Bill Overview
Title: Combating Online Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2021
Description: This bill reauthorizes through October 7, 2026, and revises the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. The task force must develop recommendations and establish a working group to address wildlife trafficking online and on social media. In addition, the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development must create a strategy for engaging with internet and social media companies to address wildlife trafficking on their platforms.
Sponsors: Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People globally who use the internet or social media
Estimated Size: 300000000
- Wildlife trafficking is a global issue involving many countries.
- Online platforms are used by people all over the world, so changes in policies by social media and internet companies will have a global impact.
- Combating online wildlife trafficking can help in conserving wildlife species, potentially affecting those in countries with significant biodiversity.
- The Act involves the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which implies collaboration or influence beyond U.S. borders.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to address online wildlife trafficking, which directly affects internet and social media users. Since these users are a vast and diverse group, their baseline impact from this specific issue varies.
- Many people may not be directly impacted by this act as online wildlife trafficking is not a daily concern for the average user, but those working in related fields (e.g., environmental science, wildlife conservation) might feel more engaged or affected.
- As the policy involves collaborating with internet and social media companies, company employees and conservationists are primary audiences that could be influenced by procedural or policy changes.
- The act is also relevant to individuals knowingly or unknowingly participating in these online trafficking activities, users/consumers unaware of the impact, and individuals interested in conservation efforts.
- Budget constraints suggest the policy might have a gradual impact, given the size of the user base. Thus, not all users will immediately feel the effects of this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe it's essential to tackle wildlife trafficking as it poses a significant threat to biodiversity.
- As someone working in tech, I'm interested to see how our platform adjusts to these regulations.
- I feel proud knowing my work could contribute to positive environmental change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Wildlife Conservationist (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction and highlights these crucial issues.
- I'm hopeful this will lead to more collaboration between nations and tech companies.
- It aligns with my mission to preserve wildlife, so I'm quite optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Marketing Specialist (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing regulation of online content could affect advertising models.
- It's good if it leads to more sustainable practices, but there could be extra costs for compliance.
- I support anything that helps protect the environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy raises awareness among my peers about wildlife protection.
- It's great to see governments taking action on environmental issues.
- I might focus my studies towards policy impact on conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Miami, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a freelancer, I doubt this will change much for me unless platforms alter their rules regarding content.
- I'm supportive of any actions that preserve nature.
- I'd love to see more public education on this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although retired, I keep up with tech news and wildlife issues.
- It's positive to see efforts to safeguard nature, even through tech.
- I am not directly impacted, but the long-term benefits are promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Social Media Influencer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Content guidelines might shift, affecting our postings.
- I care about protecting nature, so I'm open to adapting my content.
- Glad that bigger entities are involved in these initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
IT Consultant (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work might touch on policy impacts through clients.
- Good to see tech used positively.
- If it translates to more awareness, that's a win.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
E-commerce Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Compliance can be complex, but it's necessary to protect wildlife.
- This might increase our costs marginally, but it's for a good cause.
- I personally support environmental regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Internet Entrepreneur (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for new business opportunities aligning with policy changes.
- Policy shifts can be disruptive but necessary for good causes like conservation.
- I support regulatory progress that aligns digital efforts with sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8200000 (Low: $6200000, High: $10200000)
Year 3: $8400000 (Low: $6400000, High: $10400000)
Year 5: $8800000 (Low: $6800000, High: $10800000)
Year 10: $10800000 (Low: $8800000, High: $12800000)
Year 100: $20800000 (Low: $18800000, High: $22800000)
Key Considerations
- The unpredictability of online environments and rapidly changing social media landscapes may affect the policy's efficacy.
- International collaboration will be essential due to the global nature of internet usage and wildlife trafficking.
- Balancing enforcement activities with respecting freedoms provided on internet platforms may be contentious.