Podcast appearances and mentions of diana furchtgott roth

3/12/2026 PODCAST Episodes #2327 GUESTS: Dan "The OX", George Moraitis, Jacob Alderman, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Scott Mechkowski  + YOUR CALLS! at 1-888-480-JOHN (5646) and GETTR Live! @jfradioshow #GodzillaOfTruth #TruckingTheTrut  

03-05-2026 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/leading-energy-authority-discusses-implications-of-us-war-with-iran/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

02-05-2026 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/the-need-for-an-all-in-approach-to-energy/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

01-06-2026 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/what-happens-next-in-venezuela/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

12-04-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: (USE THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE) Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment with The Heritage Foundation, joins Anthony & Dan to talk about policy. as it relates to cost.

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about New York City's congestion pricing program. First on the show is Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Later, we hear from Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at the Heritage Foundation. You can find Nicole on X @NicoleGelinas and Diana at @DFR_Economics. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, discusses how to modernize America's air traffic control system. She examines the inefficiencies in the current infrastructure, the potential for advanced technology to improve safety and efficiency, and policy solutions that could reduce delays and costs for both travelers and airlines. This conversation highlights how modernization is not just about aviation, it's about improving national transportation, boosting economic competitiveness, and preparing the U.S. airspace for the future.

11-20-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/when-fear-becomes-a-family-planning-crisis/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

In this episode of Main Street Matters, Elaine Parker discusses the implications of the EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gases with Diana Furchtgott-Roth. They explore the global net zero movement, the impact of regulatory changes on small businesses and everyday Americans, the challenges posed by electric vehicles, and the reliability of the power grid. The conversation also touches on the reality of climate change and the potential legal challenges that may arise from these regulatory changes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we explore the critical topic of accountability in various sectors, including the government and law enforcement. John Solomon delves into the Arctic Frost investigation, revealing its origins and the political bias that has permeated high-level agencies. He discusses the recent crackdown on crime in major cities and highlights the significant achievements of the FBI under Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. Then, we welcome Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, who leads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator Johnson shares insights on the challenges of oversight in Congress, the complexities surrounding investigations into the Biden administration, and the implications of recent data privacy concerns. Next, we welcome Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who shares his insights on the threats posed by radical ideologies and the importance of energy dominance in the face of global challenges. Finally, we delve into the latest foreign and economic policy developments with expert Diana Furchtgott-Roth from the Heritage Foundation. We discuss President Trump's negotiations with Canada and China, the implications of tariffs, and the significant political shifts in Latin America, particularly in Argentina. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

09-11-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/diana-furchtgott-roth-on-the-case-for-u-s-energy-supremacy/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

07-03-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/a-renaissance-for-nuclear-energy-in-the-united-states/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

The Rod and Greg Show Daily Rundown – Wednesday, July 2, 20254:20 pm: Ned Ryun, Founder and CEO of American Majority, joins the program for a conversation about his piece for Real Clear Politics about how the Trump Administration is mobilizing JD Vance as an advocate for the MAGA agenda.4:38 pm: Kevin Killough, Energy Reporter for Just the News, joins Rod and Greg to discuss how blue state Democrats have shifted their zero emission goals to nuclear because of fading hopes to use solar and wind power.6:05 pm: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment and Senior Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at the Heritage Foundation on her piece for Real Clear Energy about how Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry is leading the charge to promote oil and gas production.6:20 pm: Brian Reisinger, an author and consultant who grew up on a family farm in Wisconsin, joins Rod and Greg for a conversation about the importance of President Trump's migrant worker pass proposal.6:38 pm: Amanda Head, White House Correspondent for Just the News and host of the Furthermore Podcast, joins the program to discuss her piece about Donald Trump's fight to keep non-citizens off voter rolls.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow. Trump's Executive Orders Are the First Steps in a Nuclear Revolution

