contain no water

16. Which statement below is most accurate?


a. The atmosphere of the earth is very close to chemical equilibrium
b. The atmospheres of Mars and Venus are very close to chemical equilibrium
c. All planetary atmospheres are very close to chemical equilibrium
d. The input of solar energy causes all planetary atmospheres to be far from
equilibrium.

17. Which statement below is most accurate?


a. Positive feedback loops in the geosphere are needed to hold conditions constant
while negative feedback loops are bad for a stable system.
b. The production of dimethyl sulfide by marine organisms is part of a positive
feedback loop related to temperature and rainfall.
c. Melting ice at the North Pole causes more solar energy to be absorbed and
increases the temperature still more causing more ice to melt, etc. This is an
example of a negative feedback loop.
d. The consumption of carbon dioxide by plants is part of a negative feedback loop
related to climate.

296
18. Lovelock worries about some human impacts on the environment more than others.
Which statement below is FALSE based on his writing?
a. Organic pollutants in the air and water are less of a problem that the overall loss
of biodiversity (number of different species of life).
b. Wetlands and the continental shelf areas of the ocean are less important to protect
than farm land.
c. Pollution in cities is less dangerous to Gaia than farming the oceans and cutting
down the rain forest.
d. Human input of chlorine containing compounds to the atmosphere is less than the
natural inputs from natural events.

Environmental Economics

19. There is one thing that environmentalists and the practitioners of environmental
economics all agree on.
a. The costs of any changes in human behavior must be less than the overall
benefits.
b. Humanity could easily wipe out all life on earth if we are not careful.
c. Given the motivation, we can always figure out what needs to be done to stabilize
the environment and do it.
d. We just don’t know enough about the totality of the ecosystem to make truly
informed decisions.

20. Traditional economic systems do which of the following?


a. Do a reasonable job of including the external features of the environment.
b. Include all costs but few benefits in their overall analysis.
c. Treat natural resources like coal and oil as an inexhaustible resource.
d. Include all benefits in their analysis but often miss important costs.

21. Traditional Economics is based on GDP (gross domestic production) as a measure of


success and progress. Which is NOT a reason this is a poor measure from the standpoint
of environmental economics?
a. The GDP counts all costs the same, meaning money spent on clothes or money
spent on health care due to polluted air have the same impact.
b. A sudden rise in the cost of a resource like oil can increase the GDP while at the
same time decreasing quality of life and economic viability of nations.
c. The GDP accurately measures the actual flow of money in the economy.
d. The GDP ignores external costs to the environment which lack monetary value or
cause no flow of money in the system.
22. The US-EPA has ruled that all diesel fuel sold in the US must contain less than 50 ppm
sulfur. This is an example of what approach to regulation?
a. Cap and Trade
b. Command and Control
c. Polluter Pays
d. Best available technology

297
23. John McCain once proposed a “carbon tax” on all energy products. This is an example of
which approach to regulation?
a. Cap and Trade
b. Command and Control
c. Polluter Pays
d. Best available technology
24. The town of Cheshire, CT opened a plant to remove nitrate from sewage effluent.
Cheshire receives payments from other towns which have not yet built such plants and
which are emitting more than the allowed amount of nitrate. This is an example of which
approach to regulation?
a. Cap and Trade
b. Command and Control
c. Polluter Pays
d. Best Available technology.
25. Which of the following is NOT proposed by the OECD as a way to reduce acid rain in
Europe?
a. Flue gas desulfurization on coal plants over 200 MW
b. Washing all hard coal
c. Flue gas desulfurization on lignite plants over 100 MW
d. Switching to natural gas for electricity generation

298
299
Laboratory Experiments – General information
Faculty who wish to use laboratory experiments can print one of several sets of handouts below
and modify them to meet their needs. Labs are completely optional. The Ecosystem activity does
not require lab equipment and is a fun classroom activity.

Acid - Base Lab

Three different acid base experiments are provided. One approach is designed to be completed in
one class period of 50-75 minutes in a laboratory setting. The number of times students repeat
the measurements and the number of rain samples can be adjusted as desired to keep the lab
within the time available. The Kitchen Chemistry experiment version can be completed in 15
minutes or less. It is designed to use commonly available chemicals that do not require serious
safety measures, and ordinary glasses are appropriate. The long form experiment was originally
developed for more science intensive course and assumes that actual lab time is available,
typically at least two hours for each part. The additional time is required to master the more
complicated equipment. The advantage of the longer lab is primarily that the data obtained is
much more accurate. The short form will provide data which is internally consistent and
adequate for making the points, but will not necessarily correlate well with other sources.

Ecosystem – Food Web lab

This experiment normally requires about 50 minutes. It works best to have a computer with the
spreadsheet available in the room and have data entry done after each round. The software will
then calculate how many of each color of marble to add to the playing field.

Scrubber Lab

This lab requires access to lab apparatus and is best performed in fume hoods if possible. The lab
handout is provided in two forms. One is a competitive discovery lab in which students compete
to develop the best scrubber for SO2. Each faction is provided the apparatus and a variety of
possible scrubber materials. The group that develops the best scrubber wins +1 on the final dice
roll.
The alternative presentation simply involves having students try predefined scrubber materials.
Each group does one possible scrubber and they bring the data together in the classroom to
compare which is best.

Catalyst Lab

This lab can be done either as a simple demonstration or as a full lab. The instructions for the
demonstration version are provided. The full experiment was published in J. Chem. Ed. and is
also provided with a few modifications.

300
Lab Instructions and Preparation

Experiment 1.

Week 1 of this experiment is designed to establish a “cognitive dissonance” for the students.
They measure solutions of strong and weak acids. The preparation of these solutions is designed
so that the molar concentration of the strong acid is less than the weak acid. This produces results
in which the weak acid required more titrant and seems to contain more acid, but when the pH is
measured it is found to be much higher than the pH of the strong acid. The only way students can
understand this is to realize that the pH is related only to the free hydrogen ions and that strong
acids are called strong because they liberate all of their hydrogen ions. This relates to acid rain in
that there is a background of weak carbonic acid in rain which does not contribute much to the
pH. On the other hand, it only takes a small amount of strong acids from pollution to produce
significant concentrations of hydrogen ions and to significantly lower the pH of the rain.

