In a shocking video released by Project Veritas, an EPA official appears to confirm what many have long suspected: taxpayer money is being shoveled out the door with reckless abandon, all in the name of climate policy. The official’s words paint a damning picture of an agency prioritizing speed over prudence, all to sidestep political obstacles. His cavalier attitude suggests that the real motive is not saving the planet, but safeguarding their funding from potential Republican oversight.

Gold Bars Off the Titanic: A Scandalous Admission

The official’s metaphor of “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” says it all. Here we have an Environmental Protection Agency employee admitting that the agency’s spending spree is less about strategic investments and more about ensuring the funds are locked into programs that future administrations can’t reverse. The phrase reeks of desperation and irresponsibility, reflecting a mindset that prioritizes politics over the public trust.

One particularly egregious quote reveals the intent behind the chaos:

“We’re throwing gold bars off the Titanic. We’re getting the money out.”

The EPA is deliberately funneled billions into nonprofits to insulate the funds from political accountability. The fact that these programs are less transparent and harder to audit only raises further questions about their legitimacy.

Efron openly admits how the EPA uses nonprofits as a political buffer against Republican administrations—and reveals how he could later reap personal rewards with a cushy job at one of the nonprofits he helped fund during his tenure.

“Over the last year we’ve given out $50 billion dollars for climate things…so to go work for one of these places would be really cool.”

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/epa-advisor-admits-insurance-policy-against-trump-is-gold-bars-off-titanic

The Inflation Reduction Act: A Billion-Dollar Giveaway?

The official boasts about the scale of the spending, highlighting $50 billion in climate-related funds distributed last year alone. The conversation reveals a startling lack of concern for oversight:

We gave them [nonprofits] the money because… it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. Because they aren’t [a government agency], they’re safer from Republicans taking the money away.

This admission underscores a staggering departure from the responsible stewardship of public funds. If preventing abuse and ensuring efficacy are no longer priorities, then taxpayers are left footing the bill for what amounts to ideological activism masquerading as governance.

The Real Agenda: Politics Over Policy

The video also exposes the underlying political motivations driving this free-for-all. The official admits that the rush to disburse funds is driven by fear of Republican oversight, calling it an “external policy against Trump winning.” This politicization of an ostensibly neutral government agency is troubling. It suggests that the EPA, under its current leadership, views itself not as a public servant but as a partisan tool.

What’s at Stake?

The environmental movement’s defenders might argue that the urgency of climate change justifies these tactics. But even if one accepts the premise of a climate crisis, it does not excuse abandoning accountability. Public trust hinges on transparency and fiscal responsibility—qualities conspicuously absent from this EPA official’s description of the agency’s operations.

Moreover, the decision to funnel funds through nonprofits rather than traditional government programs raises serious concerns. Nonprofits are not subject to the same scrutiny as government agencies, making it difficult to track how these billions are being spent. Are these organizations truly advancing environmental goals, or are they simply lining the pockets of well-connected insiders?

A Titanic Failure of Leadership

The metaphor of the Titanic is all too fitting. It reflects an administration careening toward disaster, its leaders focused not on averting the iceberg but on throwing taxpayer money overboard. The recklessness on display in this video is a microcosm of a broader failure in climate policy, where ideology and expedience often trump science and reason.

The EPA official’s remarks should serve as another in an unending series of wake-up calls for Americans. If we allow government agencies to operate with this level of impunity, we risk not just wasting billions but undermining the very principles of accountability and good governance.

The Project Veritas video is a damning indictment of the EPA’s current trajectory. It exposes an agency more interested in political gamesmanship than in serving the public interest. As taxpayers, we should demand better. Environmental policy, like any other domain of public policy, deserves rigorous scrutiny, not carte blanche spending justified by ideological fervor.

It’s time to hold our leaders accountable—not just for their intentions but for their actions. The EPA’s Titanic approach is sinking public trust, and only transparency and responsibility can patch the hull before it’s too late.

The original Project Veritas article can be found here.

This video is available at our WUWT Climate TV section, a collection of over six hundred videos, featuring new interviews and analysis, and covering dozens of media sources discussing, debating and analyzing the latest in climate science, climate politics, and energy policy, including topics concerning temperature, sea level, polar bears, ocean acidification, extreme weather, censorship, wild fires, and more.

Guest essay by Gordon J. Fulks

At a time when campaigning politicians defy reality with extravagant promises, recent developments suggest reason may be returning to the electric power sector – even as the Biden administration frantically tries to spend billions on so-called ‘renewable energy.’

Much of this drama plays out in my Pacific Northwest, where policymakers favor faddish, ideological approaches to energy needs over practical technologies relying on fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro. One result has been the intrusion of expensive, unreliable, and environmentally damaging wind turbines on the beauty that makes the Northwest special.

Among those saving us from ourselves are native people, for whom the land is sacred. They recently forced the federal government and Oregon Governor Tina Kotek to cancel the sale of large offshore tracts for wind development.

Also playing a role were market realities: Only a single, inexperienced company bid on the project. Other competitors dropped out because offshore wind is financially risky, involving high costs and the hazards of a corrosive and stormy marine environment. Besides, who wants intermittent power that costs more than it is worth?  No one.

Another ally in the fight for sanity is Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, sometimes known for harebrained schemes such as blocking out the Sun to cool the planet. Sweden nixed that.

Nevertheless, Gates rightly has championed nuclear power, much maligned despite obvious advantages. In 2006, he founded TerraPower to develop an advanced breeder reactor that will power a plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming. With one billion dollars from Gates, TerraPower broke ground in June. The plant is designed to run 50 years without refueling.

In Pennsylvania, Microsoft, which Gates continues to advise, signed a 1.6-billion-dollar agreement to power data centers with 800 megawatts of nuclear power from Three Mile Island.  With the generating capacity of thousands of large wind turbines, TMI’s Unit 1 will provide power far more reliably than wind and solar.

TMI’s reopening would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.  People now seem to have forgotten the partial meltdown of Unit 2 in 1979. Or they have come to understand that the risks of nuclear power can be managed — just like the hazards (real or imagined) of other modern technologies.

Then there is Amazon, a company better known for its delivery of consumer goods than for its profitable data centers. Residents of eastern Oregon are familiar with Amazon’s large, dreary concrete buildings that have elaborate cooling equipment and large backup generators should utility power fail. These hint at enormous power consumption.

Lured by Oregon’s generous tax breaks, Amazon and other web service providers like Google and Facebook built data centers to take advantage of the state’s cheap hydroelectric power.

However, the newcomers did not realize that public officials were inadequately planning for the increased power that new data centers would require. This came at a time when politicians were also forcing electric utilities like Portland General Electric to switch to wind and solar while promoting an all-electric economy.

Data centers had to find reliable power and meet the ideological requirements of Oregon politicians.  It did not work. The centers now need more electricity than the Oregon grid can supply.  Blackouts are a distinct possibility.

Although ideologically aligned with Oregon politicians, Amazon executives realized their very profitable data centers would fail if they kept posturing with renewable energy.

So, they took a bold step on October 16, announcing that they will work with X-Energy to build small modular nuclear reactors to provide the power they need. These will be set up, not in Oregon where nuclear power is essentially banned, but across the Columbia River in Washington State, near an existing nuclear plant. Power can be easily shipped to Oregon.

Amazon announced that it is working with Energy Northwest, a consortium of 29 Washington State utilities on this nuclear project.  This suggests that many Northwest utilities are finally acknowledging that the region will need great amounts of new and reliable power.

Thank you, Amazon, for promoting a solution to the looming Pacific Northwest power shortage. This may not save us from the massive rate increases that are beginning to hit consumers due to the renewable debacle. But it may keep the lights on.

This commentary was first published at Newsmax on December 4, 2024.

Gordon J. Fulks has a Ph.D. in physics from the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research at the University of Chicago. He is a director of the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.