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
1 Comment
The National Science Foundation for the Future Act was introduced on March 26, 2021 by Representative Eddie Johnson [D-TX-30] on behalf of herself and Representatives Lucas Frank [R-OK-3], Haley Stevens [D-MI-11] and Michael Waltz [R-FL-6]. The subcommittee on Research and Technology marked up the bill and forwarded it to a full vote by the Committee on Science Space and Technology on May 13, 2021. The bill currently has 20 cosponsors and is viewed as a bipartisan alternative to the Endless Frontiers Act (1) that is currently in the Senate.
THE BILL: H.R.2225 “To fully realize the potential of science to benefit society, we must fund more research on the questions that matter to the American people” --Rep. Eddie Johnson What does the Bill do? The purpose of this bipartisan Bill is to authorize appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the fiscal years 2022-2026 with the intent of doubling the agency’s overall budget over the course of five years. This would start with a $2 billion increase in FY2022, putting the NSF budget at $11.4 billion for the year, and growing at an annual average of 6%. The Bill authorizes a significant increase in funding, in order to improve STEM education, accelerate interdisciplinary research, strengthen commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, and create better research security while expanding accessibility and accountability. A major goal of this Bill is to increase participation in the STEM workforce because diversifying STEM initiatives is essential for addressing some of the most pressing challenges we face as a nation. Diverse backgrounds and ideas from qualified individuals bring about the most innovative solutions. The Bill will therefore address STEM education at all levels first by encouraging the expansion of data collection on the nature of the STEM workforce, and by authorizing a 50% increase in funding for STEM education programs over the next 5 years. The Bill will provide support for advancing and developing research and initiatives to address educational challenges at all levels. This will start with a review initiated by the Director of NSF, to assess opportunities for PreK-12 STEM education research in order to provide recommendations over the next decade. Additionally, it will scale initiatives in PreK-12 education partnerships programs to support translational research. On the University level, the Bill supports efforts to align undergraduate STEM education with the current workforce needs, and will advance policies and funding to support training, mentoring and professional development for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. A priority of the Bill is to broaden participation of historically underrepresented groups, and expand partnerships or collaborations with international groups. It will establish a pilot program to support partnerships, expand research and provide opportunities to students attending minority serving institutions. By prioritizing STEM education and initiatives, the Bill would help to improve the leadership, competitiveness, and national security of the US. Security for those within research organizations funded by NSF would be improved through modifications to the mandatory responsible conduct of research training to include promising practices for preventing and addressing harassment. The Bill would also include practices for protecting against security risks that threaten research integrity. This Bill would specifically prioritize funding for research on global climate change both to improve our understanding of it and to increase the security of communities through the development of strategies for mitigating and adapting to it at the local level. Improvements to data management plans and training would allow the Director to ensure that public access to data, software, and code created by NSF-funded projects is stored and maintained with high quality. Additionally, the Bill lays out the vision for the Foundation’s future. In doing so, a Directorate for Science and Engineering Solutions would be added to the agency to determine research priorities with a focus on societal challenges such as: Climate change and environmental sustainability, the food-energy-water nexus, global competitiveness in critical technologies, cybersecurity, national security, STEM education and workforce, and social and economic inequality. Why was it proposed? Innovative research is an important part of growing the economy, enhancing national security and advancing the country as a global leader. Just after World War II, the NSF was created by Congress in 1950 with the goals of promoting and progressing science, advancing national health, prosperity and welfare, and securing national defense (2). Today, the NSF supports more than 25% of the federally funded research occurring at colleges and universities (2). However, in the 2019 fiscal year, about $3 billion in proposals that were deemed fundable by their ratings, (“very good” and above) could not be funded due to limitations on the NSF budget (3). Especially in an increasingly competitive global market, it is unfortunate that many innovative projects that would benefit the American people cannot be funded. In order for the United States to address critical societal challenges and remain