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials such as Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools, advocating for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. The proposal also suggests that programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the National Center for Education Statistics become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should be limited to a statistics-keeping role in education, with federal enforcement of civil rights in schools curtailed and transferred to the Department of Justice[1].The implications of these changes are profound. For instance, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift could drastically alter the educational landscape, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. As Roger Severino, a proponent of the project, has argued, the Head Start program, which serves over a million children from low-income families, does not provide value, although he has not provided evidence to support this claim[1].Project 2025's vision extends far beyond education. In the realm of environmental policy, the initiative is starkly at odds with current climate change mitigation efforts. It advocates for downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), closing the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reversing the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and encourages allied nations to rely on fossil fuels. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[1].These environmental proposals have been met with significant criticism. Republican climate advocates, such as Sarah E. Hunt and Benji Backer, have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policies, emphasizing the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy. Backer noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's stance "wrongheaded"[1].The project's impact on federal agencies is another critical area of focus. Project 2025 recommends reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This aligns with Trump's past suggestions to leave disaster response management to the states, arguing that "that's what states are for, to take care of problems"[3].In addition, the initiative calls for the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. Trump has echoed this sentiment, signing an executive order to end all DEI programs within the federal government, claiming they can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 goes further, advocating for the deletion of terms like DEI, abortion, and gender equality from all federal rules and regulations[3].The project also targets the civil service and the bureaucracy of the "Administrative State." It proposes a hiring freeze for federal civilian employees and suggests preventing "burrowing-in" by outgoing political appointees. This is part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the federal workforce and bring independent agencies under White House control[4].Critics of Project 2025 argue that its recommendations are not only radical but also risky, potentially endangering democratic institutions and civil liberties. The initiative's approach to data collection, for example, involves consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, which could significantly impact the independence and reliability of economic data[5].The economic implications are equally concerning. Project 2025 proposes eliminating funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding federal grants to local communities for infrastructure projects. This could make it harder for Americans without cars to commute and travel, affecting their ability to work and maintain social connections[5].Moreover, the project aims to restrict safety nets for farmers, limiting assistance to 'unusual situations' despite the common challenges farmers face due to unpredictable weather and market conditions. This could disproportionately impact low-income farmers who rely on these safety nets to survive economic downturns[5].As we look ahead, it is clear that Project 2025 represents a significant turning point in American governance. The initiative's comprehensive and far-reaching proposals have the potential to reshape numerous aspects of federal policy, from education and environmental regulation to civil service and economic development.Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections between his policies and those of Project 2025 are undeniable. As Democrats continue to criticize the initiative, calling it a "plan to return America to a dark past," the debate surrounding Project 2025 is likely to intensify in the coming months[2].As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will depend on the outcome of the election and the willingness of the next administration to adopt these radical changes. Whether these proposals will become the blueprint for a new era in American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American policy hangs in the balance.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy. Protect American Workers: How Trump's Team Can Fulfill His Promise

