Project 2025's Anti-EV Stance: Is Mark Mills' Lithium Critique a Conservative Truth Bomb?

So, Project 2025 is this big plan from a bunch of conservative groups, and it's got some pretty strong ideas about energy. One of the things they're talking about is electric vehicles, or EVs. A lot of this discussion seems to hinge on the work of Mark Mills, who has some serious questions about lithium, the main ingredient in EV batteries. Is his take on lithium a wake-up call for conservatives, or just another argument against going electric? Let's break down Project 2025's anti-EV stance and see if Mills' lithium critique holds up as a conservative truth bomb.

Key Takeaways

• Project 2025 aims to dismantle the administrative state and revive Trump-era energy policies, focusing on increased fossil fuel extraction.

• Mark Mills' critique of lithium's availability and the challenges of its extraction raises questions about the long-term viability of EVs from a conservative perspective.

• Lithium mining faces significant hurdles, including resource scarcity, environmental damage, water usage concerns, and opposition from Indigenous communities.

• The plan suggests opening more public lands for fossil fuel development and reforming environmental regulations, potentially impacting conservation efforts.

• Project 2025's broader agenda includes weakening environmental protections and reversing climate change policies, directly contrasting with the needs of a green energy transition.

Project 2025's Vision For Energy Policy

Project 2025 lays out a pretty clear agenda for how it thinks energy policy should work, and it's a big departure from current approaches. At its core, the plan seems focused on rolling back regulations and boosting traditional energy sources. The overarching goal is to dismantle what they call the 'administrative state,' which essentially means reducing the power and reach of federal agencies that oversee environmental and energy matters. This is a pretty significant shift, aiming to put more control back into the hands of industry and states.

Deconstructing The Administrative State

This part of the Project 2025 plan is all about shrinking the federal government's footprint, especially in areas related to energy and the environment. They argue that too much bureaucracy stifles innovation and economic growth. The idea is to streamline processes, cut down on agency staff, and limit the authority of departments like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Interior. It’s a call to return to a more limited government model, where market forces are expected to drive decisions rather than federal oversight.

Reviving The Trump-Era Energy Dominance Agenda

Project 2025 explicitly calls for bringing back policies from the previous Trump administration, often referred to as the "Energy Dominance Agenda." This means prioritizing the expansion of fossil fuel production, including oil, gas, and coal. Key proposals include:

• Reinstating industry-friendly orders that were in place during the Trump years.

• Significantly increasing oil and gas lease sales, both on public lands and offshore.

• Opening up vast areas, like parts of Alaska, for exploration and development.

• Restarting the federal coal-leasing program, which has been under review.

This revival aims to boost domestic energy production and reduce reliance on foreign sources, though it comes with significant environmental considerations.

Industry-Friendly Orders And Lease Sales

As part of their push for "Energy Dominance," Project 2025 advocates for a swift return to policies that favor fossil fuel extraction. This includes reinstating specific orders that were beneficial to the oil and gas industry during the Trump administration. Furthermore, there's a strong emphasis on expanding opportunities for leasing, particularly for oil and gas exploration on federal lands and waters. The goal here is to make it easier and faster for companies to secure rights to drill and mine, thereby increasing the supply of traditional energy sources. This approach is expected to face opposition from environmental groups concerned about the impact on public lands.

The Project 2025 plan suggests a significant rollback of environmental regulations and a strong push towards increasing fossil fuel production. This vision prioritizes energy independence through traditional sources and aims to reduce the influence of federal agencies in energy development, potentially reshaping the landscape of environmental policy and resource management.

The Conservative Critique Of Electric Vehicles

Project 2025, a significant conservative policy initiative, has put electric vehicles (EVs) squarely in its crosshairs. The group argues that the push for EVs, often framed as an environmental imperative, overlooks substantial challenges and potential downsides. Their critique centers on the resource demands, environmental impacts of mining, and the broader implications for energy independence and national security.

Mark Mills' Lithium Concerns

One of the most prominent voices in this critique is Mark Mills, a physicist and author. Mills has been vocal about the immense quantities of critical minerals, particularly lithium, required to manufacture EVs and their batteries. He points out that the current global supply chain for these materials is concentrated in a few countries, raising concerns about geopolitical stability and the actual environmental footprint of extracting and processing them. The sheer scale of lithium extraction needed to meet projected EV demand presents a significant hurdle that is often downplayed in mainstream discussions.

