Bill Overview
Title: Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act of 2022
Description: This bill limits oil and gas leasing in Arctic areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Specifically, the bill prohibits the Department of the Interior from issuing or extending a lease or any other authorization for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other mineral in Arctic areas of the OCS. In addition, the bill declares that it is the policy of the United States that the Arctic Ocean should be managed for the best interests of the people of the United States, including by keeping fossil fuels in the ground to avoid the dangerous impacts of climate change.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide affected by climate change and energy policies
Estimated Size: 335000000
- The policy has global climate impact, as the Arctic serves as an important regulator in the global climate system by reflecting heat back into space.
- Limiting oil and gas drilling in the Arctic may lead to reduced global fossil fuel supplies, potentially affecting international energy markets and prices.
- People living in areas vulnerable to climate change impacts, like rising sea levels and extreme weather, will be impacted by the policy, as it aims to mitigate climate change.
- Indigenous communities in the Arctic region, such as the Inuit, are directly dependent on the Arctic environment for their traditional ways of life.
- The global community interested in environmental conservation and climate change mitigation will generally be supportive, as this aligns with their goals to limit fossil fuel usage.
Reasoning
- Considering individuals from ecologically sensitive areas such as Alaska, who are directly impacted by potential drilling and job changes, especially Indigenous communities who rely on local resources.
- Including perspectives from environmental advocates across the U.S. who focus on broader climate policies and ecosystems.
- Residents from lower-cost energy states who may worry about changes in fuel prices and availability if Arctic drilling is stopped.
- Climate scientists and educators who are involved in spreading awareness about the benefits of reducing fossil fuel extraction.
- Individuals from fossil fuel industries who may foresee economic and employment changes due to reduced drilling opportunities.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherwoman (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that stopping drilling could impact our local economy but maintaining the natural balance is equally important.
- If the policy leads to more sustainable fishing environments, it could be beneficial long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Oil Rig Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential loss of jobs in our industry is worrying, even though there are clear environmental arguments for the policy.
- Investments in renewable energy could offer new opportunities if managed right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a step in the right direction for protecting our climate and shows the U.S. is taking responsibility.
- I'm hopeful that this will increase awareness and adoption of clean energy technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Inupiat Elder (Fairbanks, Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping the land safe from more drilling is crucial for our way of life.
- Climate changes have already altered hunting seasons and affected wildlife patterns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Climate Scientist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the prospects for better environmental stewardship across the board if the policy passes.
- This could spur more research funding and public interest in Arctic science.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these help me teach the next generation the importance of sustainable practices.
- There is always a balance to be struck between energy needs and environmental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Climate policies are needed as rising waters threaten our homes every storm season.
- Sometimes I worry about the cost implications if energy prices go up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Tech Company Employee (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe transitioning away from fossil fuels is critical for our future and tech companies should play a role.
- This policy could push innovation in clean technologies.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Commercial Real Estate Developer (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these can influence property development, especially in coastal areas.
- There is potential for increased regulations that could affect my business.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Sustainability Consultant (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive move towards reducing long-term climate impact.
- Clients are increasingly interested in sustainable practices, and such policies foster this interest.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $255000000 (Low: $152500000, High: $357500000)
Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $156000000, High: $364000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $162000000, High: $378000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $420000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Potential backlash from fossil fuel industry stakeholders and dependent regional economies.
- Consideration for job transitions for workers impacted by the halt in Arctic drilling.
- Alignment with international climate commitments can enhance U.S. global standing in environmental policy.