Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes of Morning Joe and the Rachel Maddow Show, Ad Free. Plus, Ad Free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News. And now, all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content, including How to Win 2024, Prosecuting Donald Trump, Why Is This Happening? And more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. When news breaks, go beyond the headlines with the MSNBC app. Watch your favorite shows live. Get analysis from live blogs to in-depth essays and the latest updates on the 2024 election. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now at msnbc. Com/app.

Well, Welcome to the fourth and final episode of our series, The Threat of Project 2025, presented by the How to Win podcast. I'm Chris Hayes, and on this final episode, we'll be talking all about the threat of Project 2025 to the climate and the environment.

Project 2025 plans to make our air and water dirtier by limiting the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat pollution and eliminating limits on forever chemicals in drinking water. It calls for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Gutting clean energy programs, and repealing President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.

Project 2025 has all sorts of dramatic suggestions regarding the federal government as it relates to energy and climate. Just some of those ideas include removing federal restrictions on drilling on public lands, moving the EPA away from focusing on and reporting on climate change, dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmispheres Administration, and privatizing the National weather service. Yes, really. Now, a lot of these ideas stem from what Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts calls Climate Alarmism. This is Robert speaking at the World Economic Forum earlier this year. Elites tell us we have this existential crisis with so-called climate change, so much so that climate alarmism is probably the greatest cause for mental health crisis in the world. The solutions the average person know based on climate change, are far worse and more harmful and cost more human lives than do the problem and the problems themselves. Trump's thinking about climate change and global warming tends to be dismissive and denialist, broadly in line with the Kevin Roberts of the world, although in his own inimitable way, a bit harder to decipher.

The biggest threat is not global warming, where the ocean is going to rise one eighth of an inch over the next 400 years, and you'll have more ocean front property. The biggest threat is not that. The biggest threat is nuclear warming.

We should point out, Trump has disavowed Project 2025, although a lot of the people working on the project have ties to him, including people that used to serve in his administration, one of whom recently told someone who is secretly recording him, the President supports them. But if you look at his record in his first term, like his move to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement, there's a lot that would obviously line up with the Heritage Foundation's thinking around, quote, climate alarmism and rolling back environmental regulations. And while the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act has taken this holistic approach to climate change, on energy issues, Trump seems caught in a bygone age. If you ask him anything about the topic, he pulls out Sarah Palin's slogan from the 2008 campaign. Here he is earlier this summer at the Republican National Convention.

I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately, bring down interest rates, and lower the cost of energy. We will drill, baby, drill.

As we end yet another summer with record-breaking heat, we're going to dig into the threat of Project 2025 to the climate and the environment. We'll be talking to climate reporter Zoya Tierstein, who's been digging into the Project 2025 playbook while also reporting from the ground in communities already suffering from climate catastrophes. I'll chat with Dr. Vernon Morris, who's a professor of chemistry and atmospheric sciences, who has spent decades working closely with one of the federal agencies the Project 2025 wants to dismantle.

It's all coming From executive producer, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC Films presents From Russia with Lev, the larger than life journey of former Trump insider, Lev Parnis, and the outrageous scheme that led to Donald Trump's first impeachment.

I was recruited to start this secret mission to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden.

It was turning American foreign policy into an episode of The Apprentice.

This was a mission impossible, a mission stupid.

From Russia with Lev, Friday, September 20th at 9:00 PM Eastern on MSNBC. Only on Meet the Press. Just days after the presidential debate, how did it impact the race and what will it change in the final sprint to election day? Kristenristen Walker sits down with VP Nominee JD Vance and former presidential candidate, Pete Buttijetj on Meet the Press. Listen to the whole episode now wherever you get your podcast.

Joining me now is Zoya Tierstein. She's a climate reporter for Grist. Welcome to the show, Zoya.

Thanks for having me.

Zoya, as someone who covers climate, specifically, when you first heard about Project 2025 or got your hands on it to look into it, what was your expectation for what they would have to say about it, climate?

Yeah, it's a good question. I Actually, I wasn't even going to cover that, the blueprint at all, because Trump had just evout it, and there's really no saying how much of it he would implement if he were reelected. But as I started reading through it, I realized that it was so much more sweeping and far-reaching than I had thought. Really, many of its implications would be climate and environment related. It felt like I absolutely had to cover it. I was actually pretty shocked as I was reading through it. It's so extensive and touches basically every aspect of government. I didn't realize that it was a total overhaul of the federal government at the time. Yeah, I had to cover it. Then as I got into it and I looked into the history of these blueprints, which come out pretty regularly, and obviously, the Heritage Foundation has been influencing Republican campaigns and presidents for a long time, I realized that two-thirds or so of their previous recommendations have implemented or considered under Trump in his first term. It became clear that there was something there. It wasn't just a shot in the dark policy paper.

