Bill Overview
Title: SAFE Act
Description: The bill requires the development of an integrated national approach to help fish, wildlife, and plants adapt to extreme weather changes and climate change. Specifically, the bill requires the President to establish an interagency National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy Joint Implementation Working Group. The working group must adopt the 2013 National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, which addresses the effects of extreme weather and climate change on fish, wildlife, and plants. After the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences releases a periodic scientific assessment required under the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the working group must use sound science to review and revise the strategy to incorporate new information and advances in the development of strategies to help fish, wildlife, and plants adapt. Each federal agency must integrate the strategy into agency plans, environmental reviews, and programs. The Department of the Interior must establish a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center to assess and develop scientific information, tools, strategies, and techniques to support the working group and other interested parties in addressing the effects of extreme weather and climate change. Interior must establish an Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Sciences to advise the working group.
Sponsors: Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals relying on ecosystems and natural resources
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill is centered on the adaptation of fish, wildlife, and plants to climate change, which indirectly affects humans reliant on these natural resources for economic, cultural, or recreational purposes.
- Healthy ecosystems are vital for biodiversity and contribute to natural services that support human well-being, such as clean air, water, and fertile soils.
- People working in environmental protection, wildlife conservation, and related scientific fields will be directly impacted through policy changes and increased research opportunities.
- Legislation aimed at preserving wildlife and ecosystems potentially affects individuals in industries such as agriculture, fishing, and tourism.
- All individuals benefit from improved environmental health as it impacts air quality, food security, and climate stability, therefore a global audience has a stake in the bill's enactment.
Reasoning
- The SAFE Act focuses heavily on adaptation measures for ecosystems, thus the impact on the average American may seem indirect initially. The primary benefits are likely to be environmental conservation and climate resilience, which are vital in the long term.
- Most direct effects are expected in sectors like agriculture, fisheries, and tourism, where livelihoods depend on healthy ecosystems. Therefore, this populations group’s wellbeing may increase significantly after implementation.
- A key target group includes professionals in environmental sciences and policy, who could see improved job prospects or job satisfaction due to increased government focus and budget allocation for research and adaptation measures.
- The generalized population gain from improved climate strategy is harder to encapsulate in immediate wellbeing scores, because the effects are dispersed and become more evident over longer timescales, emphasizing the necessity of integrating the well-being of ecosystems with human quality of life concepts.
Simulated Interviews
Fishery Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy leads to more sustainable fish stocks, it will greatly benefit our business and the local community.
- I'm worried about initial disruptions due to new regulations and oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see strategic efforts for ecosystem adaptation funded.
- The increased support for science will help my career growth and job satisfaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Oil and Gas Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm uneasy about policies that could limit industry growth.
- Long-term sustainability is critical but might affect job security in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Tour Guide (Miami, FL)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthy environments are critical, my job revolves around it.
- Policy looks like it will provide long-term benefits, but results need to be tangible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Urban Planner (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased the bill addresses climate adaptation.
- Urban adaptation is critical, yet often overshadowed by rural efforts.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Wildlife Conservationist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect more opportunities and funding to enhance conservation efforts.
- This policy signifies a profound commitment to environmental issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educational outreach on these strategies is crucial.
- Retirement principles align with long-term sustainability. Encouraged to see active policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy emphasizes our national commitment to climate change adaptation.
- Excited to see how this shapes future environmental policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Corn Farmer (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The unpredictable weather affects my yield; hope policies stabilize our situation.
- Skeptical about immediate changes to farming practices but hopeful for innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting infrastructure for climate data will enhance tech industries.
- I see potential for new project funding and innovation avenues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- Adaptation strategies must be regularly updated to incorporate evolving climate science.
- Cross-agency coordination is crucial for successful implementation and cost efficiency.
- Long-term environmental health could mitigate severe impacts of climate change.