Mills highlights that the environmental costs associated with lithium mining, such as water usage in arid regions and the potential for pollution, are substantial. He also questions the energy sources used to power EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure, suggesting that if they rely heavily on fossil fuels, the net environmental benefit of EVs is diminished. His work often emphasizes the need for a more realistic assessment of the entire lifecycle of electric vehicles, from mine to road.

Resource Extraction Challenges

The transition to EVs necessitates a massive ramp-up in the extraction of various minerals, including lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements. Project 2025 and its allies argue that this increased demand strains existing mining capacities and environmental regulations. They point to the fact that much of the world's supply of these minerals comes from regions with lax environmental standards or political instability. For instance, Bolivia holds significant lithium reserves, estimated to reach 23 million tons by 2025, but its production capacity and regulatory framework are still developing [8ec3].

This reliance on a limited number of suppliers creates vulnerabilities. The conservative viewpoint suggests that pursuing an EV-heavy future could lead to dependence on foreign adversaries for critical components, undermining national energy security. Furthermore, the process of mining itself can be destructive, impacting local ecosystems and communities. The push for domestic production, while appealing, faces its own set of challenges, including lengthy permitting processes and public opposition.

Environmental and Social Impacts

Beyond the immediate resource extraction issues, the conservative critique also focuses on the broader environmental and social consequences. Mining operations, especially for minerals like lithium, can consume vast amounts of water, a critical issue in arid regions where many of these resources are found. This can lead to water scarcity for local communities and agriculture. There are also concerns about the toxic waste generated by mining processes and the potential for long-term environmental damage, including habitat destruction and pollution of waterways.

The narrative often presented is that EVs are a clean, green solution. However, a closer look reveals a complex web of resource dependencies and environmental trade-offs. The mining required for EV batteries can lead to significant water depletion, habitat loss, and the generation of hazardous waste. This raises questions about whether the environmental benefits are as clear-cut as proponents suggest, especially when considering the entire lifecycle of the vehicle and its components.

Furthermore, the social impacts on communities near mining sites are often overlooked. Indigenous rights and land use are frequently contentious issues, as extraction projects can encroach on sacred lands and disrupt traditional ways of life. Project 2025 advocates for policies that prioritize domestic resource development and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, but they also emphasize the need for a pragmatic approach that acknowledges the real-world challenges and impacts of such endeavors. The development of advanced manufacturing in the U.S., as championed by initiatives like the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing during the Trump administration [cf56], is seen as a way to potentially mitigate some of these supply chain risks.

Lithium Mining: Promises And Perils

So, lithium. It's the magic ingredient for all those electric car batteries and fancy gadgets, right? Demand is through the roof, and everyone's looking for ways to get more of it, especially here in the US. This has led to a bit of a land rush, with companies staking claims all over, particularly in places like Utah and Nevada. They're hoping to tap into domestic reserves and build up our own supply chain.

The Demand For Lithium

It's pretty simple, really. More EVs, more phones, more grid storage means a whole lot more lithium needed. Prices have gone up because of this, which is why companies are suddenly very interested in places they might have overlooked before. It's a global scramble for this key material.

Domestic Industry Aspirations

There's a big push to mine lithium domestically. Think about it: less reliance on other countries, more jobs here at home. Companies are exploring different methods, trying to find the most efficient and cost-effective ways to pull it out of the ground. Some are looking at traditional evaporation ponds, while others are betting on newer technologies like direct lithium extraction (DLE).

Water Scarcity And Aridity

This is where things get tricky, especially in the arid West. Mining lithium, particularly using older methods with evaporation ponds, can use a massive amount of water. We're talking hundreds of thousands of gallons per ton of material. In places already struggling with water shortages, like the Colorado River Basin, this is a major concern. Finding a balance between extracting needed resources and protecting precious water supplies is a huge challenge.

The push for domestic lithium is understandable, given global supply chain concerns. However, the environmental realities of extraction, particularly water usage in already dry regions, cannot be ignored. New technologies are being explored, but their effectiveness and long-term impacts are still being assessed. It's a complex puzzle with no easy answers.

