Is Project 2025 Really A Radical Blueprint for Climate Destruction? Yes!

You’ve heard about Project 2025. You know that, despite former President Trump’s efforts to distance himself from Project 2025, at least 28 of its 38 authors served in the Trump administration and hundreds of its proposals match Trump policies.  And over 100 conservative groups helped develop the project’s controversial proposals for restructuring the federal government – e.g. firing thousands of government workers so that Republican loyalists can be installed in their place.  

Kamala Harris said, “Can you believe they put that in writing?”

You’ve also heard that one of Project 2025’s primary goals is to undo recent climate policy gains. Yet many people don’t know what it actually says so we’ve put together this quick summary.

We’ve gathered insights from experts who have read through the 900-page report so you don’t have to – and here’s what we found.

 Once you’ve read its dangerous proposals (below), we know you’ll agree that we MUST elect Kamala Harris and stop Project 2025!
Get Involved to STOP Project 2025

Five Ways Project 2025 Would Undercut Climate Action

1 - Gutting Environmental Protections and Climate Action

  1. Kneecapping Key Agencies: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would see its oversight capacities significantly reduced or eliminated. This means less regulation of methane emissions, environmental pollutants, and climate change research.
  2. Dissolving NOAA: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be broken up, with its functions potentially outsourced to private companies. This could devastate Americans’ access to accurate weather forecasts and climate data.
  3. Axing the Endangerment Finding: This legal mechanism requires the EPA to curb emissions from vehicles and power plants. Its elimination would severely hinder efforts to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. Disengaging the U.S. from Global Climate Initiatives. Project 2025 proposes that our nation withdraw from major climate agreements and cease prioritization of climate issues when providing aid to other countries.  

“[T]he Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding.“  (p.60)

 

  • [T]he Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda [at EPA] should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientific excellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority. (p.60)
  • Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)3 and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),4 which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs. (p. 365)
  • Focus the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) on ensuring that government buildings and operations have reliable and cost-effective energy. FEMP should stop using taxpayer dollars to force the purchase of more expensive and less reliable energy resources in the name of combating climate change. (p. 369)
  • The President should issue an executive order …  abolishing the existing Office of Domestic Climate Policy. (p 61)
  • Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps by revoking funding and eliminating all positions and personnel hired under the program. The Clean Energy Corps is a taxpayer-funded program to create new government jobs for employees “who will work together to research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy solutions to climate change.” DOE anticipates recruiting “an additional 1,000 employees using a special hiring authority included in the Bipartisan Infra- structure Law.”69 Taxpayers should not have to fund a cadre of federal employees to promote a partisan political agenda. (p. 418) 
  • Day One Executive Order… should “pause and review”:  
  • Major Rules and Guidance Materials. Identify existing rules to be stayed and reproposed and initiate rule development in appropriate media offices.
  • Pending Petitions. Grant new petitions for rule reconsideration and stays of rules.
  • Grants. Stop all grants to advocacy groups and review which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.
  • Legal Settlements. Reassess any “sue and settle” cases and develop a new policy to establish standard review and oversight, including public notification and participation.
  • Employee Review. Determine the opportunity to downsize by terminating the newest hires in low-value programs and identify relocation opportunities for Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
  • Budget Review. Develop a tiered-down approach to cut costs, reduce the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and eliminate duplicative programs. EPA should not conduct any ongoing or planned activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization, and it should communicate this shift in the President’s first budget request.
  • Risk Management Policy. Revise guidance documents that control regulations such as the social cost of carbon; discount rates; timing of regulatory review (before options are selected); causality of health effects; low-dose risk estimation (linear no-threshold analysis); and employment loss analysis. (p.422)

 

INTERNATIONAL

“The next conservative Administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.”  (p. 709)

 

  • The next Administration should eliminate the Climate Hub Office and withdraw from climate change agreements that are inimical to the prosperity of the United States. (p. 709)
  • USAID should cease its war on fossil fuels in the developing world and support the responsible management of oil and gas reserves as the quickest way to end wrenching poverty and the need for open-ended foreign aid. The next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programs (specifically USAID’s Climate Strategy 2022–20307); shut down the agency’s offices, programs, and directives designed to advance the Paris Climate Agreement; and narrowly limit funding to traditional climate mitigation efforts. USAID resources are best deployed to strengthen the resilience of countries that are most vulner- able to climatic shifts. The agency should cease collaborating with and funding progressive foundations, corporations, international institutions, and NGOs that advocate on behalf of climate fanaticism. (p. 257)