Solutions for titration experiment

The experiment is written for the use of eyedroppers instead of burets. This is not as accurate as
using burets, but avoids the need to teach students to read and manipulate the buret. Burets may
be substituted and the concentrations adjusted to provide reasonable titration volumes. The time
required for titration with a buret will be significantly longer and this will need to be taken into
account. The entire experiment can be done in less than an hour with eyedroppers. Two or three
hours will probably be required with burets. It is also possible to extend the lab by having
students calibrate the pH meters themselves.

The titrants can be made locally or purchased pre-standardized. Since the results are relative, it is
not necessary to have a highly accurate standardization. Rain samples are titrated with 0.0100 N
NaOH. Strong and weak acid samples are better titrated at higher concentration using 0.100 N
NaOH.

Acid samples for titration of 25 ml sample

Strong acid
0.5 ml of concentrated H2SO4 (18 M) per 1 liter of solution for students to titrate. This will give
a solution of 0.018 N and should require about 80 drops of titrant.

Weak Acid
2 ml of glacial acetic acid per liter of solution for students to titrate. This solution will be
approximately 0.03N and will require about 130 drops of titrant.

Buret titration assuming 0.1 M NaOH titrant and 25 ml samples

Strong acid

301
5 ml of concentrated H2SO4 (18 M) per 1 liter of solution for students to titrate. This will require
more than 20 ml of titrant per 25 ml sample.

Weak Acid
15 ml of glacial acetic acid per liter of solution for students to titrate. This will require more than
20 ml of titrant for a 25 ml sample

Indicators for titration

Phenolphthalein is the best for these titrations. It can be purchased or a solution of 1% may be
prepared in ethanol.

pH Paper – available from Fisher and other chemical supply houses or avaialble on line.
Hydrion #96 pH paper measures from pH 0-6 in 0.5 steps and is good for screening rain
and acid samples.
Hydrion # 1605, 1605, 1611, and 1613 pH papers provide 0.2-3 pH unit steps over the
entire range for acidic samples and can be used to refine the pH value obtained from the initial
measurement.

pH meter – any pH meter is satisfactory for this experiment but the electrodes are critical for
good results. Accurate measurement of rain samples requires the use of Ross pH electrodes
(Thermo-Orion) and the addition of KCl solution to samples. Equally good results for rain have
been obtained using semiconductor pH electrodes available from IQ Scientific Instruments. The
use of traditional glass pH electrodes and commercial buffers can result in errors as high as 1 pH
unit in measuring the pH of rain samples and are not recommended. If appropriate electrodes are
not available, it is preferrable to use pH paper.

Conductivity Meter

Any conductivity meter can be used for this experiment. It should be set to display results in ppm
rather than conductivity.

The TDS-1 pocket conductivity meter is a simple portable system which is inexpensive and
works well for this experiment. It is available from Hanna Instruments (www.hannainst.com) for
less than $20. Typically one or two of these are sufficient due to the speed of the analysis.

Rain or snow samples can be easily collected by placing a bucket or tray in a location where it
will not be disturbed. Samples of rain can then be analyzed for conductivity, pH and total acid
using the procedure in Experiment 1.

Demonstration of Weak and Strong Acids

302
Materials

Bottle of Seltzer
Dilute strong acid solution, 0.001 molar sulfuric acid
Wide range pH test paper pH 4-10
pH test paper, narrow range
Hydrion #96 pH paper; measures from pH 0-6 in 0.5 steps and is good for screening rain
and acid samples.
Hydrion # 1605, 1605, 1611, and 1613 pH papers provide 0.2-3 pH unit steps over the
entire range for acidic samples and can be used to refine the pH value obtained from the initial
measurement.
EMD ColorpHast pH 2.5-4.5
2 small containers for solutions (3 oz. paper cups work fine)

Procedure

a) Fill each cup half full with tap water. Measure the pH using a wide range pH test paper. It
should be between 6 and 8.
b) Add 1 teaspoon or about 5 ml of sulfuric acid to one cup and the same amount of seltzer
to the other.
c) Measure the pH of each solution with the narrow range pH paper.

Discussion

The sulfuric acid will produce a pH around 3 and the seltzer will be between 4 and 5. Explain to
the students that sulfuric acid is a strong acid and that a small amount will cause a large change
in pH. Seltzer contains carbonic acid, a very weak acid which is naturally present in rain. The
weak acid does not produce as large a change in pH.

303
Experiment 1. - Weak and Strong Acids

Materials needed for this lab:


 Notebook for recording results
 Calculator or Excel spreadsheet
 Safety glasses will be provided

Introduction

Please make sure you have read the background information in the game book.

Acid precipitation in the form of rain, snow, fog, and dry acidic deposition is a type of air
pollution. The series of exercises we will do this week include the following components:
1. Explore the differences between strong and weak acids using titration and pH measurements.
2. Measurement of pH and total acidity of rain and/or snow samples.

Lab Procedures

There are three different procedures to work through for this lab. Begin with the pH
measurement part and then move to the titration part. You will work in groups. Please
rotate about the lab as needed to share equipment. Organize all results in your lab
notebooks. Everyone must wear safety glasses at all times for this lab!

Safety glasses are very important for this lab.

304
Experiment Part #1 – Measuring pH with a pH electrode

You will be provided with two unknown acids (A & B) and two rain samples. – Of the
unknowns, one is a strong acid and one is a weak acid. These acid standards are of known
concentration and are provided for practicing the techniques of titration and pH measurement.
The two rain samples were recently collected.

The most accurate method of measuring pH is to use an electronic pH meter. The meter depends
on the availability of ions in the solution to carry charge in the electrochemical system.

Remember: contamination can ruin the results for everyone. Work cleanly and carefully.