That's actually a really important point because one of the things that people have done to defend Project 2025 is to say, oh, Heritage does this every four years for a new Republican administration, which is basically true. They've been doing it for a very long time. But your point is like, yes, and a lot of their recommendations made it into the government the first time around.

Yes, that, and they haven't ever done it like this. This is a much larger and more extensive effort, and it's obvious why. When this paper came out, it was clear that things were on the up and up for Republicans. Biden was floundering at various points, and then Trump got shot. So it felt like, okay, there's this opportunity, this golden opportunity. He's definitely a shoe in. We've got to put this out and hammer it hard. Things have changed since, but it's interesting.

What would you say, as someone who covers climate and went through the climate sections of this, which we should say it's fairly scattered. There isn't really... I mean, there's an energy section, but there's not a specific climate section, partly because they don't believe in that as a conceptual, a logical concept or category for governing. What would you say the big takeaway is if you were just explaining to someone the broad vision?

I think the best way to sum up its impact on climate policy and environmental policy would be to talk about its efforts to weaken and shrink the administrative state. This has been talked about a lot. It has unique implications for climate policy. Basically, to give you a very small example, I they normally cover climate change in human health for GRIST and politics also, especially when there's an election coming up. One of the things I look at a lot is how the CDC puts out advisories to states around things like Lyme disease or mosquito-borne illnesses like Dengue, et cetera. One of the things this document would do is it would basically prevent the CDC from issuing any advisories around what happens. For example, there's a huge spike in tick-borne illnesses in Connecticut. The CDC could collect data on that. It could publish that data, but it couldn't tell Connecticut what to do about it. That small example extrapolate across all of the federal government. That is exactly what this blueprint aims to do. It aims to separate agencies from their enforcement powers, from their interpretation powers, and their rulemaking powers.

In terms of public health and climate, one of the terms in the report is climate alarmism, that they're going to purge climate alarmism from the federal government and from its communications. The idea being that any mentions of climate, for instance, tropical borne diseases are creeping northward because the globe is warming, for instance, has to be gotten rid so that the government is going to speak with this affectless flatness about very, very pressing challenges like climate.

Exactly. You can see that across the board. There's so many little rules in there and suggestions in there that you could pull out. I think one of the most interesting ones is this document would prevent the EPA, for example, from assessing the knock-on positive effects of its regulations, its proposals. Let's say shutting down a power plant in this area would have this impact on the frontline community that suffered from the air pollution from that power plant for decades. The EPA could no longer look at that benefit and assess it and include it as one of the reasons why closing that power plant would be a good idea. It's that separation, too. There's plenty of other examples.

You're rigging the cost-benefit analysis by reaching in and basically saying, you cannot consider this category of benefits, thereby totally upending the ledger for all assessments of the value regulation.

Yeah, and you could even go a step further and say that they're trying to eliminate the cost-benefit analysis entirely. It's just, let's just do this thing. It's economically feasible. The state wants to do it. Why assess the knock-on effects of this policy or this proposal?

One more thing that I think seems really relevant to climate is the notion of, they call it schedule F, which is an executive order that Donald Trump issued in his final days in 2020, it was then revoked by the Biden administration. But basically this vision that suffuses project 2025, which is there's too many civil servants, they call them bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are too independent and not under the control of the single figurehead of the President of the United States, and we need more political appointees up and down the bureaucracy so that people who are basically sworn MAGA loyalists are the people taking soil samples. I mean, that's an extreme example. But how would that affect the government dealing with climate?

Yeah, I spoke to a number of experts for my piece on Project 2025 and its climate implications, and every one of them said that the elimination of career personnel in the federal government would be possibly the most damaging to the implementation and enforcement of climate regulations and environmental regulations. The reason for that is that I don't think many of us think of this on a regular basis. We think about government and how it works and the laws and what they pass and getting elected. But so much of government, which is huge, relies on career personnel passing down what they know to other people. That's how the government keeps on running. They want to eliminate tens of thousands of government career employees. Doing that would be, I've heard from experts, catastrophic for actually keeping the government running smoothly. I think that it's very interesting that they want more political appointees up and down, infused within the administrative state, considering that their efforts to weaken that state are so pronounced. It's this weird irony where it's like, Okay, well, we want more MAGA people in government, but also we want government to be smaller and less powerful and we want to weaken it.

