Topic: Sustainability
“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.
“[Congress should] Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common-good capitalism.”
This is pushback on what Project 2025 has deemed “woke” concerns. This could alienate investors and consumers who prioritize social and environmental responsibility in companies. It’s funny to me how blatantly, cartoonishly evil this is. Businesses have no business engaging in ethics? Really?
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.1: Financial Regulatory Agencies here.