“When we look at opportunities for reducing pollution and waste and creating good-paying jobs domestically, recycling is an area that unites most Americans” -- Senator Tom Carper
THE BILLS: S.3742 Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act S.3743 Recycling and Composting Accountability Act What do the Bills do?
Why were they proposed?
Benefits
Challenges
“The reality of Congress” (what the outlook of this bill looks like) These bills were introduced with bipartisan support, and as of 4/7/2022 is in the markup stage in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Want to advocate? Lawmakers Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE), Ranking Member Shelley Moore (R-WV) and John Boozman (D-AK), introduced two bipartisan bills addressing recycling and composting in the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee in early March. Footnotes
1 Comment
President Biden’s Build Back Better Act was introduced in the House on September 27, 2021 by Representative John A. Yarmuth (D-KY-3). The Bill was sent to the House Committee on the Budget. While this Bill holds a lot of important changes, one notable section on mining stimulated significant discussion in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which was focused on reforming the General Mining Law of 1872.
“I know we can pursue mining reform responsibly, bearing in mind mining’s importance to our national defense and economic security” -- Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Chair, Joe Manchin (D-WV) Why is hardrock mining important? Mining has been critical to the development of the United States, and encompasses everything from national defense to economic security. Hardrock mining in particular is the process of extracting essential elements such as copper, gold, iron, uranium, phosphate, and more from rock (2). It provides critical materials necessary for many essential products on the market, including smartphones, laptops, solar panels, airplanes, car parts, and more. The need for minerals is increasing exponentially as the demand for low carbon energy solutions requiring hardrock minerals increases. What is the mining law of 1872, and why Congress is proposing updates Originally, the Mining Law was set in place as part of the California Gold Rush and other mining booms. The purpose was to encourage westward expansion by allowing people to stake claims to mineral deposits such as gold, silver, copper, and others found on land that is owned by the United States (3), without being taxed. Individuals only had to pay a $100 holding fee and could obtain a mineral permit for $2.50-$5 per acre of land. This entitled them to the mineral resources on this land. Though some amendments have been made to the law, the part that does not require any tax on hardrock mining on federal lands has not been updated, and is certainly out-dated. Unlike other mining industries including oil and gas that are required by law to pay a federal royalty tax on crude oil and gas taken from federal lands, mining companies currently do not have to pay a royalty. Though it is known that minerals mined on federal land bring in millions of dollars of revenue each year, the data are poorly constrained since agencies don’t collect royalty fees. As a result, there is no concrete data about how profitable mines are. Additionally, there are over 500,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the US that are having significant environmental impacts on our watersheds, wildlife and landscapes (5). While there is the possibility that ~$5 billion could be devoted to abandoned mine reclamation from the combination of appropriations and reconciliation this year, it is estimated that it will take over $50 billion to clean up these mines and mitigate the damage that has already been done. THE BILL: Build Back Better Act: H.R. 5376 What does this part of the Bill do? Section 70807 of the Bill proposes changes to hardrock mining in the United States. First, it would provide funding of $2.5B for 2022-2031 to assist with abandoned mine land cleanup. The funds would help to assess, decommission, and reclaim the land. Additionally, the Bill would provide $3M in funding to the Bureau of Land Management to prevent environmental damage from mining. These funds would be available until 2031. A major portion of this part of the bill is dedicated to adding an 8% gross royalty tax to the income from mining claims covered under the Act. The royalty would be 4% for mines with a preexisting plan of operations on federal land on the date the bill is enacted. The royalty would not be applied to small mines, or miners that had a gross income of <$100,000. Additionally, the Bill would introduce a Reclamation Fee, or the “dirt tax”, which would be a fee of 7 cents/ton of material displaced by hardrock mineral activities that’s paid to the Secretary of the Interior. Displaced materials include any waste or unprocessed ore that’s moved from its original location when mining happens.The Bill would require the mining company to report on and notarize the amount of material it displaces. If improperly reported, mines could incur a $10,000 penalty. There would also be a claim maintenance fee of $200 imposed for any unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site on federal lands. Benefits Mining law reform overall would help in the pursuit of more responsibly mining critical materials. New mining laws that impose a royalty could directly help to address abandoned mine lands by creating a fund for reclamation. Additionally, they would provide for reasonable land management, while also ensuring a fair return to taxpayers for utilizing public lands. Challenges The process of mining is an extremely controversial practice. While it provides essential minerals and materials for the economy and modern technologies, it also is extremely destructive. Not all land is economical to mine, so it takes vast areas of exploration to find the best places to mine. These ideal locations may cross important waterways used for drinking or recreation, sensitive ecosystems, or local communities. The waste discharged from mining, such as acid mine drainage (6) or elevated levels of metals, can