Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require congressional approval of certain actions, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires congressional approval to list, remove from a list, or change the status of any endangered species or threatened species.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: Global Population Benefiting from Endangered Species Protection
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill pertains to actions under the Endangered Species Act, which aims to protect endangered and threatened species from extinction globally.
- Biodiversity is crucial for ecosystem balance, which indirectly impacts the global population, but the direct impact is related to those involved in conservation activities and communities dependent on these species.
- Conservationists, environmental organizations, and researchers are directly involved in activities concerning endangered species.
- Communities dependent on ecosystems or certain species, such as indigenous peoples, may be directly impacted by changes to endangered species status.
- Global citizens are impacted by biodiversity and ecosystem services that ensure environmental health and resilience against climate change.
Reasoning
- The population directly impacted includes Americans working in conservation, science, and related fields and those connected to industries that interact with wildlife legislation. These individuals may see changes in job responsibilities, project funding, and environmental outcomes of their work.
- Secondary impacts apply to communities interacting with conservation projects, such as indigenous groups and rural communities relying on ecosystems for resources and cultural activities.
- A broader group feeling indirectly affected may include environmentally-concerned citizens who prioritize ecological health and biodiversity.
- Budget constraints primarily limit the scale and effects of projects that result from the policy, affecting administrative capacity and the extent of scientific studies or conservation efforts.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Biologist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new bill makes my job harder because it adds more bureaucracy to species listings.
- Conservation efforts might stall, waiting for congressional approval, which is frustrating.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Farmer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support conservation, but the change could allow more leniency as more voices participate in decisions.
- There's hope it reduces abrupt impacts on our water rights from new listings.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this gives more room for political interference in crucial conservation decisions.
- Local projects may be more challenging if species protection lags.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the slow pace this could introduce in responding to urgent conservation needs.
- It might make visiting protected areas more uncertain regarding biodiversity.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Rancher (Boise, ID)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help involve more stakeholders, possibly providing better balance in decisions.
- Too much red tape can impede natural resource use and economic activity.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be more cases and longer timelines, which could mean more work for lawyers, good and bad.
- Delay in listing could undermine urgent conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Ecologist (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to uncertainty in protection measures, affecting long-term fieldwork plans.
- Research may face increased scrutiny and political overtones.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More interventions mean decisions can be slowed, risking declines in some habitats.
- Balancing science with politics is challenging and this policy might skew that balance.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Environmental Studies) (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds an interesting case study to my research, though it might complicate future conservation efforts.
- Consensus-based approaches in politics can be unpredictable.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Richmond, VA)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that political debates could overshadow scientific evidence in protecting species.
- Education around endangered species can be affected, possibly decreasing awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $104000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $33280000, High: $108160000)
Year 5: $58320000 (Low: $35840000, High: $116640000)
Year 10: $69960000 (Low: $42960000, High: $139920000)
Year 100: $252232000 (Low: $155656000, High: $504464000)
Key Considerations
- Potential delays in species protection could arise if congressional approval processes are prolonged.
- There could be a shift in power dynamics where economic interests might have more clout in species listing decisions.
- Increased scrutiny from environmental groups concerned with potential weakening of species protection.