It's just an interesting thing. It's like the executive branch must have all of this power, but then government itself can't be as effective as it should be.

Yeah, they want... I mean, a strong president in a weak bureaucracy is basically the-Correct.is the sweet spot, which is, you're right, there's an inherent tension in that because they definitely want a strong executive. They definitely want a strong Article 2, but they don't want the other things that come with the modern administrative state. They basically want one guy named Donald Trump. I don't think they want one guy to have that power if it's not him, but they very much want one guy to have it in the person of Donald Trump.

Right. I mean, that seems to be what the case is.

Let's talk about a few specifics. The Inflation Reduction Act, for instance. Trump Vance are officially on the record of wanting to repeal the Inflation Reduction You would have to do that legislatively. But what do you think the implications? The Inflation Reduction Act, obviously, still exists. The tax credits that are powering the green transition in a more fruitful way than anything we've ever seen in this country going to last another decade or so. What would it mean for the Inflation Reduction Act if Project 2025 were to be implemented?

I wish I had a better answer for you, Chris. I spoke to someone at Treasury who is in charge of IRA implementation and rollout, and he said that even they don't know what might happen. I think that a a lot of that money is getting out the door as we're talking right now. Some of that will be really hard to rescind once it's out. Also, I will say that a lot of Republican states are benefiting disproportionately from the IRA compared to Democratic states. It's really about whether it's politically viable, I think, to do that. I think that Trump in the past has been pretty amenable when Republican states speak up. I'm thinking of offshore drilling, for example. I wish I could say one way or another. I think that's the golden question is what to the IRA.

I think one of the things that's interesting about it, just to be honest about this, and I've reported on this fair amount, is that it's a pretty clever design at the core of the IRA, which is basically giving out a lot of money. The political logic of this is like, people like free money, and If you center the strategy on free money, and particularly a state like Georgia, which is disproportionately getting that money, it's going to be a hard golden goose to kill. I think there's some logic to that, even if Trump were to be elected.

That's right. Also, we've heard very little from Kamala Harris about climate change in general. I think that's by design. I don't think that it's politically popular to talk about climate change at all. And that, I think for her, it's fine. She's made that calculation and she's running with it. I mean, if you notice her campaign videos initially didn't even mention the words climate change. And she ran on a $10 trillion climate plan in 2019, and now I said nothing about the issues. There's a reasoning there that's really interesting to unpack. I think that looking ahead, and this is back to the administrative state, it seems like Republicans or the right wing in America generally has coalesced around this weakening of the administrative state as this governing ethos. What's ironic about that for Democrats wanting to pass climate policy is that that flies in the face of passing climate policy, especially if that climate policy needs to be enforced. For example, you'll remember the CEP, the Clean Energy Performance Program, which was the original iteration of the IRA Clean Energy Tax Credits, was actually supposed to be carets and sticks. But then, of course, the sticks got eliminated, courtesy of Joe Manchin and others in government.

Now you're left with this effective but toothless piece of legislation. And going forward, the question has to be asked. I mean, this probably will not be the last piece of climate legislation passed in the foreseeable future. I mean, who knows? We got to hope. Right. But I have a sense that, I don't know. I mean, I guess I'm being blindly optimistic about the potential for disaster aversion. But anyway, so if there is climate policy passed at some point in the foreseeable future, at some point it'll have to be carets and sticks. And if the weakening of the administrative state is successful, then it'll be hard to enforce those sticks. So I think I think that Democrats need to be thinking a little more carefully about if they want to pass climate policy that includes penalties and rewards for utilities, for example, for ratcheting down their emissions or using more clean power, then they're going to have to think pretty critically about what does that look like from a Supreme Court perspective, from a judicial perspective, from a lawmaking perspective. There's a lot to think about there.

In the chapter of the Department of Energy, because there is no climate chapter, but there's a chapter on energy, the guy named Bernard L. Mcme, who's the person who wrote it, writes that a conservative president must be committed to unleashing all of America's energy resources and making the energy economy serve the American people. That's a boilerplate. But the irony here is that, A, that's something that Trump is obsessed in. The two issues he pivots to are the border and fossil fuel drilling. I mean, you ask him anything. People literally be like, Well, apartment rents are too high. He's like, You got to drill and you got to close the border. You could give him anything, and those are the two that he goes back to. So in that respect, Trump and Project 2025 are very much aligned. We also know that he had this private dinner with oil and fossil fuel executives where he said, You should raise a billion dollars for me because I'm going to take the breaks off. In practical terms, what does that mean? What does that section of Project 2025, energy, unleashing all of America's energy resources? What do you think that practically means?

