Bill Overview
Title: Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the President to establish an interagency committee on global catastrophic risk. Global catastrophic risk is defined as the risk of events or incidents consequential enough to significantly harm, set back, or destroy human civilization at the global scale. The President must (1) conduct and submit to Congress a detailed assessment of global catastrophic and existential risk; and (2) produce a report on the adequacy of continuity of operations and continuity of government plans based on the assessed risk. The President, with support from the committee, shall develop and submit a strategy to provide for the basic needs of the civilian population that is impacted by catastrophic incidents in the United States; coordinate response efforts with state and local governments, the private sector, and nonprofit organizations; promote personal and local readiness and non-reliance on government relief during periods of heightened tension or after catastrophic incidents; and develop international partnerships with allied nations for the provision of relief services and goods. The President must issue a plan to implement and operationalize the strategy. The Department of Homeland Security shall lead a national exercise to test and enhance the operationalization of the implementation plan. The President must provide recommendations to Congress for (1) actions that should be taken to prepare the United States to implement the strategy, increase readiness, and address preparedness gaps; and (2) additional authorities that should be considered to more effectively implement the strategy.
Sponsors: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]
Target Audience
Population: People globally who could be impacted by global catastrophic risks
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill focuses on managing global catastrophic risks that could potentially impact human civilization on a global scale.
- Events qualifying as global catastrophic risks could affect nearly everyone on the planet due to their nature.
- The bill emphasizes international cooperation, indicating that it considers the global population as a target to be safeguarded against such risks.
- While the operational aspects and exercises might be U.S.-centric, the existential nature of the risks means that virtually all of humanity could be impacted.
- The strategies outlined, including international partnerships, aim to mitigate these risks at a global level.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily geared towards preparing for and mitigating global catastrophic risks that can impact human civilization at a global scale. Although there is a focus on U.S.-specific preparedness, international collaboration is emphasized, reflecting the interconnected nature of these risks.
- Budget constraints limit the immediate scope of action, focusing mainly on assessment, planning, coordination, and readiness exercises. Initial impacts on individuals are expected to be intangible and related more to increased awareness and potential security rather than direct, immediate changes in wellbeing.
- Given the targeted nature of the policy towards readiness and risk management, not every individual in the U.S. will perceive a direct personal impact. The effects will be more evident in certain sectors of society, such as emergency management, non-profit organizations, and government coordination bodies.
- Considering the global nature of the risks and the government's increased focus on continuity and resilience, individuals are likely to feel a sense of reassurance if they believe in the effectiveness of government action. However, skepticism about government efficiency may dampen perceived benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Emergency Management Specialist (New York, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is vital. Given my line of work, anything that helps us prepare for worst-case scenarios is beneficial.
- The coordination with local governments and other countries is promising; it could mean more resources and expertise sharing.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Oil Rig Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m not sure how much this will really affect me day-to-day, but it's good to know there are plans in place if something big happens.
- It would be great if this also helps during hurricanes since we face them often.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The global and tech-savvy approach of this policy is encouraging. We need to face these risks with innovation and international cooperation.
- I'm optimistic but cautious about how effectively this will be implemented.
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 |
Public School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy leads to more educational resources on preparedness for students.
- Inclusion of schools in these plans could strengthen community resilience.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious about how this policy could influence tech development in crisis response.
- Government reports and assessments might help startups like mine understand our role better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Non-Profit Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should help bridge the gap between governmental and non-governmental disaster response efforts.
- The international aspect is crucial for what we do, so I’m hopeful about the partnerships.
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 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes me more hopeful about future resilience against climate-related disasters.
- I'd like to see more focus on climate change in this policy.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Healthcare Administrator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the emphasis on readiness but am worried about real coordination gaps between hospitals and government plans.
- Public health needs to be a key component in these discussions.
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 |
Freelance Writer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m skeptical about government preparedness, but I admit this is a step in the right direction.
- Accountability and transparency will be key to making people trust these plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m not sure how much this policy will reach people like me in rural areas.
- Hope it includes plans to protect food supply chains, which are vital for families and communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's implementation involves cross-agency collaboration, which can complicate execution and accountability.
- Significant upfront costs are associated with developing infrastructure for assessing and mitigating catastrophic risks.
- The benefits of the bill, such as enhanced readiness and resilience, are long-term and might not be easily quantifiable in the short term.