Probable Environmental Policies and International Options

Project 2025

The Project 2025 document does not specifically outline environmental policies, however it does mandate changes to the organization and operation of the government with far reaching effects.

Likely Environmental Policy Directions of Project 2025

1. Scaling Back Environmental Regulations: Based on past initiatives supported by the Heritage Foundation and similar conservative think tanks, Project 2025 aims to limit the scope and regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This approach often frames environmental regulations as overly burdensome to businesses, particularly in sectors like manufacturing, oil, and gas. Reducing these regulations will lead to:
   • Increased industrial emissions and water pollutants, as companies face fewer restrictions on what they can release into the environment.
   • Potential rollback of standards for clean air and water, which could disproportionately impact communities near industrial sites, potentially increasing health risks. Tulane study: Louisiana’s severe air pollution linked to dozens of cancer cases each year
2. Fossil Fuel Expansion Over Renewable Energy: Project 2025 prioritizes traditional energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal over renewable energy investments. This focus aligns with prior Heritage Foundation perspectives, which argue for “energy independence” by maximizing U.S. fossil fuel resources. Expected outcomes of this policy might include:
   • Slower transitions to cleaner energy, possibly prolonging high greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
   • Less federal support for renewable energy projects like wind, solar, and electric vehicles, which can hinder progress toward reducing carbon footprints.
3. Questioning Climate Science and Climate Policy Rollbacks: Heritage and other aligned organizations have previously expressed skepticism about mainstream climate science and its implications for U.S. policy. Under Project 2025, the administration plans to:
   • Withdraw from or diminish commitments to international climate agreements, similar to the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump.
   • Cut climate-related funding and discourage climate adaptation measures, potentially leaving regions vulnerable to climate-related extreme weather events without adequate resources.
   • Erase climate related data from government agencies’ systems and archives.

Past Actions and Impacts of Similar Policies

Past actions under similar policy frameworks, especially during the Trump administration, offer insight into potential impacts:

• Trump’s EPA Rollbacks: During Trump’s presidency, the EPA rolled back over 100 environmental rules, weakening policies on emissions, water protections, and endangered species. These actions led to increased pollution, which the New York Times and other outlets reported could result in thousands of premature deaths annually due to increased air pollution.

• Increased Fossil Fuel Production: With an emphasis on fossil fuel production, the U.S. saw a surge in oil and gas drilling, which led to a temporary boost in energy jobs but also raised methane emissions—a potent greenhouse gas. Methane leaks from oil and gas operations contribute significantly to climate change, with impacts seen in intensified natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires.

• Reduced Climate Commitments: The rollback of commitments like the Clean Power Plan led to stalled progress in emissions reductions in the U.S. Meanwhile, international climate leaders criticized the U.S. for failing to uphold its environmental responsibilities, impacting global cooperation efforts to address climate change.

For more detailed external information on these topics:

• The Environmental Integrity Project provides a comprehensive list of rollbacks and their projected health and environmental impacts.

• Impact of Increased Emissions: Studies by the American Lung Association and Harvard University have linked air quality declines to increased health risks, particularly in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

  • Science Direct

  • American Lung Association

International Response

If the United States were to abandon all climate controls, the rest of the world could take several actions to mitigate the environmental impact and create pressure for the U.S. to reengage. This could include economic measures like taxes and sanctions, diplomatic pressure, legal actions, and the creation of climate-focused alliances. Here’s a detailed look at potential responses:

1. Economic Measures: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM)

   • Carbon Border Taxes: Countries could impose tariffs on goods imported from the U.S. based on their carbon footprint. The European Union (EU) has already introduced plans for a CBAM, set to begin in 2026, targeting imports from countries without robust climate policies. This would make U.S. goods more expensive in these markets, creating an incentive for American industries to adopt greener practices.

   • Historical Reference: CBAMs are similar to past EU proposals for environmental tariffs on countries not aligned with the Kyoto Protocol. Although never implemented, the current climate crisis has heightened support for such measures.