Measure the pH of unknown acids

a. Test the pH of the samples using the procedure for the pH meter (a local handout will be
provided for the specific pH meters being used). Carefully construct a clear table in your
lab notebook that compiles all of your readings. The pH meter will have been calibrated
using standard buffers. Take two trial readings for each sample. The average of these
trials will be used for later calculations. Read and record the pH when pH stops blinking
on the meter. Between each trial re-check the pH using the pH 4 buffer solution to make
sure the probe is still calibrated. A good reading should fall within + 0.2 pH.
IMPORTANT: ALWAYS rinse probe in DDI water between testing of each
solution to avoid contamination. Start with the pH measurements of the rain
samples and then move to the unknown acids. If your readings are more than .2
from each other and/or the probe behaves erratically please let the instructor know.

b. Recall that pH is defined as pH = -log [H+]. Use the pH measured for your samples to
calculate the molar concentration of free hydronium ions [H3O+]. In your EXCEL
spreadsheet, you can do this with the following equation =10^-pH
Instead of entering the numerical value of the pH, it is better to enter the cell address of
the pH

c. You will record your results in an MS Excel data file. You will do this AFTER
experiments #2 and #3.

305
Experiment Part #2 – Measuring total H+ ion concentration of standard acids
using the Method of Titration

Unknown Acids Titration

Based on the pH values of the unknown acids, predict which will have the most and
least total acid?

1. Use a graduated cylinder or pipet to measure and transfer 25 ml of the first acid sample to
a 125ml Erlenmeyer titration flask. Then follow the procedure described below.
2. Add two drops of indicator (phenolphthalein) to the sample. Phenolphthalein is colorless
in acid and changes to pink when all acids have been reacted with base.
3. Take a plastic eyedropper and fill it with standard 0.100 mol/L sodium hydroxide solution.
Be careful not to drip this solution out of the pipet. Hold it over a waste beaker when not
in use. SODIUM HYDROXIDE CAUSES SEVERE BURNS. WASH
THOROUGHLY WITH WATER IF YOU GET THIS SOLUTION ON YOUR
SKIN OR CLOTHES.
5. Add sodium hydroxide one drop at a time to the titration flask, counting the number of
drops you add. Try to hold the eyedropper at the same angle for all drops. Continue
adding until the acid solution turns a very faint pink color. Use a white background to
observe the titration so that you can see this pale color change. Record the number of
drops in your lab notebook. Pour solutions into a waste container and rinse out your flask
with deionized water.
6. Repeat the process using the other acid.

306
Experiment Part #3 – Measuring total H+ ion concentration of rain samples
using Titration

1. Using a graduated cylinder or pipet, transfer 50 ml of the sample to the Erlenmeyer


titration flask.
2. Add two drops of indicator (phenolphthalein) to the sample. Phenolphthalein is colorless
in acid and changes to pink when all acids have been reacted with base. Be sure that the
indicator is completely dissolved.
3. Take a clean plastic eyedropper and fill it with 0.0100 mol/L sodium hydroxide. NOTE
THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT CONCENTRATION OF BASE THAN WAS
USED FOR THE UNKNOWN ACIDS.
4. Add sodium hydroxide one drop at a time to the titration flask, counting the number of
drops you add. Continue adding until the acid solution turns a very faint pink color. Use
a white background to observe the titration so that you can see this pale color change.
Record the number of drops in your lab notebook. Pour waste in waste container and
rinse out your flask with deionized water. Rinse out your flask with deionized water.
5. Repeat the titration for each sample (use new sample each time), and take an average of
the 2 readings (drops).
6. Place all solutions in the waste container. Discard the titration eyedroppers. Make sure
your station is clean and dry. Clean up any spills with wet paper towels and then dry the
area with paper towels.

Analysis: complete the following calculations using Excel after you have finished with
titrating all samples in Part 2 and Part 3 and your station is clean.

Analysis of Standard Acids

1. Using results from the titration, determine the total moles of acid in your sample using: 18
drops = 1 ml. Use the exact molarity of the sodium hydroxide label for the calculations.
N number printed on the titrant bottle (0.100 for this example). Use the following
equation:

1ml 1L 0.100moles
drops    = moles of acid
18drops 1000ml 1L
2. Determine the concentration of acid in your sample in moles/liter. Use the following
equation to get the concentration in terms of moles of acid/liter sample [H+].

moles  of  acid 1000ml


x  moles / L acid
25ml 1L

307
Analysis of Rain Samples

1. Using results from the titration, determine the total moles of acid in your sample using: 18
drops = 1 ml. Use the N number printed on the titrant tube (0.16 for this example). Use
the following equation:

1ml 1L 0.0100moles
drops    = moles of acid
18digits 1000ml 1L
2. Determine the concentration of acid in your sample in moles/liter. Use the following
equation to get the concentration in terms of moles of acid/liter sample [H+].

moles  of  acid 1000ml


x  moles / L acid
50ml 1L

Determine acid strength

1. In Experiment Part 1 you determined the free hydronium ion concentration in two acid
solutions [H3O+]. In Experiment Part 2 you determined the moles/liter acid from the titration
data. Now calculate the ratio of these results using the formula below. This comparison will give
an idea of the strength of the acids. Weak acids give ratios less than 0.04. Strong acids will give
larger ratios.

H O 
3

moles / L  acid

2. Identify which unknown acid is a strong and which is a weak.


3. Repeat this calculation for the rain sample measured in Experiment 3 and determine
whether the data for your rain sample suggests it contains a strong acid or a weak acid.

308
309
Experiment 1 - Kitchen Chemistry version of Acid Base lab –
Instructions and materials

Equipment and chemicals:

Do not label acid samples as Strong or Weak. Use letters or numbers. Students will determine which
is strong and which is weak.

