Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/3764

Bill Overview

Title: Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2022

Description: This bill establishes a variety of requirements to reduce carbon emissions and protect oceans, coastal habitats, marine mammals, and fish populations from climate change and other threats.

Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]

Target Audience

Population: people who rely on oceans and coastal ecosystems for their wellbeing

Estimated Size: 100000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

fisherman (Louisiana)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the importance of protecting our waters, but some regulations can feel restrictive.
  • If this policy helps reduce damage from hurricanes by stabilizing the environment, it might be worth the short-term adjustments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 10 3

marine biologist (California)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will boost our research and conservation efforts.
  • Long-term benefits are crucial, though immediate budget limits may restrict scope.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 10 5

Tourism operator (Maine)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Healthy oceans are vital for our business, and cleaner environments attract more tourists.
  • Short-term changes might require adjustments, but long-term health benefits are significant.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 9 3

student (Florida)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful policies like this will preserve the coastal areas I love.
  • While not financially impacted now, future opportunities could be affected if ecosystems decline.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

subsistence hunter (Alaska)

Age: 48 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The health of our waters directly impacts our community's food security.
  • Protective policies are important, but they must consider our way of life.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 9 3

environmental NGO director (New York)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Initiatives like this are necessary steps in mitigating ocean damage.
  • Funding limitations may constrain immediate impact, but policy direction is positive.

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 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 10 3

oil rig worker (Texas)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • These policies could affect job security in industries dependent on current practices.
  • Transition support is needed for those in affected industries.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 3 4
Year 2 4 4
Year 3 4 4
Year 5 4 4
Year 10 4 4
Year 20 5 4

sustainable seafood promoter (Oregon)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A policy that encourages sustainable practices is beneficial for my business model.
  • The challenge will be consumer adoption and policy impact effectiveness.

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 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

freelance writer (Hawaii)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like these are crucial for preserving the beauty of coastal environments.
  • While I may not be directly impacted, community health stands to gain.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

coastal property owner (Maryland)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about impact on property values and restrictions on my boating activities.
  • However, if the policy prevents erosion or other damage, it could maintain property value.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Year 3: $430000000 (Low: $330000000, High: $530000000)

Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)

Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)

Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)

Key Considerations