Bill Overview
Title: Crypto-Asset Environmental Transparency Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes greenhouse gas emission reporting and related requirements for certain crypto-asset (e.g., Bitcoin) mining operations.
Sponsors: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in crypto-asset mining operations or affected by environmental regulations on crypto-mining.
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill targets crypto-asset mining operations, which are mainly involved in the production and maintenance of cryptocurrencies.
- Globally, millions of people are involved in or impacted by the crypto-asset industry, either directly or indirectly.
- The bill pertains to greenhouse gas emission reporting, which suggests an environmental focus affecting public health and climate change opinions globally.
- Environmental regulations on crypto-asset mining can affect energy consumption patterns and potentially influence global energy markets.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on crypto-asset mining, which is a niche, yet significant operation in the US, particularly in regions like Texas and New York.
- Only a fraction of the American population is directly involved in crypto-mining, but the ripple effects could impact more, especially in terms of energy usage and environmental benefits.
- With a limited budget and a targeted population, substantial direct impact will most likely be concentrated in areas with high mining activity.
- Indirectly, citizens may notice changes in energy pricing, local job markets, and decreases in emissions if the policy is effectively enforced.
Simulated Interviews
Crypto Miner (Austin, Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the additional costs of compliance with new regulations.
- Environmental impact is important, but there need to be incentives for small miners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (New York, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a critical step toward transparency and environmental responsibility.
- I'm optimistic it will encourage more sustainable practices in the tech industry.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Crypto Investor (San Francisco, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations could stabilize the market, but they might also slow down innovation.
- Transparency is generally good, but I hope it doesn't stifle engagement.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Energy Sector Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Crypto mining puts a significant strain on our energy resources.
- If regulations lead to reduced energy usage, that could benefit everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software Developer (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any step towards reducing emissions is positive, but I worry about how these regulations might hinder tech growth.
- Clear guidelines and reporting could push for cleaner tech innovations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Electrician (Rochester, New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I could lose clients if mining operations decrease due to regulations.
- On the flip side, it might lead to more work if miners upgrade their equipment to be more efficient.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired School Teacher (Miami, Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help reduce emissions, which is crucial for our planet.
- I wish there was more public education about these tech impacts.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Financial Analyst (Bozeman, Montana)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations can lead to market stability, but they must be balanced to not hinder growth.
- Transparency might improve public trust in crypto investments.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
PR Specialist for Tech Firms (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive initiative towards green tech innovation.
- Helping companies adjust might lead to both environmental and economic benefits.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing regulations like this gives me hope for a more sustainable tech future.
- There needs to be a balance, but overall, I'm optimistic.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Balance between environmental regulation and industry growth.
- Impact of compliance on small vs. large operations.
- Regional variations in energy sources might affect the emission intensity and thus the regulatory impact.
- Long-term benefits of transparency and efficiency improvements.