Rebuttal of Department of Energy and Related Commissions
by Bernard L. McNamee
Rebuttal to Project 2025: Department of Energy and Related Commissions by Bernard L. McNamee
Bernard L. McNamee’s vision for the Department of Energy (DOE) and related commissions, as outlined in Project 2025, advocates for an aggressive rollback of environmental regulations, increased reliance on fossil fuels, and a broad reduction in federal oversight in the energy sector. While McNamee frames these policies as necessary for promoting energy independence and economic growth, his proposals ignore the critical urgency of transitioning to clean energy, the growing impacts of climate change, and the long-term economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy. McNamee’s approach risks undermining both U.S. energy security and global climate efforts, favoring short-term profits for fossil fuel industries over the long-term well-being of the environment and future generations.
A Dangerous Overreliance on Fossil Fuels
McNamee’s Project 2025 vision is grounded in a belief that the U.S. should continue to expand its reliance on fossil fuels—particularly oil, natural gas, and coal—while rolling back regulatory measures that promote clean energy alternatives. This vision is fundamentally flawed, as it fails to recognize the urgent need to transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. Increased fossil fuel production, which McNamee supports, will only exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis, locking the U.S. into an unsustainable energy system that harms the environment, public health, and the economy.
Burning fossil fuels is the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, which are driving global temperature rise, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. While McNamee argues that increasing fossil fuel production will lead to energy independence, this argument is short-sighted. The long-term costs of continuing down this path—environmental degradation, public health crises due to pollution, and costly climate-related disasters—far outweigh the short-term economic gains of fossil fuel extraction.
Rather than doubling down on outdated energy sources, the U.S. should be investing in the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and energy storage systems. These renewable energy sources are not only environmentally sustainable but also increasingly cost-competitive. In fact, renewable energy has become cheaper than fossil fuels in many parts of the world, providing a viable and reliable alternative to traditional energy sources. McNamee’s fossil fuel-centric approach ignores these trends and places the U.S. at risk of falling behind in the global race for clean energy leadership.
Rolling Back Environmental Regulations: A Recipe for Disaster
Central to McNamee’s vision is the rollback of key environmental regulations, which he argues are burdensome to energy producers and stifle economic growth. However, these regulations—such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions—exist to protect public health, the environment, and future generations from the harmful effects of pollution and climate change. Weakening or eliminating these regulations, as McNamee proposes, would lead to increased air and water pollution, further degrading natural ecosystems and threatening human health.
The fossil fuel industry is one of the largest sources of air pollution, which is linked to respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and premature death. Relaxing emissions standards would allow corporations to release more harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority communities that are often located near industrial sites. These communities already bear the brunt of environmental harms, and McNamee’s deregulation agenda would exacerbate this environmental injustice.
Moreover, McNamee’s dismissal of regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions ignores the mounting economic costs of climate inaction. The increased frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters—such as hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods—are costing the U.S. billions of dollars each year in damages. By weakening environmental protections, McNamee’s vision would make it harder to mitigate these impacts, increasing the financial burden on taxpayers and the federal government to respond to climate-related disasters.
Neglecting the Economic Potential of Clean Energy
While McNamee advocates for a fossil fuel-driven energy policy, he overlooks the vast economic potential of the clean energy sector. Renewable energy and energy efficiency industries are some of the fastest-growing job sectors in the U.S. Solar, wind, and energy storage technologies not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also provide high-quality jobs that cannot be outsourced. In contrast, the fossil fuel industry is becoming increasingly automated, resulting in fewer jobs despite increases in production.
By failing to invest in renewable energy, McNamee’s vision would miss an opportunity to drive economic growth in emerging clean energy industries. The global transition to clean energy is already underway, with countries around the world investing heavily in renewable technologies. The U.S. has the potential to lead this transition, but McNamee’s focus on propping up fossil fuels would leave the country lagging behind in the global clean energy market. Countries like China, Germany, and India are making significant strides in renewable energy production, and the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge if it continues to cling to outdated energy policies.
In addition, the renewable energy sector provides opportunities for rural economic revitalization. Wind and solar farms often provide stable sources of income for rural communities and create local jobs in construction, maintenance, and operation. By investing in clean energy infrastructure, the U.S. could help address rural economic challenges while advancing the transition to a sustainable energy future.
Ignoring the National Security Implications of Climate Change
McNamee’s Project 2025 vision also fails to acknowledge the national security risks posed by climate change. The U.S. military, along with numerous national security experts, has identified climate change as a significant threat to global stability. Rising temperatures, shifting weather patterns, and resource scarcity are contributing to conflicts, mass migration, and humanitarian crises around the world. By advocating for increased fossil fuel production and rolling back environmental protections, McNamee’s plan would exacerbate these threats rather than address them.
A fossil fuel-dependent energy strategy also exposes the U.S. to volatile global energy markets, making the country more vulnerable to geopolitical tensions and disruptions in supply. In contrast, clean energy technologies, such as solar and wind, offer the potential for greater energy security because they rely on abundant, domestically available resources. By diversifying the energy mix with renewables, the U.S. can reduce its reliance on foreign energy sources and strengthen its energy independence in a way that also aligns with climate goals.
Weakening Federal Oversight: A Threat to Public Safety and Accountability
McNamee’s vision of reducing the federal government’s role in regulating the energy sector is deeply problematic. Federal oversight is essential for ensuring that energy companies operate safely, transparently, and in the public interest. The energy sector, particularly fossil fuel extraction and transportation, is fraught with safety risks, as seen in oil spills, pipeline explosions, and coal mine disasters. Weakening federal oversight, as McNamee proposes, would leave communities more vulnerable to these risks and reduce accountability for corporations that fail to prioritize safety and environmental protection.
For example, federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy are responsible for enforcing safety standards, conducting environmental impact assessments, and ensuring that energy companies comply with laws designed to protect public health and the environment. Removing or reducing the regulatory authority of these agencies, as McNamee suggests, would weaken their ability to hold corporations accountable for environmental violations, workplace safety failures, and public health risks.
Furthermore, McNamee’s proposal to increase reliance on nuclear energy without sufficient regulatory oversight is particularly concerning. While nuclear power can be a low-carbon energy source, it comes with significant safety and waste disposal challenges. Weakening regulations around nuclear energy production and waste management could lead to accidents with catastrophic consequences, as seen in past incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Proper oversight and stringent safety protocols are essential to ensuring that nuclear energy is a viable part of the clean energy transition.
Conclusion: A Vision Out of Step with the Future
Bernard L. McNamee’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of Energy represents a dangerous step backward in U.S. energy policy. By advocating for increased reliance on fossil fuels, deregulation, and a diminished role for federal oversight, McNamee’s approach prioritizes short-term economic gains for the fossil fuel industry over the long-term sustainability, security, and health of the nation. This vision ignores the urgent need to transition to clean energy, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and build a more resilient, secure energy system.
The future of energy lies in renewable sources like wind, solar, and energy storage, which offer a path to both economic growth and environmental sustainability. The U.S. has the opportunity to lead the global clean energy transition, creating jobs, strengthening energy independence, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. McNamee’s fossil fuel-centric approach would not only undermine these efforts but also leave the U.S. vulnerable to the escalating impacts of climate change, environmental degradation, and global energy market volatility.
The Department of Energy must embrace policies that prioritize clean energy innovation, environmental protection, and long-term energy security. McNamee’s vision is out of step with the reality of the 21st century, where the challenges of climate change and the benefits of renewable energy demand bold leadership and forward-thinking policy. Rather than clinging to an outdated energy model, the U.S. should invest in the technologies and infrastructure that will power a sustainable and prosperous future.