Bill Overview
Title: Unleashing American Resources Act
Description: This bill directs the Forest Service to reissue the final environmental impact statement for the Resolution Copper Project and Land Exchange (a copper mining project in Arizona) that was withdrawn on March 5, 2021. The bill also specifies that the reissued statement meets certain environmental requirements.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in copper mining, specifically the Resolution Copper Project
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The Resolutions Copper Project is a mining initiative, thus potentially influencing people dependent on mining and natural resources.
- Environmental impact assessments concern broader natural habitats, likely affecting conservationists, environmental groups, and local communities relying on ecosystems.
- Copper is a vital industrial metal affecting industries such as construction and electronics, impacting people indirectly through economic means.
Reasoning
- The targeted population largely includes those working in and around copper mining, especially those in Arizona as the Resolution Copper Project directly impacts that state.
- Local communities, particularly Native Americans, are likely adversely affected or concerned due to environmental changes that might occur, impacting both cultural sites and the environment.
- As copper is a critical industrial metal, the wider economic impact might ripple across industries dependent on copper, influencing sectors like construction and manufacturing, albeit indirectly.
- Some people may perceive the project as economically beneficial, leading to improved employment and economic growth in the region, potentially raising wellbeing for certain demographics.
- Environmentalists and conservationists would likely oppose the project due to potential ecological impacts, reduction in biodiversity and changes to natural landscapes.
Simulated Interviews
Copper Miner (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reissuing of the environmental impact statement is crucial for our jobs.
- We understand the environmental concerns, but the mining industry is essential for Arizona's economy.
- We hope the project will be beneficial to our community in terms of jobs and wages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (San Carlos, Arizona)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential environmental impacts of this project are concerning, especially regarding sacred lands and local biodiversity.
- The project could severely impact our community and the natural landscape.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 6 |
Construction Manager (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reissuing the environmental statement might ensure the supply of copper remains stable, keeping costs predictable.
- It's vital for manufacturing industries across the state.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Software Developer (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect this project to impact me personally.
- I do have concerns about the environmental impact, but it's more of a policy observation than something affecting my personal life.
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 |
Environmental Attorney (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential environmental risks from this copper mining project are substantial.
- I am heavily involved in cases against projects like these because they tend to overlook long-term ecological impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 4 |
Local Business Owner (Globe, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The mining project is a lifeline for my business as it attracts workers and customers.
- We depend on these local projects to keep our economy and community thriving.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will ensure a steady supply of copper which is essential for maintaining production schedules and reducing costs.
- However, the environmental concerns should not be neglected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York City, New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This project might bring positive returns to investors who are betting on domestic copper sources.
- I am concerned about the volatility in the market if environmental concerns delay the project.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Urban Planner (San Francisco, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that prioritizing mining projects may negate efforts towards sustainable development.
- Our focus should be on reducing environmental impact rather than expanding mineral exploration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Student (Tempe, Arizona)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm fascinated by the potential to explore and manage resources responsibly.
- This project could provide job opportunities and research potential.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $1000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- The environmental concerns associated with mining in sensitive areas can lead to costs associated with mitigation and compliance.
- The legal and administrative cost linked to environmental assessments and potential litigation should be noted.
- Operations leading to public opposition could arise, potentially increasing public relations and consultation costs.