Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act: Protecting Coastal Habitats that have the Ability to Store Carbon2/21/2022 The Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act was introduced in the Senate on November 18, 2021 by Senator Lisa Murkowski [R-AK] on behalf of herself and Senator Whitehouse [D-RI]. Senators Murkowski and Whitehouse co-chair the Oceans Caucus. The Bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. An identical Bill was introduced in the House by Representative Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1] on behalf of herself, Bill Posey [R-FL-8], Donald Beyer Jr [D-VA-8], and Brian Mast [R-FL-18]. The House Bill was read twice and referred to the Natural Resources, Science, Space, and Technology, and House Administration committees.
THE BILL: S.3245 H.R.2750 “From Rhode Island to Alaska, our oceans are in trouble. The coastal wetlands that make up the first line of defense against climate change are rapidly disappearing. Our bipartisan bill would help preserve the tidal marshes, mangroves, seagrasses, and kelp forests that provide a natural buffer to rising seas and absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere” -- Senator Whitehouse. What does the Bill do? In short, the Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act is an effort to protect, restore, and conserve the nation’s blue carbon ecosystems. Blue carbon is a term that is used to describe carbon that is sequestered and stored by the world's oceans and coastal ecosystems. Examples of these habitats include mangroves, tidal marshes, wetlands, seagrasses and kelp forests -- all ecosystems that help stabilize the coasts. These habitats can capture carbon from the atmosphere and other sources and can store it in both the biomass for years to decades, and in soils for hundreds to thousands of years. To accomplish these protection and restoration efforts, the Bill would establish the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coastal Blue Carbon, which would oversee the development and maintenance of a national map of these ecosystems, including specific habitat types, condition, size, and protected status, among other things. The map would also portray an assessment of the potential for carbon sequestration, methane production, and net greenhouse gas reduction in each area. The goal is that this will be a tool for local-level conservation, planning, and restoration efforts. Additionally, the IWG would work to identify barriers to conserving and restoring these coastal blue carbon ecosystems, including climate-induced vulnerabilities such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification. The IWG will work in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to create a national strategy for studying the effects of human and environmental stressors (including climate change) on the ability of these systems to sequester carbon and thrive. The strategic plan will include federal investments in multiple aspects of coastal blue carbon ecosystem projects, from fundamental research to their development, and deployment. They will also place an emphasis on data availability and accessibility, including from the Coastal Carbon Data Clearinghouse. From this work, the Group will then establish national priorities to conserve and restore blue carbon ecosystems. For these efforts, the Bill authorizes $15,000,000 each year from Fiscal Years 2022-2026. Why was it proposed? Coastal blue carbon ecosystems like mangroves and tidal marshes provide numerous benefits to society and the environment. They protect coastal areas from flooding, help to retain soil and beach sand, and prevent erosion. Additionally, the ecosystems help to purify the surrounding water, provide a home to resident fish and wildlife, and can fuel local economies. As the severe and unrelenting impacts of climate change worsen, these ecosystems, where present, serve as a buffer and provide some coastal protection while simultaneously removing carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore, as the impacts from climate change continue to become more severe with stronger and more frequent storms and rising sea levels, restoration and conservation efforts in these areas are essential for building resilience. The climate crisis on Earth today is caused by humans burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air, which can seep into the ocean (1). The National Academies recently released a study focused on the importance of understanding methods and technologies for removing carbon dioxide from seawater in order to provide information on how to restore impacted environments and the integrity of existing technologies. For a more in-depth breakdown, check out the National Academies report (2). Benefits The Blue Carbon for our Planet Act provides a bipartisan and natural effort to help the United States reach a net zero carbon goal by 2050. Protecting and conserving these valuable ecosystems not only accesses a natural capture for atmospheric carbon, but preservation of these areas also is essential for maintaining coastal ecosystems and surrounding wildlife. Ensuring the security of these areas will also play a major role in natural resilience as society continues to adapt to the demands of a changing climate over the next several years. This includes stabilizing coastlines as sea levels rise, and also providing a natural buffer to protect coastal communities in severe weather events. Challenges One key challenge to this legislation is that it will take a lot of work and time to map the ecosystems and ensure functionality of datasets. Additionally, Congress at the moment is focused on other major priorities, like federal budget appropriations for FY22 and FY23, as well as passing some version of Build Back Better and the Supreme Court nomination process all during an election year. Patience for passing this legislation will likely be key. The reality of Congress (what the outlook of this bill looks like) Govtrack notes that this Bill has a 13% chance of becoming law (3). This Bill was introduced and is supported by members of both Republican and Democratic parties, indicating a Congressional acknowledgement that coastal ecosystems have an important impact on areas regardless of party lines. Want to advocate? This Bill currently has 2 co-sponsors in the Senate, Senators Whitehouse [D-RI] and Susan Collins [R-ME]. In the House, the 7 co-sponsors include Bill Posey [R-FL-8], Donald Beyer Jr. [D-VA-8], Brian Mast [R-FL-18], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Derek Kilmer [D-WA-6], Peter DeFazio [D-OR-4], and Jared Huffman [D-CA-2]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
0 Comments
The Growing Climate Solutions Act was introduced in the Senate on April 20, 2021 by Senator Mike Braun [R-IN] on behalf of himself and 37 original co-sponsors* (27 Democrats, 26 Republicans and 1 Independent). The Bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on April 22, 2021, and passed the Senate without amendment on June 24, 2021 with a 92-8 vote. This Bill was also introduced in the 116th Congress, but did not receive a vote. A related bill was also introduced in the House as H.R.2820 and referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, but no further action has been taken.