Strong Acid sample 0.0010M HCl 100 μl conc. HCl diltued to 1 liter water or
Purchase 0.0010 N HCl solution from Thermo-Fisher Scientific
35900132
Ricca Chemical
No.:3590.01-32

Weak Acid sample 0.0030 M acetic acid 200 μl conc. Acetic Acid to 1 liter water or
4 mL white vinegar (5% acidity) to 1 liter water (use 1 tsp/ quart if no scientific
glassware is available)

Titrant 0.01M sodium bicarbonate solution 0.84 g/liter water or purchase

Sodium Bicarbonate – Sodium Chloride, 0.01M - 0.1M, Ricca Chemical*


144-55-8 (Sodium Bicarbonate) 7647-14-5 (Sodium Chloride) 7732-18-5

Titration containers – use 3 oz. paper cups with white interiors. (available at most grocery
stores)
Eye droppers – available from local drugstore
Indicator - Bromcresol Green-Methyl Red Indicator Solution, 100 mL MDB
Product #: 2329232 US Price: $12.49

Hach Company
P.O. Box 389
Loveland, Colorado
80539-0389
Phone: 800-227-4224
Fax: 970-669-2932
Narrow Range pH paper – order from Thermo Fischer Scientific
EMD colorpHast* pH Strips > Range: Narrow, 2.5 to 4.5
M95813
EMD Chemicals
No.:9581/3

310
Rain or Snow samples may be collected in a bucket or tray if desired.

Note to Instructors:

The solutions described for this experiment are designed to produce a result around 50 drops of
the sodium bicarbonate solution for the endpoint of the strong acid (HCl) solution and more than
twice that amount for the weak acid (Acetic) solution. The pH paper analysis should give a
distinctly more red – lower pH/higher acidity result for the HCl and a higher pH/lower acidity
result for the acetic acid. Check these before giving the solutions to the students. Both acid
solutions should be prepared fresh for the lab since at these concentrations they are susceptible to
degradation during storage. The HCl can evaporate and the acetic acid can mold. All solutions
may be prepared using tap water if distilled water is not available. The results should not differ
significantly.

The goal of this experiment is for the students to measure the pH of the two solutions and expect
lower pH solution to require more titrant since it has more hydrogen ions in solution. They will
be surprised when the less acidic solution requires more titrant. This is due to the fact that the
hydrogen ions in the strong acid are essentially all available to lower the pH. So a small amount
of strong acid makes a big change in pH. For the weak acid, many hydrogen ions are bound to
the acid and not free in solution to lower the pH. When the weak acid is titrated, the base
gradually removes all the hydrogen ions from the weak acid.

311
Experiment 1 - Acid Base Experiment Kitchen Version

Calculator and Safety glasses will be provided NAME:

Introduction

Please make sure you have read the background information on the game book (The Science of
Acid Precipitation).

Acid precipitation in the form of rain, snow, fog, and dry acidic deposition is a type of air
pollution. The series of exercises we will do this week include the following components:
1. Explore the differences between strong and weak acids using titration and pH
measurements.
2. Measurement of pH and total acidity of rain and/or snow samples

Lab Procedures

There are three different procedures to work through for this lab. Begin with the pH
measurement part and then move to the titration part. You will work in groups. Please
rotate about the lab as needed to share equipment. Organize all results in your lab
notebooks. Everyone must wear safety glasses for this lab!

Some form of eye protection is recommended for this lab. Regular glasses or sunglasses are
considered sufficient for this experiment, because none of the reagents you will use are
particularly toxic or hazardous. Still, you would not want to get them in your eyes.

312
Part #1 – Measuring pH with pH Test Papers

You will be provided with two unknown acids (A & B) and two rain samples (optional). One of
the unknown acids is strong and one is weak. These acid standards are of known concentration
and are provided for practicing the techniques of titration and pH measurement.

Remember: contamination can ruin the results for everyone. Work cleanly and carefully.

1. Obtain a pH test strip for each of the two unknown acids and for the rain samples.
2. Use an eyedropper to wet the colored squares on the test strip with a sample. Compare the
colors to the chart on the package and record the pH of the acid. Repeat for each acid and
rain sample.
3. Remember that pH=-log[H+]. Calculate the concentration of hydrogen ions using a
calculator. (To get [H+], use to 10x key on the calculator. 10-pH will give [H+]. Enter pH,
change the sign, and then press the 10x key )
4. Record your data and results in the table below.

Acid A Acid B Rain 1 Rain 2


pH
[H+]

5. From the pH data, predict which acid sample will require the greater amount of base to
completely neutralize it.

Acid which will require the most base to neutralize is? _________________________

Part #2 – Measuring total H+ ion concentration using the Method of Titration

Unknown Acids Titration

Based on the pH values of the unknown acids, predict which will have the most and
least total acid.
1. Transfer 5 ml (1 teaspoon) of the sample to a 3 oz. paper cup.
2. Add two drops of indicator (Bromcresol green-methyl red for sodium bicarbonate titration
and phenolphthalein for sodium hydroxide titrations) to the sample. Bromcresol green-
methyl red is pink in acid and changes to blue when all acid has been reacted with base.
Phenolphthalein is clear in acid and changes to pink in base.
3. Take a plastic eyedropper and fill it with standard 0.0100 mol/L sodium bicarbonate
solution or 0.00500 mol/L sodium hydroxide. Be careful not to drip this solution out of
the eyedropper. Hold it over a waste container when not in use.
4. Add the base titrant one drop at a time to the sample in the paper cup, counting the number
of drops you add. Continue adding until the indicator changes color (blue or pink
depending on the indicator used). Repeat the entire titration with a second sample to

313
determine the precision of your work. The two results should agree within 2-3 drops. If
they do not, perform a third titration and average the results.
5. Record your data and calculations in the table below.

Acid A Acid B Rain 1 Rain 2


Drops Base 1st
Drops Base 2nd
Drops Base 3rd
Average

Part #3. Analysis of Data


Complete the following calculations using a calculator after you have finished titrating the
rain samples (see below) and your station is clean. The calculations are approximate since
the drop size is not exactly known. But using the same eye dropper you can assume it is
constant.

1. Using results from the titration, determine the total moles of acid in your sample using:
Use the following equation:

1ml 1L 0.00500molesbase
drops    = moles
18drops 1000ml 1L of acid

2. Calculate the concentration of hydrogen ions in your sample in moles/liter. Use the following
equation to get the concentration in terms of moles of acid/liter sample [H+].

moles  of  acid 1000ml


x  moles / L acid
5ml 1L

Enter the results in the table below.

