Unit 08 · Sustainability & Environmental Policy
The year closes where science meets decision-making. This unit covers what sustainability actually requires, why shared resources fall to the tragedy of the commons, and how cost-benefit analysis and externalities put a price on environmental harm. You’ll learn the major U.S. laws — the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and NEPA — and the agency that enforces them, alongside the international agreements (the Montreal Protocol, the Paris Agreement) that try to coordinate across borders. Mastery means you can take an environmental problem and argue a policy response grounded in the data.
| Criterion | Not yet | Approaching | Mastered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainability & the commons | Cannot define sustainability or why shared resources fail. | Names the tragedy of the commons but cannot apply it. | Defines sustainability and uses the tragedy of the commons to explain why unowned shared resources get overused. |
| Cost-benefit analysis & externalities | Ignores costs that don’t show up on a price tag. | Names externalities but cannot fold them into a decision. | Runs a cost-benefit analysis that internalizes externalities and defends the trade-off it implies. |
| Major U.S. environmental laws | Cannot name a major environmental law. | Names the Clean Air or Clean Water Act but not what it does. | Matches the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and NEPA to the problems each was written to solve. |
| International agreements & the EPA | Confuses domestic agencies with international treaties. | Names the EPA or an agreement but not its scope. | Explains the EPA’s enforcement role and contrasts the Montreal Protocol’s success with the Paris Agreement’s challenge. |
| Field technique (data-grounded policy case study) | Argues policy from opinion with no evidence. | Cites data but cannot connect it to a policy choice. | Builds a policy case study grounded in environmental data and defends the recommendation against counterarguments. |
| Integration (cross-domain) | Treats the science as isolated facts; makes no cross-domain connection. | Names a link to history, reading, or writing but cannot defend why it matters. | Connects the unit to its anchor across History · Reading · Writing (plus chosen electives) and defends why the connection matters. |
“The fishery collapsed because no one owned the ocean — everyone maximized their own catch, the classic tragedy of the commons. A cost-benefit case for a catch limit only works once you internalize the externality: the cost of the collapse falls on everyone, not the boat that took the last fish. The Montreal Protocol worked because the alternative to CFCs was cheap; Paris is harder because carbon isn’t.”
“Pollution is bad and there should be laws. The EPA does environment stuff. I think there’s a Paris thing about climate.”
You demonstrate this unit by building a policy case study grounded in environmental data — a debate you can defend against counterarguments aloud, not a multiple-choice test. A criterion counts as mastered only when your recommendation follows from the evidence and survives challenge. Mastery is demonstrated, not awarded.
A 5-page clipboard packet — unit overview, key terms, the mastery rubric, anchor examples, and a score sheet you can print and grade against.