THE BILL: S.1251 “Addressing the climate crisis is one of the most urgent challenges we face, and our farmers and foresters are an important part of the solution. The bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act is a win-win for farmers, our economy and for our environment. Our bill is a perfect example of how we can work across the aisle and find common ground to address a critical issue affecting all of us and our future.” -- Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow What does the Bill do? This bipartisan Bill would work to create voluntary, market-driven programs that are geared towards assisting farmers, ranchers and forest landowners who sustainably reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to increase climate resilience. The program encourages sustainable farming practices, facilitates participation in carbon market programs, and provides technical assistance for those who want to be involved in either the carbon market or other greenhouse gas markets. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be tasked with identifying which agricultural practices both best reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and store (sequester) it. All information would be accessible through an open source website, including suggestions and instructions for accessing voluntary environmental credit markets. All entities that meet the requirements will be listed on the public website, though non-compliance with protocols can result in a revocation of the certification. Activities that prevent, reduce, or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions could include carbon sequestration in land and soil, livestock emissions reductions, on-farm energy generation, energy feedstock production, reforestation, forest management, restoration of wetlands or grasslands, reduced fuel use, and many others. Additionally, the Bill would create a certification program through the USDA to help address the typical entry barriers for those interested in climate-conscious efforts. The Secretary of Agriculture will establish an Advisory Council known as the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Certification Program that would be responsible for ensuring entities meet the requirements of voluntary credit markets. This includes calculations, sampling methods, accounting principles, systems for monitoring and reporting, and methods to account for leaks. The purpose is to establish consistency, reliability, efficiency and transparency to these protocols. To carry out the work above, this Bill would include $1M for each fiscal year 2022-2026. 4.1M in funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (1) may be used toward this legislation if they are available if/when this Bill is enacted. Why was it proposed? The interesting thing about agriculture is that it can be both a source (2) and a sink (3) for greenhouse gases. Learning how to balance the two in our changing climate is becoming more and more essential. According to the EPA, agricultural practices contribute about 10.2% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (4). Most significantly, this includes methane released from livestock, and nitrous oxide from excess fertilizer. Additionally, climate change has the potential to greatly impact agricultural productivity, which affects everyone. Changing climate can result in changes in rainfall patterns, increases in duration and severity of weather extremes such as droughts, changes in temperature and pest pressure. As the weather in agricultural regions over time shifts toward a different normal, new invasive species will become more of a challenge for maintaining crop integrity. All of these combined makes bountiful crop yields much more challenging to obtain. It is in everyone's best interest to protect agricultural productivity. Many farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners recognize the impact that climate change is having on agricultural productivity, and are excellent at adapting to increasingly variable weather. A study by researchers at Iowa State University found that over half of farmers surveyed agreed that additional steps were needed to protect their land from increased rainfall (5). Benefits This is the first major piece of bipartisan legislation that would help farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is particularly important to note since in general, the federal government is still debating most climate related policy, and legislation that does pass tends to pass more closely along party lines. Additionally, the Bill would allow farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to identify on their own terms the protocols that could work for their land and situation. This Bill ensures that farmers, ranchers and forest landowners benefit from being part of the climate solution, therefore incentivizing others. Challenges As the program is voluntary, it may be difficult to get buy-in from farmers, ranchers and forest landowners. Voluntary programs are not set up to hold participants accountable for falling short of the program’s goals. Progressive organizations (including farmer, farmworker, environmental justice, climate, environmental, animal welfare groups) believe that the Act fails to accurately address the impact that farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have on the environment. Carbon markets do not eliminate greenhouse gases, but instead allow an entity to continue contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere while paying to offset those emissions somewhere else. The carbon credits generated by farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners through this program would be purchased by companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions such as power plants, refineries, and other polluting companies. This process can fail to reduce overall emissions and can exacerbate pollution hotspots in communities of color and low-income communities (6). The reality of Congress This Bill has a 46% chance of being enacted into law (govtrack.com) This Bill has substantial support from Democrats (27), Republicans (26), and Independents (1). How Republicans see it: The Republican party platform notes that the US is the largest agricultural exporter in the world, and that exports are vital for other sectors of the economy and economic growth. It also mentions that farmers and ranchers are among the country’s leading conservationists, and modern farm practices and programs from the Department of Agriculture, led to reduced erosion and improved water and air quality, etc. The Republican party states that they “remain committed to conservation policies based on preservation, not the restriction, of working lands.” They also believe that more power should be in the states’ and landowners' hands, and this Bill would allow the farmers, ranchers, and landowners to make the decision to participate. How Democrats see it: This legislation aligns well with the high priority party platform to combat the climate crisis, which they recognize is a global emergency. Additionally, the platform seeks to partner with farmers to achieve net-zero emissions in the agricultural sector while also creating new streams of income for farmers. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? These senators co-sponsored this Bill, Senators Mike Braun [R-IN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Lindsey Graham [R-SC], Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI], John Boozman [R-AR], Amy Klobuchar [D-MN], Deb Fischer [R-NE], Michael Bennet [D-CO], Chuck Grassley [R-IA],Tina Smith [D-MN], Joni Ernst [R-IA], Chris Coons [D-DE], John Thune [R-SD], Susan Collins [R-ME], Angus King [I-ME], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Todd Young [R-IN], Sherrod Brown [D-OH], John Hoeven [R-ND], Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH], Marco Rubio [R-FL], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], Bill Cassidy [R-LA], Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Tom Carper [D-DE], Mitt Romney [R-UT], Ron Wyden [R-OR], Mike Crapo [R-ID], Ben Ray Luján [D-NM], Tammy Baldwin [D-WI], Cindy Hyde-Smith [R-MS], Cynthia Lummis [R-WY], Raphael Warnock [D-GA], Bill Cassidy [R-LA], Tommy Tuberville [R-AL], Roger W. Marshall [R-KS], John Cornyn[R-TX], Kevin Cramer [R-ND], Robert P. Casey Jr. [D-PA], Rob Portman [R-OH], Gary C. Peters [D-MI], Richard J.Durbin [D-IL], Brian Schatz [D-HI], Mark Kelly [D-AZ], Tim Scott [R-SC], Roy BLunt [R-MO], Margaret Wood Hassan[D-NH], Mike Rounds [R-SD], Tammy Duckworth [D-IL], Tim Kaine [D-VA], Catherine Cortez Masto [D-NV], John W. Hickenlooper [D-CO], Kyrsten Sinema [D-AZ], Roger F. Wicker [R-MS], and Jerry Moran [R-KS] take the time to thank them via letter, email or phone call! This Bill is currently in the House. you can email, call or set up a meeting with your Representatives by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Methane Waste Prevention Act was introduced in the House on March 2, 2021 by Representative Diana DeGette [D-CO-1] on behalf of herself and Representatives Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan S. Lowenthal, [D-CA-47], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Barbara Lee, [D-CA-13], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Adriano, Espaillat [D-NY-13]. The Bill was assigned to the Energy and Mineral Resources Committee, and sent to the House floor to be voted on on April 28, 2021. This Bill was previously introduced in the 116th Congress, but it did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: H.R.1492 “All across our country, oil and gas producers are releasing tons of methane into our atmosphere where it’s causing real harm to our environment and exacerbating the climate crisis...if we’re going to be serious about solving the climate crisis, we have to get serious about preventing the amount of methane that’s being pumped into our atmosphere.” -- Representative Diana DeGette What does the Bill do? Methane gas is one of the leading contributors to the ongoing climate crisis. This bill was introduced as a direct effort to address the release of methane by limiting the amount that oil and gas producers can release into the atmosphere. The Bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Land Management to set restrictions to limit the amount of methane released from drilling sites. This goal is to facilitate a steady decrease in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector such that by 2025, the methane emissions are 65% below 2012 levels, and 90% below 2012 levels by 2030. The EPA can set regulations to control the amount of emissions through their authority under the Clean Air Act. States would be required to submit their action plans to be in accordance with methane reduction goals, and regulations would apply to each part of natural gas and oil systems including production, processing, transmission, distribution and storage. Additionally, this Bill would amend previous legislation such that there will be new requirements to reduce gas waste from venting, flaring, and leaks on public lands. In five years, 99% of gas waste produced will be captured. Additionally, venting natural gas and flaring from new wells will be prohibited, and standards for new equipment and operations will be implemented to reduce gas leaks. Oil and gas companies will also be required to establish procedures for leak detection and repairs such as required monthly inspections of infrared camera technology and record