“Under the Dome” and China’s Conversation About Air Pollution

Paper details:

1. Identify three distinct instances in the film in which Chai Jing attempts to quantify the social

costs of air pollution in China. How do these costs compare to each other in terms of total losses
to Chinese society? Which type of cost do you personally find to be the most compelling. and
why?

2. Does everyone in the film agree with Chai Jing’s estimates of these costs? Does everyone agree
on how important they are? Explain. and compare the perspectives voiced on valuation in this

film to the current debate in the United States over major oil pipelines such as Keystone XL or
DAPL.

3. Does Chai Jing refer to a single ethical standard (efficiency. safety. sustainability. equity. or
other) throughout the film. or multiple? How can you tell? Why might Chai Jing be choosing to
adopt this strategy?

4. In what ways is air pollution in the film similar to a public good. and in what ways is it different?
Explain.

5. Given everything Chai Jing talks about. do you think that the marginal social damage function of
air pollution (i.e-. the external cost of pollution not captured by firms’ own cost functions) is
constant. increasing. or decreasing as the quantity of air pollution in China increases? How

would you expect this to influence Chinese policy makers’ views on adopting different possible
incentive-based or comman-and-control responses?

Extra Credit: (+25%)

Short Essay: Compare and contrast this movie to Al Gore’s 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth. How are they
similar? How are they different? Why might you suspect this to be the case?