Bill Overview
Title: Carbon Sequestration Collaboration Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to establish a research initiative to evaluate carbon sequestration.
Sponsors: Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]
Target Audience
Population: Global population
Estimated Size: 334000000
- The Carbon Sequestration Collaboration Act focuses on research concerning carbon sequestration, a process crucial for reducing atmospheric CO2 levels.
- Carbon sequestration research would directly involve scientists, researchers, and institutions focused on environmental studies and energy.
- Advanced research and potential development arising from this could influence regulations affecting industries that emit CO2, such as fossil fuel industries and manufacturing.
- Successful carbon sequestration techniques could have a broad environmental impact, benefiting global populations by potentially mitigating climate change effects.
Reasoning
- Scientists and researchers focused on environmental studies are directly involved, and they would likely see the most immediate impact as the research initiative would directly employ them.
- Industries like fossil fuel companies might face future regulations based on research outcomes, affecting their operational strategies.
- People whose jobs depend on high-emission industries might be concerned about job security based on potential policy changes from the research.
- Younger generations may feel hopeful about the long-term environmental benefits, resulting in a positive outlook on their overall wellbeing.
- Given the budget constraints, direct impacts will be subtle initially, perhaps only seen more broadly after significant technological or regulatory developments over time.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am excited about the policy because it emphasizes the importance of reducing atmospheric CO2.
- Additional funding means more resources for critical research which could accelerate finding solutions to climate issues.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Oil Rig Technician (Texas)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While protecting the environment is important, I am worried about possible regulations making my job unstable.
- I am not sure how this will directly benefit me right now, apart from potential climate benefits much later.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Climate Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could pave the way for more robust environmental regulations based on scientific discoveries.
- It's an optimistic step for tackling climate change issues at a federal level.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Alabama)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will lead to meaningful actions against climate change to help ensure a better future for the young ones.
- While I may not directly benefit, the potential long-term effects on climate give me peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Farmer (Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how this will help farmers like me in the short term, but I'm open to anything that improves climate stability.
- Research outcomes that lead to a stable climate would greatly benefit agricultural productivity.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Chemical Engineer (Pennsylvania)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my work on emissions control, promising more opportunities in research and development.
- It could lead to innovative solutions for emission reductions, beneficial for industry health and environmental safety.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Oregon)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative provides an amazing opportunity for academic growth and breakthrough research in carbon capture.
- The policy inspires hope for a tangible impact on climate change through innovative science.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Manufacturing Plant Manager (Illinois)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential operational changes ahead, which might incur costs, but they could also lead to efficiencies and innovations.
- Having clear guidelines on emissions from this research could help streamline our processes in the long run.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see legislation prioritizing carbon sequestration research, a critical component in addressing climate change.
- This could lead to more informed policymaking and public awareness around climate 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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
High School Science Teacher (Colorado)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as an educational tool, showcasing the value of scientific research in addressing global issues.
- There's an opportunity here to inspire students to pursue careers in climate science and engineering.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 3: $242000000 (Low: $187000000, High: $297000000)
Year 5: $292820000 (Low: $226700000, High: $359200000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Significant upfront costs are associated with establishing research facilities and partnerships.
- Long-term benefits could include environmental and economic improvements from successful sequestration technologies.
- Uncertain outcomes may delay tangible benefits, affecting the cost-effectiveness of the research initiative.