Project 2025 and the prospect of a more radical Trump worry environmentalists

During the Donald Trump administration, the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the executive repealed hundreds of climate regulations at the federal level to give free rein to the exploitation of resources, and the president repeated ad nauseam that climate change was “a hoax.” But in a hypothetical second administration, according to several climate experts, Trump would go even further. At a forum organized last week by the Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC), an international network of journalists and communicators on climate issues, the panelists agreed that Project 2025, a document developed by the ultra-conservative public policy center The Heritage Foundation, represents a more radical vision of the denialism that the former president has already made his banner.

Although Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 repeatedly, the Democratic Party and many analysts assume that the document was drafted by people close to the Republican candidate, and that the former president does in fact intend to carry out the objectives set out in its pages if he wins on November 5.

Environmental journalists Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor describe in an article in The Guardian some of the most radical action that Trump may be planning, according to several of his former advisers who spoke on condition of confidentiality. According to the British newspaper, “in contrast to a sometimes chaotic first White House term, they outlined a far more methodical second presidency: driving forward fossil fuel production, sidelining mainstream climate scientists and overturning rules that curb planet-heating emissions.”

Frances Colón, director of International Climate at the Center for American Progress, said at the GSCC panel that the 900-page Project 2025, in addition to stripping government employees of job protections so they can be replaced by politicians loyal to Trump, exposes a “total alignment with climate denialism.” “Climate change aid programs and funding for the energy transition, emissions reductions, or the transition to clean air would be completely undone. There is a mandate to undo all climate action in the United States,” she explained.

Donald Trump’s attempts to roll back federal environmental regulations during his first administration were often “stymied “by the courts, by a lack of experience and even by internal resistance from government employees,” notes The New York Times in an article titled What Trump 2.0 Could Mean for the Environment. But, the authors warn, in 2025 the situation would be different. “Trump would be in a much better position to dismantle environmental and climate rules, with the help of more aligned judges and conservative allies who are already designing ways to bend federal agencies to the president’s will.”

A Trump victory could also represent an obstacle to international cooperation in the fight against climate change, according to experts at the GSCC panel. In addition to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement again — to which his successor, Joe Biden, returned — they pointed out that it is likely that he will double down on his first administration’s strategy of contradicting traditional U.S. allies on all environmental issues at the United Nations.

According to Colón, all this would compromise America’s “climate leadership on the world stage.” In a more diplomatic tone, the CEO of the European Climate Foundation, Laurence Tubiana, agreed with this, saying that if Trump were to assume an obstructionist role, China and Europe would have to take up environmental leadership in the world.

But Tubiana also said that the U.S. Congress and Senate are the places “where climate action happens” and that they are as important as the White House, so the world’s attention should be equally directed at the legislative results.

Harris’ promises

Since taking over the Democratic presidential nomination in mid-July, Kamala Harris has made an effort to show a progressive profile on environmental issues. However, the candidate has been the subject of criticism because she has not yet presented a concrete action plan (either on the environment or on many other issues). Nor has she devoted much space to climate change since she officially became the party leader at the Democratic convention.

Skepticism is also on display among Harris supporters. For example, the environmental group Sunrise Movement launched a campaign last week with the aim of contacting 1.5 million Americans by November to ask for support for the vice president, but decided not to give the candidate an official endorsement until her climate plans are clearer.

At the GSCC forum, Frances Colón said that at the Chicago convention, general things were said, but no details were given. Despite this, the expert believes that a Harris administration would have “a completely different vision” from the view of Republicans. “Democrats talk about increasing investments in solar and offshore wind energy sources, developing employment programs in the energy sector, the agricultural sector reaching net zero emissions by 2050, reducing oil and gas subsidies by tens of billions of dollars, strengthening protections against drilling and mining in the Arctic and shoring up climate-resistant infrastructure,” she explained.

In addition, Colón highlighted that the choice of Tim Walz as her running mate is representative of Harris' intentions on these issues: “As governor of Minnesota, Walz has a long history of progressive policies in the state, including dozens of initiatives that focus on clean energy, transportation, air and water quality.”

The other experts agreed that, despite the speculation, Harris represents the best scenario for the United States and that her policies will most likely be a continuation of those of Joe Biden. For Bentley Allan, co-director of the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University and an associate professor at the same think tank, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Biden administration's major milestone on climate, can be interpreted as a guide on what to expect from Harris.

“Clearly there are many lessons to be learned, but by the second anniversary of the IRA, $213 billion has already been pumped into green infrastructure and solar, wind and hydrogen supply chains,” Allan said. The Democratic candidate, according to the academic, has clearly positioned herself as providing some continuity.

The director general of the European Climate Foundation described the IRA as positive for the “global dynamic” and said that it had a “good reaction in Europe”. But she recalled that this law also includes “certain incentives” for the oil industry and said it is a “danger” that the United States continues to be the largest producer of hydrocarbons in the world. “The big elephant in the room is the expansion of oil and gas and how we make this consistent with the COP 28 commitment to abandon fossil fuels. If Kamala Harris wins the election, perhaps we can expect an interesting debate with Europe on this whole green industrial revolution,” she added.

Tubiana stressed that the United States should not only look to Europe, but should consider moving funds to countries in the Global South for the development of environmental programs. “With a really solid policy, development could be promoted,” she said. But in Harris’ proposals, and not to mention Trump’s, there was no mention of this.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition