by Hannah Grover
Imagine a New Mexico where wildfires, extreme heat, flooding and drought are more common and more devastating, yet the impacted communities have fewer resources and support from the federal government in the aftermath of those disasters.
That is what climate advocates say could happen should Project 2025 be implemented.
Project 2025 is a series of policy proposals released by the Heritage Foundation. These are policies that the Heritage Foundation would like to see implemented should former President Donald Trump return to power. While Trump has tried to distance himself from the proposal, during the first year of his presidency, he implemented about two-thirds of the policies that the Heritage Foundation was pushing at the time.
Project 2025 calls for rolling back initiatives aimed at reducing climate change, increasing extraction of fossil fuels and reforming an agency responsible for aiding in disaster recovery.
These policy proposals could have devastating impacts on New Mexico, where the impacts of climate change are already acutely felt.
Tom Solomon, co-founder of 350 New Mexico, describes Project 2025 as a “pretty horrific document” and said that it could have wide-reaching consequences, including climate consequences.
“I think reading the document, it’s a pretty scary blueprint for the unraveling of, you know, the foundation of our democracy and the foundation of our conservation and climate commitments as a country,” Molly Taylor, the chief operating officer of Conservation Voters New Mexico, said.
Inflation Reduction Act
Taylor said Project 2025 calls for “a number of pretty significant reforms” including many that would reduce the federal government’s ability to act on climate change and move forward with climate policies.
That includes gutting President Joe Biden’s Investing in America Agenda and rolling back funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature policy achievement which provided millions of dollars of federal investment into the state and led to expanded manufacturing particularly in the renewable energy sector.
“On the ground, there are a number of projects that have bubbled up and have been funded, even in rural parts of the state,” Taylor said about the Inflation Reduction Act’s impacts.
Those projects include helping small businesses install solar panels on their roofs and attracting new manufacturing companies to the state.
Since the Inflation Reduction Act passed, companies nationwide have invested more than $124 billion in clean energy projects. The possibility that Trump could rollback the Inflation Reduction Act or make changes to some of the tax credits embedded in the law has already caused concern for major companies like Samsung and Volkswagen. Trump has said that he will pull back any of the unspent Inflation Reduction Act funds should he be elected.
Project 2025 calls the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law, or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, “massive spending bills” that “established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests.” The authors call for a future conservative president to rescind all unspent money from those two laws.
Solomon said the Inflation Reduction Act paved the way for announcements like Maxeon Solar and Ebon Solar coming to Albuquerque.
“Those are thousands of jobs building solar panels, but they are dependent upon tax credits and other incentives that are embedded in the Inflation Reduction Act,” he said.
But even if Republicans do not pass any legislation rolling back the funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the money is administered by federal agencies.
“They could very easily just say, ‘all of those incentives for clean energy production, they’re just going to be stopped. And anything that you counted on to benefit clean industries growing and expanding in the country, including in New Mexico, it’s just going to come to an end,’” Solomon said.
He said changes to funding from the Inflation Reduction Act or to incentives could essentially pull the rug out from under those companies and a lot of the investment in New Mexico, particularly in the clean energy sector, could come to a halt.
The Inflation Reduction Act doesn’t just benefit companies. It also created some new home energy rebates that will help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances, thus lowering both their utility bills and their carbon footprint.
Taylor said without the funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, people will face more expensive utility bills and impacts to their health.
“Something as simple as just being able to have access to resources to buy a new appliance, an electric appliance, won’t be on the table anymore,” she said.
Increased extraction
Project 2025 calls for increased oil and gas production, much of which would take place in New Mexico and Texas’ oil-rich Permian Basin. Project 2025 states that the Permian is “second only to Alaska in petroleum potential.”
Project 2025 would accelerate extraction in the Permian while also removing regulations.
“They would do more drilling on public lands,” Solomon said.
He said the communities across the country that are already feeling the health consequences of living near oil rigs would face even worse impacts.