a global leader, the Federal Government must increase funding for initiatives that advance science and technology innovation and broaden participation in the STEM workforce. This starts first by recruiting and supporting a diverse group of highly qualified researchers, and implementing mentorship and policies to retain STEM workers and a positive work environment. Mitigating harassment and hostile working conditions would be improved through expanded training and updated policies (4). Benefits Bipartisan support for this Bill highlights the fact that both parties believe the role of NSF is fundamental to keep the country in a global leadership position as it provides funding for research, innovation, and development. To address the worldwide threat of climate change, prioritized funding for projects studying the mechanisms and effects of this will enhance the safety and security of all communities, especially vulnerable communities in the US. Cyber security continues to be a major threat and NSF supports research on improving critical systems to identify threats, understand space weather and natural disasters that could disrupt satellites, and protect personal data (5). NSF supports a broad range of fundamental science and engineering fields - everything other than medicine. Increased funding for NSF would progress research initiatives across the board, helping to address societal challenges and expand the STEM workforce by creating programs to increase retention throughout STEM education. Challenges Many other scientific agencies also need an increase in funding to support their priorities (see our previous blog post about proposed allocations to various science agencies). Despite the desperate need for this funding, it is difficult to allocate so much to NSF when many agencies are currently underfunded compared to previous years. Expanding NSFs mission brings about worry of security issues as expansion could lead to weakened oversight of initiatives. Some argue that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is better suited to pursue these target goals as it has a stronger record on research security. However, just one agency won’t fix the major issues outlined in this Bill - collaboration between multiple agencies and internationally is needed. The work and innovation outcomes funded by NSF would support DARPA work. 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 20 co-sponsors of this bill in the Senate: Eddie Johnson [D-TX-30], Lucas Frank [R-OK-3], Haley Stevens [D-Mi-11], Michael Waltz [R-FL-6], Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2] Gwen Moore [D-WI-4], James Baird [R-IN-4], Peter Meijer [R-MI-3], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Daniel Kildee [D-MI-5], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Brian Fitzpatrick [R-PA-1], Elaine Luria [D-VA-2], Zoe Lofgren [D-CA-19], Paul Tonko [D-NY-20], Ed Case [D-HI-1], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Susan Wild [D-PA-7], Sheila Jackson Lee [D-TX-18] and Ed Perlmutter [D-CO-7] 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
How can we expect our policymakers to represent us if they don’t know our values?
Why is it important to speak with Congresspeople? Elected officials and their staff spend a large portion of their time meeting with constituents. In 2015 the Congressional Management Foundation released a survey of congressional staff, highlighting the significant impact constituents can have on their policymakers by taking the time to express their values and stories. There are many ways to do this including sending emails, calling offices, or signing online letters. However, taking the time to have a successful office visit, whether in your home district or in Washington DC, is more influential than any other strategy. Our Congresspeople want to hear from us, and office visits are welcomed, encouraged and easily set up through email. Many scientific societies have been trying to bridge the communication gap between scientists and policy makers by hosting and facilitating targeted Congressional Visit Days where members can meet with their policymakers to discuss topics of interest. For example, the American Geophysical Union hosts Advocacy Days, and expanded this idea into a year-long program called Voices for Science, which is geared towards honing and practicing communication skills. One of the tracks possible is for policy, where you learn more about how to use science to inform policy and engage with policymakers. These are great opportunities to partner with scientific societies to advance research, and these events are what first inspired us (Mary and Morgan) to create this blog. How do you navigate speaking with your Congresspeople? Even though it is best when the conversations in these meetings flow naturally, a successful meeting takes preparation. Think of it like preparing for an interview. Cater to your policymaker’s values and their strengths, and formulate your message accordingly. Our Congresspeople and their staffers have many meetings every day, so it is important to come ready with a plan to introduce yourself, make a clear “ask” or request of the office that is reasonable and actionable, and have a prepared story to help them make a personal connection to your ask. The preparation:
The meetings:
Meetings with the policymaker will look a bit different than those with a legislative aide. Policymakers will often have more questions for you that align with pushing their own agenda. These meetings often have more back and forth. As a result, the conversation may feel a bit more casual. Congressional staff will more often be there to listen to you and share the values of their office, and may not be able to expand on your particular “ask” without discussing it with the Representative first. Building trust with offices is important. You may not accomplish anything massive in one visit or two, but regular conversations with your Congresspeople will keep their attention and focus on topics that you care about and will set the foundation for a working relationship. Our Experiences with Congressional Visits Days May 2021 Earlier this week we met with Senators Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar’s offices, and Representative Illhan Omar’s office on behalf of AGU to advocate for an increase in science funding for FY2022. Specifically, we asked that their offices support at least $10 billion in the Federal budget to be allocated for the National Science Foundation. For more information on the Federal budget and how it works, check out our two posts The Federal Budget Part 1: What is it and How is it Made? and The Federal Budget Part 2: What to Expect for Science Investment in FY2022. It is important to note that we realized through our research that none of our MN Representatives reside on the appropriations committee, which is the committee in charge of drafting legislation to pass the Discretionary portion of the Federal budget. However, while they may not actually write the legislation for funding, they can still be an influential voice and have a say when these bills move to the House or Senate floor, so meeting with their offices remains important. This year’s (2020-2021) visits looked a bit different than they have in the past. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings are currently being held virtually rather than in person. All of our visits used Microsoft Teams, but other offices rely on different virtual platforms such as Zoom, Skype or just a conference phone call. This brings in a whole suite of possible complications including awkward delays due to poor internet connections, technology malfunctions, and difficulty reading body language. Many of us, including Congressional staffers, are dealing with the challenges of working from home and zoom burnout. As a result, sometimes staffers will choose to keep their cameras off during these meetings, which can bring additional challenges similar to poor internet connections. It can be difficult to know when to speak and leave room for natural conversation when the personal connection face-to-face isn’t there. Do the best you can, but do not worry if these feel a bit awkward, or if you’re the one with internet issues - everyone is dealing with the same thing. In fact we struggled a bit with awkward pauses and transitions along with interruptions due to poor internet connections. That said, the virtual setting brought a lot of positives. We were able to read notes directly on our computer screens to help us stay on message, and we did not have to allot time to travel to DC or the Congressperson’s local office. We were able to have these conversations from the comfort of our own homes. The availability of virtual platforms could theoretically increase engagement because the overall time spent on attending these meetings is significantly less. Perhaps in the future it would be better to maintain a virtual option, as it can increase accessibility of meetings and engagement between constituents and Congresspeople. Example: Our meeting information Topic: Budget increases for science!! (increased science funding) Ask: Increase funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF). (among others) Message: NSF was created in 1950 by Congress to promote advancing health, prosperity and welfare. NSF supports all fields of science & engineering and provides funding for cutting edge research and development. This keeps us at the forefront of innovation. 25% of all federally funded research is supported by NSF. Funding for NSF is needed because it would enhance research development, address racial equality in STEM, and address climate science and sustainability. Support is important because scientific innovation and research drives the economy, enhances national security, and advances knowledge to maintain global leadership. Stories: We both shared our experiences interacting with NSF, and tied it to the importance of our “ask”. Questions asked/things learned: We learned about the Congressperson’s science priorities Takeaway: All of the offices we talked to were supportive of increased funding for science and will keep our ask in mind as the FY2022 budget process moves forward! Although we were nervous going into the meetings because we knew the importance of building relationships with our policymakers' offices, we had a very positive experience. We came out of the meetings feeling empowered and glad that we took the preparation time to convey our message and communicate with our Congresspeople effectively about our values. 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