have extremely detrimental effects on the surrounding ecosystem and the health of local communities. While mining can take place legally on federal lands, the harmful impacts of mining such as contamination, noise, dust, blast vibrations, and more can extend beyond geopolitical borders. Challenges will also vary with the material being mined. A challenge specific to Uranium mining includes ensuring the proper handling of radioactive materials and properly disposing of waste. It also involves a major environmental justice issue - Indigenous Nations such as the Navajo living in proximity to uranium mining operations have been severely impacted by exposure to uranium via abandoned mines and mine waste out West (7). While this Bill addresses the need for a reclamation fund to clean up abandoned mines, it does not fully address their challenges and concerns. Unless another economically viable alternative is proposed, as minerals are needed for modern technology, mining will happen somewhere on Earth. The majority of mining in the West is done on federal lands. If laws are not crafted carefully and responsibly such that they do not protect US workers, the United States will not be able to compete on a global scale, mines will likely be forced to close, mining communities will suffer, and the US will be more dependent on other nations for these critical resources. While this would help the health of US residents, it could be at the detriment to countries elsewhere mining with even less responsible laws. While a “dirt tax” on earth moved could be a viable way to make sure that companies don’t do more damage than necessary, depending on the way the tax law is written it could also be harmful since a lot of material has to be moved in the exploration process before it is known whether or not there are viable mineral resources for mining. If the dirt tax is implemented, companies will be forced to divert more funds toward their tax, and away from exploration which could impact the mining supply chain. The reality of Congress Republicans and Democrats alike agree to varying extents that the Mining Law of 1872 is outdated and in need of reform. Both sides agree that some type of royalty makes sense, as the taxpayers are not receiving any benefit from hardrock mines operated on federal lands as they do for similar coal, oil, and gas operations (8). The ideas proposed in Reconciliation may not become law, but they promoted a hearing to discuss updates to the mining law and discussion of what appropriate changes should look like (8). 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? 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 Orphaned Well Cleanup and Jobs Act: Mitigating Unintentional Impacts of Abandoned Wells7/15/2021 The Orphaned Well Cleanup and Jobs Act was introduced in the House on April 8, 2021 by Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez [D-NM-3] on behalf of herself and Representatives Raul Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Kathy Castor [D-FL-14] and Michael Doyle [D-PA-8]. The Bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources on May 26, 2021 on a 22-17 vote. It may be sent to other House committees prior to receiving a vote on the House floor.
THE BILL: H.R.2415 “Communities suffer when oil and gas companies abandon their drilling sites and don’t clean them up. We know that oil and gas development has broad environmental impacts and public health impacts. It’s imperative that we do everything possible to limit the risk and damage done by this development.” --House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Raúl Grijalva What does the Bill do? This Bill has two primary goals: 1) to provide the necessary funding to plug leaks, and cleanup abandoned (orphaned) oil and gas wells on state, private, public and tribal lands, and 2) to strengthen regulations in order to prevent wells from being abandoned in the future by establishing a fee on idle wells. The Bill will define standardized protocols for identifying, characterizing and inventorying orphaned wells, including those that are currently undocumented. This will help establish a prioritized ranking for funding allocation to plug the wells, remediate and reclaim the well pads and access roads, and restore the surrounding soil and native species. Additionally, there will be efforts to identify parties responsible for orphaned wells, so that they can provide reimbursement for expenditures. Specifically, the Bill allocates $7.25 billion for well cleanup and remediation on state and private lands, $400 million for public lands, and $300 million for tribal lands, and $50 million for research and development. Funding will be allocated according to priority, and can be used to plug leaking wells, remediate and reclaim polluted areas surrounding the wells, seek information about those responsible for abandoning the wells, support research for tracking emissions and contamination from the leaks, and reduce effects on environmental justice communities. It will be required that steel, iron and other materials used to plug and reclaim leaky oil and gas wells be made in the United States. Financial assurance instruments, such as bonding, are included in the Mineral Leasing Act and are used to make sure that any land leased for surface-distributing (oil and gas) activities are properly cleaned up, reclaimed, and restored before abandonment or stopping of operations. In this Bill, the minimum federal land oil and gas bonding amounts would increase substantially to help prevent well abandonment in the future. Why was it proposed? Wells do not produce infinite amounts of oil and gas. When a well is no longer producing economically relevant quantities of oil and gas, it is typically abandoned. In 2018 the EPA reported 3.2 million abandoned wells in the US (1), but because the wells have been abandoned over time and plugging regulations are insufficient, the map of those leaking is incomplete. Orphaned wells threaten both the environment and the community, leaking significant amounts of oil, contaminated fluids and natural gases including methane. These leaks can contaminate groundwater, release toxic air pollutants such as radioactive