Bill Overview
Title: Focus on the Mission Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Defense from requiring the recipient of a federal contract to provide a greenhouse gas inventory or to provide any other report on greenhouse gas emissions.
Sponsors: Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: people involved with defense contracting
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill pertains to federal contracts and greenhouse gas emissions reporting.
- This will affect businesses and contractors involved with the Department of Defense.
- These businesses might have otherwise faced requirements to conduct greenhouse gas inventories and reporting.
- The global scope includes any international firms doing business with the Department of Defense, but primarily those in the U.S. will be of interest since it is a U.S. law.
- There are likely thousands of defense contractors globally, but primarily this impacts those engaged explicitly with U.S. defense contracts.
Reasoning
- The population primarily consists of businesses and individuals involved in defense contracting in the U.S.
- Consideration must be given to the fact that this kind of policy will primarily impact the environmental management aspect of these businesses.
- Those directly involved in environmental compliance roles or cross-cutting roles that had an element of environmental reporting are more likely to be affected.
- A significant portion may experience cost savings due to reduced compliance requirements, but this could have minimal effect on their wellbeing as measured by traditional happiness metrics.
- Given the total population size and the relative limited cost range, we're focusing on a small subset of impacted individuals whose roles might become more streamlined or less burdensome.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Compliance Manager (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The removal of the greenhouse gas emission reporting requirement simplifies my job.
- The policy will reduce the administrative burden, but I'm concerned about losing sight of sustainability goals.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
CEO of a Small Defense Contracting Firm (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy allows us to allocate resources elsewhere without the burden of federal compliance.
- However, I remain committed to our company's sustainability initiatives irrespective of this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Subcontractor for Large Defense Firm (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might reduce overhead costs in the short term.
- I'm concerned it could impact our standing with environmentally conscientious partners.
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 |
Lobbyist for Environmental Group (Washington D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a step back from necessary environmental oversight.
- I worry about the long-term implications for environmental policies as a whole.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Illinois)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing reporting requirements might lead to less data for research.
- While it doesn't affect my role directly, it could hinder future studies.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Supply Chain Manager (Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy lessens our regulatory load, allowing us to speed up processes.
- There is a concern about potential backlash from environmentally conscious partners.
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 |
Director of Corporate Responsibility (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy presents a unique challenge as we continue our sustainability aims without federal oversight.
- Our corporate responsibility strategy remains unchanged.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Engineer with Aerospace Contractor (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact of this policy on my day-to-day work is minimal.
- I believe in the importance of environmental responsibility as an engineer.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
HR Manager for Defense Contractor (Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing the greenhouse gas reporting eases the burden on compliance training.
- However, the long-term environmental impact is a concern given my personal beliefs.
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 |
Regulatory Analyst (Ohio)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy significantly lightens the workload associated with environmental documentation.
- Nonetheless, it is crucial we keep a close watch on our environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on environmental transparency and progress tracking for greenhouse gas reductions.
- Potential loss of benefits associated with being able to measure and manage emissions effectively among contractors.
- Ensuring national security priorities are met without environmental obligations.