“This moment of crisis is also a moment of opportunity” --wrote OMB acting director, Shalanda Young in a letter to the House and Senate appropriations committees. Last week, we wrote an overview of the Federal Budget including its three major components - Mandatory, Discretionary, and National Debt (1). The discretionary portion of the budget is particularly important for science because it funds scientific research in Agencies and Departments. This week, we’re discussing an overview of the President’s proposed 2022 Discretionary Request, and specifically highlighting science funding specific items (2,3). President Biden released his discretionary request to Congress for fiscal year 2022 (FY2022) on April 9, 2021. Typically the budget is proposed by the first Monday in February, but is often delayed for years when there is a change in administration. The President is expected to release requests for mandatory programs as well as changes to the tax code later this spring. The proposed partial budget has outlined a $118 billion dollar increase (8.4%) from the FY2021 budget, which does not include emergency funds for COVID-19 relief. The majority of the increased spending would be allocated to the non-defense part of the discretionary budget, increasing it by $106 billion. This is primarily focused on increasing the budgets of the Department of Education by 41%, the Department of Commerce by 28%, the Department of Health and Human Services by 23%, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 21%. The proposed budget acknowledges a number of crises the United States is facing, and the proposed increases highlight the President’s priorities on education reform, investment in public health, and addressing the climate crisis. Overall, the proposed budget for FY2022 shows a major increase to science funding. Highlights specific to science and environmental policy include (2): Investments in Clean Energy and Resilience
In order to take steps to address the climate crisis, The discretionary request prioritizes transforming the energy sector through clean energy projects including retrofitting homes and buildings for energy efficiency and weatherizing low-income homes. Additionally, $2 billion will be allocated specifically to employ skilled laborers such as electricians and welders on clean energy projects across the country, which is directly in line with the President’s American Jobs Plan (3). Funds beyond the 2021 amount would be allocated to incorporate climate impacts into pre-disaster planning and increase resilience after natural disasters such as wildfires and floods. Additionally, the discretionary request would require collaboration and partnerships with rural America to grow rural economies and tackle rural poverty. Specifically, $300 million would be provided to support rural communities by investing in next generation agriculture, private land conservation, and renewable energy grants. The discretionary request also allocates funds to aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally. The Green Climate Fund, which helps developing countries navigate climate change, would receive $1.2 billion. Additionally, $691 million would be set aside for the Department of State and US Agency for International Development to reach out internationally to support countries with clean energy production, emissions reduction, and climate change adaptation. Investments in Environmental Justice The discretionary request provides funds specifically geared towards addressing how environmental hazards disproportionately impact marginalized communities. The discretionary request invests more than $1.4 billion in the EPA. This would include $936 million for an Accelerating Environmental and Economic Justice initiative, which “...would create good-paying union jobs, clean up pollution, and secure environmental justice for communities that have been left behind.” Additionally, the discretionary request specifies that $100 million would be used to develop a community air quality monitoring and notification program so that places with the highest levels of pollution would be monitored in real-time. $400 million would be allocated to the HUDs Lead Hazard and Healthy Homes Grants, which will help reduce lead-based paint and other hazards in homes of low-income families. The discretionary request notes that this would help to hold polluters responsible, and work towards a cleaner future. Additionally, Tribal nations are among the marginalized communities that disproportionately feel the effects of climate change, which threatens their cultural and economic well-being. $450 million would be provided to help create climate mitigation, resilience, adaptation, and environmental justice projects in Indian Country. This will include a government supported transition of tribal colleges to renewable energy. Clean Water and Hazardous Waste Remediation The discretionary request highlights a priority to clean up hazardous sites such as oil and gas wells and abandoned mines ($550 million). This would include propelling an effort to create 250,000 jobs to undertake the remediation projects. Additionally, the discretionary request devotes $3.6 billion to water infrastructure improvement to ensure clean and safe drinking water for all communities regardless of economic status. Investments in Innovation and Science The FY2022 discretionary request provides a substantial portion of overall funding to climate