materials and metals, and create safety risks for communities (2)--disproportionately so for rural, tribal and communities of color. Additionally, abandoned wells have no liable owner, leaving remediation costs to the impacted communities. It is estimated to cost between hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to plug high-priority orphaned wells (2), which becomes a massive burden. According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), as of 2018, 63,000 orphaned wells had already been addressed and plugged (3). However, the IOGCC also reported 56,600 documented orphaned wells, and 194,400 idle wells out of the 1.6 million unplugged wells in the United States (3). It is important to note though, that many abandoned wells have not been sufficiently plugged, and there are likely many undocumented well that are continuing to leak (3). As a result there is a clear need for standardized practices for identifying orphaned wells that have been insufficiently plugged and for standardizing plugging practices. Benefits This Bill addresses environmental issues and stimulates rural economies by creating jobs and cleaning sites while also taking the financial burden off of the impacted communities and states. It also helps to hold companies accountable for their actions, making sure that sites are not causing unintentional harm after the company vacates the site. Locating, monitoring and plugging orphaned wells averts costly impacts and reduces risks to the environment and human health. Specifically, this Bill would avoid the release and loss of greenhouse gases such as methane to the atmosphere, which would help to directly address the climate crisis. Unlike other efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, like building solar farms or developing electric vehicles, plugging wells does not require new technology or expensive raw materials. It would also help to reduce levels of underground migration of oil leaks and migration into surrounding areas. Challenges The regulations associated with this Bill could be costly and may be a bigger burden on smaller oil companies. As a result these companies may go out of business, claim bankruptcy and avoid responsibility for their sites, which could ultimately result in more abandoned wells. The Bill does not mention who would then be responsible for paying these bonds and fees if the companies responsible go out of business. The Bill language extends beyond plugging leaky wells, and includes identifying responsible parties and remediating polluted areas surrounding the wells, supporting research for tracking emissions and contamination from the leaks, and reducing effects on environmental justice communities. Rather than seeking to determine potentially responsible parties to the extent such information can be ascertained and making efforts to obtain reimbursement for expenses to the extent practicable, the Bill language should be stronger to ensure that the Secretary of Interior, whomever this may be, cannot judge for themselves the extents of seeking how practicable it is to obtain reimbursement. The Bill also does not mention the requirements for what remediating a well looks like, or the extent to which the surrounding environment must be reclaimed. A major issue with underground contamination is that it can migrate across property lines, which can leave questions about who is responsible for the remediation efforts on the other side of the line. “The reality of Congress” (what the outlook of this bill looks like) This Bill has a 18% chance of being enacted into law (govtrack.com). However, all current supporters are Democrats. How Republicans see it: There is bipartisan support for cleaning up orphaned wells, however, some Republicans see this Bill as part of a “crusade” against the oil and gas industry. Increased bond requirements that are not directly related to plugging wells and remediation are taxing for the oil and gas industry, which does not align with the Republican platform to avoid hindering energy productivity. How Democrats see it: The Bill aligns well with the Democratic party platform, and specifically it is part of a broader effort to reduce oil and gas production to shift towards low carbon energy initiatives. 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? This Bill currently has 25 co-sponsors in the House. The Representatives are: Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Kathy Castor [D-FL-14], Michael F. Doyle [D-PA-18], Matt Cartwright [D-PA-8], Diana DeGette [D-CO-1], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Darren Soto [D-FL-9], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Deborah K. Ross [D-NC-2], Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia [D-IL-4], Katie Porter [D-CA-45], Mark Pocan [D-WI-2], Albio Sires [D-NJ-8], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], John A.Yarmuth [D-KY-3] 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 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
Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act: Identifying Areas for Targeted Mercury Cleanup6/15/2021 The Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act was introduced in the Senate on April 22, 2021 (current--117th Congress) by Senator Susan Collins [R-ME] on behalf of Senator Carper [D-DE], where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. A version of this Bill was previously introduced in the 110-113th and 115-116th Congresses but did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: S.1345 “Mercury is one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, affecting the senses, brain, spinal cord, kidneys, and liver. It poses a particular risk to children and pregnant women, causing an elevated risk of birth defects and problems with motor skills” --Senator Susan Collins “This legislation, paired with efforts to reduce air toxics emissions at the Environmental Protection Agency, can help protect the health of all Americans, especially those most vulnerable.” --Harold Wimmer, President and CEO of the American Lung Association What does the Bill do? Mercury (Hg) is hazardous and extremely harmful to humans and ecosystems. The Bill would build on existing