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government, consolidate executive power, and implement a far-right agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.At its core, Project 2025 is about centralizing power in the White House. The plan advocates for the elimination of the independence of key federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This aligns with the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to federal staffing. The plan proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with individuals loyal to the president. This is not a new idea; during Trump's first term, he established the Schedule F job classification by executive order, which was later rescinded by President Biden. However, with Trump's return to office, this classification has been revived, paving the way for a significant purge of federal employees deemed disloyal[1].The project's impact on education is equally profound. It envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This would mean the end of federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides $18 billion annually to schools in low-income areas, and the Head Start program, which supports children from low-income families. Instead, public funds would be channeled into school vouchers that could be used for private or religious schools, a move that critics argue would exacerbate educational inequality[1][3].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to social safety nets. It recommends reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and ending programs aimed at forgiving student loans. The plan also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggesting a reduction in its independence and the defunding of stem cell research. These changes are part of a broader agenda to align scientific research with conservative principles, with a particular emphasis on reducing funding for climatology research and reversing the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health[1].Environmental policies are another critical area where Project 2025 seeks to make its mark. The plan advocates for the relaxation of regulations on the fossil fuel industry, the expansion of oil and gas drilling, and the blocking of the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased methane emissions. The project also proposes incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, further undermining efforts to address climate change[1].The project's stance on law enforcement and justice is equally contentious. It calls for the reform of the DOJ to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and proposes that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plan also suggests curtailing legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments and authorizing the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, a move that critics argue would further militarize law enforcement[1].Project 2025's economic policies are designed to favor corporations and reduce regulatory oversight. It recommends the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the shrinkage of the National Labor Relations Board, and the merger of several statistical agencies into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The plan also advocates for a flat income tax, reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains, and the relaxation of regulations on small businesses, particularly in rural areas[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between its proposals and his policies is striking. As CBS News noted, at least 270 proposals in the project's blueprint match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on changes to FEMA, align with Project 2025's call to shift disaster response costs to states and local governments[4][5].The reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative from many quarters. Critics argue that it would gut the system of checks and balances, create an imperial presidency, and devastate public education and social safety nets. The National Education Association (NEA) has warned that the project's education reforms would deny vulnerable students the resources they need to succeed. Environmental groups have condemned the project's climate policies as disastrous and misguided[2][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's architects see it as a last opportunity to save what they perceive as a beleaguered republic, but critics see it as a dangerous blueprint for extremism and authoritarianism.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and public opposition. As the American public becomes more aware of the project's details, their opposition is likely to grow. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this vision for a radically reshaped federal government becomes a reality or remains a contentious blueprint on the fringes of American politics. One thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American governance hangs in the balance.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and alarm. This sprawling initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and crafted by a cadre of former Trump administration officials, lays out a vision for a radically reshaped federal government that is as ambitious as it is contentious.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page blueprint designed to guide the next conservative presidential administration, with a particular focus on the second term of Donald Trump. The project is built around four key pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days in office[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to consolidate executive power and reshape the federal bureaucracy in the image of conservative ideology. The plan calls for the replacement of merit-based federal civil service workers with individuals loyal to Trump, effectively politicizing key government agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. This move is part of a broader strategy to centralize control over the government, aligning with the unitary executive theory that advocates for greater presidential control over the executive branch[1].The implications of such a shift are profound. For instance, the Department of Justice, under Project 2025, would be thoroughly reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would be tasked with prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argues that these programs "come at the expense of other Americans—and in nearly all cases violate longstanding federal law"[1].Education is another area where Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes. The plan envisions a significant reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and the transfer of education funding and policy to the states. This would include ending federal enforcement of civil rights in schools and allowing public funds to be used as school vouchers for private or religious schools. The National Center for Education Statistics would be merged with the Census Bureau, and programs like Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire[1][3].The project's stance on education is encapsulated in its criticism of what it calls "woke propaganda" in public schools. It argues that federal overreach has led schools to prioritize "racial parity in school discipline indicators" over student safety. This perspective is reflected in the project's recommendation to end the Head Start program and cut funding for free school meals, with proponents like Roger Severino claiming that such programs do not provide value, though he has not provided evidence to support these claims[1].Environmental policy is another critical area where Project 2025's vision diverges sharply from current trends. The project advocates for the reversal of several key environmental regulations, including the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. It proposes preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid, thereby stymying the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas[1].These environmental proposals have been met with strong criticism from Republican climate advocates. Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, and U.S. Senator John Curtis have emphasized the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy, contrasting sharply with Project 2025's stance. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's climate policy "wrongheaded"[1].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally contentious. It suggests that the Department of Justice has become a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda" and recommends that the DOJ be thoroughly reformed and closely overseen by the White House. The plan also proposes that the director of the FBI be personally accountable to the president, and that legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments, known as consent decrees, be curtailed[1].In addition to these reforms, Project 2025 advocates for a more aggressive stance on immigration, recommending the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants, as well as the deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement. It also proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right, such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications, and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's proposals align closely with his past policies and current campaign promises. In a social media post, Trump claimed, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." However, a line-by-line review by CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in Project 2025 that match Trump's policies[4].The project's impact on American governance could be profound. By centralizing executive power, dismantling federal agencies, and implementing a wide range of conservative policies, Project 2025 aims to reshape the very fabric of the federal government. As Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it, "The nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This rhetoric underscores the project's ambition and the potential for significant political and social upheaval[4].As we move forward, it is clear that Project 2025 will remain a contentious and influential force in American politics. With Trump's second term underway, many of the project's architects and supporters have been nominated to key positions in his administration. The coming months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals are implemented and what their long-term effects will be on the country.In the words of the National Education Association, "The American public is united: The 900+ page blueprint for another Trump presidency... would be disastrous for the nation." Whether this prediction holds true remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of American governance[3].