I think if you're looking at what parts of that of Part of 2025 will be implemented going forward, if Trump is reelected, you can feel pretty confident that that section, the drill by the drill part, is going to be that's a shoe in, not only because it's so thorough and it also aligns with Trump's first term, but also because the GOP platform also centers unleashing energy independence front and center. That's the first plank in their platform. That's very short, I will say. Then Trump obviously talks about it all the time as well. I think what that looks like is actually not all that different than what President Biden has been doing. This is the thing.

People don't realize that the US is extracting more fossil fuel than any nation on Earth ever. It's exporting. It's now a net exporter. We are getting a lot of hydrocarbons out of the ground and sending them around the world.

Yeah. President Biden has approved 50% more oil and gas leases or had approved 50% more in the first three years of his term compared to Trump's first three years. Which is- Wow, really? Yeah, that's a What's that? I think that you can expect... Okay, so if Trump is reelected, you can expect national monuments to be opened up for exploration for natural resources. Then you can also expect loosening of restrictions on offshore drilling, on LNG exports. Lng is a big area.

That's liquefied natural gas.

Liquified natural gas. That's right. Biden tried to pause new LNG exports, and that, of course, was struck down by a judge not long after.

Right. The Biden folks have been, generally, they have not been throwing the heft to the government against hydrocarbon extraction or exports. But there are things that they're not allowing, I guess, is the takeaway, right? There are places, national monuments, particularly sensitive Indigenous sites out West, liquefied natural gas exports. There are places where they're saying no or they're throwing up a yellow signal that could be converted into, Hey, go for it.

That's right, Chris. I think the Democrats, the Biden administration, specifically think of fossil fuels as a necessary evil in the short term. Whereas for Trump and the GOP, writ large, I think it's safe to say that it's not about natural gas being a bridge fuel or anything like that. It's really about just unleashing everything that the US has to offer and just saying, Okay, go crazy. Go for it. Let's make a lot of money. Yeah.

There are some detailed suggestions in the document. One of them Claimant is tells the government to eliminate the Endangerment Finding. Can you tell us what that means?

Project 2025 recommends eliminating the Endangerment Finding, which is the legal mechanism that requires the EPA to curb emissions and air pollutants from vehicles and power plants and other industries under the Clean Air Act.

I just want to be clear. This sounds like some small tactical thing, eliminate the Endangerment Finding. The Endangerment Finding is the lever being used under the passage of the Clean Air Act for all kinds of emissions regulation. Regulations. We don't have a carbon tax in this country. To the extent that we have an emissions regulations regime, it's based on the Clean Air Act, which predates climate. And getting rid of that would get rid of basically the one big emission regime the federal government has, right?

That's right. I think you could look at almost any of these, quote, unquote, smaller. I mean, I've even said they're smaller because it's less big than saying, okay, let's open up all this public land for drilling. But really, you're right that these smaller suggestions, there's just so many of them throughout the document, again, that could have vast, vast implications for people the minute that they're eliminated.

There's another specific thing they call for. They want to prevent agencies from looking for what are called co-benefits. What are co-benefits and how would that work? Why would that matter?

I think somewhat similar to the engagement finding, co-benefit is the flip side of that, where if, for example, EPA proposes a rule around power plant emissions or pollutants from power plants, it can then assess the impact of that proposal on, for example, frontline communities near that power plant. If it reduces air pollution, for example, then the EPA can say, Okay, that's a knock-on. That's a co-benefit of this policy.

Right. We're doing it. We're going to reduce air pollution in the aggregate, but also there's going to be these health benefits for these people that live nearby.

Yeah. These people who have suffered for probably decades, in some cases from asthma and other polluten connected disorders or illnesses. So this would prevent the EPA from assessing that connection. So it's siloing each piece of government in its own little niche and not allowing what Biden has really taken advantage of during his term, which is a holistic view of government working together on major challenges like climate change. It would prevent that from happening. It would break those links.

One of the most high-profile suggestions and something that we've been focusing a lot is to either restructure or dismantle or move a bunch of long-standing agencies that are actually some of the most Which is essentially important in the entire federal government. If you ask people, what part of the federal government do you interface with the most, this might be the winner. They want to either eliminate or privatize NOAH, the National Oceanic and Atmosphoric Administration. They want to move FEMA, which handles emergency response to another department under NOAH, of course, the National Weather Service. What would that mean for people?