keeping. Additionally, the Bill would require increased reporting and transparency by making all new measured data such as venting and flaring gases lost, freely and publicly available on the internet. Penalties for unauthorized gas venting or flaring would include production restrictions and fines equal to 15x the market value of vented or flaring gas, respectively. Why was it proposed? Methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas, behind carbon dioxide, that traps heat in the atmosphere and contributes significantly to the climate crisis (1). Methane is, however, significantly worse than carbon dioxide because it traps 86 times more heat than carbon dioxide, and is often coupled with other toxic pollutants all of which can have serious health impacts (2). The oil and gas industry in particular leaks or purposefully vents over 13 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year as part of their operations (3). The problem of methane leaks from the oil and gas industry has long been recognized. The Obama administration enacted the first requirements to reduce methane emissions in 2016. However, in 2020 the Trump administration lifted these restrictions, allowing companies to continue releasing significant quantities of methane emissions without regulation. Earlier in 2021, the Senate used a Congressional Review Act to reverse the rollbacks which passed in April and is expected to pass the House. Benefits The policies that would be used to accomplish the goals of this Bill would also likely prevent the release of other toxic air pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It would also help to prevent smog by limiting the release of air pollutants that contribute to the haze. Through this Bill, methane emissions would be cut and as a result the air would be cleaner overall. Additionally, less methane would be wasted and as a temporary solution could be repurposed for other uses, such as natural gas. Less waste could also mean more profit for companies. Challenges Oil and gas production is not the only large emitter of methane, and therefore cannot be the only step taken to reduce methane emissions. The agricultural sector also is a major emitter of methane, largely through cow burps. One solution to livestock emissions is adding a specific kelp to their diet, which helps to limit the amount of gas they produce. In general, oil and gas are widely supported by Republicans so gaining their support on this may be difficult. In a broader perspective, while many people recognize the climate crisis and the extremely harmful impacts of oil and gas, people are also afraid of transitioning away from the pre-existing oil and gas industry due to the significant economic benefits historically observed and the comfort of stability (4). This enormous hurdle will be essential to overcome for moving forward toward clean energy. The Reality of Congress The outlook according to Govtrack’s estimated likelihood of passing is 21%. This Bill made it out of Committee, and is being sent to the House floor, which is something that only happens to 1 in 4 Bills. How Republicans see it: This Bill has no Republican support as of yet. Oil and gas companies have a lot of money invested in Congressional campaigns on both sides of the aisle. In particular, there’s a substantial amount of money from the oil and gas industry on the Republican side (5,6), so the companies and workers who donate may have a degree of influence on decisions made in Congress. Specifically, donations typically come in as rewards after voting against legislation that protects the environment (6). In turn, it may be difficult for Republicans and those supported by those invested in oil and gas to sway away. How Democrats see it: This Bill currently has 21 Democrat sponsors. Generally, Democrats see this as one of many essential steps for combatting the climate crisis, and for addressing environmental injustices related to air pollution. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? In the House, the Bill currently has 20 cosponsors: Diana DeGette [D-CO-1], Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan S. Lowenthal, [D-CA-47], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Barbara Lee, [D-CA-13], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Adriano, Espaillat [D-NY-13], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Peter A. DeFazio [D-OR-4], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO-5], Betty McCollum [D-MN-4], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Alcee L. Hastings [D-FL-20], Ruben Gallego [D-AZ-7], Katie Porter [D-CA-45], Sean Casten [D-IL-6], Teresa Leger Fernandez [D-NM-3], Ed Perlmutter [D-CO-7], Matt Cartwright [D-PA-8], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13] Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Monarch Action, Recovery, and Conservation of Habitat Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 17, 2021 by Senator Jeff Merkley [D-OR] on behalf of Senators Wyden [D-OR], Whitehouse [D-RI], Booker [D-NJ], Van Hollen [D-MD], and Padilla [D-CA], where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. An identical bill was introduced the same day by Representative Jimmy Panetta [D-CA-20] in the House, where it was referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry. This Bill was previously introduced in the 116th Congress and received substantial Democratic support, but did not receive a vote.
THE BILLS: S.809 H.R. 1983 "For generations, we on the central coast of California have had a front row seat to the migration of the monarch butterfly. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing the dramatic decline and potential extinction of this magnificent pollinator all across North America,” -- Congressman Panetta What would the Bill do? The purpose of this Bill is to protect western monarch butterflies that live and breed west of the Rocky Mountains, across California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah. The Bill is focused on the western population because while the eastern population of monarchs is also declining, the western population is declining more rapidly. The Bill would mainly provide funds for management plans, community outreach, and conservation efforts such as protecting, restoring, and managing habitats of these butterflies. Habitats could include migration paths, overwintering areas, or breeding places. A Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Grant Program would provide local or Tribal government agencies, research institutes, or nonprofits funding for projects that would directly contribute to conserving and recovering the western monarch butterfly population. Additionally, the Bill would establish and set aside $12,500,000 every year for FY 2022-2026 for the Western Monarch Butterfly Rescue Fund. Finally, the Bill would create a collaboration between the Department of the Interior and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to implement the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan, which was prepared by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1) and allocate $12,500,000 for each FY 2022-2026. Why was it proposed? Monarch Butterflies are one of the most widely recognized insects in North America, and are important for ecological, educational and inspirational reasons, but their populations have declined significantly over the last 30 years. The Western monarch population (west of the Rocky Mountains) has seen a >99% decrease over the last 30 years, and the Eastern monarch (east of the Rocky Mountains) has declined 80% in the last 20 years (2). Monarchs are pollinators, which are critical for the reproductive systems of most flowering plants. Flowering plants are important because they provide a source of food (fruits, vegetables and nuts) (3), generate a significant amount of the world’s oils and essential raw materials, prevent soil erosion and stabilize landscapes, and increase carbon sequestration helping to reduce greenhouse gases (4). The declining monarch population parallels habitat loss for other pollinators as well, signaling a collapsing ecosystem, which has vast impacts on human health. Additionally, each year, monarchs embark on an 3000 mile annual migration through Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This migration inspires interest in the natural world, is the basis for intellectual studies, and attracts significant tourism. Over the course of 3-4 generations, monarchs move north each spring from the South and West US toward the northeast (5). In mid-August, the super-generation of monarchs move south, traveling up to 50 miles a day (6). These butterflies are at an extremely high risk of extinction due to loss of milkweed, destruction of their native habitats, and climate change. Monarchs in Mexico used to be heavy enough to break branches (5), but Congress noted that in 2020, there were only 1,914 western monarch butterflies, which was a new historic low. Another threat to monarch populations is climate change, which causes more intense weather events. More severe weather can impact migration, since rain, wind, and colder temperatures can inhibit flying (6). Additionally, in California, the increased intensity and spread of wildfires can burn native plants and destroy air quality (7). There are a number of other reasons why monarch populations are declining so rapidly as well. Monarch caterpillars rely on milkweed to grow and develop. Habitat conversion along migration paths especially along the coast, illegal logging in areas where butterflies spend their winter (known as overwintering), and adverse land management practices destroy populations of milkweed and other nectar plants vital to monarch survival. Additionally, pesticides such as glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides often kill monarchs (7). The use of herbicides is important for weed management, but destroys monarch habitats (5) and can be toxic to both butterflies and caterpillars. The EPA has provided educational materials about best management practices for reducing pollinator pesticide exposure, such as applying pesticides in the evening when pollinators are not active, and checking wind conditions prior to applying pesticides. Improving the amount of native milkweed and pollinator plants and protecting butterfly habitats would help to bring back the population and also help other essential pollinators. This would help to restore a balanced ecosystem and have far reaching impacts. Benefits Protecting the western monarch butterflies has benefits beyond this organism, helping to stabilize the ecosystem that supports our everyday lives. Specifically, monarchs help to provide pollination services to substantial crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, which in turn helps agricultural productivity, boosting both the United States and the global economy. Additionally, there are relatively simple steps that can help to support the monarch population. Milkweed is a beautiful, native, flowering plant that is easy and cheap to plant and maintain. Increasing the milkweed population along migration pathways, and encouraging households to use it in their gardens, is a simple and easy step to help increase vital habitat space for monarchs. There are other nectar plants as well that can provide variety to gardens while still supporting monarchs and other pollinators. Challenges This Bill helps to address US land management, but saving these western monarch butterflies will require international collaboration between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Additionally, many people are using hybrid plants in their gardens instead of native plants for aesthetics, but these hybrids may not have the pollen, nectar, and scent that attracts butterflies. There are many other crises at the moment, and Congress has been focused on critical topics such as pandemic relief and climate change. As such, there may not be as much support for this Bill as there would be at other times. The monarch population is strongly impacted by changing climatic conditions. While restoring essential habitat by planting milkweed and other pollinators is important, in order to protect pollinators like the monarch, we also need to address the larger climate crisis. The Reality of Congress The outlook according to GovTrack’s estimated likelihood of passing: 4% How Republicans see it: in the 117th Congress, one Republican has supported the Bill so far. How Democrats see it: in the 117th Congress, the Bill has lots of Democratic support, and because of the one Republican supporting the Bill, Democrats are calling it ‘bipartisan’ (9). Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? In the Senate, the Bill is co-sponsored by Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Ron Wyden [D-OR], Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI], Cory Booker [D-NJ], Chris Van Hollen [D-MD], and Alex Padilla [D-CA]. Senators Tammy Duckworth [D-IL] and Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] have also co-sponsored. In the House, Representatives Salud Carbajal [D-CA-24], Rodney Davis [R-IL-13], Alcee Hastings [D-FL-20], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Raul Grijalva [D-AZ-3]*, Sara Jacobs [D-CA-53], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], Thomas Suozzi [D-NY-3], Mike Thompson [D-CA-5], Peter A. DeFazio [D-OR-4], Anna Eshoo [D-CA-18], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Alan Lowenthal [D-CA-47], James Himes [D-CT-4], Eleanor Holmes Del. Norton [D-DC-At Large], and Zoe Lofgren [D-CA-19] have co-sponsored the Bill. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 23, 2021 by Senator Tammy Duckworth [D-IL] on behalf of herself and Senators Shelley Moore Capito [R-WV], Benjamin L. Cardin [D-MD], Cynthia M. Lummis [R-WY], Thomas R. Carper [D-DE], Kevin Cramer [R-ND], Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI], James M. Inhofe [R-OK], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Dan Sullivan [R-AK], Mark Kelly [D-AZ], Alex Padilla [D-CA]. The Bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Bill passed the Senate on April 29, 2021 with bipartisan support in an 89-2 vote. The Bill will now move to the House.
THE BILL: S.914 “Access to clean water is a human right...every American deserves access to clean water no matter the color of their skin or size of their income” -- Senator Tammy Duckworth What does the Bill do? The primary purpose of this Bill is to strengthen water infrastructure in the US by authorizing water resource development projects that upgrade aging infrastructure, address the threat of climate change, invest in new technologies and provide assistance to marginalized communities. The Bill is split into two sections - Drinking Water and Clean Water which are summarized below. Drinking Water The Drinking Water portion of this Bill would provide technical assistance and grants for emergencies affecting public water systems, and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 such that it would provide extra assistance for small and disadvantaged communities. The Bill would help to improve public water systems, both small and large. Small public water systems (<10,000 people) would be improved by establishing a program to award grants for identifying and preventing drinking water loss due to infrastructure failures such as leaks and breaks. Small public water systems can use these funds to develop an inventory of their existing assets such as water sources, wells, hydrants, distribution lines, etc., and an asset map using geographic information systems or GPS software. For small- or medium-sized (10,000-100,000 people) public water systems, an Advanced Drinking Water Technology grant program would be created that are interested in or have plans to employ new technologies to enhance drinking water treatment, monitoring, affordability, or safety. This includes $10,000,000 for each year 2022-2026. For midsize and large (>100,000 people) drinking water systems, an Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program would be created in order to increase resilience to extreme weather and other natural hazards, and also reduce their vulnerabilities to cybersecurity. They could use these funds to relocate water infrastructure currently at risk of being impaired by natural hazards, to design desalination facilities, enhance water supply through better watershed management and source water protection, or for the generation of renewable energy in the movement or treatment of drinking water. This Bill also recognizes the injustices underrepresented communities face with regard to access to clean water. A Needs Assessment for nationwide rural and urban low-income community water assistance would be created to examine how many small, medium, and large water providers service households that spend a disproportionate amount of income on access to drinking water or wastewater services. This assessment would also identify entities that took on debt to water providers due to lack of customer payment. This would help to understand how accessible water services are and provide recommendations to increase accessibility. The Bill would also amend the Safe Drinking Water Act such that State Competitive Grants For Underserved Communities would provide $50,000,000 from 2022-2026 to help communities that have inadequate systems for obtaining drinking water. This includes amending America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 to create an Indian Reservation Drinking Water Program. This program would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to fund projects to improve water quality, water pressure, and water services, including sanitation and wastewater treatment, by repairing and improving water from a public water system. Specifically, ten projects each from the Upper Missouri River Basin, Upper Rio Grande Basin, Columbia River Basin, Lower Colorado River Basin, and the Arkansas-White-Red River Basin would be funded with 50% of $50,000,000 for each year 2022-2026. Lead is often a water contaminant that originates from degrading pipes and other infrastructure, and is released into the water source as a result of changes in water chemistry. Part of this Bill aims to reduce lead in drinking water by assisting with lead service line replacement, especially in disadvantaged communities. The proposed Lead Inventorying Utilization Grant Pilot Program would help to achieve this by providing grants to municipalities with water systems where at least 30% of service lines are suspected or known to contain lead, which would allow them to replace pipes and reduce lead in their water system. Additionally, the Bill funds a grant program for voluntary school lead testing, compliance monitoring, and lead reduction. This would make grants available to state and Tribal consortia for the remediation of lead contamination in schools and child care programs. Wastewater and Stormwater Under the Clean Water portion of this Bill, funding for research, training, and information would be prioritized. A wastewater efficiency grant pilot program would be created to fund 15 projects up to $4,000,000 each for improving waste-to-energy systems in publicly owned treatment works. Funding could be used for waste-to-energy systems such as capturing or transferring methane, collecting sludge, upgrading facility equipment related to these systems, or other emerging technologies. An additional pilot program would be created to fund and enhance alternative water sources by amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allocate $25,000,000 for each year 2022-2026. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act would be edited to include $280,000,000 for each year 2022-2026 for municipal grants related to sewer overflow and stormwater reuse. This would include notification systems for when sewage overflow scenarios occur, and would prioritize financially distressed and rural communities. A clean water infrastructure resiliency and sustainability program would be added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for awarding funds to projects for increasing resiliency of publicly owned water treatment systems to natural hazard and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Resilience could be increased through conserving water, increasing efficiency of water use, enhancing waste- and storm-water management, and increased protection of the local watershed. The Bill would help to connect houses to publicly owned treatment works, especially those of low or moderate income individuals. It would also establish grants to build or repair household decentralized wastewater systems, or install a system to be shared by multiple households. It would also provide funds to small publicly owned treatment works for replacing or repairing equipment that improves water efficiency. Why was it proposed? Water is an essential resource for sustaining life. For in depth information on water topics, we recommend checking out the EPAs website: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/water-topics. We highlight a few of the reasons this Bill was proposed below. On July 28, 2010, the United Nations recognized the human right to water and sanitation. However, according to a 2018 study in the United States that spanned 30 years, about 10% of public water systems in the US have health based violations and affect ~45 million people every year (1). Additionally, over 2 million Americans are living in areas without access to safe drinking water or sanitation services (1). A report released in 2019 by the U.S. Water Alliance built on this, and included that Native American households are 19 times more likely to lack plumbing and Black and Latino households are twice as likely to lack plumbing as white households (2). This injustice is a direct result of a history of racist policies that were central to planning and construction of water infrastructure (2) The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act that were passed in the 1970s regulate public water systems and require the EPA to create and enforce standards that the systems must follow (3). However, federal funding for the water sector decreased from 63% of capital spending in 1977 to only 9% by 2015, making it difficult to address disparities and provide safe drinking water across the US (4). Climate change will significantly affect the water cycle impacting droughts, storms and flooding, source water quality, sea level rise and general utility preparedness (5). New infrastructure is important for increasing our resilience as a nation to these changes, and will help with increasing groundwater storage and recovery, diversifying and expanding options for water supply and mitigating saltwater intrusion (5). Lead in particular is a known issue in public water systems because old plumbing systems contain lead, and when they age and corrode, the lead enters the drinking water. Lead is common in pipes, faucets and fixtures and in public infrastructure built before 1986 (6). Additionally, lead