science, sustainability research, and clean energy, which could greatly increase the nation’s competitiveness. Research across Agencies would receive $4 billion to better understand climate change and resilience strategies. Additionally, the discretionary request would allocate $10 billion to investing in clean energy technologies across non-defense agencies, which the document notes would help achieve net-zero carbon economy by 2050. Through this priority, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget would increase to $6.9 billion to expand climate forecasting work, support coastal resilience work, and provide better data to decision-makers. Benefits There are many historic increases proposed in this budget, geared towards creating a safer, more equitable, and environmentally conscious nation that would ultimately increase the United States global standing and competitiveness. There will be an increase to science funding compared to FY2021, which will boost scientific research and innovation. Communities disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards will receive aid, and clean energy initiatives will be funded and prioritized. Challenges The federal Budget is one way for a President to push their agenda. Due to the nature of Congress, passing bipartisan appropriations bills similar to the requests above will be difficult without reaching across the aisle and making compromises.The US has a lot of priorities and issues, and it is difficult to devote substantial funds to every area. If spending keeps pace with inflation, budget deficits would increase. Due to inflation, discretionary spending the US mandates for FY2022 will be even greater in the future (4). Want to advocate? Policy for science concerns the policies that address the conduct of science and the research enterprise (5). In fact, many scientists rely heavily on Federal funding in the form of grants to advance their research. Federal funding for Federal Agencies or Departments (NASA, EPA, NSF, NOAA, etc.) is determined by the yearly Federal Budget, and therefore it is important to continuously increase the awareness of the importance of science. Policy makers represent their constituents so the more people who are vocal about caring for science, the more likely it is that funding will remain steady or increase. Innovation that results from science will mirror allocations to scientific funding. If this interests you, that’s great! Everyone has a personal connection with science, and anyone can advocate. You do not need to be an expert. Share your stories, and explain why science is important to you. For more guidance on advocacy or finding your policymakers, visit our resources pages or reach out to us via email! Footnotes
Similar to how people create a budget to keep track of their finances and manage spending, the United States federal government does too. Each year in early spring, the President will release their proposed federal budget for the upcoming year to Congress. The fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. This proposed budget, known as the federal budget, will be edited once it is sent to Congress, but it is important because it lays out the President’s priorities for the upcoming year. The budget can be broken down into three main categories: 1) Mandatory Spending. This category is the majority of the budget and is dominated by earned-benefit or entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. The spending levels for these programs are generally determined by eligibility rules, which include factors such as age, earnings or qualifying disability. The recommendation by the White House for mandatory spending therefore does not typically include binding funding limits. Congress decides this part of the budget separately from the following categories by reviewing eligibility rules of specific programs, which in turn can increase or decrease this part of the budget based on who is eligible (1). 2) Discretionary Spending.This category is broken into two smaller categories, Defense and Non-Defense Discretionary. The Discretionary Spending category is determined by Congress each year through the annual appropriations process, which is described in detail below. Appropriations refers to the sum of money the President and Congress agree upon for a specific part of the budget. Discretionary spending incorporates everything from military programs (Defense) to the amount of money that is put toward funding science (Non-Defense), among many other things. 3) Interest on National Debt. This category makes up the final percentages of the budget. This amounts to the interest the government pays on the country’s accumulated debt, minus the interest income received by the government on assets it owns. The current national debt is about $28 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the 2021 national debt will total $2.3 trillion for the year. Together, mandatory spending and discretionary spending account for ~90% of the overall budget each year (1). For the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, the federal budget totaled $4.8 trillion, and revenues brought in $3.4 trillion. FY2021 proposed budget totaled $4.8 trillion (2), and the percent originally allocated to each main category in the proposed budget is shown in the pie chart below. The FY2021 budget was ultimately