Make America Dirty Again: Project 2025 on Energy and the Environment
At this point in my ongoing deeper dive into Project 2025, I want to take a moment to thank readers for their support of this coverage. Increased visits to the website and mentions in social media have been gratifying.
The candidate’s age question has gone away for Democrats; they have a candidate who represents a general and demographic shift away from the status quo. There is hope, even though policy-wise not much will change. I’ll detail this shift in a post later this week.
Aside from supporting their candidate, opponents of MAGA have an opening to discuss policy in a meaningful way. Public awareness of Project 2025 is increasing dramatically, and people don’t like what they are seeing. Donald J Trump is desperately trying to remove this yoke from his neck by distancing himself, but so far his denials have not resonated with the public.
A coalition of democracy watchdog organizations have launched project2025admin.com, mapping out more than 100 potential top appointees in a second Trump administration. It provides comprehensive information and criticism about the risks each person could pose on various issues, and all the ties to Project 2025. I don’t know how a Trump administration could even exist without the people named on this website.
***
Once upon a time there was general agreement accepting the premise that ruining the planet was a bad idea. There were partisan differences about how to address the issue, but no major political player was calling the premise a lie.
In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency came into being during the Nixon administration via an executive order. The Department of Energy was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter with the goal of promoting energy conservation and developing alternative sources of energy.
Empirical evidence revealing humanity’s careless conduct with respect to the environment has only mounted since the 1970s. This week the planet saw its warmest day since records were being kept. Extraordinary “natural” disasters have increased in frequency and intensity.
But the changing climate has become a stage for performative nonsense on the right. Project 2025 takes climate denialism to a new level, rejecting facts and claiming that more of the same mistakes that got us here are the path to the future. Thus, “free market” solutions long favored by conservatives were tossed out the window in exchange for “drill, baby, drill”.
Via Media Matters Guide for Project 2025:
Heritage President Kevin Roberts calls environmentalism a “pseudo-religion,” claiming “environmental extremism is decidedly anti-human” because it promotes “population control and economic regression” by “regarding human activity itself as fundamentally a threat to be sacrificed to the god of nature.” Project 2025 is supported by climate change-denying organizations like The Heartland Institute and the Institute for Energy Research.
Department of Energy and Related Commissions by Bernard L. McNamee*. Fantasies about Making America First in energy production and dismantling any research about clean energy run throughout this section.
The author starts with the premise that the nation is experiencing an “energy crisis”. Things go downhill from there as he tries to make the case for artificial scarcity being driven by the “Biden Administration, Congress, and various states, as well as Wall Street investors, international corporations, and progressive special-interest groups.”
This specious argument* gets topped off with a warning about how “climate change” driven programs are providing aid and comfort to our enemies while leaving the nation vulnerable to cyber attacks.
(*In fact, the US leads the world in crude oil production and natural gas. We have been an exporter since 2019.)
Within the department, offices dedicated to clean energy research and implementation would be eliminated. Energy efficiency guidelines and requirements for household appliances would be scrapped. Let’s hear it for the Save the Refrigerators movement!
The solution to this crisis, according to P2025 is to shift the Department of Energy’s focus to “reliable fossil fuels” and more of them. Subsidies and research on renewable energy sources need to be halted and moved to private industry if needed. Strangely enough, there is no mention of the $757 billion in fossil fuel subsidies baked into the federal budget (FY 2022 stat).
This might be because part of climate change denialism is denying that fossil fuel subsidies exist, and if they do, they represent a tiny portion of the budget when compared to renewable energy programs. This conveniently ignores the tax code, which is home to most of the government favors given to the corporate world.
(To its credit, the Biden administration has tried to eliminate favors for fossil fuels in the last three budget requests. Which is why your down-ballot choices will be important.)
What many people don’t realize in discussing the Department of Energy is its foundational role in research. More than 60% of governmental funding for basic scientific research flows through this agency, and it’s hardly all about climate change or mitigating its effects. P2025 would politicize the grant making process, putting the approval process in the hands of people chosen for their political loyalties rather than scientific knowledge.
Another aspect of Energy’s portfolio is everything having to do with nuclear, from bombs to reactor waste. P2025 would farm out research and development to private entities with the proviso that end results be tailored to expand the US energy footprint. Permitting for domestic nuclear reactors would be expedited while a semi autonomous National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) would be tasked with developing new nuclear weapons and naval reactors.
The “Related Commissions” part of this chapter enumerates that many functioning entities within Energy. It essentially argues for eliminating research and mitigation efforts relating to climate change and places responsibility for new developments on private industry. There is also language concerning infrastructure security that includes protections for new pipeline construction being annoyed by pesky environmentalists.
*Bernard L. McNamee was a Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission during the Trump administration, where he also served as executive director of the Office of Policy at the Department of Energy. He also has served as an advisor for Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton and US SEnator Ted Cruz. Prior to federal service, McNamee was a partner in a law firm that assisted electric and natural gas utilities in rate cases and in obtaining approvals to build generating facilities and transmission lines
***
Environmental Protection Agency by Mandy M. Gunasekara*. After replacing all the Biden toadies (and many civil servants) with politically correct appointees, this author argues for ending the role EPA has played in safeguarding the public from hazards in the air, land, and water.