bioaccumulates, meaning that it lasts a long time and collects in our bodies over time with sustained exposure. This is extremely harmful to human health, and there is not a safe amount of lead known for a child’s blood levels making children particularly vulnerable (7). Even at low levels, lead damage can cause learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing and formation and function of blood cells (6). Therefore, it is vital that we reduce the amount of contaminants, including lead, in our public water systems. The proper treatment of sewage and wastewater is essential for maintaining clean water and public health. Before this water can be released to water bodies or reused, it must be treated at a wastewater treatment facility for safety. Aging sanitary sewers can lead to cracks, broken seals, and broken pipes that allow excess water inside, leading to overflows and other issues (8). Benefits Access to clean, safe drinking water is an essential human right, and this Bill would help perpetuate access to cleaner water across the US. It would secure funding for new grant programs to strengthen aging water infrastructure and help to address persistent environmental injustices related to water safety and access. In areas where access to clean water is scarce, this Bill would help to better reuse stormwater. This Bill also aligns with the current Administration's agenda and the American Jobs plan, which promises $111 billion for water systems. This bipartisan solution gives states the flexibility they need to improve their infrastructure, with a specific emphasis on small or rural public water systems. This Bill already has extensive bipartisan support and has passed the Senate. Challenges It is difficult to sell water infrastructure investments politically because many of the investments are invisible. Most water neworks are underground, so it is difficult to acknowledge, address, or gain assistance to replace the degradation until something catastrophic happens. Additionally, while the Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure investment in communities impacted the most, more work can always be done. Additionally, replacement of water infrastructure may disrupt communities and it would take time to replace pipes and enact these proposed programs. A challenge associated with this Bill includes determining where to begin replacing and upgrading infrastructure equitably within the many areas with need. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Bill passed the Senate and is on its way to the House. You can email your Representative in the House by finding their email at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Build Green Infrastructure and Jobs Act was introduced in the Senate on March 18, 2021 by Senator Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] on behalf of herself and Senators Edward Markey [D-MA], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Bernard Sanders [D-VT], Alex Padilla [D-CA], Cory Booker [D-NJ], and Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]. The Bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was very involved with writing this bill, so a similar bill in the House may be proposed soon.
THE BILL: S.874 “The climate crisis is an existential threat to our planet, but it’s also a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create a million good new jobs, and unleash the best of American innovations” --Elizabeth Warren, press release What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to provide a first step in catalyzing transportation electrification across the country, as a direct effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This supports the Nation’s overall goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The transportation system developments that could result from this bill would address both the climate crisis and degrading infrastructure across the US. The Bill was modeled after the Department of Transportation's BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) program, which provides funding in the form of grants through the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) discretionary grant program, to support equitable infrastructure projects (1). Individual projects will be funded through grants, which will be awarded each fiscal year by the Department of Transportation through an application process. Eligible entities will be selected based on sustainability and cost savings criteria including: the extent to which the proposed project promotes electrification, contributes to climate resilience and pollution mitigation, and reduces energy usage compared to other eligible projects. Priority will be given to projects that are in vulnerable or disadvantaged communities, have disproportionately high human health impacts on minority and low-income communities, or require federal funds in order to be able to complete a project. At least 40% of the funds each year will go directly to frontline, vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities to promote environmentally just solutions. The Bill would invest $500 billion over the course of 10 years ($50 billion each fiscal year) in state, local and tribal green projects (2) geared towards transitioning entirely to electric transportation. This includes the electrification on public buses, school buses, railcars, and fleet vehicles, as well as modernizing existing roads, bridges and rails. Grants will be provided in an equitable way geographically, and priority will be given to eligible projects that are located in communities facing environmental injustice, low-income or communities of color, and frontline or otherwise vulnerable communities. Any project that receives funding with the program must not increase usage of nonrenewable electrical energy sources. As an example, this can be achieved by buying renewable energy credits for the project or generating renewable energy. The grants will be provided in a way to balance urban and rural area needs. Each fiscal year, 35-40% of funds would be dedicated to projects in rural areas. Why was it proposed? It is impossible to tackle the climate crisis without addressing the United States’ public transportation infrastructure. At 29%, the transportation sector is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (3). Electric engines are much more efficient than combustion engines, and have the potential to reduce the amount of energy needed for transportation by ~⅔. Therefore, there is huge potential for lowering greenhouse gas emissions by electrifying transportation. Additionally, in the wake of COVID-19, this Bill would help provide immediate economic recovery by creating ~1 million jobs at a minimum wage of $15 per hour. To protect workers, contractors and subcontractors working on an accepted project must have neutral policy around employee labor organizations, a policy about paid family and medical leave, and a policy about fair employee scheduling with opportunities for the employee’s own adjustment. This bill is part of a larger effort in the United States to transition towards renewable energy sources and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. This is also part of a larger effort to increase job availability in the United States. Benefits Benefits to this bill include leveraging investment in climate action and overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through greener infrastructure projects. This bill coincides with a similar bill introduced in the 117th Congress, the Green Vehicles, Green Spaces Act (4). Additionally, a study showed that by supporting and prioritizing vulnerable communities and those experiencing environmental injustice, these infrastructure projects will work toward correcting health disparities in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, and avert ~$100 billion in health care costs (5). By creating less emissions and averting health care costs, ~4,200 deaths will be prevented annually (5). This bill will reduce carbon emissions by ~21.5 metric tons which is the equivalent of taking ~4.5 million combustion engine cars off the road (5). This will not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will also create a wealth of new jobs with strong labor protections, which is directly inline with the President’s American Jobs Plan. Challenges Challenges to this bill include the upfront costs associated with planning and getting projects approved as well as initiating the projects. Investing $500 billion over 10 years ($50 billion each fiscal year) will require additional income to offset the budget in order to have a neutral effect on the current national debt. Additionally, it will take time to award and implement these projects, which will delay the overall reduction in transportation sector emissions. Another challenge is creating a more circular economy, where components of the retired vehicles that are no longer reaching emissions standards are broken down into many parts and reused or recycled for other purposes. Even if these parts are recycled or reused, there may still be waste streams of components that are more difficult to reuse. The United States will need a plan to sustainably dispose and redirect them from landfills. Additionally, the proposed legislation has been endorsed by many progressive advocacy groups including Data for Progress as well as Sunrise Movement, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 350.org, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, Center for Progressive Reform, GreenLatinos, Rewiring America, New Consensus, Zero Hour, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice. It has not been promoted by many conservative advocacy groups and will need bipartisan support to pass through Congress. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? There are currently 7 co-sponsors of this bill in the Senate: Elizabeth Warren [D-MA], Edward Markey [D-MA], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Bernard Sanders [D-VT], Alex Padilla [D-CA], Cory Booker [D-NJ], Richard Blumenthal [D-CT], and Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! If you are looking for an easy way to support this Bill, you could join the letter signing campaign through act350. If you enter your name, email address, and zip code, a letter will be sent on your behalf to your Congress People. Check it out at: https://act.350.org/letter/buildgreenact/ Note Policy for the Planet is not affiliated with act350 or any other group and their views do not necessarily reflect our own. We strive to provide bipartisan information, provide facts backed up by reliable sources, and provide ways to get involved with issues you care about. To that end, we are highlighting just one quick advocacy opportunity of many you can get involved with and encourage you to look for others that interest you and coincide with your values. Footnotes
The Green Vehicles, Green Spaces Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 1, 2021 by Senator Catehrine Cortez Masto [D-NV] on behalf of herself and Senators Tina Smith [D-MN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], and Ron Wyden [D-OR]. The Bill was read twice and then referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This Bill was also introduced in the 116th Congress as S.2041, but did not receive a vote. An identical Bill was introduced in the House during the 116th Congress by Mike Levin [D-CA-49] as H.R.3681, but did not receive a vote and has not yet been reintroduced in the House for the 117th Congress.