monitoring efforts by creating a comprehensive national monitoring program for mercury, which would be run by the Environmental Protection Agency, and be geared towards protecting human health and the environment. The EPA would work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Parks Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and other appropriate agencies in these efforts. This program would measure, monitor, and track mercury levels over time in different ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine) within national parks, national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research reserves, and communities where people are highly exposed and vulnerable to excess concentrations. Long-term trends in mercury deposition and concentrations within the atmosphere would also be tracked. Samples taken would include depth-resolved and surface-level mercury chemistry in water and soil. Mercury can build up concentration in organisms over time (called bioaccumulation), which is why the US has warnings about eating too much fish in a week. Due to this bioaccumulation, this Bill would require measurements of mercury concentrations in wildlife. Insects, fish, and insect- and fish-eating birds and mammals would be examined for their total mercury and/or methyl mercury levels within their tissue. Importantly, the EPA would be required to publish standardized measurement protocols for the program, to ensure environmental samples would be collected and processed the same way regardless of who takes them so that the data is comparable across all scales and entities. A database would be created to centralize historic and future mercury data and its quality assurance standards so that the data is publicly available on the internet. In the next four years, $37M would be available for FY2022, and $29M for each FY2023 and FY2024. Why was it proposed? Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is liquid at room temperature. At extremely small quantities, mercury is an extremely hazardous and harmful element to humans and wildlife (1). A form of mercury called methylmercury is extremely toxic to organisms and is the form that is mostly found in fish tissue (2). It can cause death, abnormal growth and development, and reproduction issues (3). Even though great strides have been made since the first Earth day in 1970, and mercury exposure has decreased especially when it comes to cleaner air, every year an estimated hundreds of thousands of children are still being born with long-term neurological impairments due to exposure to mercury in the womb (4). Human activity, such as the burning of coal, oil, wood, and waste is responsible for the majority of the mercury released to the environment. The largest source of mercury emissions comes from power plants that burn coal for electricity (44%) (3). Mercury that’s burned can enter the air and be transported to varying distances depending on the form it’s in. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA published the Mercury Inventory Report, which logged the supply, use and trade of mercury in the US (5). Mercury exposures are currently limited by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This Bill would support/aid these laws. Benefits This Bill is written so that the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would be compatible with international efforts to monitor mercury levels, including Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, among others. Additionally, the Bill notes that the sites where mercury is monitored should be co-located when possible with sites from other long-term environmental monitoring programs. Both of these considerations would help to spread out and better coordinate data collection efforts. Additionally, this Bill will help provide scientists and researchers with more comprehensive data on the extent of mercury contamination, which will help to inform targeted pollution reduction initiatives. As mercury contamination is present across the country (2), this Bill would help people living in every state. The Bill was introduced with bipartisan support, showing a combined effort toward a problem that goes beyond political boundaries. Challenges This Bill doesn’t focus on the emitters and their location, but provides data to see where the issues currently are. A focus also needs to be on the emitters to effectively decrease levels, which may require additional costs to improve infrastructure. The distribution of mercury is very widespread because most of it enters the atmosphere through burning items that contain mercury (6). These seemingly small levels of mercury that fall onto land and water by rain and snow can magnify over time in organisms, as smaller fish are eaten by bigger fish. This atmospheric deposition is much more difficult to track than pollution that comes from a single source, such as industrial or mining waste, or un-mined minerals that naturally contain mercury. The Reality of Congress The outlook according to GovTrack's estimated likelihood of passing is 3%. How Republicans see it: The Republican platform supports creating jobs, and here that would include monitoring mercury levels. Additionally, their platform indicates support and better life quality for everyone which seemingly would include those impacted by excess mercury. How Democrats see it: This piece of legislation aligns with the party platform to combat the climate crisis and pursue environmental justice. There seem to be a lot of programs already working on mercury at the state & federal level It is unclear why there is not more support for this Bill, but it may be partially because there are mercury programs in effect bringing hesitation to allocate large amounts of funding when other programs are already addressing the issue or Congress currently has other priorities (especially with the pandemic still at large). 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 Susan Collins [R-ME] and Tom Carper [D-DE]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed? 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 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 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
|