The next Administration should use Treasury’s tools and authority to promote investment in domestic energy, including oil and gas. It should reverse support for international public- (and private-) based efforts promoting Environmental, Social, and Governance and Principles for Responsible Investment, both of which have badly damaged U.S. energy security. (p. 709)

2- Promoting Fossil Fuels and Curtailing Renewable Energy

  1. Unleashing Fossil Fuel Drilling : Project 2025 calls for eliminating federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands, promoting an all-out fossil fuel agenda.
  2. Cutting Renewable Energy Investments: Federal investments in renewable energy technologies would be slashed, and environmental permitting restrictions for fossil fuel projects would be eased.
  3. Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act: This act, which includes the largest climate spending law in U.S. history, would be rolled back, undoing significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  • A conservative President must be committed to unleashing all of America’s energy resources and making the energy economy serve the American people, not special interests. This means that the next conservative Administration should arm an “all of the above” energy policy through which the best attributes of every resource can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people [… and] unleash private-sector energy innovation by ending government interference in energy decisions […and] stop the war on oil and natural gas [… and] refocus FERC on ensuring that customers have affordable and reliable electricity, natural gas, and oil. (p. 364-365)
  • Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In addition, Congress should reform the Natural Gas Act to expand required approvals from merely nations with free trade agreements to all of our allies, such as NATO countries. (p. 369)
  • The Department of Energy should be renamed and refocused as the Department of Energy Security and Advanced Science (DESAS). DESAS would refocus on DOE’s five existing core missions: Providing leadership and coordination on energy security and related national security issues; Promoting U.S. energy economic interests abroad; Leading the nation and the world in cutting-edge fundamental advanced science; Remediating former Manhattan Project and Cold War nuclear material sites;  Developing new nuclear weapons and naval nuclear reactors. (p. 369)
  • The Clean Energy Corps is a taxpayer-funded program to create new government jobs for employees “who will work together to research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy solutions to climate change.” […] Taxpayers should not have to fund a cadre of federal employees to promote a partisan political agenda. New Policies: Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps by revoking funding and eliminating all positions and personnel hired under the program. (p. 386)
  • The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy traces its roots to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, but most of its programs today are rooted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  Needed Reforms: End the focus on climate change and green subsidies. Under the Biden Administration, EERE is a conduit for taxpayer dollars to fund progressive policies, including decarbonization of the economy and renewable resources. EERE has focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the exclusion of other statutorily defined requirements such as energy security and cost. […]  Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended, the agency is required to set and periodically tighten energy and/or water efficiency standards for nearly all kinds of commercial and household appliances, including air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, light bulbs, and showerheads.  Eliminate EERE. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all of DOE’s applied energy programs, including those in EERE (with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability.  Reduce EERE funding. If EERE cannot be eliminated, then the Administration should engage with Congress and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on EERE’s budget. (p 378-379)
  •  Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)3 and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs. (p. 367)
  • The Grid Deployment Office was established to implement parts of the Infra- structure Investment and Jobs Act. Pursuant to the IIJA, GDO administers funds appropriated by Congress to support transmission expansion and low/zero carbon resources. In addition, GDO is developing studies of the electric grid to address congestion, enhance reliability and resilience, and promote “clean” energy. […] New policies: End DOE/GDO’s role in grid planning for the benefit of renewable developers. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, DOE is to perform grid congestion studies and has authority to identify National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). Under the Biden Administration, GDO is working on a National Transmission Planning Study and is administering $2.5 billion to support “nationally significant transmission lines, increase resilience by connecting regions of the country, and improve access to cheaper clean energy sources.” (p.380-381)
  • The OCED [Office of Clean Energy Demonstration]was established in December 2021 to implement the IIJA. Its mission is “[to] deliver clean energy demonstration projects at scale in partnership with the private sector to accelerate deployment, market adoption, and the equitable transition to a decarbonized energy system. New policies: Eliminate OCED. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE energy demonstration programs, including those in OCED. (p.381-382)

3 - Undermining Climate Science and Research

  1. Eliminating the U.S. Global Change Research Program: The blueprint calls for reshaping this program and related climate change research efforts, potentially undermining critical climate assessments and research.