Acid A Acid B Rain 1 Rain 2


Total moles Acid
(mol)
Concentration Acid
Mol/L

3. Determine acid strength


In Experiment Part 1 you determined the free hydronium ion concentration in two acid
solutions [H3O+]. In Experiment Part 2 you determined the moles/liter acid from the titration

314
data. Now calculate the ratio of these results using the formula below. This comparison will give
an idea of the strength of the acids. Weak acids give ratios less than 0.04. Strong acids will give
larger ratios.

H O from pH
3

 Ratio
moles / L  acid from titration

Complete the table below with your results. Identify which of the two acids is strong and which
is weak.

Acid A Acid B Rain 1 Rain 2


Ratio [H]/total
moles acid
Type of Acid

Discussion
1) Based on your pH data, which unknown did you expect to take the most titrant? Were you correct?
2) Of unknown acids A and B, which is strong and which is weak? Explain the reasons for the
differences in pH and titration volumes you observed in terms of the properties of weak acids and
strong acids.

315
Checklist for the Acid Rain Lab Report

1. Introduction – A short (1 page) summary of the experiments. Include who you worked with.

2. Results and analyses of pH and titrations (unknown acids and rain samples) in Excel
spreadsheet – please organize your calculations and results in a clearly labeled table. Make
sure to clearly show a comparison between the two unknown acids and the two rain samples.

3. Discussion (1/2 to 1 page)


a. Based on your pH data, which unknown did you expect to take the most titrant? Were
you correct?
b. Which of the unknown solutions, A or B, is the strong acid? Which is the weak acid?
Explain the reasons for the differences in pH and titration volumes you observed in terms
of weak acids and strong acids.

316
317
Instructors information for Kitchen Chemistry Lab

1. Prepare Unknown Acids using concentrated HCl and glacial acetic acid.

Add approximately 1 mL of HCl to a labeled 2 liter bottle and fill with deionized water. Add 2
ml of acetic acid to labeled 2 liter bottle. Label the bottles, Unknown A and Unknown B. It does
not matter which is which as long as you know.

2. Prepare the titrant for this experiment using 0.1 M sodium hydroxide, (NaOH) solution, which
can be purchased directly from Fisher Scientific

A 0.0050M solution can be made by diluting 50 mL of 0.1 M solution to a total volume of 1.0
liter. Alternatively, the 0.10 M sodium hydroxide solution can be prepared by adding 4 gm of
solid sodium hydroxide, NaOH to 1 liter of distilled water. Because the results of the lab are
approximate, it is not necessary to standardize these solutions.

3. Phenolphthalein solution can be prepared by adding about 0.5 gram of solid phenolphthalein
to 100 mL of 50% ethanol.

4. It is recommended that rain samples be prepared by adding KCl solution to improve the
performance of pH electrodes. Add 1.0 mL of 1.0 M KCl solution to each 100 ml of rain. 1.0 M
KCl can be prepared by adding 7.4 g solid KCl to 100 mL of distilled water.

5. It is suggested that pH meters be calibrated before the class begins and stored in pH 4 buffer
solution so that they will rapidly equilibrate with acidic solutions. Accurate pH values for rain
are only obtained if an electrode specifically designed for such samples is used. Ross™ pH
electrodes are the gold standard for this work. We have had good results with solid state
electrodes obtained from IQ Scientific. Standard pH electrodes will tend to produced unreliable
results. High resolution pH paper can be substituted for pH meters if desired. See the long form
experiment for details on products required.

6. Glassware for this lab can be replaced with disposable plastic beakers or even inexpensive 3
oz. drinking cups from the grocery to speed up the process and avoid the need to clean
equipment.

7. Narrow range pH paper such as EMD ColorpHast pH 2.5 – 4.5 indicator strips are used to
measure pH.

318
Outline for the Laboratory Report

A typical laboratory report is a detailed description of your experiences and observations in the
laboratory and should contain each of the following sections and should be written in the past
tense

1. Title Page -

2. Introduction - The introduction should include the question posed, and the strategy you used to
answer any question and you should include any background information used to support your
answer. Any literature references you used should be included at end of the report.

3. Experimental - Include specific details of sample preparation. You may reference the
experimental section of this manual for procedures used. Be sure to discuss any changes from
the procedures that you used.

4. Results – Include all final results in a table. In addition, summarize the results in a narrative
form using the third person past tense. Avoid personal pronouns. Describe any unexpected
observations of mishaps.

5. Discussion- Discuss trends that you have observed in your final results and relate them to the
principles presented in the experiment.

319
Experiment 2 Setup and Equipment

Approximately 20-30 colored objects in 5 different colors. The lab calls these red, blue, green/or
yellow, black and white. Craft stores often sell small flattened glass pieces for decoration and
flower arrangement. Alternately, different colored beans can be used. The fact that they may be
different size and shape is fine.

Plastic spoons for each student

Small plastic or paper cups

Two spreadsheets, Beadgame and Beadgame with Stress. It is ideal if these can be projected in
the classroom, but if not, then have them on a computer so that results can be entered to
determine the setup for each round.

At the beginning of the game, five of each type of bean are scattered in the playing space. The
fifth color bean is not eaten by any species and is present to make finding food slightly more
complicated.

Students should inform the instructor if they are color blind to insure they are assigned to a group
that will allow them to distinguish their selected color form the others.

320
Experiment 2 -Ecology and Food Webs – A Simulation Exercise

Introduction

Every ecosystem contains many interdependent species. While these are often modeled in terms
of predator species and prey species, this distinction oversimplifies the complexity of the
ecology. In fact, every species lives by eating one or more other species or depends on the waste
products of other species. Krill eat plankton, fish eat krill, bigger fish eat smaller fish, birds eat
fish, etc. Rabbits are consumers because they eat vegetables, so when broadly viewed, they are
predators as well, if you are a tasty plant. Rabbits also need to be prey for other predators who
keep their population in check. As the people of Australia discovered, introduction of rabbits into
an environment lacking such predators can have far reaching effects. A problem with invasive
species is that they are often consumers of resources but have no predators. While the plants that
the rabbits eat cannot be seen as predators in the classic sense of killing and eating other living
things, the plants depend on microorganisms in the soil which break down rocks and dead tissue
in the soil and release nutrients that the plants eat. Thus the plants depend on other species to
provide their food and these microorganisms in turn feed on other things. One aspect of the
science of Ecology is the study of these interactions and interconnections. To date, the only
species that do not depend on others require either high levels of radioactivity to provide
nutrients and energy or the presence of a geological source of hydrogen sulfide.

