Rules

1. Students must be in High School or on a gap year before University.
2. Students must work independently. Only individual submissions will be accepted.
3. Students may not use generative AI or copy sources without crediting them.
4. Students can be from any country. However, students from countries not supported by international banking platforms may not receive their prize money. These students can choose which charity to donate their prize money to instead.
5. The submission comprises of 400-500 words.

Submission Requirements

Participants analyze a current environmental policy before suggesting future action that seeks to protect the environment while maintaining economic growth. We will be grading you based on your evidence and reasoning of current policies and suggestions for future action. Your analysis should follow APA in-text citation with a Works Cited section at the end, citing academic sources backing up your argument. A more detailed rubric will be released in a few days. Please submit your responses in a pdf here.

Our competition hopes to foster an interest in economic public policy discourse among our participants. Therefore, students hoping to compete must also create an account on the Policy Forum and have posted at least one question & written constructive comments under other questions at least three times. We will be cross-referencing your account’s activity with the username you submit in the form.

Prompt

Select a national policy with environmental and economic implications. Describe what the policy is. Analyze its efficacy. Suggest changes that might encourage sustainability while meeting economic growth objectives set forth by the government.

Examples of policies that meet this requirement include the following. Feel free to choose one of these policies to analyze.

1. Sustainable Singapore Blueprint: https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/books/ssbcombined-cover-text.pdf
2. Ethiopian Climate Resilience and Green Economy (CRGE) strategy: https://www.ldc-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/crge-strategy.pdf
3. German Renewables Energy Act: https://www.iea.org/policies/12392-germanys-renewables-energy-act

Rubric

Here’s the rubric we’ll be judging you by:

Criteria	Exemplary	Meets	Approaching	Area of Concern
Policy Analysis  Claim + Reasoning	The report has a clearly-identifiable claim on the effectiveness of the policy. The reasoning regarding the effectiveness of the policy is clear and detailed.	The report has a general claim on the effectiveness of the policy. The reasoning regarding the effectiveness of the policy may be hard to follow at times.	The report has an unclear claim on the effectiveness of the policy. The reasoning regarding the effectiveness of the policy is hard to follow most of the time.	The report has no claim on the effectiveness of the policy.
Policy Analysis Evidence	All pieces of evidence are highly relevant to justify the policy analysis. All pieces of evidence used in policy analysis are credible and from reputable organizations. All sources used are properly cited in APA format in-text and in works cited at the bottom of the report.	Most pieces of evidence are highly relevant to justify the policy analysis. Most pieces of evidence used in policy analysis are credible and from reputable organizations. Most sources used are properly cited in APA format in-text and in works cited at the bottom of the report.	Only some pieces of evidence support the claim regarding policy effectiveness.  Only some pieces of evidence used in future suggestions are credible and from policy effectiveness. Some sources used are properly cited in APA format in-text and in works cited at the bottom of the report.	No evidence supports the claim regarding effectiveness. No evidence used OR no sources are provided. In-text citations or works cited are missing.
Future Suggestions Claim + Reasoning	The report describes specific future suggestions. The reasoning behind the suggestions’ further effectiveness is clear and detailed.	The report describes general future suggestions. The reasoning behind the suggestions’ further effectiveness may be hard to follow at times.	The report describes unclear future suggestions. The reasoning behind the suggestions’ further effectiveness is hard to follow most of the time.	The report does not describe future suggestions.
Future Suggestions Evidence	All pieces of evidence support the claim regarding future suggestions. All pieces of evidence used in future suggestions are credible and from reputable organizations. All sources used are properly cited in APA format in-text and in works cited at the bottom of the report.	Most pieces of evidence support the claim regarding future suggestions. Most pieces of evidence used in future suggestions are credible and from reputable organizations. Most sources used are properly cited in APA format in-text and in works cited at the bottom of the report.	Only some pieces of evidence support the claim regarding future suggestions.  Only some pieces of evidence used in future suggestions are credible and from reputable organizations.  Some sources used are properly cited in APA format in-text and in works cited at the bottom of the report.	No evidence supports the claim regarding future suggestions. No evidence used OR no sources are provided. In-text citations or works cited are missing.
Readability	Report has no flaws with grammar, punctuation, and spelling.	Report has minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammatical errors. These errors do not hinder the reader’s understanding of the content, and the message can still be conveyed.	Report has multiple spelling, punctuation, and/or grammatical errors. These errors lead to confusion, and hinders the ability for the reader to understand the content of the report.	Report has many spelling, punctuation, and/or grammatical errors. These errors greatly hinder the reader’s understanding of the report contents. The reader cannot understand the meaning of many sentences, phrases, and words.