Topic: The Environment
“At its very heart, environmental extremism is decidedly anti-human.”
He elaborates on this statement by saying that mitigating climate change “abandons confidence in human resilience and creativity in responding to the challenges of the future.” Which seems to be saying that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change, because doing so would deprive us of the opportunity to learn how to adapt and adjust once it’s an inescapable problem. This is an absolutely ludicrous position.
Full contextual analysis of the Foreword here.
“During the Trump and Biden Administrations, there has been a bipartisan focus on prioritizing R&D funding around the so-called Industries of the Future (IOTF). Under President Trump, IOTF priorities were artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), advanced communications/5G, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. Under President Biden, this list has been expanded to include advanced materials, robotics, battery technology, cybersecurity, green products and clean technology, plant genetics and agricultural technologies, nanotechnology, and semiconductor and microelectronics technologies. These priorities should be evaluated and narrowed to ensure consistency with the next Administration’s priorities.”
I take this to mean that Vought is offended by the addition of green products and clean technology to their “Industries of the Future.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“The President should instruct the CEQ to rewrite its regulations implementing NEPA along the lines of the historic 2020 effort and restoring its key provisions such as banning the use of cumulative impact analysis.”
NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act. Isn’t it interesting that Vought denies climate change exists, but in the same breath, wants to prevent any research into cumulative impact? It’s almost like he knows he’s completely full of shit.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Remove the U.S. from any association with U.N. and other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production.”
It’s hard to know where to start with that. It’s…just unbelievably ridiculous to halt all efforts into sustainable food production. Does he think we have unlimited food supplies? Bakst goes on to make a few other recommendations, then advocate for the next Administration imposing these via executive order, bypassing Congress.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“To accomplish these objectives, a new Administration should announce its principles through an executive order, the USDA should remove all references to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-disseminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these principles through legislative efforts.”
There’s the Bruno Strategy at work there as well – if we don’t mention the need for sustainability in food production, it doesn’t exist! Not a thing! Don’t need to worry about it!
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“As a general matter, the next Administration should ensure that these [conservation] programs address genuine and specific environmental concerns with a focus on currently existing environmental problems, not those that are speculative in nature.”
Bakst is couching any conservation efforts relating to climate change as “speculative” here. Climate change is not speculative.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“[The next Administration should] Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program.
Bakst couches the program as “paying farmers NOT to farm their land.” The reality is obviously more complex. The primary purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is to improve environmental health and sustainability by incentivizing farmers and landowners to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and implement conservation practices. This provides benefits such as preventing soil erosion, improving water quality, enhancing wildlife habitats, promoting carbon sequestration, and improving air quality. The program was introduced in 1985 under Reagan following concerns over unacceptably high levels of soil erosion. It authorized the USDA to enroll up to 45 million acres in the program. So yes, it “pays farmers not to farm their land”, but for environmental reasons. [Source]
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“The next Administration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use – especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science.”
This appears under the heading “Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology”. It is absolutely, laughably RICH that a climate change denier would even be able to utter the phrase “scare tactics that ignore sound science” with a straight face. This is unworthy of dignifying with further response.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires.”
Ohhhh, NOW I understand where Trump got his idea to “rake the forests.” It feels like the authors of this Project would have gotten a lot further in selling it to the public if they hadn’t chosen such a laughably stupid figurehead to publicly explain their policies. Seriously, if he understood biomass reduction as “raking the forest”, imagine how facile his grasp on other major issues must be?
Nevertheless, this is an idea I can get behind (no, not raking the forests.) The U.S. Forest Service already engages in biomass removal as part of its forest management activities, particularly to reduce the risk of wildfires. This process, known as fuel reduction, involves thinning forests, removing dead or dying trees, and managing undergrowth (live fuels) that can contribute to the intensity and spread of wildfires. Many (apparently including Bakst, here), argue that they could do more to address biomass buildup and help prevent wildfires.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme “green” policies.”
Nope. See full analysis linked below for why. McNamee goes on to double down on his misleading claims/lies about America being dependent on China for energy (false), and the idea that green energy policies create an artificial energy scarcity (also false.) In addition to safeguarding the future of our planet, the economic implications of investing in clean energy are very positive:
“Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.