Project 2025 could be disastrous for the climate – legal experts are preparing to fight back

With plans to expand fossil fuel production, curtail environmental regulations, dismantle key climate monitoring agencies, and even undermine the Endangered Species Act, there is no doubt that Project 2025 would be disastrous for the climate.

Project 2025 is a conservative policy manual for a future Republican president. The document, written by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, has made headlines for its reactionary proposals, which include dramatically increasing government oversight and presidential power while imposing severe restrictions on abortion, gender-affirming care and immigration.

Although this is not the official platform of either US presidential candidate, its priorities are closely aligned with those of former President Donald Trump. It also represents the goals of countless conservative politicians, many of whom will continue to push for these proposals regardless of who is in the White House.

At UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), scientists are studying how Project 2025 plans to erode America’s climate and environmental protections. UC Berkeley News spoke with Ken Alex, director of CLEE’s Project Climate and former senior policy advisor to California Governor Jerry Brown, about the threats posed by Project 2025 and the legal grounds for challenging what Alex calls “a clear statement of climate denial.

Why are you studying the climate and environmental proposals in Project 2025?

Project 2025 has received a lot of attention. It was written by more than a hundred conservative groups and many of the authors have direct ties to the former Trump administration or the current Trump campaign.

Former President Trump has distanced himself from it to some extent, but some of the proposals come from the first Trump administration and many are also consistent with his campaign rhetoric. And even if Harris becomes president, there are still many issues and proposals that will be pursued through lawsuits and other means.

We’re trying to shine a light on Project 2025, and we hope it will get people thinking about the legal arguments and approaches that could help refute some of its proposals.

What concerns you most about Project 2025 in terms of its potential impact on climate change and the environment?

I think there are two overarching themes. One of these is a major overhaul of the government: dismantling the government, especially environmental entities and organizations, is a very high priority, both for Trump and clearly for Project 2025.

Second, I think it’s fair to say that Project 2025 is a pretty simple statement of climate denial. It is a full-throated statement of support for fossil fuels and aims to undermine everything related to climate science and the environment.

Can you explain how dismantling the government could threaten the climate and environment?

First, the writers of Project 2025 want to drastically reduce government, especially environmental regulations. The plan includes a detailed description of how they would limit the reach and breadth of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by limiting enforcement and shifting the focus to what we sometimes call compliance support.

In this role, the EPA would work directly with companies to try to help them reduce their impact on the environment, but would move away from enforcement. This model has been tried federally under some Republican administrations, and the lack of enforcement has repeatedly led to significant environmental degradation.

There has been quite a bit of press about the Project 2025 proposal to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which manages things like marine fisheries, the National Weather Service, and the National Hurricane Center. Much of her work in recent years has focused on the impacts of climate change. The attempt to break this is part of a ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ strategy: if you don’t report on climate change, then it may not exist.

And there are other agencies that could be targeted. There’s an entity called the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, which is one of the most important entities in the world for climate science. They run climate models and do a huge amount of research into renewable energy sources, emissions reductions and solutions to climate change.

And then, of course, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) focuses a lot of its work and efforts on looking at Earth from space, and it’s incredibly important for climate science to have that data and information.

Project 2025 also reflects a complete distrust of career civil servants and aims to dramatically expand the number of presidential candidates. I think people are surprised at the scale of the attack on the civil service.

Are there any other policy proposals that stood out or surprised you?

One proposal that I just don’t understand is a proposal that would end requirements around appliance efficiency. For example, the EPA has a program that identifies ENERGY STAR products, and there are requirements that appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners meet certain levels of energy efficiency. These rules have saved American consumers billions of dollars and significantly reduced energy consumption. So why is that the subject of the attack?

Project 2025 is difficult to understand, but at its core it seems to hark back to former President Trump’s attack on light bulbs. Here we are a few years later and I think we’ve entered the world of LEDs and no one is complaining about the loss of incandescent bulbs.

You said that even if Trump loses, conservatives can continue to pursue the goals of Project 2025 through lawsuits and other means. How might these proposals be implemented in the event that Harris wins?

The Project 2025 proposal is 922 pages, so it is fairly detailed and includes many suggestions on how to attack existing laws and regulations. It is somewhat of a roadmap or blueprint for achieving these policy objectives.

For example, recent Supreme Court decisions have created a new doctrine called the Major Questions Doctrine, which holds that federal agencies cannot take action on certain major issues unless Congress explicitly grants them the authority.

One Project 2025 proposal suggests that the Clean Air Act itself does not give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and therefore the federal government – ​​under the “big questions” doctrine – is acting beyond their authority in regulating these emissions.

Right now there is the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, which explicitly states that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but we have seen that the current Supreme Court is willing to overrule a fairly recent precedent.

There are other areas where Project 2025 suggests that regulation falls outside the scope of the law, which is another typical legal attack. So I expect many of these strategies to make headway in the litigation world.

California has long been a leader in climate change and environmental action, especially in setting air quality standards. Could Project 2025 potentially threaten California’s ability to set these more advanced climate policies?

Yes, California’s first air quality legislation actually preceded the federal Clean Air Act, and as a result, the federal Clean Air Act includes a provision that gives California special powers to create its own air quality standards. Other states could then adopt the federal rule or the California rule.

However, California must receive a waiver from the federal government when it creates its own standards, and Project 2025 suggests that the federal government prevents California from receiving that waiver.

Is there any way to fight back against these policies other than voting against politicians who support them? Are there legal or constitutional grounds to challenge this?

Absolute. There are always legal arguments to be made, and it will certainly be hard fought on both sides. That’s the beauty of the law.

For example, there are strong arguments that California’s Clean Air Act waiver cannot be overturned by the federal government except under very specific circumstances. There are also strong arguments that Massachusetts v. EPA remains good law and that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Many of the Project 2025 proposals involve attacking regulations seen as falling outside legal authority. All of this will have counter arguments. And in many cases the counterarguments will be much stronger.

Are there other ways that Berkeley scientists in particular are equipped to resist the climate proposals in Project 2025?

First and foremost, Berkeley scientists, scientists and researchers will obviously continue to make progress on climate change science and solutions. Denial in the light of science and reality only gets you so far. In addition, social scientists continue efforts to understand how best to communicate science and promote action.