Bill Overview
Title: Ending China's Unfair Advantage Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer until the agreement is amended to remove China from the list of developing countries .
Sponsors: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Target Audience
Population: Global population affected by changes to the Montreal Protocol
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The legislation directly affects international agreements and the designation of countries under such agreements.
- It specifically mentions China, suggesting a direct impact on the Chinese population AND industries within China
- It will indirectly impact global efforts to handle substances depleting the ozone layer, affecting global populations by potentially altering the pace or manner of phasing out certain chemicals.
- The Montreal Protocol is a global treaty, so changes to its implementation can have worldwide environmental impacts.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts the U.S. industries that produce or use ozone-depleting chemicals, affecting their international competitiveness.
- Consumers might experience changes in product availability or price fluctuations due to the halting of the Montreal Protocol's implementation.
- Environmental advocates may view the policy as a setback in global environmental protection efforts, potentially impacting their wellbeing through concerns about climate change.
- While the immediate impact on the everyday American may seem limited, those within industries related to the policy will notice more significant effects.
Simulated Interviews
Chemical Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am deeply concerned about the potential environmental impacts if the Montreal Protocol's efforts are delayed. My company might benefit economically short-term, but I value long-term environmental health.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Environmental Researcher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step backwards for global ecological efforts. Delaying the Montreal Protocol could set dangerous precedents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 9 |
Automotive Industry Executive (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might help maintain competitive trade margins against China, but I'm worried about ensuing regulatory confusion affecting our global market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disheartening to see environmental progress potentially hindered for political reasons. This policy could demotivate climate action among younger generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a member of a community vulnerable to climate change effects, halting environmental agreements like this feels like a step in the wrong direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy protects my job from foreign competition by slowing down regulations, I'm all for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Activist (San Francisco, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of policy can demoralize communities striving for ecological justice, especially those already affected by climate impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (HVAC) (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable regulations are crucial for planning my business expenses and understanding market dynamics, and this policy could disrupt that stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Agricultural Supplier (Omaha, Nebraska)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean less pressure to switch chemicals, saving costs short-term, but I'm worried about long-term market access and regulatory catch-up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Government Policy Analyst (New York City, New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces an interesting geopolitical dynamic that could have broader implications beyond environmental policies. Balancing these interests is complex but crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $600000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential international backlash and its diplomatic costs.
- Environmental impacts from delaying the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances.
- Legal costs involved in adjusting treaty obligations.