• Evaporation Ponds: These take up a lot of land and use a lot of water. The process can also take a long time, sometimes over a year and a half to concentrate the lithium. This method is common for materials like potash too.

• Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE): This newer approach aims to pump brine to the surface, extract the lithium using special materials, and then pump the water back underground. The idea is that it's less water-intensive and uses less land. However, DLE is still largely unproven, and it might even require injecting fresh water into some deposits to get the minerals out.

• Hydrology Concerns: Any time you drill deep into the earth, you risk messing with how water flows underground and even the stability of the ground itself. This is true whether you're injecting or removing fluids.

Indigenous Rights And Resource Development

When we talk about mining for things like lithium, it's not just about digging up rocks. For many Indigenous communities, these lands are deeply sacred, tied to their history and culture for generations. Project 2025's push for energy dominance, which often means more mining, can really clash with these deeply held values.

Community Consent And Opposition

It's a big deal when development projects, especially those involving resource extraction, are proposed on or near Indigenous lands. The idea of "community consent" is central here. It means that tribes and Indigenous groups should have the final say on whether projects happen on their ancestral territories. We've seen this play out with things like the proposed Resolution Copper mine in Arizona, which is on land sacred to the Western Apache people. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, for example, has been vocal in opposing it, arguing that the mine would destroy a site of immense cultural importance. They point out that outside interests, sometimes even foreign-owned companies, push these projects for profit, often ignoring the wishes and rights of the people who have lived on the land for centuries.

Sacred Landscapes And Cultural Heritage

Beyond just the physical land, there's the spiritual and cultural significance. Places like the McDermitt Caldera in Nevada, which is rich in lithium but also a place where the Paiute-Shoshone people have deep connections, highlight this conflict. This area is not just a resource deposit; it's a place where cultural practices happen and where ancestral ties are maintained. Mining here, and in similar locations, risks damaging or destroying these irreplaceable cultural landscapes. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, for instance, has spoken about the importance of protecting areas like the Dolores River Canyons, not just for environmental reasons, but to ensure future generations can connect with their heritage on the land itself.

Tribal Sovereignty In Extraction Decisions

Ultimately, this comes down to tribal sovereignty – the right of Indigenous nations to govern themselves and make decisions about their lands and resources. When federal policies or corporate interests push for extraction without genuine consultation or respect for tribal authority, it undermines this sovereignty. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples emphasizes the right to free, prior, and informed consent. This means Indigenous peoples have the right to say yes or no to projects affecting them, and their decision should be respected. Ignoring this can lead to a continuation of historical injustices, where Indigenous communities bear the brunt of environmental damage while others benefit.

Environmental Repercussions Of Mining

When we talk about getting the materials needed for things like electric car batteries, it's easy to get caught up in the shiny new tech. But digging up these resources, especially lithium, comes with a hefty environmental price tag. It's not just about the hole in the ground; it's about what gets left behind and what gets disturbed.

Habitat Destruction And Species Impact

Mining operations, by their very nature, tear up a lot of land. This means bulldozing forests, filling in wetlands, and generally messing with the natural homes of countless plants and animals. Think about it: when you clear-cut an area for a mine, you're not just removing trees; you're displacing entire ecosystems. This can lead to a drop in local wildlife populations and, in some cases, push endangered species even closer to the brink. It's a big deal for biodiversity.

Toxic Waste And Historical Injustices

One of the biggest headaches with mining is the waste. For every bit of lithium or other valuable mineral they pull out, they leave behind thousands of pounds of rock, soil, and other stuff that isn't useful. This waste, often called tailings, can contain nasty chemicals. These byproducts can leach into the soil and water, causing long-term contamination. We've seen this play out before with historical mining sites, leaving behind toxic legacies that are incredibly hard and expensive to clean up. It's a cycle that's tough to break, and it often disproportionately affects communities that were already struggling.

Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Threats

Many of the areas targeted for lithium mining, particularly in the Western U.S., are home to delicate sagebrush steppe ecosystems. These aren't just empty deserts; they support a unique web of life, including iconic species like the greater sage-grouse. Mining activities can fragment these habitats, disrupt water sources, and introduce invasive species, all of which put immense pressure on this already vulnerable landscape. The long-term health of these areas is seriously at risk when large-scale extraction projects move in. It's a stark reminder that the push for new energy sources can have unintended consequences on the natural world we're trying to protect. The initial CO2 emissions from electric car production are significant, and that's before we even consider the mining impacts [9b59].

