Bill Overview
Title: Not a Red Cent from Russia Act
Description: This bill requires the President to prohibit the importation of nickel and copper from Russia.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on industries using Russian nickel and copper
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The legislation aims to prohibit the importation of nickel and copper from Russia, which are significant commodities globally.
- Russia is one of the world's largest producers of nickel and copper, so such a ban could affect global supply and market prices.
- Countries and industries heavily reliant on Russian nickel and copper will need to seek alternative sources, impacting their economic activities.
- Industries such as electronics, construction, and renewable energy that use nickel and copper extensively will be impacted globally.
Reasoning
- The policy's primary intent is to disrupt the Russian economy by cutting off significant sources of revenue from nickel and copper exports.
- Industries in the US using these metals, especially those depending on Russian imports, might see increased costs and potential shortages, affecting production and employment.
- The budget for this policy suggests limited direct financial assistance, focusing instead on regulatory changes and secondary market adjustments.
- We must consider individuals within industries like automotive, electronics, and construction as part of the impacted population, alongside suppliers and intermediaries relying on stable metal prices.
- However, given the US's diversified import sources, many people may not experience severe impacts, while some will face notable adjustments as alternative sources are sought.
Simulated Interviews
Metallurgical engineer (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might cause initial disruptions, but the industry is adaptable and can find alternative sources. It might push us to innovate more rapidly.
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 |
Electronics manufacturer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Material costs might increase, which could necessitate raising product prices or finding cost-cutting alternatives.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy likely won't affect me personally, but I worry about potential cost increases in tech products.
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 |
Construction contractor (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If metal prices rise, it could impact construction costs and project budgets. We'd need to adjust.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how this might slow down renewable projects due to increased material costs.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Automotive parts supplier (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supply chain issues might escalate, pushing us to reconsider material vendors and contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Renewable energy consultant (San Diego, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift might cause temporary setbacks but also push innovation in sourcing and recycling materials.
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 |
Tech entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigating supply chain changes might be challenging but necessary for long-term sustainability.
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 |
Film set designer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our work is quite varied but isn't heavily dependent on metal imports. Slight cost changes won't be very disruptive.
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 |
Jewelry designer (Miami, FL)
Age: 53 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any hike in metal prices could affect production costs, possibly requiring changes in pricing or materials.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Russia's role as a major exporter of nickel and copper means global supply chains will shift, affecting prices and availability.
- U.S. industries will need time to adjust supply chains, leading to transitional economic impacts.
- Strategic impacts of reduced reliance on Russian imports for critical infrastructure materials.