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling initiative crafted by former Trump administration officials and the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government.Project 2025 is encapsulated in a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," which outlines a comprehensive plan to reorganize every federal agency to align with conservative principles. This project is not just about policy tweaks; it's about transforming the very fabric of American governance. The Heritage Foundation's President, Kevin Roberts, has described their role as "institutionalizing Trumpism," a notion that underscores the deep connections between this project and the former Trump administration[1][4][5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The initiative advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This centralization is rooted in a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to give the president unprecedented control over the government. As Kevin Roberts put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[2][3].The project's impact on federal agencies is far-reaching. For instance, it proposes merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single entity, with a mission aligned with conservative principles. It also recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws. The National Labor Relations Board, crucial for protecting employees' rights to organize, would see its role significantly diminished[2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role. It suggests closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. Federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be curtailed, and programs like the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The project also advocates for the expiration of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools[2].The environment is another area where Project 2025's proposals are particularly contentious. The initiative seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and advocates for preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[2].Project 2025's stance on climate change is starkly at odds with the views of many Republicans, including younger conservatives who acknowledge human activity's role in climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has called the project's climate policies "wrongheaded," highlighting a growing consensus among younger Republicans that climate action is essential[2].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally transformative. It views the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people, particularly due to its role in investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division would be reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This shift aligns with the views of former Trump DOJ official Gene Hamilton, who argues that advancing certain segments of society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law[2].In the media and communications sector, Project 2025 proposes significant changes. It suggests defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, and revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status. This could force NPR to relocate from its current FM dial range, making way for religious programming. The project also advocates for more media consolidation and proposes legislation to prevent social media companies from removing "core political viewpoints" from their platforms[2].The implications of these proposals are profound. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that is a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Progress article notes, Project 2025 "would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency"[3].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between his policies and the project's proposals is striking. CBS News analysis has identified over 270 proposals in the project's blueprint that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, has praised Trump's actions as "home runs" that reflect the initiative's efforts and the readiness of the conservative movement[4][5].As we look ahead, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the coming months and years. With its comprehensive and far-reaching proposals, this initiative represents a critical juncture in American governance. Whether it succeeds in reshaping the federal government or is met with significant resistance will depend on the political landscape and the will of the American people.In the words of Kevin Roberts, "the nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This statement encapsulates the project's ambition and the stakes involved. As we navigate this complex and contentious terrain, it is clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative – it is a battle for the future of American democracy.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping political initiative crafted by the American conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and trepidation. This project, unveiled in April 2023, is more than just a set of policy recommendations; it is a comprehensive blueprint for a radical overhaul of the federal government and its agencies, should a conservative president take office.At its core, Project 2025 envisions a fundamental transformation of American governance, aligning it closely with conservative principles. One of the most striking aspects is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be dismantled, and the Department of Education (ED) would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Commerce (DOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would all come under direct partisan control, a move that Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts defends as necessary to align these agencies with the president's vision, arguing that "the notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don't answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic"[1].The project's economic reforms are equally ambitious. It advocates for abolishing the Federal Reserve and replacing it with a commodity-backed currency, such as gold, and shifting from an income tax to a consumption tax. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 would be extended, and individual income taxes would be simplified to two flat tax rates: 15% for incomes up to the Social Security Wage Base and 30% above that. However, this simplification would come at a cost, as most deductions, credits, and exclusions would be eliminated, likely increasing taxes for millions of low- and middle-income households[1].In the realm of education, Project 2025 seeks to dramatically reduce the federal government's role, promoting school choice and parental rights over federal standards. The Department of Education would be eliminated, and programs under the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Federal funding for low-income students would expire, and public funds would be redirected as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools. This shift is part of a broader philosophy that views education as a private rather than a public good[1].The project's stance on climate change and environmental regulations is stark. It proposes eradicating climate change references from all government policies, repealing regulations that curb emissions, and downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be abolished, and states would be prevented from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks, a potent greenhouse gas[1].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025 seeks significant changes. It aims to reform the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to promote traditional nuclear family structures. Medicare would be prohibited from negotiating drug prices, and the Medicare Advantage program would be promoted. Federal healthcare providers would be barred from offering gender-affirming care to transgender individuals, and insurance coverage for emergency contraception would be eliminated. Medicaid funding would be cut through various measures, including caps on federal funding and stricter work requirements for beneficiaries[1].The project's vision for law enforcement is equally transformative. The DOJ would be reformed to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The FBI would be made personally accountable to the president, and consent decrees between the DOJ and local police departments would be curtailed[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its relationship with the Trump campaign. Despite initial acknowledgments that the project aligns with Trump's Agenda 47 proposals, the campaign has since sought to distance itself. Trump has denied any direct involvement, stating, "[I] have no idea who is in charge of it," but Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has contradicted this, saying he personally discussed the project with Trump[1].The latest developments have only added to the controversy. In July 2024, Kevin Roberts sparked outrage by suggesting that the project is part of a "second American Revolution" that would remain bloodless if the left allowed it to be. This statement, coupled with Trump's subsequent attempts to distance himself from the project, has led many political commentators to question the sincerity of these denials. Philip Bump of *The Washington Post* argues that it is impossible to separate Trump's campaign from Project 2025, given the extensive involvement of Trump advisors and the frequent mention of Trump's name in the document[1].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate. The project's proponents see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a liberal bias in government agencies and policies. However, critics argue that these changes would undermine critical protections and services, particularly for vulnerable populations.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals would depend on the outcome of future elections and the political will of a potential conservative administration. As the project's director, Paul Dans, steps down and Kevin Roberts assumes leadership, the initiative remains a focal point of political debate. Whether Project 2025 becomes a blueprint for governance or a footnote in the history of conservative policy initiatives remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: its impact on American politics will be profound.As we approach the next milestones in this saga, it is crucial to continue monitoring the developments and implications of Project 2025. Will it reshape the federal government in its image, or will it face significant resistance? The answer will depend on the complex interplay of political forces and the will of the American people. For now, Project 2025 stands as a stark reminder of the deep divisions and competing visions that shape the American political landscape.