This Bill was introduced as part of a suite of 7 bills that promote a transition to clean transportation. The other Bills introduced as part of this initiative are: The Clean School Bus Act, The Electric Transportation Commission and National Strategy Act, The Electric Vehicles for Underserved Communities Act, The Greener Transportation for Communities Act, The Green Bus Tax Credit Act, and the More Access to ZEV Equipment (MAZE) in Transit Act. THE BILL: S. 504 What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to promote zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure on public lands such as national parks and national forests in order to help facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Zero emissions infrastructure refers to any infrastructure that can be used to charge or fuel vehicles that do not produce pollutants from exhaust emissions, or greenhouse gases from any operational modes or conditions. According to the EPA, this includes electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (1). The Bill requires the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the National Parks Service and the U.S. Forest Service to establish the Green Spaces, Green Vehicles Initiative, which will develop a strategy for installing ZEV infrastructure on public lands. This involves collaborating with public, private and nonprofit entities in order to secure and install publicly-accessible charging stations, and acquire ZEV shuttle buses and fleets for the National Parks and National Forest Services. All installations must be in compliance with any applicable laws relating to land management in each locale, which are variable. Additionally, installation information will be publicly available online and on maps so that it is easy to find places to charge vehicles, and so that anyone can see future plans for installation. Each of these steps supports the overarching goal of promoting clean transportation. Additionally, installation must consider and support both federal fleets as well as tourists to federal facilities, and will complement alternative fueling corridor networks. There are five alternative fuels to traditional regular, premium, or diesel gas including Electric Vehicles. The alternative fueling corridor refers to the map of alternative fueling stations across the country. For more information, maps of alternative fuel corridors, including state by state breakdowns, are provided through the Department of Energy (2). The Bill would enable the construction of the infrastructure to charge or fuel the vehicles and expand the US alternative fueling corridor network. The Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture and/or Interior will work to determine the land available for ZEV infrastructure and increase the number of ZEVs on Forest Service or National Park lands. $72 million would be available through this Bill each fiscal year. Of these funds, 20% can be used to acquire ZEVs for federal fleets, 30% can be used to acquire, install and operate ZEV infrastructure in urbanized areas, and 2% can be used for administrative costs. The hope is to increase the number of ZEVs used by federal fleets by 125% of the current operation by 2030. This will equate to 25% of all the vehicles in the fleet and shuttle operations of each agency. Why was it proposed? According to the EPA, emissions associated with the transportation sector are the largest contributor to greenhouse gases that are driving the climate crisis. Emissions also significantly contribute to smog and poor air quality, which drastically impacts human health. Pollution from transportation operations includes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (3). Specifically, the emissions that cars produce usually sits close to the ground and forms brown haze that is easily visible over cities in the summer (1). This haze can trigger health issues such as asthma and other lung issues (1). In National Parks, 30% of the annual greenhouse gases emissions from park operations are attributed to transportation (4). However, the National Parks funding is limited, and they are already struggling to address the backlog of important maintenance projects (see our post on the Great American Outdoors Act). Therefore, National Parks would not be able to install more energy efficient infrastructure without supplementary funds, studies and partnerships (5). This Bill is one of many that is part of a global push to reduce greenhouse gases and limit the global temperature increases that threatens communities and ecosystems. It falls in line with President Biden’s recently proposed infrastructure plan (6) and is geared towards expediting the transition to greener and more energy efficient technologies. Benefits Increased ZEV infrastructure will help the U.S. to meet the current and anticipated demands for charging and fueling stations across the country as more people turn towards ZEVs as a way to reduce their overall footprint. Additionally, the Bill would enable and accelerate construction that would be unlikely to be completed without explicit federal assistance. The federal support facilitates the construction of ZEV infrastructure and provides an opportunity for partnerships with electric vehicle experts who can help make this program successful. Since the 1970’s, EPA smog pollution emission standards have made the air cleaner and healthier. These standards apply to cars built when the standards were enforced, so older cars do not follow these rules. ZEVs move toward a cleaner and healthier future for transportation (1). Challenges It may be difficult to bring workers out to remote National Parks to install and maintain the equipment. It is also unclear the amount of funds that will be dedicated to this section, and therefore it is difficult to assess how many ZEVs the bill will purchase. The bill has limitations on how 52% of the total appropriated funds can be used, but is unclear about how the remaining 48% will be allocated. It may be difficult to collaborate and organize between lands operated by different groups. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Bill is currently co-sponsored by Senators Catherine Cortez Masto [D-NV], Tina Smith [D-MN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], and Ron Wyden [D-OR] Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The BLUE GLOBE Act: Improving monitoring of the Great Lakes, Oceans, Bays, Estuaries, and Coasts3/30/2021 The BLUE GLOBE Act, or the “Bolstering Long-term Understanding and Exploration of the Great Lakes, Oceans, Bays, and Estuaries Act”, was introduced in the Senate on January 28, 2021 by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI] which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], and Rob Portman [R-OH]. This bill was also introduced as S.933 in the 116th Congress, but did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: S.140 What does the Bill do? There are many goals of this Bill, all of which focus on improving the understanding of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts of the US by supporting monitoring, data collection, data sharing, and management efforts. The Bill would support international and domestic collaborations to better facilitate data collection and sharing between satellites, buoys, vessels, and other technologies. A major component of this Bill is to facilitate better coordination between agencies in order to improve data and monitoring. The Interagency Ocean Observation Committee, Federal Geographic Data Committee, National Geospatial Advisory Committee, and Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping would work with international partners to ensure continuous collection of data for the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts. Additionally, the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the National Geospatial Advisory Committee would work to cross-check older data and archive it as necessary. The Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping would also provide input to how this data could be made more accessible to the public and other audiences, such as interactive maps and graphics. This Bill also requires that Section 3532 of the Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement Act (1) is amended with additional technologies that will be used to further prevent illegal and unregulated fishing. This includes satellite imagery, vessel location data, biological methods for tracking seafood, among others. Additionally, the Bill would support upgrades to and deployment of technologies such as research vessels and remote vehicles or sensors. Specifically, this would focus on biological techniques that can assess genetic data from environmental samples to advance technology. Data will be publicly and openly accessible, unless confidential or proprietary. The Bill calls for a workforce study to assess if there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas related to oceanic and atmospheric data collection or satellite functions. This specifically includes determining the level of diversity present in the current scientific workforce, and taking actions to take to increase diversity equity and inclusion. The Bill also incentivizes rapid development and deployment of novel data collection and monitoring technology by awarding at least one Ocean Innovation prize. This will go to an applicant working on topics such as plastic pollution detection, satellite data advancement, coral reef monitoring, water quality monitoring, carbon sequestration, and others. Through 2024, the Bill would reauthorize National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) exploration programs, which include nautical mapping and charting. NOAA would work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the feasibility of an Advanced