passed as a $2.3 trillion consolidated spending bill on December 27, 2020 (3). This Bill contained $900 billion in COVID-19 relief in addition to an omnibus spending Bill, which we describe in more detail below. The FY2022 Discretionary Request was released by the White House on April 9, 2021 (4). The full budget request should be made public soon. Next week, we will highlight the main components of the Discretionary Request for some of the science-related Agencies. This is important for anyone interested in science because the budget directly impacts how much money will be available for directly funding scientific innovation. If you’re interested in reading more about funding for science and science-focused engagement, check out a great resource by Hetherington & Phillips 2018 (5) The federal budget and appropriations process happens in three stages: 1) Budget formation by the White House (typically, July-February) 2) Legislative process in Congress (March-June) 3) Finalization of spending levels in Congress (July-October) The purpose of the proposed budget is to recommend amounts of government spending for public purposes, amount that should be received from tax revenues, and the surplus between the two (1). Typically, federal spending exceeds the amount taken in from tax revenues. This results in a deficit for the year and contributes to the overall national debt (6). The budget formation process begins in the Executive Branch with a collaborative effort between federal agencies and the Office of the President. The President’s Office of Management budget (often referred to as OMB) provides guidance for levels of funding and priorities to federal agencies, which in turn have to propose budgets within those guidelines. Using the proposed budgets from federal agencies, the OMB then makes final decisions to form a proposed, all-encompassing federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The budget request should be submitted to Congress by the first Monday in February. However, this process can be delayed if Congress has delayed action on the prior year’s budget or oftentimes when a new administration is transitioning. For example, the Biden Administration released their proposed FY2022 discretionary request on April 9 this year. Once Congress receives the budget request, the House of Representatives and the Senate independently review it. Each chamber creates a resolution to cap overall spending on the Discretionary portion of the budget. From there, a mixed bi-partisan committee of House and Senate members resolves differences between the two resolutions. The House and Senate then divide the resolved Discretionary budget outlined by the resolution among their 12 subcommittees. These 12 subcommittees draft their own appropriations bill which allows them to set the funding for each agency (NASA, USGS, NOAA, etc.) within their individual scope. For example, the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee would draft a bill to set the spending limit on NASA and other agencies within their scope, but would not set a limit on any agency in the Energy and Water Development subcommittee. The 12 subcommittees are:
Once each subcommittee creates their appropriations bill, it will undergo a vote by members of the House/Senate (wherever it was drafted). Once voted on and passed, all 12 bills from the House and 12 bills from the Senate will go back to the mixed bi-partisan committee of House and Senate members to consolidate and agree. The resolved appropriations bills then go to the President to be signed into law. Ideally, this all happens before October 1st. If it doesn’t, a government shutdown would begin. Benefits
The budget has to be agreed upon by Congress regardless of political party, which requires collaboration and working across the aisle. Additionally, a balanced federal budget is essential for avoiding excessive spending, and allows Congress to target areas that are in need. Typically, the budget reflects the values and priorities of society. Challenges It can be very difficult to get the House and Senate to agree - since 2010 the two chambers haven’t easily come to a conclusion. If October 1 comes around and the President hasn’t signed a new budget into law for the coming year, many government services stop. If Congress can’t agree on a single budget to pass to the President, an Omnibus bill can be passed by Congress, which includes multiple funding areas. This can be passed into law and serve as a budget for the coming year. The national debt is extremely high and continues to grow as revenue is typically less than spending. 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 Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunities Act: Creating Opportunities to Support a Renewable Future3/23/2021 The Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunities Act was introduced in the House on February 11, 2021 by Rep. William Keating [D-MA-9] on behalf of himself and 21 co-sponsors*. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Education and Labor. This Bill was introduced in the 116th Congress as H.R.3068, but was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R.998 (1). A bipartisan identical Bill to H.R.3068 was also proposed in the Senate in 2019, S.1769, but did not receive a vote. Currently, there is not an identical bill in the Senate.