This agency purpose, she says, would be better served by delegating oversight to the states, with the EPA playing a supportive role when requested.
Once the states are in charge, the era of “enforcement” would end, with “cooperation” being the watchword when it comes to regulation.
Imagine that: industrial pollutants would be okay in some states and not okay in others. With the Supreme Court ruling last month blocking an EPA ruling concerning interstate pollutants, this means people living downwind of industrial complexes dishing out dirty air are just out of luck.
This chapter recommends eliminating the Endangerment Finding—the legal mechanism requiring the EPA to curb emissions and air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Also gone would be government efforts to assess the social cost of carbon, or the damage each additional ton of carbon emitted causes. And it seeks to prevent agencies from assessing the positive health impacts of their policies, such as better air quality.
The looking glass aimed at would-be polluters would be inverted curbing so waste would have to be viewed in terms of its impact on business, markets, profits and its impacts on employment.
This section calls for Congressional review aimed at disapproving EPA regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibiting “substantially similar” actions in the future. In short, unless congress specifically allows or prohibits environmental actions, the EPA would be prohibited from involvement.
Per P2025, economics are always more important than environmental or climate change issues. It should be noted that the author of this section disagrees with the premise that climate change is caused by human activity. In fact, she argues that the words “greenhouse gases” need to be removed from agency documents.
*Mandy M. Gunasekara was Chief of Staff at the US Environmental Protection Agency in the Trump administration; also served as Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. She is a Visiting Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.
***
Tomorrow: Hell No for the “H” Agencies in Project 2025
(Health and Human Services + Housing and Urban Development)
Previously:
(Intro) Digging Deep into Project 2025 - (a multi-part Series)
Going Deep into Project 2025 - Partisan Priorities for Civil Servants
Project 2025: Christian Soldiers Marching Off to Land Wars
Homeland Security’s Authoritarian Role in Project 2025
What Can You Do For Trump Today? Project 2025’s Diplomats, Spies and Spokespersons
No Soup For You: Project 2025’s Foreign Aid Program
Project 2025’s National Nightmare for “The General Welfare”
Project 2025: Junk Food and Parents Rights
***
Wednesday News to Peruse
***
Elon Musk denies reported $45 million a month pledge to Trump, says he doesn’t ‘subscribe to cult of personality’ Via Fortune Magazine
Elon Musk is not spending $45 million a month to elect former President Donald Trump, though he has created a new super political action committee (PAC) to fund the Republican candidate, the billionaire told conservative commentator Jordan Peterson during an interview Monday evening.
During the interview, which was hosted on Musk’s platform, X, Peterson asked Musk if he had “shocked” himself by donating a substantial amount of money to Trump’s campaign. Musk – who has previously criticized Trump, calling him a “bull in a china shop” – paused to correct the “media.”“What’s been reported in the media is simply not true,” Musk said. “I am not donating $45 million a month to Trump.”
***
How ‘carbon cowboys’ are cashing in on protected Amazon forest via the Washington Post
The Post found that more than half of all carbon credit forest preservation projects in the Brazilian Amazon overlapped with public territories. The amount of public land claimed by these private ventures was more than 78,000 square miles, six times the size of Maryland. The businesses that purchased the carbon credits from the private land ventures to offset emissions included major international companies: Netflix, Air France, Delta Air Lines, Salesforce, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Airbnb, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Boston Consulting Group, Spotify, Boeing.
In performing the geospatial analysis — the most extensive to date — The Post compared the boundaries of 101 private preservation projects submitted to the two international certifiers, Verra and Cercarbono, that operate at the center of the global carbon credit marketplace, with government maps of publicly protected areas in the Amazon. (Four ventures were eliminated from the analysis because their map files malfunctioned.)
A majority of the projects are still in line to be certified. But 35 have been certified. And among those, most — 29 — overlapped with public lands. The ventures have so far generated more than 80 million carbon credits, at least 30 million of which have been sold.
***
I’m the youngest Jewish member of Congress. Here’s why I’m not attending Netanyahu’s address by Sara Jacobs at MSNBC op ed
Growing up, I was taught about Jews’ sacred task of tikkun olam — to repair the world. It’s our responsibility as Jews to speak out against injustice and work to make the world a better place. It is because of my Jewish upbringing and values that I can’t attend Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address. My faith isn’t a shield or an excuse for destruction. And my presence at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address would be weaponized as false proof that I support him and his government’s conduct during this war, which I vehemently oppose.
Partisan grandstanding before Congress doesn’t advance the cause of peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the region. It won’t bring the hostages home. And it won’t end this war, deliver humanitarian aid to those in need or give Palestinian children back their childhoods. When the stakes are so high, my faith compels me to reject performative gestures and focus instead on tangible actions to end this war.