China's production of batteries for electric vehicles is “definitely not clean,” says energy expert Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Without its own vast natural energy resources, China is the world's largest energy importer, but has seized on the economic opportunities of the “green energy” movement. Yet the production of products such as EVs is causing harm to the environment, says Furchtgott-Roth, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. China produces about 80% of the world's EV batteries and “mining for the critical minerals in the batteries … causes vast amounts of environmental damage,” she explains. Production of one EV battery involves moving “hundreds of thousands of pounds of earth to get the critical minerals for one battery,” Furchtgott-Roth notes, adding that “China is buying mines in Africa so that it can get the critical minerals, [as well as] mines in Latin America.” Furchtgott-Roth is the co-author of “How the Forced Energy Transition and Reliance on China Will Harm America,” a new Heritage Foundation report exposing the ways in which the “green energy” movement is harming America while benefiting China. She joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to explain it all.

China’s production of batteries for electric vehicles is “definitely not clean,” says energy expert Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Without its own vast natural energy resources, China is the world's largest energy importer, but has seized on the economic opportunities of the “green energy” movement. Yet the production of products such as EVs is causing harm to the […]

In this hour, guest host Brad Young discusses the stark contrasts between a potential Republican and Biden administration on energy policies, featuring insights from Diana Furchgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation. They analyze the implications of the Inflation Reduction Act and the impact of electric vehicle mandates, including how these policies influence U.S. dependence on China. Additionally, Brad and Diana explore how Biden's approach to oil leases and subsidies affects both the U.S. economy and geopolitical balance.  

GUEST OVERVIEW: Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy Diana Furchtgott-Roth (born 1958) is an American economist who is adjunct professorof economics at George Washington University and a columnist. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the United States Department of Transportation during the Trump administration. She previously served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Prior to joining the Trump Administration, Furchtgott-Roth served as a senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She was nominated by President Donald Trump to become Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Research and Technology. On January 3, 2021, her nomination was returned to the President under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate. Furchtgott-Roth was previously the chief economist of the United States Department of Labor, chief of staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, deputy executive director of the United States Domestic Policy Council, and junior staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds! This week, Chuck Warren is first joined by John Ziegler, host of the Death of Journalism podcast and a renowned political commentator, who fearlessly navigates the murky waters of media integrity. From dissecting headlines to challenging popular narratives, John delves into topics ranging from the pitfalls of crappy journalism to the implications of California's minimum wage hike and Governor Newsom's policies furthering the state's downfall. Next, we're honored to welcome Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, who offers invaluable insights into the intersection of policy and economics. Diana discusses a wide range of topics including luxury belief systems, New York's controversial $15 congestion charge, and Biden's focus on electrification to cut emissions, despite its limited impact on reducing fossil fuel use due to our reliance on fossil fuels for electricity. And stay tuned for Kiley's Corner as she discusses the largest cash money heist in LA history on Easter Sunday. Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-About out guestsJohn Ziegler is an award winning journalist and truth crusader. He is host of "The Death Of Journalism" where he examines the loss of integrity in the news media and rips apart the popularized narratives of the biggest headline making stories. You can follow him on X @Zigmanfreud. -Diana Furchtgott-Roth is Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation. She is an Oxford-educated economist, a frequent guest on TV and radio shows, and a columnist for Forbes.Diana worked in senior roles in the White House under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. She has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation; Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of Treasury; Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor; Chief of Staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers; and Deputy Executive Secretary of the White House Domestic Policy Council.Diana is the author or coauthor of six books and hundreds of articles on economic policy, including Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies are Destroying America's Economy (Encounter Books, 2012). Her most recent book is United States Income, Wealth, Consumption, and Inequality (Oxford University Press, 2021). She received degrees in Economics from Swarthmore College and Oxford University. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment The Heritage Foundation. Biden Administration Will Declare War on U.S. Drivers with New EPA Emissions Standards

Hour 2: Sue has today's Sue's News on National Ravioli Day, email clutter, and the Random Fact of the Day on the tradition of bridesmaids. Then, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joins Joe Beamer, in for Mark Reardon, to discuss his plan to eliminate the income tax in Missouri. Later, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation scholar, joins Joe Beamer to discuss the Biden Administration declaring war on U.S. drivers with new EPA Emissions Standards.