A food web is an attempt to model the positions of all organisms in the food chain in an
ecosystem. This lab involves an extremely simplified trophic network within the ecosystem’s
overall food web. You’re not looking at how the food web per se responds, but looking at
responses within the composition of the ecological community within the ecosystem. The goal of
this exercise is to examine how this stylized food web responds under normal conditions and
when acid precipitation causes high mortality to one species in the food web. This would also
model a food web in which an invasive species was introduced which ate the species in
competition with the species already present.

This exercise is designed to work with your assigned reading from Sand County Almanac. This
book provides numerous observations of ecosystems and the way in which changes in one
species affect many other species. For your report on this exercise, you must find an example of
a food web and the way in which a change in one species affects the entire ecosystem.

The exercise uses colored objects (beans or beads) to represent different species in an ecosystem.
One possible way to relate the colored beads to the actual species in an aquatic ecosystem would
be as follows:

Species 1 represents mayfly larva which feed on plankton and krill (black beans) in the water.
The green/yellow beans could then represent adult mayflies
Species 2 could be frogs which eat the mayflies
The Red beans are then the eggs the frogs lay.
Species 3 could represent trout which eat both frog eggs and mayflies
Blue beans are hatchling trout produced by species 3

321
Species 4 could be salmon which eat hatchling trout
Species 5 could be birds which eat frogs’ eggs and hatchling trout.
The birds deposit waste products in the water which serve as nutrients for Species 1.

Instructions

Start with 6 groups of students. The number of students in each group is defined in Table 1 and
depends on class size. Each student receives an empty container such as a plastic cup (stomach)
and a plastic spoon (mouth). Each student group represents a different species with different
feeding habits. There are five other species in the ecosystem with the students. Each of these
species is represented by a different colored bean or marble.

The feeding habits and productivity of each species in the ecosystem are defined by the rules
below. Note that some species are specialists and only eat one food while others are generalists
and eat multiple foods. (Actual colors may vary depending on local availability of materials.)

 Species 1 eats only black beans and releases 2 green/yellow beans for each green bean
eaten
 Species 2 eats only green/yellow beans and releases 2 red beans for each green bean
eaten
 Species 3 eats both green/yellow beans and red beans and releases 3 blue beans for each
red or green bean eaten
 Species 4 eats only blue beans and releases a black bean for each two blue beans eaten
 Species 5 eats both red beans and blue beans and releases a black bean for each two eaten

Table 1. Assignment of students to Species (Enter Values in Spreadsheet “Population” page).

Class Size Species 1 Species 2 Species 3 Species 4 Species 5 Remainder


9-11 1 1 1 2 2 2-4
12-14 1 1 2 2 3 3-5
15-16 1 2 2 3 3 4-5
17-20 1 2 3 3 4 4-7
>20
divide
into two
games

One student in the Remainder group will join the most successful species at the end of each cycle
until they are all in a Species group. The most successful species is the one which has the
greatest number of beans eaten per person at the end of a cycle.

322
At the beginning of the game, five of each type of bean are scattered in the playing space. The
fifth color bean is not eaten by any species and is present to make finding food slightly more
complicated.

Students should inform the instructor if they are color blind to insure they are assigned to a group
that will allow them to distinguish their selected color form the others.

Part 1. Simulation of a Healthy Ecosystem

When each feeding cycle begins, students begin to “eat” beans by picking up beans with a spoon
and putting them in their “stomach”. The “stomach” should never touch the floor, so all the
beans must by scooped up only with the spoon. After 30 seconds, each species group will count
the number of beans they have eaten and record this on the spreadsheet. (Enter number of beans
eaten for each Species during the cycle on the “Feeding” page) The productivity rules will
determine how many beans will be added to the floor before the start of the next feeding cycle.
These rules are built into the spreadsheet. Also note there is a limited number of each color bean
in reserve, so it may not be possible to add all of the beans specified by the spreadsheet. This is
indicative of the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. It can only support a limited number of each
species.

The group with the highest number of beans eaten per student (Feeding Success = total
beans/total students) will add one of the waiting students to their group (Two students for classes
over 18). They return the eaten beans to the instructor to empty their “stomach”.

Any student with an empty stomach after a round is eliminated from the game and is dead. Any
student who eats a bean of the wrong color must immediately empty their stomach, but may
continue feeding after they do this until the end of the cycle. Any student with a bean of the
wrong color at the end of the round is also dead. The number of students in each group for the
next cycle must be entered in the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet calculates the number of each
color bean to be added to the workspace for the next cycle.

The game continues for 5 eating cycles. Examine the graph of populations for each species in the
“Population Graph” page of the spreadsheet.

Part 2. Simulation of an ecosystem containing a species specific toxin such as acid rain.

Reset the playing space to contain 5 beans of each type. Replay the game as before; however,
after each cycle the number of the black beans added for each feeding cycle is only 1/3 of the
number calculated from the feeding rules (no fractional beans are added). This is due to the
effects of the toxin. The spreadsheet for this phase has been adjusted to include this change.
Proceed through 5 eating periods and enter the population data into the spreadsheet after each
round.

323
Examine the population graphs. Have any of the groups gone extinct? How does this differ from
the results in Part 1? How would you describe the way in which the reduction of one species
moves through the food chain?

Report

Find an example of the type of ecosystem effect observed in the simulation in Sand County
Almanac. Write a one page prose report in which you answer the questions above and relate
them to at least one example of a similar effect in Sand County Almanac. How is the example in
the book similar to this exercise? How is it different?

