Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6605

Bill Overview

Title: Climate Security Intelligence Act of 2022

Description: This bill permanently authorizes the Climate Security Advisory Council (currently authorized until December 31, 2025). The bill also requires the advisory council to report to Congress a plan to permanently establish a Climate Security Intelligence Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The plan must contain recommendations relating to the proposed center's duties, which shall include (1) serving as the primary intelligence community organization addressing the climate security intelligence needs and priorities of policymakers, (2) analyzing U.S. climate security risks and U.S. influence on climate policies around the world, and (3) conducting strategic forecasting for future climate security risks and opportunities. The plan shall also include a proposed process for transferring recommended functions and duties from the advisory council to the center.

Sponsors: Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]

Target Audience

Population: Global population indirectly impacted by climate security policies

Estimated Size: 330000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Environmental Scientist (Washington D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The establishment of a Climate Security Intelligence Center could enhance our understanding of national and global climate threats.
  • This policy could lead to more data-driven decisions that enhance climate resilience.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Coastal Engineer (Miami, FL)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved climate intelligence can support the projects I work on, potentially improving safety and infrastructure durability.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 9 6

Farmer (Kansas)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I don’t see how this policy impacts my farm directly, but any improvement in climate forecasts could be beneficial.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Climate Activist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could provide critical support to policy advocacy by offering clearer insights into climate security issues.
  • Although the immediate effect may be minimal, it could help drive positive policy changes in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (New York, NY)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased focus on climate security intelligence is promising, but effectiveness will depend on execution and political will.

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 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might indirectly benefit technology companies through increased need for climate-related data analytics.
  • I'm hopeful this could lead to innovative technological solutions to climate problems.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Oil and Gas Industry Executive (Houston, TX)

Age: 40 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The establishment of this center could lead to stricter and more informed climate regulations.
  • This might be challenging for traditional energy sectors but necessary for long-term sustainability.

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 7 5
Year 20 8 5

College Student (Boulder, CO)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • As a student in this field, having a dedicated climate intelligence center is inspiring, as it might open up more opportunities in my area of study.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

High School Teacher (Chicago, IL)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might bring more resources and updated curriculum materials related to climate security issues.
  • It could help educate students about the real-world impacts and importance of climate intelligence.

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 7 6

Renewable Energy Consultant (Austin, TX)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased climate intelligence could promote renewable energy initiatives and foster a deeper understanding of their importance.
  • This aligns well with my work and could enhance client interest in sustainable solutions.

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 7
Year 20 10 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)

Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)

Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)

Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)

Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)

Key Considerations