The sheer volume of waste generated by mining is staggering. It's not just a small pile; it's often acres upon acres of material that needs to be stored indefinitely. This waste can contain hazardous substances that pose a risk to the environment and human health for generations. Dealing with this byproduct is a major challenge that often gets overlooked in the excitement of new resource development.

The Role Of Public Lands In Energy

Project 2025 seems pretty keen on opening up federal lands for energy development, especially fossil fuels. It’s like they want to rewind the clock to the Trump administration's "Energy Dominance" playbook. This involves bringing back old orders that favored industry and pushing for more oil and gas lease sales, both on land and offshore. They're even looking at areas like Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve and parts of Colorado and New Mexico that had some protections put in place.

Opening Lands For Fossil Fuels

This push to expand fossil fuel extraction on public lands is a big part of Project 2025's energy policy. They're talking about reinstating a bunch of industry-friendly directives from the Trump era. Think more oil and gas leases, and even restarting the federal coal leasing program that had been put on hold. It's a clear signal that the priority is maximizing resource extraction, often with less emphasis on environmental reviews or conservation efforts. This approach aims to boost domestic production and energy independence, but it comes with significant environmental considerations.

Restoring Mining And Lease Claims

There's also a focus on re-establishing mining claims and oil and gas leases in specific areas that had previously faced restrictions. For instance, Project 2025 mentions restoring these rights in places like the Thompson Divide in Colorado and near Chaco Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico. The idea is to remove perceived barriers to development and allow companies to pursue projects that were previously stalled or blocked. This could lead to increased activity in areas that have been set aside for conservation or cultural preservation. It's a move that definitely sparks debate about balancing economic interests with protecting natural and historical sites. You can find more details on various mining projects across the Four Corners region on the Land Desk Mining Monitor Map.

Federal Land Management Reforms

Beyond just opening up areas for extraction, Project 2025 suggests some pretty significant changes to how federal agencies manage public lands. There's talk about relocating the Bureau of Land Management headquarters out West, which could change how the agency operates and interacts with local communities. They also want to make sure conservation efforts don't get in the way of development. The Bureau of Land Management recently finalized a public lands rule that aimed to put conservation on par with other uses like grazing and oil and gas development. This rule included provisions to prioritize landscape health, allow leasing for restoration projects, and incorporate Indigenous knowledge into decision-making. Project 2025's recommendations seem to lean towards a different philosophy, one that prioritizes resource development over these kinds of conservation-focused reforms.

The push to accelerate mining and drilling on public lands, often by rolling back existing environmental regulations and protections, is a central theme. This strategy aims to boost domestic energy production and reduce reliance on foreign sources, but it raises serious questions about the long-term health of ecosystems and the impact on communities living near these extraction sites.

Here's a look at some of the proposed actions:

• Reinstating industry-friendly orders from the Trump administration.

• Expanding oil and gas lease sales on federal lands and waters.

• Restarting the federal coal leasing program.

• Restoring mining and lease claims in previously restricted areas.

• Reforming federal land management agencies to prioritize resource extraction.

Alternative Energy And Its Own Challenges

While the push for electric vehicles often gets the spotlight, the infrastructure needed to power them, and indeed, the broader shift to alternative energy sources, comes with its own set of hurdles. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch to a greener future. We're talking about massive new power generation, huge transmission lines, and a whole lot of land use.

Solar Development On Public Lands

Expanding solar power, especially on public lands, is a big part of the alternative energy picture. Utilities are planning major transmission projects, like the Greenlink West line in Nevada, to bring power from new solar farms to areas with high demand, particularly for data centers. These projects can open up vast tracts of land for solar development. While solar power is certainly better than burning fossil fuels, the sheer scale of these installations raises questions about land use and habitat.

Feeding The Big Tech Machine

There's a growing concern that the massive energy demands of the tech industry, especially for data centers, are driving the expansion of alternative energy not to replace fossil fuels, but to feed this growing demand. Utilities are being asked to supply enormous amounts of electricity, sometimes leading to the deferral of coal plant retirements and the construction of new natural gas plants. It seems the build-out of renewables is increasingly about meeting new demand, rather than displacing existing carbon-intensive sources.