I'm so glad you asked this question. Moving FEMA sounds maybe crazy. I spoke to a number of experts who confirmed that, yes, that would be absolutely insane and frankly, impossible. That's a part of the document where they're really reaching for the stars for whatever reason. Also, some experts I spoke to were frankly bewildered by that proposal. I mean, what does moving FEMA out from where it is right now under the umbrella of DOT, Department of Transformation, or somewhere else, Department of Interior? What would that do? I think what's interesting about this, and there's two parts to this. The first is that you can clearly see that there's this aim to privatize, to make government more efficient, to weaken, to make government smaller by turning to private companies to do some of this work, which sounds like a very American idea in some respects. I think that moving or eliminating the National Weather Service, for example, would have vast implications for everyday people who just want to check their phone for the weather, for example, because so much of that relies on these government satellites. There's also an inherent irony in these proposals as well. You can that they want to keep the Hurricane Forecasting Center for whatever reason.

Now, the Hurricane Forecasting Center relies on National Weather Service data to make its forecast. So some of this stuff, it doesn't add up.

Right. You're going to get rid of the National Weather Service. I think Actually, this is probably geographical sensitivities. You could not tell the people of Florida, we're getting rid of the National Hurricane Center. I mean, you just couldn't do it, or South Carolina or Louisiana. And these are states that have huge amounts of Republican voters, Republican politicians who are just completely rebel. So instead, what you say is, We're going to keep the National Hurricane Center, which we understand you guys rely on. The National Weather Service that everyone uses in much of the data that informs the Hurricane Center is going to get shopped out or sold off or privatized, and we'll figure out how that's going to work somehow.

Right. There are also aspects of this proposal in regards to FEMA that some experts told me are actually good ideas. The first is that right now, the federal government shoulders about three-fourths of the costs of hurricane relief, of disaster relief recovery in this country. That, in some ways, incentivizes states to continue making risky decisions.

Build in areas that- That they should be retreating from, basically.

Yeah, exactly. This proposal proposes moving some of the costs of disaster recovery onto states. An expert I spoke to who studies flood resilience and has been doing this work for many decades. That's not a bad idea that people at FEMA are probably thinking about the need for that at some point. Fema stretched incredibly thin. That's interesting. So there are nuggets of ideas that experts said could move the country in a positive direction in terms of FEMA reform, but they're buried in these nonsensical other ideas that would bog down FEMA for years and years and years and just figuring out how to move their personnel from one place to the other.

When we come back, the federal agency behind helping you get dressed in the morning and why it's in danger.

Sunday, September 29th, an MSNBC special presentation, Black Women in America. Msnbc, Simone Sanders Townsend and Melissa Murray offer an in-depth look at the unique power Black women hold in this year's election and what candidates can do to earn their votes.

We have to let our voices be heard so that the system can work for us.

It's a time of opportunity, but also of hope.

Black Women in America, Sunday, September 29th at 9:00 PM Eastern on MSNBC and streaming on Peacock.

Welcome back. I want to talk more with Zoya, but before we do, I wanted to dig into one of the more dramatic but still underreported policy proposals outlined by Project 2025, Dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmosphoric Administration, known as NOAH. Noah, among many other things, houses the National Weather Service. I wanted to speak with someone who had first-hand knowledge of how NOAH works and who would stand to be most affected if it were to be dismantled or privatized. Dr. Vernon Morris is the Associate Dean for Knowledge, enterprise, and Strategic Outcomes at Arizona State University. Before that, he was a professor of chemistry and atmospheric sciences at Howard University. That's also where he ran a NOAH Cooperative Science Center for almost two decades. I asked him what he would say to the layperson who doesn't know what NOAH is or why it's important. Let's talk about what's commonly referred to as NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmosphoric Administration. This is one of these... The federal government is enormous. It's got thousands of different little agencies and sub-agencies, many of which people may not know. Noaa's actually Probably people don't know it necessarily, but one of the more vital public-facing aspects of the entire federal government.

Tell us about if you're talking to someone who's a layperson that doesn't know what NOAH is or why it's important, what would you say to him?

I'd say NOAH is the agency that provides the essential information that helps you live your best life. That'd be the simplest way I would say it. They give you the weather forecast, the water forecast, the information for your fishing forecast. If you like to fish, I love to fish, but you're going to be out on a boat in any body of water adjacent to the United States or internal to the United States. It's NOAH information that's helping you know when to go out, whether you're going to be able to sail that day or you need to motor that day, whether you're going to be able to fish well that day or call it in, just be on the water. It affects every aspect of our lives, from insurance to transportation to economy. I think one of the limitations on Noah's visibility is that it sits not as a separate agency like NASA, but it sits inside the Department of Commerce. And so it's buried down in there. Epa has less purview, and I think a different type of impact on day-to-day lives. It's important, vitally important, but it doesn't have the the breadth of impact that NOAH has.

