Bill Overview
Title: Protect Farmers from the SEC Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions related to agricultural products.
Sponsors: Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]
Target Audience
Population: people involved in agriculture globally
Estimated Size: 6300000
- The bill specifically addresses greenhouse gas emission disclosures related to agricultural products.
- This implies that it directly impacts farmers, especially those whose operations could be scrutinized or burdened by such disclosures.
- Agricultural sectors involved in the production of crops and livestock are particularly relevant.
- The SEC's regulations generally target corporations, but farmers could be indirectly affected if such regulations were trickled down through supply chains.
- Globally, a significant number of people are involved in agriculture, either directly or indirectly through agribusiness.
- The impact indirectly affects consumers and businesses related to agriculture but the primary demographic is farmers.
Reasoning
- The target population mainly includes farmers, farm workers, and businesses that closely work with agriculture and agricultural products.
- Considering the number of farms and people involved in agriculture in the US, the impact could affect a wide breadth but may be more concentrated on farmers directly responsible for emissions.
- The policy may provide relief to farmers by reducing regulatory burden, potentially providing them with more freedom in operations.
- Some people are indirectly related, like suppliers or vendors, whose wellbeing might not be significantly impacted.
- Wellbeing value changes can reflect reduced stress levels from decreased regulation pressure or minimal change for those not directly affected.
Simulated Interviews
corn farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved this policy might take some of the regulatory pressure off. We've been worried about additional disclosure costs.
- It will help our farming operations stay focused on maintaining our current sustainability efforts without extra bureaucratic hurdles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
vineyard owner (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it's good for some farmers, I worry about long-term impacts on environmental accountability.
- Disclosure might be burdensome, but it ensures sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
livestock farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a win for us. We can't handle more costs from disclosure requirements.
- I think it might help us stay profitable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
urban agriculture consultant (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy isn't directly affecting my line of work, I think promoting sustainable practices is important across all areas.
- Transparency in emissions would be beneficial, but it should come with support for farmers.
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 |
peanut farmer (Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is much needed. We've been stressed about compliance costs and what that means for our future.
- Reducing these regulations can help us focus more on farming rather than paperwork.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
dairy farm manager (Wisconsin)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is good for us; less red tape means we can focus on efficiency.
- However, I believe we also need to commit voluntarily to transparency and responsible practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
agricultural equipment supplier (Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy indirectly supports the farmers we supply, potentially leading to more business stability.
- If farmers are financially stable, it reflects positively on our operations too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
fruit orchard owner (Florida)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy avoids extra regulation stress in the short term, I'm concerned about long-term environmental responsibilities.
- We support measures that enhance sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
agricultural policy analyst (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could ease some pressure off farmers economically, but we should also review its potential long-term ecological impacts.
- Policy should balance both economic viability and environmental sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
retired farmer (Ohio)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This repeal is much appreciated on our end, though personally, I'm retired, I know how much others still farming will benefit.
- Reducing burdensome regulations helps keep the farming lifestyle sustainable for the next generation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $8500000 (Low: $4250000, High: $17000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $9500000 (Low: $4750000, High: $19000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The potential for negative public perception about reduced environmental accountability could affect market dynamics.
- Some downstream emissions accountability may shift to other parts of the supply chain.
- Implications for international trade relations concerning environmental commitments.