Transmission Lines And Infrastructure

Building the necessary infrastructure, like long-distance transmission lines, is a significant undertaking. These projects require extensive planning, permitting, and can impact landscapes. The need for these lines is driven by the desire to connect renewable energy sources, often located far from population centers, to where the power is needed. This expansion also means more land, including public lands, being utilized for energy infrastructure, which can have its own environmental considerations. The sheer scale of energy required by modern technology is a challenge that alternative sources must meet.

The demand for electricity from data centers is staggering, requiring utilities to plan for generation capacity that dwarfs current needs. This surge in demand puts immense pressure on existing and planned energy infrastructure, potentially leading to the continued reliance on fossil fuels to meet peak loads, even as renewable capacity grows.

Project 2025's Broader Environmental Agenda

Weakening Environmental Protections

Project 2025 outlines a significant shift away from current environmental regulations, aiming to roll back protections put in place over recent decades. The plan suggests a substantial reduction in the scope and power of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This includes cutting staff, closing offices focused on environmental justice and civil rights, and limiting research not explicitly authorized by Congress. The goal seems to be a leaner federal government with less regulatory oversight, prioritizing market forces over environmental mandates. This approach signals a move towards deregulation across various sectors.

Reforming the Endangered Species Act

There's a clear intention within Project 2025 to revise the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposed changes aim to reinstate limitations similar to those from the Trump administration. This could mean altering how species are listed and how protections are applied, potentially opening up more lands and resources for development. The focus appears to be on streamlining processes that currently involve environmental reviews and consultations, which are seen by proponents of the plan as obstacles to economic activity.

Climate Change Policy Reversals

The project's agenda includes a significant departure from current climate change policies. It suggests eliminating the use of catastrophic climate change scenarios in regulatory drafting and removing climate change from the mission statements of agencies like the Department of Agriculture. This aligns with a broader skepticism towards the urgency and human-driven nature of climate change, aiming to reverse policies enacted to address it. The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target highlights that current climate pledges are not enough to meet climate goals, making such reversals a point of concern for many.

The proposed changes suggest a fundamental reevaluation of the federal government's role in environmental stewardship. Instead of expanding protections, the focus is on reducing federal intervention and empowering market-based solutions. This could lead to increased resource extraction and development on public lands, with less emphasis on conservation and climate mitigation efforts.

Here's a look at some proposed actions:

• Reduce agency spending: Cutting budgets for environmental programs and subsidies. This includes programs that support farmers for crop losses and conservation efforts.

• Streamline resource development: Easing regulations for drilling and mining on federal lands, including opening up areas previously protected.

• Revise key legislation: Modifying laws like the Endangered Species Act to reduce perceived burdens on industry.

These proposed policy shifts are part of a larger effort to deconstruct what the project calls the "administrative state," aiming to return power to states and private entities. The impact of these changes could be far-reaching, affecting everything from air and water quality to the preservation of natural habitats. The rollback of environmental protections initiated since January 2025 has already been substantial, and Project 2025 aims to accelerate this trend [c393].

The Future Of Energy And Resource Management

So, where does all this leave us? Project 2025 paints a pretty clear picture of wanting to go back to basics, focusing on fossil fuels and loosening up environmental rules. It’s a stark contrast to the push for electric vehicles and renewables we've been hearing about. The big question is how we balance our need for energy with protecting the environment, especially when it comes to getting the raw materials for all these new technologies.

Balancing Energy Needs And Conservation

Finding that sweet spot between powering our lives and keeping the planet healthy is a tough gig. We're seeing massive energy demands, especially from places like data centers, which are gobbling up electricity at an alarming rate. Utilities are scrambling to keep up, sometimes by building more natural gas plants, even as they talk about going green. It's a complicated dance.

• Increased Demand: Tech companies are asking for huge amounts of power, sometimes more than entire regions currently use. This puts a strain on existing infrastructure and requires massive new investments.

• Infrastructure Challenges: Building new power lines and generation facilities takes time and money. There are also concerns about where this new infrastructure will be located, especially on public lands.

• Conservation Efforts: While demand is rising, there's also a growing awareness of the need for conservation and efficiency. This includes everything from improving building insulation to developing smarter energy grids.

