Final answer:
Both countries choose not to protect the environment in the described scenarios, even though it would bring them larger social benefits if they both did. Environmental treaties can be a solution to encourage collective protection of the environment.
Step-by-step explanation:
The impact of the two scenarios on the resources of countries A and B is that both countries choose not to protect the environment, even though they would achieve the largest social benefits if they both chose to protect. In the scenario described, if one country decides to protect the environment, there is a benefit of 16, which is divided equally between the two countries. If both countries decide to protect, there is a benefit of 32, also divided equally. However, each country reasons that they would have lower benefits if the other country does not protect the environment, so they both end up not protecting it.
This situation can be viewed as a prisoner's dilemma, where each country's individual rational choice leads to a suboptimal outcome. Environmental treaties can be seen as a potential solution to encourage countries to protect the environment collectively and achieve larger social benefits.
It's important to note that this information is derived from the context provided and does not refer to any specific resources of countries A and B outside of the environmental aspect.