Solomon highlighted an analysis published by the United Kingdoms’ based group Carbon Brief in March. This analysis found that a Trump presidency could lead to an additional 4 billion tons of emissions from the United States by 2030, which would in turn lead to $900 billion in damages related to climate change worldwide.
The analysis states that the 4 billion tons of emissions would more than negate the emission reductions that have occurred over the last five years thanks to new wind, solar and other clean energy projects.
“Project 2025 also talks quite a bit about an all-of-the-above energy stance and position for the nation,” Taylor said. “However, it also heavily leans toward fossil fuel production, nuclear production, kind of leaning into more of the energy sources that are contributing significantly to the climate crisis.”
Cloe Dickson, communications manager with Conservation Voters New Mexico, said the state’s role in oil and natural gas extraction means that what happens at the federal level could have huge ramifications for New Mexico.
“There are thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that have yet to be cleaned up and are not only contributing to climate change, but also contributing to significant health risk for the communities that live within the Permian and the San Juan basins,” she said.
The bipartisan infrastructure law that is targeted by Project 2025 provides funding to clean up those orphaned and abandoned wells.
Dickson warned that increasing oil and gas development creates a risk for future abandoned wells and, because of the gap between the bonding requirements and the actual cost of cleaning up those sites, New Mexico taxpayers could be left footing the bill.
Limited time to act
Delaying the transition to clean energy could have major impacts both for present and future generations worldwide.
Carbon Brief states that the U.S. election this year is crucial if the world hopes to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
One analysis, the MCC Carbon Clock, says there could be fewer than five years until the planet reaches the threshold for an additional 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming and 22 years until the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere ensures that the world will experience 2 degrees Celsius of warming.
But Project 2025’s policies could accelerate that.
“Instead of 22 years from now, it might be 12 years from now that would have dire consequences for the planet and for New Mexico,” Solomon said.
Already New Mexico is one of the fastest warming states in the country and is seeing devastating impacts from climate change. Solomon highlighted this year’s wildfires in Ruidoso followed by the flooding.
“Everyone in our community across the state has been impacted by the record heat,” Taylor said.
She said that record heat has increased in severity to the point where basic infrastructure including schools and community centers are struggling to keep up with the needs.
“We have students sitting in classrooms that in the summer get up to 90 degrees or more, which makes learning really difficult,” she said.
That also creates challenges for unhoused people who need access to cooling centers and other resources.
She spoke about measures the state and federal government have taken to cut emissions and prepare for a warmer future.
“Project 2025 proposes that we undo all of that progress and shift back to the way things were before we took meaningful climate action, and that will derail any chance or hope of us just being able to prepare and be ready for the shift that we’re already in and address the worst impacts of the climate,” Taylor said.
Less assistance after disaster strikes
While disasters like Ruidoso experienced this year will become more common thanks to climate change, the assistance the federal government provides would decrease under a Project 2025 agenda.
Project 2025 calls for reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency and eliminating the Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program that helps communities rebuild.
Project 2025 also calls for FEMA to raise the per capita indicator for damages, which would make it harder for states and localities to qualify for aid following a disaster declaration.
Project 2025 also calls for reducing the amount of money the federal government provides so that states would be responsible for up to 75 percent of the costs of responding to catastrophic disasters. Currently, the federal government pays up to 75 percent of the costs and the states pay the remaining 25 percent.
FEMA also oversees the National Flood Insurance Program. Project 2025 describes this as the federal government providing insurance at a subsidized rate.
“The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program,” Project 2025 states.
Solomon said NFIP is needed because private insurance determined it was economically unfeasible to insure homes in flood-prone areas.
Solomon said ending NFIP would mean that the people in the Ruidoso area who lost their homes to fires and floods may not be able to rebuild. He pointed out how even getting home insurance is becoming harder in disaster-prone areas.
“With climate change, insurers are among the first to be impacted,” Solomon said. “They are the ones that have to cover the impacts of climate disasters and to pay for rebuilding it.”