The Conservative Stance On EVs

Project 2025's take on electric vehicles is pretty straightforward: they're not a fan. The focus is on domestic energy production, which, in their view, means more oil and gas. They're critical of the push for EVs, pointing to the resource extraction challenges and environmental impacts associated with battery production, like the mining of lithium. It’s a perspective that really questions the current direction of energy policy.

The push for electric vehicles, while presented as a clean alternative, brings its own set of resource and environmental hurdles. The materials needed for batteries, such as lithium and cobalt, require extensive mining operations that can scar landscapes and strain water resources. This has led to a conservative critique that questions the true sustainability of a rapid EV transition without addressing these upstream impacts.

Navigating Resource Extraction Debates

The debate over resource extraction is heating up, and it's not just about fossil fuels anymore. The demand for minerals like lithium, essential for EV batteries, is driving a new wave of mining proposals. This brings up serious issues about land use, water scarcity, and the rights of Indigenous communities. The challenge lies in developing these resources responsibly, or finding alternatives altogether. We're seeing proposals to open up more public lands for mining, which is a big shift from current conservation efforts. It's a complex web of economic needs, environmental concerns, and social justice that we're going to have to untangle. The global energy landscape is constantly changing, and understanding these shifts is key to the energy sector.

Here's a look at some of the key points in this ongoing discussion:

• Lithium Demand: The need for lithium is skyrocketing, driven by the EV market. This has led to a rush to find and mine new deposits.

• Community Opposition: Many proposed mining sites face strong opposition from local communities and Indigenous groups who are concerned about environmental damage and cultural impacts.

• Water Use: Lithium extraction, particularly from brine evaporation ponds, can use vast amounts of water, a significant issue in arid regions.

So, What's the Takeaway?

Looking at Project 2025's plans and Mark Mills' points about lithium, it's clear there's a lot to unpack. Project 2025 seems really set on rolling back environmental rules and pushing for more fossil fuel development, which clashes with the push for EVs. Mills' critique of lithium, while raising valid questions about supply and environmental impact, also seems to fit into a broader conservative agenda that's not exactly thrilled about the shift away from gas cars. It feels like we're seeing two different visions for the future of energy, and the debate over lithium is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle. Whether these critiques are just noise or a genuine look at the challenges ahead, it's definitely something to keep an eye on as policies get made.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Project 2025 and what's its main goal?

Project 2025 is a plan created by a group of conservative organizations. Their main goal is to change how the government works if a new president takes office, aiming to reduce the power of government agencies and bring back policies from the Trump administration, especially concerning energy.

What is Project 2025's view on electric vehicles (EVs)?

Project 2025 is critical of EVs. They focus on the challenges and potential downsides of EV technology, particularly concerning the mining of materials like lithium, and suggest that current environmental policies favoring EVs might be misguided.

Why is lithium important for EVs, and what are the concerns?

Lithium is a key ingredient in the batteries that power electric cars. The concern is that getting enough lithium requires a lot of mining, which can be tough on the environment, use a lot of water in dry areas, and sometimes conflict with the rights and lands of Indigenous communities.

What are the environmental issues related to lithium mining?

Lithium mining can lead to habitat destruction, harm wildlife, and create toxic waste. In places like the sagebrush steppe, it can threaten important ecosystems and species that are already struggling.

How does Project 2025 want to change energy policies on public lands?

Project 2025 wants to open up more public lands for activities like oil and gas drilling and mining. They aim to reverse rules that protect these lands and waters, promoting what they call 'Energy Dominance.'

What role do Indigenous rights play in mining projects?

Indigenous communities often have deep cultural and spiritual ties to the lands where resources like lithium are found. Their consent is crucial, and many tribes oppose mining projects that could harm their ancestral lands and heritage.

Are there challenges with renewable energy sources like solar power?

Yes, even renewable energy has challenges. For example, building large solar farms often requires vast amounts of land, including public lands, and the power generated is increasingly used to feed the high energy demands of big tech companies, rather than solely replacing fossil fuels.

What is the broader environmental agenda of Project 2025?

Project 2025's agenda includes weakening environmental rules, reforming laws like the Endangered Species Act, and reversing policies aimed at tackling climate change. They generally favor deregulation to boost industries.