Bill Overview
Title: No Timber From Tyrants Act
Description: This bill prohibits the importation of wood and related articles from Russia and Belarus. It also directs the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to replace these prohibited imports with timber production on certain lands. Specifically, the bill directs the President to prohibit the importation of all wood and related articles from Russia and Belarus. The President may terminate this prohibition upon certification to Congress that certain conditions have been met, including that Russia or Belarus (or both, as applicable) reached an agreement to withdraw forces in Ukraine. Additionally, the bill directs Interior and USDA to authorize timber harvest in an amount sufficient to equal the volume, with respect to calendar year 2021, of imports of wood and related articles from Russia and Belarus. Interior may authorize timber harvest only on public lands and USDA may authorize timber harvest only on National Forest System lands. The bill generally prohibits Interior and USDA from approving a plan that reduces the allowable sale quantity of timber.
Sponsors: Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the prohibition of timber imports from Russia and Belarus and increased U.S. timber production
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets imports from Russia and Belarus, affecting exporters in these countries.
- The U.S. timber industry is directly impacted as they are expected to replace these imports.
- U.S. workers in the timber production and forestry sectors could see an increase in job opportunities due to expanded timber harvesting.
- Environmental groups in the U.S. are stakeholders due to increased logging activities.
- Consumers in the U.S. might experience changes in prices or availability of wood products.
- Russian and Belarusian economies could be affected due to losing a market for their timber exports.
- The U.S. interior regions, particularly where timber production could increase, will see local economic impacts.
Reasoning
- The policy will primarily impact U.S. timber workers, consumers, and environmental advocates who have diverse perspectives. The wellbeing impacts will vary based on their involvement with timber logging or environmental efforts.
- The budget constraints imply that the policy's initial impact will be limited, potentially focusing on areas with the infrastructure for increased timber production. Over time, more regions might see changes as funds allow expansion.
- The overall impact on self-reported wellbeing will merge economic benefits for those in the timber industry with potential environmental concerns from conservationists.
Simulated Interviews
Timber industry worker (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful because more local timber work means more reliable employment for us.
- The ban seems necessary for political reasons, but I hope we handle our forests responsibly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental activist (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased logging is a direct threat to our forests and biodiversity.
- While I understand the geopolitical reasons, we must find balanced solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Furniture manufacturer (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the impact on timber prices, as it could affect production costs.
- If US timber production ramps up, it might stabilize the market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Artist (New York, New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how the policy might limit the diversity of available wood for my projects.
- An increase in domestic timber could potentially be beneficial, subject to quality.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired forestry engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic about jobs in the field for young professionals.
- Protection of our natural resources should remain a priority.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Construction project manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in wood supply can affect project timelines and budgets.
- Domestic production could ensure more stability if managed correctly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Graduate student (Spokane, Washington)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased logging could negatively impact climate change mitigation efforts.
- Data-driven policies that prioritize sustainability are crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Home builder (Austin, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An unreliable supply chain for timber is concerning for future projects.
- The increase in domestic production may help in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Office worker in timber company (Missoula, Montana)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Business could see growth with increased logging, offering job security.
- Need to balance economic growth with ecological protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Librarian (Madison, Wisconsin)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the environmental impact of increased timber production.
- Conservation practices should accompany increased logging activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $45000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $45000000)
Year 5: $16000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Environmental impacts of increased timber production on public and National Forest System lands.
- Economic effects on U.S. timber and wood product prices and availability.
- The capacity of U.S. industries to replace Russian and Belarusian timber imports.