Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the importation of oil and natural gas from the Russian Federation.
Description: This bill directs the President to prohibit the importation of oil and natural gas from Russia.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by changes in global energy markets due to import bans
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The prohibition on oil and natural gas imports from Russia will primarily impact countries reliant on Russian energy.
- Globally, energy prices may fluctuate due to shifts in supply and demand, affecting individuals worldwide.
- The bill can contribute to geopolitical shifts and changes in global energy markets, impacting policies and economies.
- Countries exporting oil and natural gas may see increased demand, impacting local economies.
Reasoning
- The US has a large population deeply embedded in global energy networks, so impacts will be widespread but varied depending on energy reliance and job sectors.
- The policy may not directly impact everyone significantly; some people may not see immediate changes in their daily lives.
- Economic sectors heavily reliant on energy, such as transportation and manufacturing, may experience price shocks and changes in operational costs.
- The budget limitations suggest targeted impacts or mitigation strategies; this could involve subsidies or assistance to the most impacted individuals or industries.
- Given the essentially global nature of energy markets, individual state policies can have broad, often unpredictable rippling effects.
Simulated Interviews
truck driver (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fuel prices are a significant part of my work expenses.
- Any fluctuation in price can really impact my bottom line and family's well-being.
- I hope there would be some support or subsidies if prices go up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
energy consultant (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The push towards renewables might gain more momentum with this policy.
- It's a chance to move away from fossil fuels, although the short-term market might be turbulent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
metal factory worker (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that higher energy costs could affect my job security if the factory can't negotiate better prices or switch energy sources.
- My family is nervous about potential layoffs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
college student (New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My immediate costs might not change much, but I'm concerned about the broader environmental impacts and long-term economic effects.
- I'm interested in how this relates to climate policies.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
small business owner (Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If shipping costs increase, it directly impacts my business profitability and pricing strategies.
- I'm hoping for some form of business relief if energy costs go up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
real estate agent (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on my car for showings; if gas prices increase, my costs can impact my earnings significantly.
- I'm worried about the broader economic effects.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
graduate student (Pennsylvania)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an interesting case study for energy policy courses, though I doubt it will change my day-to-day life much immediately.
- Long-term benefits could be seen in diversifying energy sources.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
petroleum engineer (Louisiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has the potential to increase local production opportunities, which could be beneficial.
- We might see more investment in alternative energy sources, but those shifts take time.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
retired (Illinois)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about how energy costs will affect my fixed living budget.
- Any cost increase needs managing through careful budgeting on my part.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
government employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could catalyze significant environmental policy shifts and possibly push for accelerated adoption of clean energy innovations.
- Though impactful, these changes often meet with resistance and require extensive planning.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $7000000000)
Year 2: $4500000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $6500000000)
Year 3: $4000000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 5: $3500000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $5500000000)
Year 10: $3000000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $5000000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy aims to reduce reliance on Russian energy, promoting national energy security but at higher costs.
- Potential need for significant investment in alternative energy infrastructure and technology.
- Geopolitical implications, with possible repercussions on international trade relations and alliances.
- Environmental considerations, as shifts in oil sourcing could lead to increased or reduced carbon footprints depending on the alternate sources chosen.