Bill Overview
Title: Recycling and Composting Accountability Act
Description: This bill establishes data collection and reporting requirements concerning recycling and composting programs. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency must report on the capability of the United States to implement a national composting strategy for compostable materials in order to reduce contamination rates for recycling.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with recycling and composting programs
Estimated Size: 260000000
- The bill addresses recycling and composting programs, which are widely used by municipal waste management systems globally.
- Recycling and composting are common waste management practices that involve the participation of households and businesses.
- The bill involves data collection and reporting, so it directly impacts entities required to gather and report on this data.
- The global population practicing recycling and composting are potential stakeholders in this initiative.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints require focusing impact analyses on heavily populated areas with existing recycling and composting infrastructure as these areas will see immediate policy effects.
- Large urban centers will house many more individuals involved in recycling and composting channels, from workers to residents using these services regularly.
- It is expected that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local waste management authorities will see the most direct impact.
- Directly targeted in the policy are waste management entities, which means individuals working in these sectors will feel the effects of such legislation.
- Considering U.S. population estimates, a small percentage of directly impacted households will have exponential outreach to the general population once broader effects are felt.
Simulated Interviews
Waste Management Supervisor (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will help in standardizing the procedures across states, enhancing efficiency.
- The reporting requirements may increase workload initially, but could lead to improved systems long-term.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Consultant (Portland, OR)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act seems promising as it holds companies accountable and encourages transparent reporting.
- I am optimistic that the increased data will drive improvements in recycling programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The costs associated with composting are already high; I'm wary of additional burdens.
- I hope the policy leads to more accessible and cost-effective composting services.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
City Waste Management Official (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an administrative standpoint, the act will require more resources for compliance.
- I see the long-term benefits of having standardized national data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Non-Profit Director (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy's focus on data measurement and accountability.
- It's important for future policies to be backed by solid data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a step in the right direction to improve recycling facilities on campus.
- Hoping it leads to more education and infrastructure improvements.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technology can play a key role in data collection and processing, so the policy is encouraging.
- I hope to see the results trickle down to community-level improvements.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps bring critical awareness and education into schools about waste management.
- Hoping for real impacts at the community level as a model for students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Recycling Center Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase transparency and standardization across our operations.
- I support improved accountability but am concerned about implementation costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Developer (Boston, MA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an opportunity to leverage tech to improve recycling efficiencies.
- I believe the policy will foster innovation in data solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $43000000, High: $63000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The legislation will need to be carefully coordinated with state and local governments to ensure successful implementation.
- There may be resistance from stakeholders within the waste management industry who may be impacted by new regulations or reporting requirements.
- Determining the most cost-effective and minimal-burden methods of data collection and reporting will be crucial.
- The potential benefits of the bill are longer-term and depend on secondary effects such as improved environmental quality and efficiency in waste management.