324
Experiment 3- Exploration of SO2 Scrubbers:
Amber L. Schilling, Kenneth R. Hess, Phyllis A. Leber, and Claude H. Yoder
Department of Chemistry
Franklin & Marshall College
Lancaster, PA 17604
Modifications by David E. Henderson and Susan K. Henderson

I. Experimental Procedure
HAZARDS Inhalation of dust from sulfur, calcium carbonate, and calcium sulfate should be
avoided. Contact of all chemicals with eyes and other mucous membranes should be avoided.
Therefore, appropriate eye protection should be worn at all times, and it is recommended that all
work be done in a fume hood. Assembly of the pieces of glass into the rubber stoppers should
be done using leather protective gloves and with great care to avoid injury.

Construction of side-arm test tube apparatus


Obtain three 6-inch side arm test tubes, two 6-inch pieces of Tygon tubing, three pieces of glass
tubing (0.6 cm external diameter; one 3-inch piece, and two 6-inch pieces) and three No. 2
rubber stoppers with bored holes. Carefully insert each piece of glass tubing into the bored hole
of a stopper so that about ½ inch of one end of the tubing protrudes through the stopper. Plug the
top of each side-arm test tube with a stopper/glass tubing assembly. The side-arm test tube fitted
with the stopper containing the 3-inch piece of glass tubing will always contain the sample of
sulfur to be burned, and for sake of clarity, will hereafter be referred to as test tube #1. The test
tube containing the scrubbing reagent is designated as test tube #2, and the test tube containing
the distilled water as test tube #3. Connect the side arm of test tube #3 to an aspirator. Connect
test tube #1 to test tube #2 by using a piece of Tygon tubing. Then connect the side arm of test
tube #2 to the glass tubing of test tube #3. Refer to Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Side arm test tube equipment set-up.


The test tubes should be supported by appropriate-size clamps attached to iron ring stands.

PART ONE: The increase in rainwater acidity brought about by SO2(g)

325
Place approximately 0.3 g of sulfur into test tube #1, and approximately 9 mL of distilled water
into test tube #3 (connected to the aspirator). Add 2 drops of Universal Indicator to the water in
the test tube so the pH can be monitored continuously. If needed, adjust the position of the glass
tubing in the stopper of test tube #3 so that the end of the glass tubing inside of the test tube is
immersed in the water. Turn on the aspirator to maximum suction (evidenced by the production
of vigorous bubbles in the distilled water), and heat the sulfur in test tube #1 using direct heat
from a Bunsen burner flame. Continue heating until the indicator changes to pink. Record the
time required. (Note: If a noticeable increase in acidity (i.e. a lower pH) is not observed, ask
your lab instructor for assistance, and re-run the experiment before moving on to Part Two.)

PART TWO: Exploration of four reagents as potential SO2 scrubbers


a) Reaction of SO2 (g) with calcium carbonate (CaCO3). As in Part 1, place
approximately 0.3 g of sulfur into test tube #1 and about 9 mL of distilled water and 2 drops of
Universal Indicator into test tube #3 (once again, be sure that the end of the glass tubing inside
test tube #3 is submerged in the water). Note the initial pH of the distilled water. In test tube #2,
place enough ground calcite (CaCO3) so that about 1/2 inch of the glass tubing extends down
into the sample. Turn on the aspirator to maximum suction, and heat the sulfur in test tube #1
using direct heat from a Bunsen burner flame until the water turns pink. Turn off the aspirator,
and record the time required for the color change. Next, replace the ground calcite in test tube #2
with an aqueous calcium carbonate slurry (instructions follow), and re-run the experiment
exactly as performed previously, making sure to replace both sulfur and water/indicator with
fresh samples before doing so. [To prepare the calcium carbonate slurry, place about 0.3 g of
calcium carbonate in the test tube, add 9 mL of distilled water, and stir vigorously with a glass
stirring rod until a cloudy solution is obtained (do not expect the calcium carbonate to dissolve).]
b) Reaction of SO2 (g) with calcium sulfate (CaSO4). In test tube #2, place enough
Drierite (calcium sulfate) so that about 1/2 inch of the glass tubing is surrounded by particles.
Place a new sample of sulfur into test tube #1, and replace the distilled water and indicator in test
tube #3 with a fresh 9 mL-portion. Run the experiment as carried out previously. Again record
the time required. Finally, perform this reaction a second time using a calcium sulfate slurry in
place of the Drierite (prepare the slurry in the same manner as was used for the calcium
carbonate, using about 0.5 g CaSO4 powder and 9 mL of distilled water).
c) Reaction of SO2 (g) with sodium carbonate (Na2CO3). Place approximately 10 mL of
a 1M Na2CO3 solution in test tube #2. If necessary, adjust the position of the glass tubing in the
stopper so that the end of the tubing is immersed in the solution. Replace the sulfur and distilled
water with fresh samples, and run the experiment to observe the scrubbing ability of the sodium
carbonate.
d) Control with water. Add approximately 9 mL of distilled water to the middle tube
and be sure that glass tubing is immersed in the liquid. Run the experiment and determine the
time required to change the pH of the water in tube #3.
II. Background Information

326
As concern about the harmful effects caused by acid rain has grown over the past years,
various measures have been taken to reduce its production. One of the primary pollutants
responsible for the formation of acidic rainwater is sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) released into the
atmosphere from coal-burning industrial factories and power plants. One method used to
decrease the amount of sulfur dioxide being emitted is a process called Flue Gas Desulfurization,
or “scrubbing” (1). This abatement process involves allowing the SO2 (g) to react with a base
such as limestone (CaCO3) before it leaves the gas stacks of the factory. A slurry of limestone
and water is sprayed down onto the coal combustion gases as they pass upwards through the
stacks, thus converting the sulfur dioxide gas into calcium sulfite (1):
SO2 (g) + CaCO3(s) CaSO3(s) + CO2(g).
Other bases such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and potassium hydroxide (KOH) which are also
potentially effective SO2 scrubbers are not usually used on the industrial level because they are
cost-prohibitive in large quantities (1) and substantially corrosive.