People don't recognize all the things that Noah does.

That National Weather Service, specifically, which you just mentioned, which is inside Noah. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the data we have about the weather, a thing that people check multiple times a day, if you're me, right? I mean, the source of all that data is the National Weather Service, right?

Primary source is National Weather Service. Some of the data does come from NASA satellites. Some of the data comes from defense satellites. We collect the data, If the system that pulls all that data in, cleans quality controls, puts it into the models that we then see the graphics and predictions on, that's all Noah.

A key animating goal of the agency is to make sure that people have usable data that they can use for their lives.

Immediately usable and the scale of use ultimately has to get down to you. If you go out and look at a forecast, you don't actually care if it's raining across the entire city as much as Is it going to rain on me where I'm going? Exactly. To get that information, you have to do a different type of experimentation, experimental design, measurements, modeling, optimization. And NOAH is the place that focuses on that.

Let's talk a little bit about what might happen to Noah in the future, and particularly under Project 2025, which explicitly calls to get rid of it. It says, The National Oceanographic and Atmispheric Administration, Noah, should be dismantled, and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized or placed under the control of states and territories. Do you think that's a good idea?

Personally, no. I think it's... Even if I took a piece of that, let's say Guam is now going to be responsible for all of their weather forecasts, all of their fishery forecasts, all of their ocean forecasts, their own satellite data. How is Guam going to do that? Unless there's going to be this huge infusion of millions, if not billions of dollars. So it's not practical in the territories. For most states, it's not practical as you look at state budgets. It's only practical at a national level economically. If you think about how weather systems move, how can I break down the communication that Noah has over the contiguous United States and say, Okay, Montana and California aren't going to talk to each other, but we're just going to assume that the weather systems never go between those two states or Idaho and Montana. It's It's all separate. No, that's not how the world works. And it's why NOAH is actually plugged into a lot of international relationships as well. Our weather service communicates with the Mexican weather service, with the Canadian weather service, seamlessly, because you have to.

It also strikes me as one of these situations where you have an enormous repository of expertise, knowledge, intellectual capital, institutional memory, technical insight. Also, unlike a lot of federal agencies that may have all those things, a very clear user-directed mission, which is aggregating data across the United States, figuring out the best models to provide people with very vital, useful daily information they need. And it seems to me, and you correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me like Noah and National Weather Service do a pretty darn good job of that.

They do an excellent job of it. They do an excellent job. I mean, so much rides on the ability for you to to access information at any time, anywhere in the nation, at high resolution. And if you said, well, I want to see a little bit more. I want to see what the radar actually looks like. I want to probe the data just a little bit. You have immediate access to that. If you wanted to go beyond just the numbers on your phone to say, I'm wondering how my grandma is doing in Nome, Alaska. You could get narrative information, graphical information, satellite information, all of that for free or for whatever it costs on average, four cents a day or something.

Well, when you say for free or essentially at cost, one of the other aspects of project 2025 is clearly focused on privatization, basically saying that really we're relying on AccuWeather and that AccuWeather is more important, which is, of course, a private company, and that the National Weather Service should just provide the data so that basically that AccuWeather can use it and sell it.

Yeah.

I wonder what you think the implications of privatization would be for us as Americans who use this data.

Well, the odd part is AccuWeather is right now using NOAH data and selling it.

Yes, it uses the NOAH data.

It's doing it now. Yeah. It's using it now and making profit. And so dismantling the source, and AcuWeather is not the only company. The weather and climate industry is a billion-dollar industry, right? But they're already making money using NOAH data. And so it's odd in a way to me to say, okay, I've got this source of free data that I'm monetizing in a certain way and making profit, making incredible profit. I now want to cut that off. Okay, so where's the data? Who's going to put the satellites and maintain the satellite systems and optimize the retrievals?

Yeah, it seems like killing the goose that's laying the golden egg. You've got enormous public investment in the collection of this data. Then you've got a Have a company using that data for whatever its own proprietary forecasting models, et cetera. But you need the data, and presumably, you don't want to get rid of that. We're all using it, right? Even the folks that are making money off it.

