Bill Overview
Title: REMOVE Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the Committee on Large-Scale Carbon Management within the Department of Energy to plan and oversee efforts to (1) remove carbon dioxide from the air or ocean, and (2) store such carbon.
Sponsors: Rep. Kuster, Ann M. [D-NH-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by climate change and carbon management
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill focuses on removing carbon dioxide from the air or ocean, which is a global issue impacting climate change.
- Climate change has widespread impacts on human populations, including health effects, economic consequences, and environmental changes.
- The establishment of a Committee on Large-Scale Carbon Management indicates a coordinated effort, possibly influencing global carbon management practices.
Reasoning
- The REMOVE Act targets large-scale carbon management, which primarily impacts populations concerned about or already affected by climate change.
- The estimated US population directly affected by climate-related issues and carbon emissions is around 330 million, so a policy with a budget constraint might focus on states most vulnerable to climate impacts such as coastal areas or regions with high pollution levels.
- People in urban areas might see the impacts through improved air quality, while rural economies dependent on agriculture could be impacted by shifts in climate patterns.
- Given the global nature of climate change, the policy might also consider international implications even though its budget first applies nationally.
- Wellbeing improvements from the policy would likely be long-term, as carbon management impacts health, environment, and economic factors gradually.
Simulated Interviews
Marine Biologist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the REMOVE Act is a critical step toward mitigating climate change impacts.
- Ocean carbon removal is essential for protecting marine biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Chemical Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but the transition for industries might be challenging.
- There needs to be a balance between environmental protection and economic stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Farmer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the erratic weather patterns affecting my crops.
- If this policy helps stabilize the climate, it will benefit farmers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Environmental Activist (New York City, New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The REMOVE Act is a necessary initiative, but there should be more aggressive targets and timelines.
- More funding and resources should be allocated to ensure success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Public Health Nurse (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing carbon in the air can definitely contribute to better health outcomes.
- Policies like REMOVE are essential for a healthier environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 73 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Climate shifts are noticeable here, affecting wildlife and the environment.
- I hope the REMOVE Act helps preserve our natural surroundings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
College Student (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about policies that focus on the climate and our future.
- However, I fear the budget may limit the policy's effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Solar Energy Technician (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The REMOVE Act complements renewable energy by addressing emissions directly.
- It should aid states like Arizona with heat issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear the implications for jobs in my sector the most with this policy.
- It's important to protect workers while reducing emissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Climate Scientist (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The REMOVE Act aligns with scientific goals to manage atmospheric carbon levels.
- There needs to be long-term commitment and global cooperation to truly succeed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 10: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial setup costs and ongoing funding of the committee.
- Potential alignment and synergy with private sector advancements in carbon capture technologies.
- Influences on U.S. energy policies and their compliance with global climate commitments.