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: Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: People whose wellbeing is impacted by agricultural emissions information disclosure
Estimated Size: 63000000
- The bill concerns the agricultural sector, which includes farmers, who are directly involved in agricultural production.
- Farmers might be directly impacted because they would not need to comply with SEC emissions disclosure requirements, potentially reducing their regulatory burden.
- Agricultural product consumers may be affected indirectly since emissions disclosures can influence purchasing decisions or policies.
- Environmental groups and climate policy advocates may be impacted due to changes in public information access that could affect advocacy efforts.
Reasoning
- The policy aims at deregulating the agricultural sector by removing the requirement for emissions disclosure, which simplifies regulatory compliance for farmers. It has the potential to improve farmers' short-term economic stability by reducing costs related to compliance.
- The policy has no direct budget implication, making it financially neutral at the federal level, which means its effects are entirely market and perception-based.
- Since this policy may lead to reduced information transparency about agricultural emissions, farmers and those involved in agriculture might experience relief in terms of workload related to paperwork and reporting. Their wellbeing could see minor positive change due to reduced regulatory stress.
- On the other hand, consumers who value emissions information might experience a decrease in wellbeing because their ability to make informed purchasing decisions may be impacted.
- Environmental advocacy groups might be negatively impacted due to reduced access to emissions data, which is essential for pushing climate-friendly policy changes.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will make my life easier. I won't have to file complex reports about emissions.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a setback. We need transparency in emissions to hold producers accountable.
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 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Agricultural Scientist (Iowa)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lack of emissions data could hinder advancements in sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cattle Rancher (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate not having to provide emissions data. It saves me time and money.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Consumer (New York)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without transparency, it's hard to make eco-friendly choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Grain Hauler (Illinois)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This doesn't affect my job directly, but might influence the market indirectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Local Government Policy Advisor (Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change makes it difficult to track emission reductions in our region.
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 |
Retail Grocer (Ohio)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less information might make sourcing choices tougher.
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 | 6 | 7 |
Policy Research Analyst (Washington)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy reduces data needed for accurate economic and environmental forecasts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Soy Farmer (Kentucky)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It helps cut back on regulatory paperwork but doesn't solve broader problems.
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 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5200000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5400000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5800000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $6500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill does not directly allocate or require any federal spending, aiming instead at regulatory prohibition, hence lacks direct federal budget impact.
- Potential missed opportunities in data that might guide future climate and environmental policy should be acknowledged.
- The perception and market dynamics related to environmentally conscious consumers may be affected as transparency decreases.