Bill Overview
Title: Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a pilot grant program for improving recycling accessibility in communities. The EPA may award grants to states, local governments, Indian tribes, or public-private partnerships.
Sponsors: Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Target Audience
Population: All people affected by enhanced recycling efforts
Estimated Size: 132400000
- The bill aims to improve recycling accessibility, which implies it will have a direct impact on communities who currently have limited recycling options.
- It targets states, local governments, Indian tribes, or public-private partnerships, indicating a wide range of areas and demographic populations across the country could benefit.
- Recycling is a global issue, with improving infrastructure potentially serving as a model or having an impact beyond the direct application in the US.
Reasoning
- Given the budgetary constraints, it's important to select a diverse set of interviewees from different geographical, socio-economic, and demographic backgrounds to represent the US population.
- The policy targets communities with limited recycling options such as rural areas, underserved urban neighborhoods, and territories home to Indian tribes. This will help simulate the direct impact on those who need improved recycling infrastructure.
- A mix of individuals experiencing high, low, and no impact should be included to portray a realistic spectrum of the policy's effectiveness.
- The estimated target population is around 40% of the US citizens facing recycling barriers, but the policy may not impact every individual equally due to varying levels of existing infrastructure across the states.
Simulated Interviews
Community Organizer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved recycling will not only help the environment but also create local jobs.
- Lack of current recycling options has been frustrating for many in our town.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
School Teacher (Suburban California)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may not directly affect me since we have easy access to recycling, but it's great if it helps underserved areas.
- Educating the younger generation on recycling's importance can amplify its benefits.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graphic Designer (Urban New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Current recycling in urban areas has blind spots, especially for large electronics and textiles.
- Expanding infrastructure can enhance our community's environmental impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Health Clinic Worker (Navajo Nation, Arizona)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our community has been struggling with limited waste management options.
- The policy could significantly improve living conditions and health outcomes through better waste disposal techniques.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Retired (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We could use more information and facilities about recycling around here.
- If resources are allocated wisely, it could be a game-changer for rural communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Corporate Lawyer (Downtown Chicago)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy will have bigger impacts elsewhere, which is great forward momentum for sustainability.
- We've been prioritizing recycling for years, but improving infrastructure is necessary at a national scale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Bartender (Miami, Florida)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanded recycling options would make my daily life easier and cleaner.
- Recycling should be an accessible part of modern living for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 59 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Frequently deal with ineffective recycling structures that inflate costs.
- Policy implementation could aid small businesses trying to be eco-friendly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Suburban Texas)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recycling improvements mean better for the kids' future and cleaner neighborhoods.
- It’s about time more focus was placed on systematic environmental change.
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 | 4 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our city needs to catch up with other parts of the country in recycling efforts.
- A push from policy could help turn industrial waste into resource generators.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 1 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $125000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $220000000)
Key Considerations
- The accurate cost-benefit analysis will largely depend on the uptake rate of the recycling improvements across communities.
- Technological innovation in recycling could lead to cost reductions over time.
- Potential long-term savings in environmental and waste management should be weighed against the upfront costs.
- Distributional effects include varying impacts across geographical regions based on current recycling infrastructure levels.