Coming up at 4 pm today on the Rod Arquette Show on Talk Radio 105.9 KNRS,Greg Hughes is in for Rod this week.Rob Axson, Chair of the Utah Republican Party joins Greg to discuss last night's Utah Republican caucus, the outcome, voting system issues, and any silver linings from the evening. Plus, Representative Tim Jimenez joins the show to discuss his bill that provides training and legal protection to teachers that want to conceal carry firearms on campus. See below for a full rundown of today's program .Rod Arquette Show with Greg Hughes Daily Rundown – Wednesday, March 6, 20244:20 pm: Rob Axson, Chair of the Utah Republican Party joins Greg to discuss last night's Utah Republican caucus, the outcome, voting system issues, and any silver linings from the evening.6:05 pm: Representative Tim Jimenez, sponsor of HB119, a bill recently passed by Utah lawmakers that provides training and legal protection to teachers and school staff carrying concealed firearms on school grounds, joins Greg to discuss the reason for the bill and recent calls for Governor Spencer Cox to veto the measure.6:38 pm: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation joins Greg for a conversation about how manufacturer enthusiasm to build electric vehicles is fading despite the Biden administration's plans to administer new requirements that 60% of new cars sold to be battery powered by 2030.

The Power Hour is a weekly podcast that discusses the most interesting energy and environmental policy issues of the day with top national experts. Were you wondering how China could use its expertise in electric vehicles to challenge the United States? Well Jack welcomes Center for Energy, Climate and Environment Director (and his boss) Diana Furchtgott-Roth to […]

The Power Hour is a weekly podcast that discusses the most interesting energy and environmental policy issues of the day with top national experts. Were you wondering how China could use its expertise in electric vehicles to challenge the United States? Well Jack welcomes Center for Energy, Climate and Environment Director (and his boss) Diana Furchtgott-Roth to the Powerhour to discuss this critical issue. Diana brings a career of experience to the discussion having worked in senior roles in the White House under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Perhaps most important to this debate, Diana served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation. It must also be noted that Diana has held numerous other leadership positions in multiple federal agencies as well. If you want to learn why Chinese electric vehicles should be banned from the U.S. market, you don't want to miss this one! And don't forget to join the conversation with an email to thepowerhour@heritage.org! Tell us what you thought of the podcast and what you want to here in the future. Thank you for listening and being part of the Power Hour! Check out Diana's recent piece on the issue at Foxnews.com here! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is Net Zero destroying our energy capacity? Are we in an energy cold war?To discuss, The Telegraph's Steven Edginton is joined by the economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation who has served in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan. Dr Kevin Roberts is the president of The Heritage Foundation, one of America's most influential conservative think tanks.The Telegraph's Steven Edginton sits down with him to discuss the state of American conservatism, President Biden and the Blob for the latest Off Script podcast.Watch this episode: https://youtu.be/tB6HxgxVsaE |Read more from The Telegraph's award-winning comment team: www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion |For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/audio | Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thousands of American car dealers are petitioning the Biden Administration to ease its overbearing regulations on the sale of electric vehicles (EVs). Heritage Director for the Center of Energy, Climate, and the Environment Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains what the administration is doing and how we should respond.  — Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org — […]

Thousands of American car dealers are petitioning the Biden Administration to ease its overbearing regulations on the sale of electric vehicles (EVs). Heritage Director for the Center of Energy, Climate, and the Environment Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains what the administration is doing and how we should respond. —Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org—Follow Diana Furchtgott-Roth on X: https://twitter.com/dfr_economicsJane McGraw's Petition to President Thomas Jefferson: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/petition-of-jane-mcgraw/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United Auto Workers went on strike against the 'big three' car makers - Ford, GM and Stellantis - earlier this month. That is the first time they've all been targeted at the same time, The automakers have offered the UAW pay raises, but say the cost of transitioning to electric cars prevents them from meeting all the union's demands. We recently spoke with FOX Business correspondent Jeff flock and former Labor Department economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth about the issues at the center of this strike, and how workers pay, climate change policy and politics have all factored in. The segment also touched on whether rapidly advancing technology has created anxiety among workers in a variety of industries, and if we more labor disputes and work stoppages should be expected. We made edits for time and thought you might like to hear our entire conversation with both FBN's Jeff Flock and economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth. On today's FOX News Rundown Extra, you'll hear even more of their analysis of the UAW strike, and why there appears to be so many labor disputes in the country Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United Auto Workers have been on strike for five days, with the union issuing demands for higher pay from the big car companies, who they argue are overpaying their executives while underpaying their laborers. UAW President Shawn Fain organized an aggressive, unprecedented strike on assembly plants at Ford, General Motor and Stellantis. As the labor negotiations continue, President Biden has voiced support for the strike while former President Trump has shared criticism of UAW union leadership. Fox Business' Jeff Flock joins the Rundown to explain Fain's plans with this strike and the public support for the union. Later, former Labor Department economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth breaks down the politics and policies that drove workers towards this strike. In Fairfax County, Virginia, parents have recently voiced concern about the race and gender education curriculum in their schools. Even on a national scale, the teaching of these topics in classrooms has become a major conversation on the 2024 campaign trail. From Governor Ron DeSantis introducing Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin banning schools from teaching "divisive concepts like critical race theory," parents and politicians alike are paying more attention to the curriculum. On the Rundown, FOX Business' Edward Lawrence, who is focusing on the curriculum controversy as part of FBN's weeklong series on "Education in America," shares why some parents are criticizing the public education system and details how different states are challenging these issues. Plus, commentary from host of OutKick's Tomi Lahren is Fearless, Tomi Lahren. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whenever there is a major weather event, such as the wildfires in Hawaii in August, leftists are quick to blame climate change and push “green” policy. But this approach is fraught with problems. Heritage's Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and the Environment, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, explains.  — Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org […]

