Bill Overview
Title: No Profits for Taliban-Controlled Mines Act
Description: This bill directs the President to prohibit the use of rare earth minerals that originate from Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan in domestically sold or manufactured components.
Sponsors: Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]
Target Audience
Population: People who rely on products involving rare earth minerals
Estimated Size: 332000000
- Rare earth minerals are critical components in the manufacturing of a wide range of technological products, including electronics, renewable energy technologies, and military hardware.
- The Taliban-controlled regions of Afghanistan are known to have significant deposits of rare earth minerals.
- Global companies involved in technology and defense manufacturing may need to source these materials from alternative suppliers if the bill is enacted.
- There are approximately 7.9 billion people worldwide, many of whom use technology that relies on rare earth minerals.
- The impact will be significant in countries that heavily rely on technology and imports of rare earth minerals from Afghanistan.
Reasoning
- Rare earth minerals are vital to a broad segment of the electronics and tech industry in the U.S., which provides products to millions of Americans.
- Given the size of the technology sector, the direct impact of this legislation might be limited to those within the supply chain, but could indirectly affect consumers through price changes or product availability.
- The policy effects are likely most pronounced over the long term, as supply chains adjust and new suppliers are established.
- Because Afghanistan is a lesser player compared to other sources like China and Australia, the immediate availability of alternatives reduces potential negative impacts.
- Steel and automobile industries, reliant on electronics and batteries using these materials, may experience moderate impacts constrained to supply contracts and cost adjustments for U.S. manufacturers.
Simulated Interviews
Tech Company Supply Chain Manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My company will have to adapt our supply chain, which could initially increase costs and require negotiation with alternative suppliers.
- In the long run, this could make us less reliant on politically unstable regions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Engineer at Renewable Energy Firm (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our projects might face material shortages or increased costs, delaying installations and potentially impacting project returns.
- However, finding stable suppliers aligns well with our risk management approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Automotive Executive (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will push us to reassess certain electronic components sourcing.
- It could cause an uptick in initial production costs until adjustments are made.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Defense Contractor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching suppliers could temporarily disrupt production schedules, impacting defense capabilities.
- It's a necessary step for long-term security but might slow certain projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potentially increased costs and passing those on to my customers.
- It could affect my sales and profit margins initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting ethical sourcing aligns with my values.
- I might see slight increases in tech product costs, but the long-term benefits outweigh these.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Investment Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There may be volatility in tech stock prices as companies adjust their supply chains.
- Long term, it could stabilize sector investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Teacher (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ethical considerations make sense but translating them into classroom implications will be a task.
- I'm optimistic about broader teaching impacts.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Military Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring non-reliance on conflict zones aligns with strategic defense interests.
- There might be some missed opportunities for rapid tech deployment initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Consumer Electronics Designer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching material sources will require design adaptations and potentially delay rollouts.
- This gives us a chance to innovate with alternative materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $52000000 (Low: $46000000, High: $68000000)
Year 5: $57000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $62000000 (Low: $58000000, High: $76000000)
Year 100: $73000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $90000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential disruptions to the supply chain could result in increased costs for alternative sourcing of minerals.
- Long-term adaptations could boost domestic industry and potentially lower reliance on imports.
- Increased regulatory burdens on industries relying on rare earth minerals.
- Potential effects on technological advancement sectors heavily reliant on these minerals.