327
328
Instructor Notes
I. Background Information
See Background Information (Section II) in Student Material.
II. Lab Preparation and Equipment
 6-inch side-arm test tubes, at least 3 / person (see Tips)
 Tygon tubing, 12 inches / person
 Glass tubing (0.6 cm external diameter), 15 inches / person
 No. 2 rubber stoppers with bored holes to accommodate glass tubing, 3 / person
 Sulfur, powder (100 mesh, Aldrich catalog no. 21, 522-6)
 Distilled water
 pH paper
 Bunsen burners, 1 / person
 Ground calcite (particle size no smaller than 1 mm)
 CaCO3, powder (Aldrich catalog no. 239 216)
 Magnetic spin vanes, 1 / person
 Hot plate with stirring mechanism, 1 / person
 CaSO4 (Drierite)
 CaSO4, powder (~0.5 g / person)
 1M Na2CO3 solution
 Iron ring stands and clamps
III. Tips
 It is recommended to have the glass / stopper assembly provided by the instructor.
Inserting the glass tubing through the bored holes of rubber stoppers can be difficult and
there is a chance that the glass could break while doing so. Assembly of the pieces of
glass into the rubber stoppers should be done using leather protective gloves and with
great care to avoid injury. The use of glycerin, mineral oil, or a little bit of water in the
hole and on the tubing can make this task easier.
 In our experience with this experiment, the sulfur may not be totally consumed before the
water becomes acidic. It is possible to reuse the sulfur test tube without cleaning, or it can
be replaced with a clean test tube. The other test tubes containing the scrubbing reagent
and distilled water need not be replaced each time, but they should be cleaned before
performing each part of the experiment.
 As indicated in the student directions, the aspirators must be turned on to maximum
power as evidenced by the production of vigorous bubbles in the distilled water. It is
essential to the success of the experiment that each aspirator is working properly and
providing maximum suction.
 Because the amount of SO2 produced depends on the amount of sulfur used, the intensity
of the heat, and the duration and extent of the air flow, it is important to try to keep these

329
variables as constant as possible. However, even if they are not carefully controlled, the
relative differences should be apparent.
 The control with water in the tube #2 should give a pH of 2-3 in tube #3.
IV. Safety and HAZARDS
It is highly recommended that all work be carried out in a fume hood. Inhalation of dust
from sulfur, calcium carbonate, and calcium sulfate should be avoided, as the dust can be
potentially irritating to the upper respiratory tract. The 1 M Na2CO3 solution should also be
made and handled carefully, as it is very basic. Contact of all chemicals with eyes and other
mucous membranes should be avoided. Therefore, appropriate eye protection should be worn at
all times. Assembly of the pieces of glass into the rubber stoppers should be done using leather
protective gloves and with great care to avoid injury.

330
CAS Registry Numbers
Sulfur 7704-34-9
SO2(g) 7446-09-5
CaCO3 471-34-1
CaSO4 7778-18-9
Na2CO3 497-19-8
KOH 1310-58-3

Literature Cited

1. Bunce, Nigel J. Environmental Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Wuerz Publishing: Winnepeg,

Canada, 1993; pp 396-397.


332
Experiment 4- Demonstration of Catalysts
This short demonstration will show the function of a catalyst to speed up chemical
reactions. It may be done as a single experiment demonstration with class discussion or a
class exercise where students work in groups and use the handout which follows to record
their results.

Materials
5-7 100 or 250 ml graduated cylinders. Number depends on how many different
materials you wish to test

3% Hydrogen peroxide solution, available in most drug stores.

Dish soap

Tray or pan to collect any spillage (you will need this. Don’t skip this step)

Stopwatch(s) or clock with second hand.

Catalysts
Magnesium dioxide powder
Iron Oxide powder
Iron filings
Sand
Lead oxide powder
A piece of fresh potato
A piece of cooked potato
Dry yeast powder
Potassium Iodide

Setup
Line up the graduate cylinders in the tray.

Fill each half full of hydrogen peroxide (50 or 125 mL depending on size used)

Add 1 mL of dish soap to each cylinder and swirl to mix.

Weigh out about 0.5 g of each of the powders and about 1 g of the potato if you are using
it. (you may use 1/8 tsp if a balance is not available)

Procedure
Assign one student to add each material to a different cylinder and another student to
time how long it takes the foam to reach the top.

All students add their catalysts at the same time to the cylinders. The time required for
the foam to reach the top of each is recorded.

333
Study of Catalysts
Student handout

Hydrogen peroxide is a very reactive material which decomposes very slowly to produce
oxygen gas. In this experiment, the class will be given a solution of hydrogen peroxide
that has a small amount of dish soap added. The dish soap allows you to see the bubbles
formed and to measure the rate at which oxygen is produced. You will do this by doing
the reaction in a graduated cylinder and measuring how long it takes to completely fill the
cylinder with gas.

Most or all of the following substances will be provided for your study.

Catalysts
Magnesium dioxide powder
Iron Oxide powder
Iron filings
Sand
Lead oxide powder
A piece of fresh potato
A piece of cooked potato
Dry yeast powder
Potassium Iodide

1. Fill the graduated cylinder half full of the hydrogen peroxide solution. Obtain a stop
watch and select the first catalyst you want to test. Place the graduate cylinder in the sink
to avoid making a mess.

2. Take a sample of the first catalyst about the size of a pea on a spatula. (be careful to
use the same amount of each catalyst).

3. Start the stopwatch at the same time you add the catalyst to the graduate cylinder.
When the foam reaches the top of the cylinder, stop the stopwatch and record the time in
the table below.

4. Rinse the graduated cylinder and repeat steps 1-3 with another catalyst until you have
run all of them.

As you work through the different catalysts, consider what properties of the substances
make the reaction faster.

334
DATA TABLE
Catalyst Time to fill Cylinder

335
Discussion questions

1. Which are the best, and which are the worst catalysts?

2. Why do some materials cause a rapid reaction, while others do not?

3. Yeast and the potato are both biological substances while the other substances tested
are inorganic, non-biological substances. Do you think the catalysts in the two classes are
the same or different? Can you explain the difference observed between the raw and
cooked potato?

4. What happens to the catalyst in the potato when it is cooked?

336