Whenever there is a major weather event, such as the wildfires in Hawaii in August, leftists are quick to blame climate change and push “green” policy. But this approach is fraught with problems. Heritage's Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and the Environment, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, explains. —Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org—Diana Furchtgott-Roth on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/DFR_EconomicsDiana Furchtgott-Roth on Heritage.org: https://www.heritage.org/staff/diana-furchtgott-rothDaily Signal Reporting on the Maui Wildfires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0yJOtwxrBY Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Not only do Democrats want to force you into an electric vehicle, they also want the right, without notice, to drain its battery overnight to shore-up the electric grid they have imperiled by making it hard to build reliable power plants.Diana Furchtgott-Roth of The Heritage Foundation address this latest, very real, policy fiasco of Democrats. Read more here: California Transportation Policy Is Not for the Free.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Update on several lawsuits against Texas: Nut-case federal judge says Texas can have Voter I.D. for in-person voting but not for the far less secure and easy to cheat mail-in-ballot voting! Judge in border buoy case to rule strictly on the merits of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Harris County must, for now, follow the new law that requires it to end its Office of Elections and turn duties over the elected county clerk and voter registrar. Texas booksellers ask judge to put book rating law on hold because they apparently do not know, or want to know, what it is they sell to Texas school libraries. Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

A proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule that “would limit tailpipe emissions so that in order to comply, auto companies would have to sell 60% of new vehicles as electric by 2030” would adversely affect the safety of cars.So says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. (The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation's news outlet.)“Well, since [electric] vehicles are more expensive, people would postpone buying them. So, they would stay with their older cars, and newer cars have more safety features. If they get in an accident, they're less likely to hurt the passenger,” Furchtgott-Roth says.“So, because of that, you have increases in injuries and fatalities, if you make new cars more expensive. And that's if you increase [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards for normal gasoline-powered vehicles, or you mandate electric vehicles,” she adds. According to the Department of Transportation, CAFE standards are fleetwide averages that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and truck fleet.Furchtgott-Roth joins today's episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to further discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule and what environmental benefits the EPA is hoping to accomplish in potentially implementing that rule, as well as the role that China plays in producing electric vehicles. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule that “would limit tailpipe emissions so that in order to comply, auto companies would have to sell 60% of new vehicles as electric by 2030” would adversely affect the safety of cars. So says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. (The Daily Signal is […]

Oil and Gas pipelines have become a hot topic in today's energy debates. New projects like the Keystone pipeline could help rein in rising oil and gas prices. But they're meeting unprecedented resistance from politicians, environmentalists — and even bankers. Today I'm joined by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who's going to shed some light on the difference between green energy “pipe dreams” and real-world pipeline facts. Topics Discussed: An Introduction to Diana Furchtgott-Roth (00:00:48) Transporting oil: Truck, Train, Tanker or Pipeline? (00:04:35) The Economic Reality of Climate Change (00:11:30) Giving Away America's Energy Independence (00:23:10) The Government's Green Energy Blunder (00:31:40) Guest Bio: Diana Furchtgott-Roth is an economist and adjunct professor of economics at George Washington University. She served as the chief economist of the United States Department of Labor, and she was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Research and Technology. She's also a columnist for Forbes.com and author of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America's Young. Resources Mentioned: Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America's Young Transcript: https://charlesmizrahi.com/podcast/Don't Forget To... Subscribe to my podcast! Download this episode to save for later Liked this episode? Leave a kind review! Subscribe to Charles' Alpha Investor newsletter today: https://pro.banyanhill.com/m/2196282

