Compare mineral-resource management choices

Which resource plan best balances cost, supply and environmental effects?

Submit: An evidence record, explanation and revision.

Related lesson: Environmental Science and Policy

This is a teacher-led extension beyond the short lesson. The task supplies a performance opportunity; completion alone does not certify mastery, full NGSS coverage or state alignment.

Build the idea

Cost-benefit analysis compares consequences using explicit criteria. Scientific evidence can estimate material recovery, energy use and environmental effects, while communities make value judgments about acceptable tradeoffs. A monetary total cannot silently represent every ecological or social effect.

Evidence and model inputs

Invented annual aluminum-supply choices for equal usable output: A new extraction, cost $120,000, energy 100 units, land disturbance 10 units; B recycling, cost $145,000, energy 35, land disturbance 2, collection coverage 70%; C mixed supply, cost $130,000, energy 60, land disturbance 5, collection coverage 40%. Budget is $140,000; preferred energy use ≤65 and disturbance ≤5. Units are local model indicators, not lifecycle assessment results.

Keep actual observations, published findings and invented model cases labeled separately. If a source or required equipment is unavailable, pause that part with a teacher; do not invent results.

Materials and preparation

Paper, graph paper or spreadsheet, and the linked readings.

Grade-level scope

Use explicit hypothetical units and criteria; no claim of a verified real-world lifecycle ranking.

Do the work

1. Apply the budget and environmental criteria without changing their definitions.
2. Compare the qualifying choice with a recycling-plan revision that lowers cost; identify what evidence would verify that revision.
3. Discuss who has access to collection and how collection coverage limits recovered feedstock.
4. Repeat the decision if the budget rises to $150,000 and explain which values influence the choice.
5. Write a recommendation that separates measured or modeled consequences from stakeholder priorities.

Learner worksheet

Write on paper or type here and print. Entries stay in this page’s memory and are lost when you leave or reload; they are not saved or submitted.

Check your reasoning

1. Which original plan meets all stated constraints?
2. Does the lowest dollar cost automatically minimize all impacts?
3. Does raising the budget prove B is best for everyone?
4. Why question collection coverage?

Teacher review guide

Review the actual deliverable and discuss the reasoning. For each criterion, use 0 when evidence is absent or fundamentally incorrect, 1 when partly supported with a material error or omission, and 2 when accurate, supported and complete for the stated task. Maximum 8 points is a task score, not a proficiency certification. Give feedback and allow revision.

1. Applies criteria and constraints accurately.
2. Compares benefits, costs and distributional effects.
3. Evaluates a refinement with needed evidence.
4. Separates scientific estimates from value judgments.

Sources and standard reference

• Official NGSS HS-ESS3-2 performance expectation — inspect the practice, core idea, crosscutting concept and assessment boundary.

Instructional text and hypothetical cases are original. Linked source readings supply published evidence where specified. Teachers should judge fit with their course and state requirements.