Yeah, we're all using it. And it's not just the data, it's the data quality. What Noah does is they are a data repository that says, We're not only going to collect all of these data, we're going to clean and quality assure and quality control it in such a way that if you want it, take it and you can build beautiful graphics with it. We're not going to invest all of our input on the graphics system. So private sector can make some wonderful graphics. They can tell great narrative stories and wraparounds that I think are quite positive. I think that's great. Noah is not going to do that unless it is a gap that citizens need to protect their lives and their property. And Noah is doing it from sun to bottom of the ocean. Private company is going to look for the markets that they're going to make money on and focus on that. So you're We're going to lose out on space weather in regions that isn't a large market. So why would a private company invest in a place? So that means people's lives now get jeopardized. And I think that's also not in this equation of, let's just dismantle it because it's not cost-effective or I can do it better or XYZ.

You're not taking into account the actual people who get served by this. And I think that's a danger of looking at cost models and saying, Well, no, it may not be cost-effective. No, it's doing too much. Which I don't think so. I think it's doing what it needs to do and probably needs more investment as our environment gets more dynamic and harder to predict.

It's striking to me that in a world in which I often feel technology is getting worse or making my life worse. One counter to that is the ability of weather forecast to be as precise as you indicated earlier, where I can look at a map and I can see like, oh, there's actually a cloud burst right near me. It's probably going to pass over in the next minute by minute rain forecast. I mean, it's incredible how good it's gotten, I would say, in the last 10 years. And that is all just coming from publicly available, publicly published, publicly aggregated and produced data that is made available by the National Weather Service, which sits inside NOAH, which sits inside the Commerce Department, which is a public good funded and run by the federal government.

Absolutely. Not only have the forecast gotten better, but communication in support of what do I need to do? Yes, there's going to be a cloudburst that comes over in the next 15 minutes. It's going to last for 20 minutes, then it's going to pass over. But you haven't told me what to do. You haven't told me what's at risk. Noah also provides those data. He provides, Hey, we advise this. There's advisors that go along with, Here's the information, here's the advisory, here's support for the best decision that you can make for free. Not, You got to buy this information. Hey, something's coming, but I'm not going to tell you what to do unless you pay me a little bit more. No, that's no good. It's no good. And that's a personal fear of mine, is that When you privatize something and everything's for pay, then you are monetizing potential disaster. You're monetizing risk, undue risk. You might be placing people at undue risk who can't pay. You said, well, you can't pay. I'm going to give the information over here because you're not going to help me profit, which is the bottom line for a business.

It's not the bottom line for the federal government. And that's important. You've got to maintain these bottom lines that have allowed us to get to this point where we can provide the types of services that we do. Public good has got to be the bottom line. It cannot be profit.

I wanted to go back to my conversation with Zoya Turstein one more time. Her on the ground reporting in places like Louisiana, Lake Charles, shows that what Dr. Morris is suggesting could happen with a dismantled Noah is not just hypothetical. Communities are already having a very hard time with a combination of natural disasters and a hobbled administrative state. You've done some reporting recently from a community in Louisiana called Lake Charles. Tell us why you were there and what you found there.

Yeah, talk about FEMA. Actually, this has to do with the census, which is also an agency or a program that would be kneecapped severely by Project 2025. In Lake Charles, Louisiana, the city, which is actually really three cities in one because of hurricane relief efforts that have been stalled in the north but have moved pretty fast in the south. There's obviously racial and class issues there at play that make that happen. Lake Charles was hit by four disasters in a row. This is compounding weather events. That's a phenomenon that's driven by climate change. They were hit by Hurricane Laura, Category 4. Then six weeks later, the next hurricane, since the path of least resistance, Laura, left behind, Hurricane Delta, Category 2, hit the same area. Then they had that winter freeze that hit Texas, but also Louisiana is not far off from there. They also dealt with extreme freeze conditions, very, very cold, unusual for that area. Then in the spring, they had biblical floods, feet of water. They got walloped really hard. For a long time, one journalist said that they were the most unfortunate city in the United States, which I think was true for a time.

Their hurricane recovery efforts are still ongoing. That's what I saw when I visited. I met one man named Edward who was living in a house that I thought, when I first pulled up to it, was condemned. So many houses in Lake Charles, they're the telltale red tag, which means they've been marked for demolition by the city. But he was still living there, still holding out hope that someone, anyone, would come and and help him save his house. His windows were smashed in, his roof leaked. He had a dog that he was trying to take care of. It's not uncommon in North Lake Charles to see that. Now, what was really stark about it was that in North Lake Charles, there was still plenty of devastation. They were in the process of demolishing their library, their only library. All of the other libraries in the city had been fixed long ago already. You drive down, I don't know, four or five miles, maybe even less to South Lake Charles, and anything you want is within a minute of driving anywhere. There's a European Wax Center and Just Salad and anything you might need. Whereas in North Lake Charles, their hospital is not open seven days a week.

