Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend Public Law 117-169 to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using funds for methane monitoring to be used to monitor emissions of methane from livestock, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from using funding for monitoring methane emissions provided under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to monitor methane emissions from livestock.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: People concerned with environmental regulations on methane emissions
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill impacts livestock farmers who could be subject to methane emission monitoring.
- Methane emissions are a significant issue in agriculture, notably due to cattle and other livestock.
- Farmers and ranchers have been concerned about increased regulations and monitoring related to methane emissions.
- The bill could impact environmental groups advocating for monitoring as a tool to combat climate change.
- The general public interested in climate change and its mitigation might be affected indirectly due to potential changes in environmental regulations.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets livestock farmers, who are likely relieved by the reduced monitoring, potentially improving their wellbeing. However, the impact on wellbeing may be moderate as it alleviates regulatory pressure but does not significantly increase economic prospects.
- Environmental advocates might see a negative impact on wellbeing due to reduced environmental oversight, affecting their personal and professional goals.
- General public awareness about climate issues implies a possible concern about less monitoring, though indirect and likely with low impact on wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Livestock Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the reduced monitoring is good because it lowers our costs.
- I want to do my bit for the environment, but the regulations can be overwhelming.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm disheartened by the lack of monitoring, as it makes it harder to track emissions.
- This may set us back in our climate goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Monitoring can be costly and burdensome.
- I'm not against environmental protection but prefer less intrusive methods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Climate Activist (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this means we aren't taking climate change seriously.
- It's a setback for our climate endeavors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Arizona)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think monitoring is important for future generations.
- The policy feels like a step backward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Agricultural Policy Advisor (Minnesota)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could relieve some pressure on farmers but may come with long-term risks.
- Balance between regulation and freedom is finicky.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Dairy Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fewer regulations could mean lower costs.
- Still concerned about drought and feed costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (Ohio)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a short-sighted measure, stalling much needed progress.
- Monitoring drives accountability and change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Public Health Official (Colorado)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less monitoring could mean higher emissions, affecting air quality.
- Public health needs thorough environmental surveillance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems like a setback for tech-driven environmental solutions.
- Data is crucial for understanding and improving emissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The regulatory inhibition may alter how the EPA prioritizes monitoring and enforcement in non-livestock sectors.
- Environmental feedback could affect future legislative and policy development related to greenhouse gases.