How Project 2025 Could Transform U.S. Climate Policy

Delegates at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee found themselves amidst significant political discourse this week. Alongside the event, the Heritage Foundation convened nearby, promoting Project 2025, an extensive 900-page policy blueprint designed to overhaul the federal government. This conservative think tank, influential in shaping Republican policies since the 1980s, has mobilized several groups to contribute to this project.

Project 2025 aims for sweeping changes across federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Reserve. Key aspects focus on undermining environmental and climate policies while advancing fossil fuel production and limiting climate action. These proposals threaten significant progress made under President Joe Biden’s administration, such as the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 42% below 2005 levels.

The blueprint’s comprehensive approach proposes slashing funding for federal programs, dismantling legislation from Biden’s term, and reducing the functions of career personnel. Recommendations include executive orders, regulatory amendments, and legislative changes, jeopardizing the United States’ commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Environmental advocates like David Willett from the League of Conservation Voters express deep concern about this systematic dismantling of rights and freedoms.

While distancing himself from Project 2025, former president Donald Trump faces scrutiny due to over 140 former administration members contributing to the blueprint. Despite rebuffing some elements as “ridiculous”, the project’s alignment with Trump’s political circles suggests potential influence on GOP policy should he be re-elected. Previous Heritage Foundation policy blueprints have significantly impacted GOP agendas, with more than half of their 2016 recommendations being adopted during Trump’s first year.

Project 2025 broadly aims to reduce federal governance in favor of state empowerment, advocating the removal of restrictions on fossil fuel drilling, reducing investments in renewable energy, and easing environmental permitting processes. Craig Segall from Evergreen Action emphasizes that it promotes a fossil fuel agenda vehemently. Environmental oversight and clean energy initiatives within federal agencies like the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency would suffer severe cutbacks, hampering efforts to manage emissions and pollutants or conduct climate research.

Additional proposals call for the cessation of smaller federal programs and legal mechanisms like the Endangerment Finding under the Clean Air Act, which compels the EPA to regulate emissions. Suggestions to eliminate assessments of the social cost of carbon or the co-benefits of policies further threaten environmental justice and public health, disproportionately affecting low-income communities and communities of color, as highlighted by Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Severe impacts are anticipated on federal disaster response and preparedness systems. Proposals include replacing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service with private entities, which could compromise weather data accuracy and public safety. There are controversial suggestions to move the Federal Emergency Management Administration from the Department of Homeland Security to agencies like the Department of the Interior or Transportation, puzzling experts like Rob Moore from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Despite the numerous contentious elements, some recommendations are being cautiously considered. Shifting the costs of natural disasters from the federal government to states could incite more prudent development decisions. Quillan Robinson of ConservAmerica commends the push against bias in the nuclear industry, recognizing nuclear energy’s potential for carbon-free power, despite existing security and health concerns.

An analysis by the United Kingdom-based Carbon Brief warns that a Trump presidency could result in up to 400 billion metric tons of additional emissions in the U.S. by 2030. Craig Segall from Evergreen Action underscores the potential damage Project 2025 could inflict on federal personnel, disrupting institutional knowledge and hampering government operations, a pattern seen in past Republican administrations.

Overall, Project 2025 encapsulates a radical shift towards a diminished federal government, significantly altering the landscape of American climate policies and governance.