  2. Discontinuing Social Cost of Carbon Assessments: Project 2025 seeks to eliminate efforts to assess the damage caused by each additional ton of carbon emissions, hindering the ability to understand and mitigate climate impacts.
  • The President should eliminate the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is cochaired by the OSTP, OMB, and CEA, and by executive order should end the use of SCC analysis. (p 61)
  • The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research programs. The USGCRP produces strategic plans and research (for example, the National Climate Assessment) that reduce the scope of legally proper options in presidential decision-making and in agency rulemakings and adjudications. Also, since much environmental policymaking must run the gauntlet of judicial review, USGCRP actions can frustrate successful litigation defense in ways that the career bureaucracy should not be permitted to control. The process for producing assessments should include diverse viewpoints. (p. 61)
  • OE [The Office of Electricity] administers grant programs for things like energy storage and the testing of grid-enhancing technologies (GETs). These programs should be eliminated. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE applied energy programs including OE (except perhaps those related to basic science for new energy technology). (p. 406)
  • Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. OAR provides theoretical science, as opposed to the applied science of the National Hurricane Center. OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded. OAR is a large network of research laboratories, an undersea research center, and several joint research institutes with universities. These operations should be reviewed with an aim of consolidation and reduction of bloat. (Pg. 676)
  • Repeal Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities (pg. 440). 

4- Impact on Public Health and Environmental Justice

  1. Disregarding Co-Benefits: Agencies would be prevented from assessing the knock-on positive health impacts of their policies, such as improved air quality.
  2. Disproportionate Effects on Vulnerable Communities: The rollback of environmental protections would disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color, exacerbating existing inequalities.
  • When doing cost-benefit analysis, use appropriate discount rates, focus on the benefits of reducing the pollutant targeted by Congress, identify “co-benefits” separately, and acknowledge the uncertainties involved in quantifying benefits. (Pg 423). 
  • Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. (Pg. 427)
  •  Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of-Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate.

Use of the Congressional Review Act for Congress to disapprove of EPA regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibit “substantially similar” actions in the future (Pg. 439).

5 - Weakening Federal Disaster Preparedness

  • Eliminating Federal Disaster Relief Programs: The blueprint suggests reducing federal disaster relief efforts, which could leave states and local communities more vulnerable to climate disasters.
  • Privatizing Flood Insurance: The National Flood Insurance Program would be moved to private insurers, ignoring the historical reasons for federal involvement in insuring flood-prone homes.
  • Shifting Disaster Costs to States: Project 2025 advocates for shifting the costs of natural disasters from the federal government to states, potentially reducing incentives for wise development and rebuilding decisions. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government… The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program (pg. 154).
  • [T]he next Administration should: Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans. Specify clearly that no new direct lending programs will be developed at the SBA (pg. 754).
  • The bloated DHS bureaucracy and budget, along with the wrong priorities, provide real opportunities for a conservative Administration to cut billions in spending and limit the government’s role in Americans’ lives. These opportunities include privatizing … the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant programs, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes (pg. 135). 
  • Break Up NOAA. The single biggest Department of Commerce agency outside of decennial census years is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which houses the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other components. NOAA garners $6.5 billion of the department’s $12 billion annual operational budget and accounts for more than half of the department’s personnel in non-decadal Census years (2021 figures).  […] It should be broken up and downsized. NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality. (p. 706)

NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality. Focus the NWS on Commercial Operations. Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by the private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS. The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations. (p. 675)

A Call to Action

CCAN Action Fund has endorsed Kamala Harris because she is the best candidate to save our climate and our democracy — including stopping Project 2025. We’re doing everything we can to help her win this election. 

Get Involved to Elect Kamala Harris and STOP Project 2025!

Paid for by CCAN Action Fund (www.ccanactionfund.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.