I mean, if someone needs medical care in North Lake Charles, they have to drive south. Many of them don't have cars at this point. But it's not just that. It's actually larger and more sinister than that. There's a lot of invisible impacts that are left behind. For example, the census collects data on where Americans live every 10 years. They collected their data right before the hurricanes hit. After the hurricanes, people were displaced for a long time. Many of them still haven't returned, or when they return, they move to different parts of the city. A lot of those people were renters. They're middle income folks. A lot of them are people of color. Basically, the city, the state, the federal government has no idea where these people are. That dictates where federal resources and state resources are sent. There's these rippling implications that go on for years and years that the federal government needs to figure out how to assess and capture as climate change creates more of these compounding events, but it's not doing a good job of doing that. If Project 2025 was implemented, if those changes were put into effect, the census might even have to include a question on citizenship, for example, which would further dampen census turnout.

There's a lot of ways in which people on the ground would really feel the consequences of these policies if they're implemented right away.

Yeah. I mean, for a place like that, if you didn't have free and universal access to National Weather Service data that was tracking weather disasters, if you had FEMA move to another agency and cripple What would that mean for folks in a place like Lake Charles?

Well, it's hard enough, really, to figure out how to file a claim form with FEMA in the first place. I mean, it's almost a full-time job. You have to be willing to sit on hold for most of your day for many days in a row. Working with class people who are affected by these hurricanes, usually typically worst and hardest, don't have time to do that. That's the first thing. I mean, FEMA, it's very bureaucratic. But moving the agency, the administration, under a different umbrella would, I think, set back its recovery and payment payouts by many, many months, if not years. I mean, it is logistically, I'm not really sure how you move an administration like that from one place to another. I'm not sure that FEMA has undergone that level of upheaval in its many, many year history. I think that in terms of just who you file your forms to, it makes it that much complicated moving FEMA somewhere else.

Maybe we should end on this note, which is just one of the consistent themes I always talk about is the fact that Donald Trump was President of the United States. And for some reason, a lot of people have just forgotten that or pretended to forget it. Or it's like, oh, who's this game show host who's running? And there's an actual record. There's a record in federal administration. There's a record and all these things. The Trump administration did stuff on all this. And I guess my question to you is, having reported on climate in the Trump administration, what can we take away in terms of the actual record of the Trump administration the time around and the vision in Project 2025? How close are they, basically?

Yeah, it's a little bit like reading tea leaves, again, because he's disavowed it, and I'm hesitant to extrapolate too much. But I think that what I remember from reporting on Trump for four four years, was that he's not scared of making decisions that are nonsensical. You read something in Project 2025 that says, Okay, we're going to move FEMA to DOI or DOT, and you think that's crazy. That's never going to happen. That would be a huge lift. I would not put it past him. I mean, his record shows that he's willing to do that thing. If someone whispers in his ear, he's usually amenable. I think that that is the main takeaway. The other takeaway, of course, is that, as I mentioned before, some two-thirds of the Heritage Foundation's previous recommendations were implemented or considered in Trump's first term. I think you could look at pretty much any piece of this project, Trying to Survive, document, which very long, but you could peruse it and you could think, okay, there's a fair shot. This is going to get implemented or at least considered under Trump 2.0..

I think that point, Zoya, about the main takeaway is if an idea seems too crazy, unworkable, or cockamame or fringe, it's not going to happen. Do not think that is actually a really important one, and particularly the second time around when they have more of their own people, when they do have a plan, there is nothing to say that really bad destructive ideas that all the experts are like, Please don't do this, are going to be killed. In fact, they may very well be implemented to the great detriment and destruction of lots of people and communities.

Yeah, he might get out his charpie and ask the whole National Weather Service. You never know.

Thanks for tuning into this special series, The Threat of Project 2025, presented by the How to Win 2024 podcast. All episodes of the series are available now, including a new episode on the threat to LGBTQ rights with Jen Saki. So be sure to keep listening. The Threat of Project 2025 series is produced by Max Jacobs. Our Associate Producer is Jamaris Perez, Katherine Anderson, and Katie Lau are our sound engineers. Bryson Barnes is the head of audio production, Ayesha Turner is the executive producer of MSNBC Audio, and Rebecca Cutler is the Senior Vice President of Content Strategy at MSNBC. I'm Chris Hayes. Search for How to Win 2024 wherever you get your podcast and follow the series.

Go beyond the headlines with the MSNBC app. Watch your favorite shows live. Get analysis from live blogs to in-depth essays and the latest updates on the 2024 election. Visit msnBC. Com/app to download.