2. Trade Sanctions and Restrictions

   • Green Trade Agreements: Nations could form trade blocs that prioritize environmentally friendly countries, giving favorable trade terms to those with strict climate policies. By excluding the U.S., these blocs could limit its economic access to key markets.

   • Targeted Sanctions on U.S. Fossil Fuel Industries: Other countries could restrict imports of U.S. oil, gas, and coal, cutting into revenue for carbon-intensive industries. For example, a coalition of countries could ban imports of American coal, oil, or gas, directly pressuring major U.S. polluters and potentially reducing U.S. fossil fuel exports.

   • Historical Example: In the 1980s, the international community imposed economic sanctions on South Africa in response to apartheid. This strategy could similarly isolate and economically pressure the U.S. over its environmental policies.

3. Legal Action through International Bodies

   • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Member countries could lodge formal complaints against the U.S. within the UNFCCC, leading to diplomatic isolation. Although enforcement power is limited, this could signal unified opposition and apply political pressure.

   • International Court of Justice (ICJ): Countries affected by U.S. emissions could bring a case to the ICJ, arguing that the U.S. is violating international norms by contributing disproportionately to climate harm. Although ICJ rulings aren’t always enforceable, a favorable ruling could create global condemnation. Prior International Cases

   • Historical Example: The Trail Smelter case (1938) between the U.S. and Canada established a precedent for holding countries accountable for cross-border pollution. This case might serve as a basis for legal arguments that major polluters violate the rights of other nations by destabilizing the global climate.

4. Climate-Focused Alliances and Coalitions

   • Climate Coalitions: Other countries could form alliances specifically focused on climate action, excluding the U.S. These alliances could prioritize trade, technological exchanges, and investments in green innovation for members, making membership economically attractive. Such an alliance might establish specific trade benefits for countries adhering to climate commitments.

   • Global Climate Funds: Climate coalitions could create funds to help developing nations adopt green technology and wean off fossil fuel dependence, which could reduce global demand for U.S. energy exports, weakening the U.S. energy sector.

5. Diplomatic Pressure and Public Opinion

   • Global Public Opinion and Consumer Boycotts: International climate advocacy groups could lead campaigns against U.S. brands and products, particularly those from carbon-intensive sectors. This could damage the reputation of U.S. companies abroad, making U.S. products less attractive in global markets.

   • Historical Reference: During the 1990s and early 2000s, public pressure and activism significantly impacted multinational corporations’ labor practices, particularly those operating in developing nations. Similar climate-focused campaigns could influence U.S. companies to advocate for stronger climate policies.

6. Leveraging Climate Finance and Investment Policies

   • Green Financing Conditions: International financial institutions, such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund (IMF), could implement policies requiring recipient countries to meet climate criteria, including divesting from American fossil fuels. This would limit the U.S. market for fossil fuels internationally and further pressure the U.S. to adopt environmentally responsible policies.

   • Investor Pressure and Divestment: Large global investment firms and institutional investors could divest from U.S.-based companies that lack climate policies. For instance, the “Net Zero Asset Managers” initiative, representing trillions of dollars in assets, aims to support climate action. Global investors could steer clear of U.S. investments unless they adopt responsible climate standards.

   • Example: In recent years, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds have increasingly divested from fossil fuels due to pressure from environmental groups and stakeholders, a strategy that could be replicated to target American companies and industries lacking climate commitment.

7. Soft Power and Diplomatic Isolation

   • Exclusion from International Summits and Negotiations: By excluding the U.S. from major climate summits or limiting its influence in international bodies, other countries could isolate the U.S. diplomatically. This could apply pressure by diminishing the U.S. role in global discussions and weakening its political standing on environmental issues.

   • Influence over International Standards: Countries might establish strict international standards for emissions and environmental responsibility, aligning trade or investment preferences with these standards. The U.S. would then face the option of adapting to global norms or risk losing out on international cooperation and investment.

In summary, if the U.S. abandoned climate controls, other countries could deploy a multifaceted approach combining economic penalties, legal challenges, public pressure, and diplomatic isolation. By creating economic and reputational incentives, these strategies could encourage the U.S. to reconsider its stance on climate, even without formal enforcement powers.