Research Projects Agency - Oceans (ARPA-O). Finally, the Bill directs the heads of various Federal agencies to assess the value and impact of industries such as marine transportation, tourism, recreation, and offshore mineral extraction. Why was it proposed? As stated by Senator Whitehouse, “we know more about the surface of the moon than we do our own oceans” (2), even though water covers 71% of Earth’s surface (3). Here he highlights a major gap in the fundamental understanding of Earth and its natural processes. Additionally, oceans in particular are one of Earth’s most valuable resources, and the growth of the global ocean economy (the sum of ocean industries (4) combined with assets, resources and services provided by the ocean) is expected to double in size from 2010 to 2030, reaching 3 trillion USD (5). The growth of the ocean economy is likely to outpace that of the global economy, and therefore, gaining a better understanding of the natural processes at play by investing in technology to collect more reliable data and produce more accurate observations is essential. This Bill was proposed to increase awareness and knowledge of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts. Changing climatic conditions are drastically impacting these areas, but we do not have the scientific understanding required to respond effectively. Better observations and increased monitoring will provide the foundation to increase our understanding of the changes that are occurring. This would ultimately lead to new discoveries, and spark the innovation of new products and development of policies in these water-focused areas. More efficient data collection and robust repositories would provide better data accessibility long-term, and international collaboration would bring key stakeholders together. The data would help to identify the impact of cargo transported across water bodies, infrastructure along shorelines, populations along the coasts, and water-dependent economic activities. Additionally, the value of the collected data to businesses involved with agriculture or weather prediction would be assessed. Benefits Science and technology focused on the oceans is critical to ensuring that the ocean is healthy, which in turn is vital to protecting our public health, safety, food, water, and energy (5). Expanding our knowledge of water-focused areas through advanced data collection techniques improves the US’ economic competitiveness, strengthens national and ecological security, protects the environment and promotes prosperity (6). BLUE GLOBE efforts will directly contribute to increasing our gross domestic product and provide employment opportunities. The work described in this Bill incentivizes new discoveries and technologies to mitigate environmental issues like harmful algal blooms, pollution, and ocean acidification. Mapping efforts particularly in coastal areas will help efforts to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activity, and international collaborations can be helpful for sharing the task and spreading out costs. ARPA-O would identify best practices and metrics for research programs and consolidate Federal oceanic programs so overlap and duplication doesn’t occur. Challenges The ocean economy itself is a challenge because the ocean based industry is typically derived from marine ecosystems, but also industrial practices typically harm these same ecosystems. This results in significant controversy among lawmakers, conservationists, the fishing industry, etc., and slows the process of technology deployment. Additionally, conflicts continue today over the rights to sea exploitation across international waters, which may make it difficult to collaborate with many countries. The United States is already behind with respect to investment in ocean data, technology and education compared to the UK, EU, Indian Ocean States and China. These countries have already invested in catalyzing scientific advancement and understanding of the oceans because they recognize the importance oceans play in economic security, international trade, sustainable development, connection, livelihoods and military development (7). The BLUE GLOBE Act provides incentives and directives for the US to overcome this challenge and rise to also be a global leader in ocean technology, data, and education. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], and Rob Portman [R-OH]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021 by Representative Cori Bush (D-MO-1) on behalf of herself and 32 original co-sponsors*. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Natural Resources to determine which has jurisdiction over the legislation. In the Senate, an identical Bill was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) on January 28, 2021 and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE BILLS: H.R.516 S.101 These Bills are focused on environmental justice (EJ), which in the Bill is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.“ This is important for ensuring equal protection from environmental health hazards and equal access to actions relating to environmental regulations. What do these Bills do? The purpose of these Bills are to take a step towards connecting environmental justice communities with policy outcomes by providing layered maps depicting which communities experience environmental injustices. EJ communities are those with a substantial representation of Indigenous, low-income, or communities of color that experience more frequent or more adverse human health or environmental effects compared to other communities. Congress identified that EJ communities are more vulnerable to climate change and environmental hazards that impact human health due to systemic injustices such as race or income. The Bill would establish the Environmental Justice Mapping Committee, led by the Environmental Protection Agency and composed of relevant offices (1). The Committee will create, consult, and regularly engage with an advisory council of relevant stakeholders (2). At a minimum, half of these stakeholders will represent EJ communities, and will be led by a stakeholder with experience in environmental justice. The plan created will consider barriers to public engagement, including language, transportation, economic, and internet access, and will incorporate feedback from EJ advocates and communities. For this Bill, $20,000,000 will be set aside in 2021 and 2022, and $18,000,000 will be designated each year for 2023-2025. The Committee would formalize and develop a tool for mapping environmental justice communities. This tool would be interactive, transparent, and used throughout the Federal government, with all the impacts of environmental justice combined into the tool. The tool will integrate: demographics (3), public health (4), pollution burdens (5), environmental effects (6). The tool would also investigate how the impacts of climate change affect the vulnerability of the EJ communities. The tool will also be customizable in order to address policy needs and permitting processes, and allow communities to self-identify as EJ. Additionally, it would identify access to services including safe drinking water, sanitation, stormwater services, and access to green space, healthy food, affordable energy and water, internet, and transportation, among many others. The tool will be created at the national level but will implement regional indicators as well, such that the tool will be effective at a more local scale. This will allow states to expand and collect data to understand specific EJ issues in their area, and address them accordingly. The development process will be ground-truthing, meaning that technical information collected, will be supplemented with local knowledge in order to create the most inclusive and best policy and project decisions. This is important for engaging with EJ communities in a meaningful way to address critical EJ issues. The Bill specifically notes that care must be taken to not exacerbate current issues or create new issues. The Committee will identify gaps in data, and assign a federal agency to conduct an audit and collect data to address these gaps. A report will be made public 180 days after the audit to describe findings and conclusions. Finally, an Environmental Justice Data Repository will be created to maintain and update the data collected by the Committee as described in the Bill, and updated as often as possible but not less than once every 3 years. The repository will be made available to every regional, state, local, and Tribal governments, and each could collaborate to include pre-existing EJ data into the repository. Why were they proposed? Environmental racism, a form of systemic racism whereby individuals or communities face significant health disparities due to disproportionately shouldering unfair policies and practices based on race. This results in these communities often living in closer proximity to toxic sources and pollutants such as landfills, power stations, mines and sewage works (7). Environmental racism can take many different forms, and is a global scale problem that needs to be addressed. Some EJ communities have already been identified, such as a part of Louisiana nicknamed “Cancer Alley”, where communities have been exposed to extremely high levels of contaminants. However, the Federal Government lacks a consistent strategy to address environmental injustices in minority and low-income populations. The Bill notes that this is due to a deficiency of high quality environmental justice data in the US, and no consistent method to identify the environmental justice communities that currently exist. The method created would specifically account for historic and current racist and unjust practices. Removal and reduction of pollution within these