With the Biden Administration forcing through new regulations for America's production of electric vehicles, many are concerned about the economic and environmental problems surrounding EVs. Many of these problems also have to do with China. In this week's episode, Heritage's Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Jeff Smith give the rundown on the economic issues surrounding the Chinese Communist Party, and what we can do about them.----More China Research from the Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org/chinaWritings by Diana Furchtgott-Roth: https://www.heritage.org/staff/diana-furchtgott-rothWinning the New Cold War: A Plan for Countering China: https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/winning-the-new-cold-war-plan-countering-chinaThe Kevin Roberts Show: https://www.heritage.org/the-kevin-roberts-show Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An energy expert says the Feb. 3 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, underscores the need for more pipelines to transport potentially hazardous substances. "This recent rail accident in East Palestine in Ohio has shown us that we need more pipelines to carry these potential dangerous chemicals, rather than using road and rail," says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)"Because with pipelines, the container stays still and the product moves within it. And the pipelines are often buried in the ground," Furchtgott-Roth says. "So, they're out of the way of other traffic, pedestrians, anyone like that, and the potential damage is very, very low."Furchtgott-Roth added: With rail and truck, these substances are going through people's communities, and they are generally very safe, but occasionally accidents do happen.But pipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas.Furchtgott-Roth joins today's episode of "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss Thursday's passage of HR 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, in the House of Representatives and her thoughts on President Joe Biden's anticipated veto of the bill. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An energy expert is sounding the alarm over the Chinese Communist Party's dominance of African minerals. "It's such an important topic because President [Joe] Biden and the governor of California, Gov. [Gavin] Newsom have the goal of having all new-vehicle sales in the United States battery-powered electric by 2035, so if we're going to have all electric vehicles with batteries, we need the minerals for those batteries, and the United States used to produce those minerals," says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) Lithium brine and cobalt and nickel ores are among the minerals needed for electric vehicles with batteries, Furchtgott-Roth says. "As recently as 1990, the U.S. was the world's No.1 producer of those minerals. Today, we are in seventh place. Even though we have vast mineral reserves worth trillions of dollars, we are now 100% dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals, and China is a significant source for many of those minerals," she says. Furchtgott-Roth explains how China "can go to Africa and purchase vast tracts of land in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, where it can get out the cobalt," and that Beijing "doesn't have problems with using children to mine for these minerals or using slave labor in Xinjiang to mine for these minerals.""So, China has all kinds of business advantages that we in the United States do not have," she says.Furchtgott-Roth joins today's episode of "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss what the U.S. can do to have more influence in Africa, why the U.S. should be more active in reducing China's role in regard to African minerals, and the connection between "environmental, social, and governance" policies and China. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Director of Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at Department of Transportation, is currently writing a story on how pipelines are safer than rail transport for liquids and this derailment is just another example of why.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Colder temperatures are just around the corner in Europe as many people there brace for an energy crisis this winter. "Well, the latest is that temperatures are dropping in Europe, prices of electricity and other heating fuels have quadrupled, and it's very difficult for people to afford these high prices," says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of Heritage.)"We've had Benny Peiser, who's head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, come and speak at Heritage, and he told us that prices in Britain were four times what they had been in previous years," Furchtgott-Roth says. "The government is putting a cap on these prices, so people are not feeling the full effect of the prices until April, but it's very difficult for everybody."Furchtgott-Roth joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss more about the energy crisis in Europe, how the U.S. can avoid landing in a similar position, and how Europeans can conserve energy this winter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

CEO of CompassCare Pregnancy Services Jim Harden joins Glenn to discuss the firebombing of his clinic and how the Democrats don't seem to care. Former chief economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth shares why inflation is out of control and what needs to be done to stop it. Glenn connects actor Matthew McConaughey's latest appearance at the White House to Hunter Biden.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As more protests happen at Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house after the attempted murder plot, Glenn and Stu discuss rhetoric's role in politics. CEO of CompassCare Pregnancy Services Jim Harden joins Glenn to discuss the firebombing of his clinic and how the Democrats don't seem to care. Professor emeritus for Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz joins to discuss Jan. 6 and the imprisonment of its participants. Former chief economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth shares why inflation is out of control and what needs to be done to stop it. Glenn connects actor Matthew McConaughey's latest appearance at the White House to Hunter Biden. Glenn and Stu go over the Republicans who voted with the Democrats to pass a radical gun control bill.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices