Bill Overview
Title: SECURE Act
Description: This bill increases the authorized appropriations for certain grants to support states, tribes, and territories with developing and implementing underground injection control programs for wells that are used to inject carbon dioxide into deep rock formations (i.e., geologic sequestration).
Sponsors: Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by carbon emissions and sequestration initiatives worldwide
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The SECURE Act involves funding for projects related to carbon capture and geologic sequestration.
- This type of project impacts environmental management, energy sector workers, and potentially local communities where the sequestration takes place.
- Industries involved in carbon-intensive activities are key stakeholders as they might use these sequestration facilities.
- Citizens in states focusing on carbon capture investment could see economic impacts through job creation.
- Global contribution includes mitigating climate change effects through reduced carbon emissions.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed at states, tribes, and territories implementing underground carbon sequestration programs, thus focusing on areas with existing or potential carbon capture investments.
- The main beneficiaries would be workers in the energy sector, environmental management professionals, and possibly residents of local communities where sequestration projects are implemented due to job opportunities.
- Given the relatively high budget and scope, significant impacts are expected in regions where carbon-intensive industries exist, and these projects could lead to job creation and other economic effects.
- Some people may not notice any direct impact, especially in regions where such projects are not implemented or if they work outside the impacted fields.
- Cantril wellbeing scores will offer insights into individuals' subjective perception of life quality with and without the policy, underlining economic and environmental conditions.
Simulated Interviews
Petroleum Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will provide necessary funds for carbon sequestration, aligning with industry shifts towards green technologies.
- Also, it could secure more projects for my company, positively impacting job stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a crucial step forward in addressing climate change and managing carbon emissions.
- It will likely enhance the scientific research and public awareness of carbon capture benefits.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Coal Miner (West Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the need for policies like this, there isn't much clarity on how it could benefit my immediate job security.
- There could be more direct retraining programs for workers like myself.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative is inspiring but it seems distant, with little immediate impact on my current studies or job prospects.
- I'm hopeful it may create more opportunities in my field in the future.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Welder (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome it if it cleans up local air quality, but I'm not sure it directly impacts my everyday experience now that I'm retired.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Tech Entrepreneur (New York City, New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Great initiative, but unless policies support tech innovation alongside physical infrastructure, impact may not be maximized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Research Chemist (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could indirectly stimulate demand for technologies and materials that aid in carbon sequestration, potentially expanding my field of work.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Government Policy Advisor (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a well-structured policy that could align with long-term environmental goals; however, it requires consistent funding and cooperation across various sectors.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Warehouse Worker (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may seem beneficial for environment-focused individuals, but I think there should be more emphasis on creating direct job training opportunities in my area.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public Relations Manager (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SECURE Act can be a game-changer for environmental advocacy efforts, offering more ground to press companies into sustainable practices.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- The emphasis on carbon sequestration could place the US at the forefront of climate technology innovation.
- There is uncertain future regulatory and environmental pressures that could affect the scope and scale of expected benefits.
- Coordination with multiple jurisdictions (states, tribes, territories) could slow down implementation and increase costs.