communities is essential to creating equitable access to a cleaner environment. Benefits The Bill would be a systematic and inclusive collaboration through community engagement and intergovernmental agencies to identify public health concerns that are related to environmental injustice. It would be a crucial first step in identifying communities that are experiencing environmental injustices, and where help is most needed. The data collected will be used to build an interactive, layered map that would document existing EJ communities in the US and create a repository of data for long-term tracking to assess progress. Additionally, as described in the Bill, this information will help the current and future Administrations in directing at least 40% of the funds to clean energy, transportation, housing, and water quality infrastructure specifically in EJ communities. This is important for addressing the climate crisis in an equitable way by providing resources to communities that have been harmed by persistent unjust practices. Challenges The Bill will provide the framework to begin correcting critical environmental justice issues, but it may have some logistical challenges in identifying all EJ communities in the US. Each EJ issue is unique, and while resources and guidance can be federally implemented, the full issues will require local government involvement and community support. Additionally, there is no timeline created for how long it will take to create this map, and the Bill only provides funding through 2025. Future Bills will need to be created to continue this work to address the climate crisis in an environmentally just way. The Bill designates $18-20 million per year, but does not designate specifically how to spend the funds, so there is flexibility in design, but it is unclear if funding can be transferred from the previous fiscal year if there is any balance remaining. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate Bill has 1 cosponsor: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). The House Bill has 41 cosponsors: *Original co-sponsors: Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL-4), Alcee L.Hastings (D-FL-20), Ro Khanna (D-CA-17), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13), Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS-2), Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA-47), Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-CA-44), Terri A. Sewell (D-AL-7), Gwen Moore (D-WI-4), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10), Mondaire Jones (D-NY-17), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-11), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13), Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA-32), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY-16), Juan Vargas (D-CA-51), Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3), Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA-11), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE-At Large), Doris O. Matsui (D-CA-6), Henry C. "Hank," Johnson Jr. (D-GA-4), A. Donald McEachin (D-VA-4), Diana DeGette (D-CO-1), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7), Jim Cooper (D-TN-5). Additional co-sponsors: Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY-7), Andy Levin (D-MI-9), Matt Cartwright (D-PA-8), Ilhan Omar (D-MN-5), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-7), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ-3), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1), Nikema Williams (D-GA-5) Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Climate Emergency Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on February 4, 2021 by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, on behalf of himself and 28 original co-sponsors, and the bill now has 44 Democrat co-sponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management on February 5, 2021. The 28 original co-sponsors are: Representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7] THE BILL: H.R.794 What does the bill do? The goal of this Bill is to require that the President declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (1) with respect to climate change. This would ensure that the Federal Government allocates money and resources to mitigation and resiliency projects, particularly for public systems, to upgrade infrastructure to expand access to affordable, clean energy, transportation, high-speed broadband and water. These projects should enable a transition to a clean energy economy that must be racially and socially just, actively combat environmental injustice, create sustainable jobs with liveable wages, and prioritize local and equitable hiring that provides opportunities. Additionally, the bill will ensure that the Federal Government avoids solutions that increase inequality, violate human rights laws, or harm the environment. Each year after its enactment, the Bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress that describes the actions taken that align with the requirements laid out by the bill in direct response to the climate emergency. Why was it proposed? Congress found the years 2010-2019 to be the hottest on record, and are accompanied by a 40% increase of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 415 ppm. They also note a 1.5 degree C global temperature increase. All of these increases are primarily due to human activities. Carbon dioxide is the primary global warming pollutant, and concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise at a rate of 2-3 ppm annually. Global concentrations of other global warming pollutants (methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (2)) have also increased significantly due to human activities including burning fossil fuels. We are already seeing the harmful impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases including ocean warming and acidification, and increased duration and severity of droughts, wildfires and extreme weather events. Climate-related disasters have increased exponentially over the past decade, and cost the U.S. alone ~$1 billion per year. The public health consequences from climate change are also expansive, and will lead to temperature related deaths and illness, decreased air quality, vector borne diseases, water borne illnesses, food safety complications and mental health and well-being concerns. Congress notes that communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities will be disproportionately impacted due to existing environmental injustices (3). Additionally, the intelligence community identifies that climate change is a national security threat multiplier due to an increasing scarcity of resources and the spread of infectious diseases, among others. Climate scientists indicate that addressing the climate crisis must include phasing out fossil fuels in order to greatly reduce the amount of carbon being released in the atmosphere. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that mitigation and transition to clean energy needs to happen immediately. This will require urgent governmental action in the United States, and will require public awareness, engagement, and deliberation to develop and implement equitable policies. The United States has a powerful history of collaborative, constructive, large-scale Federal mobilizations of resources and labor to address challenges (e.g. the Interstate Highway System, Apollo 11 Moon landing, the New Deal and World War II). Many other countries including the UK, Ireland, Portugal and Canada have already declared a climate emergency, as have some local governments such as New York City and Los Angeles. Benefits
The bill acknowledges that climate change is human-induced, which requires the United States to take action on catastrophic and harmful events that will affect the entire country. Limiting the warming of Earth to not more than 1.5 degrees C would avoid climate change that’s catastrophic and irreversible. By declaring a national climate emergency through this bill, upgrades to public infrastructure will happen so that access to clean and affordable energy, water, and internet is available to all. The bill would support farmers and agricultural workers by investing in local and regional food systems to ensure healthy soil and regenerative agriculture. The bill takes a major step toward addressing major environmental justice issues by focusing on mitigating pollution, removing health hazards, and fixing the health and environmental impacts of climate change on communities. The bill specifically emphasizes a focus on communities of color and Indigenous communities that have systemically been denied equitable access to public health resources. Challenges The bill notes a lot of broad actions that could be taken, but does not provide guidance on any specific, actionable steps to take in the immediate future. Additionally, this bill does not address funding or expenses for such tasks, but notes that the President will ensure that the Federal Government invests in climate change mitigation and resiliency projects, of which 40% of those go to historically disadvantaged communities. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The House bill has 44 cosponsors: Representatives Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7], Raja Krishnamoorthi [D-IL-8], Thomas R. Suozzi [D-NY-3], Brendan F. Boyle [D-PA-2], Gerald E. Connolly [D-VA-11], Alcee L. Hastings [D-FL-20], Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia [D-IL-4], Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO-5], Judy Chu [D-CA-27], Ilhan Omar [D-MN-5], Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], Dwight Evans [D-PA-3], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Bennie G. Thompson [D-MS-2]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes:
|