*The 21 co-sponsors are: Reps. Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Chris Pappas [D-NH-1], Paul Tonko [D-NY-20], Salud O. Carbajal [D-CA-24], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Jerry McNerney [D-CA-9], Donald Norcross [D-NJ-1], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Stephen F. Lynch [D-MA-8], Donald McEachin, A. [D-VA-4], Katherine M. Clark [D-MA-5], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Richard E. Neal [D-MA-1], Ann M. Kuster [D-NH-2], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Lori Trahan [D-MA-3], Albio Sires [D-NJ-8], Andy Kim [D-NJ-3]. THE BILL: H.R.998 What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to establish a training grant program for offshore wind careers by adding an amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act (2). The purpose of the training grants is to allow entities to develop or improve curriculum and training programs to provide essential skill sets for employment opportunities in the growing offshore wind industry. This includes specific needs such as manufacturing, construction, installations, operation, engineering, education and maintenance. Grants for training will be awarded one year after the enactment of this Bill. At least 25% of the grants will be given to eligible community colleges that apply. As a lead applicant, groups are limited to one grant that is no more than $2,500,000. They can also partner with another eligible entity, state or local government, or a nonprofit organization. With the Secretary of the Interior’s guidance, those awarded grants must annually report the following data: the number of participants enrolled and completed, the services provided, the amount of money spent per participant, the rate of job placement and employment retention. The Bill would provide $25 million every fiscal year from 2022-2026 for this program. It would also require the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy, Education and Labor, provide a report every two years to various House and Senate Committees (3) describing how different grantees are using the funds. Why was it proposed? Offshore wind development is a growing industry world wide as the push towards renewable energy has increased, and cost for wind development has declined making it more competitive with traditional energy sources. Additionally, wind speeds tend to be faster and steadier offshore than they are on land, yielding more energy per turbine (4). If 1% of the nation’s potential offshore wind capacity was used, that would be enough energy to power 6.5 million homes (5). The Block Island Wind Farm by Deepwater Wind was the first commercial offshore wind project to be completed. Five wind turbines (6 megawatt) were installed off the coast of Rhode Island, and will provide energy to the mainland (9). For more information about wind energy and training programs nation-wide, check out the US Department of Energy’s WINDExchange interactive map (10). The Department of Energy’s (DOE) 2018 Distributed Wind Market Report notes that there are 83,000 turbines across the nation with 1,127 megawatts of energy capacity (6)--for comparative purposes, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that the U.S. energy capacity at the end of 2019 was 1.1 Million megawatts (7). Distributed wind is used by residential customers, manufacturers, car dealerships, restaurants, cities, municipal facilities, schools, and universities (8). Trained workers are an essential part of this industry for maintaining and manufacturing these wind farms. In order to capitalize on the opportunity that offshore wind provides, and the shift to renewable energies, more trained people are needed to sustain these initiatives. Benefits Wind energy is an inexhaustible resource that is now the largest source of renewable power in the US (11). Unlike fossil fuels, wind energy is a clean fuel source, and does not consume water in order to run. Acid rain, smog, and greenhouse gases are not produced during energy generation. Additionally, half of the US population lives along the coast, and nearly 80% of the nation’s electricity demand occurs in the coastal and Great Lakes states. Offshore wind farms would help meet the high energy needs from renewable, nearby sources. According to the DOE, land-based winds are stronger at night, and offshore winds are stronger during the day. This difference would allow offshore wind development to fill a gap in wind energy production (9). Additionally, wind power is one of the cheapest energy sources available (1-2 cents/ kilowatt hour; 11) and is sold at a fixed price over 20+ years, which provides stable rates. While fossil fuel energy sources add a price uncertainty due to fuel costs, wind energy does not because wind is free (11). The US wind sector currently employs >100,000 workers and with the more wind turbines built, more jobs related to manufacturing, installation, and maintenance will be needed (11). The demand for renewable energy will continue to increase the need for wind power and trained workers. Challenges Offshore wind farms can be more expensive and more difficult to maintain then their on land counterparts (12), due to stabilizing turbines in deep water and manufacturing power cables to transmit energy back to shore. The larger offshore turbine components can be logistically difficult to transport, such as relocation to the sea via narrow roadways (9). The effects offshore wind farms have on birds and marine animals are also not completely understood, and can be harmful (12). Additionally, wind farms built within 26 miles of the coastline are often unpopular among residents who enjoy natural views. Hurricanes and strong offshore storms present their own set of unique challenges to the wind industry, such as powerful wind and waves (13), but ongoing research is designing hurricane-resilient systems. 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 21 current co-sponsors of this Bill: William Keating [D-MA-9], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Chris Pappas [D-NH-1], Paul Tonko [D-NY-20], Salud O. Carbajal [D-CA-24], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Jerry McNerney [D-CA-9], Donald Norcross [D-NJ-1], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Stephen F. Lynch [D-MA-8], Donald McEachin, A. [D-VA-4], Katherine M. Clark [D-MA-5], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Richard E. Neal [D-MA-1], Ann M. Kuster [D-NH-2], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Lori Trahan [D-MA-3], Albio Sires [D-NJ-8], Andy Kim [D-NJ-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
|