The GOP’s lat­est tax bill won’t just ben­e­fit the wealthy at the expense of every­one else, it will also be hor­ri­ble for the plan­et — and not just in the ways you might think. In the Repub­li­cans’ bid to pass as many of their long-stand­ing pri­or­i­ties as pos­si­ble, they’ll also do plen­ty to cook the planet.

The bill would extend a generous corporate tax cut to the very industries now careening the planet and humanity toward a hotter, wetter future.

For starters, the bill would extend a gen­er­ous cor­po­rate tax cut to the very indus­tries now careen­ing the plan­et and human­i­ty toward a hot­ter, wet­ter future, name­ly coal, oil and gas. It would also open up 1.5 mil­lion acres of Alaska’s Arc­tic Nation­al Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling. An analy­sis from Oil Change Inter­na­tion­al released last year found that near­ly two-thirds of fuel reserves in exist­ing oil and gas fields need to remain unde­vel­oped to keep the earth from warm­ing beyond 2 degrees, a thresh­old that itself would mean large-scale cli­mate impacts and severe loss of land in low-lying areas.

The bill could also make it hard­er for the Unit­ed States to break its addic­tion to fos­sil fuels. Though it wouldn’t elim­i­nate exist­ing tax cred­its for renew­able fuel sources, the leg­is­la­tion could make these cred­its hard­er to access. On Novem­ber 22, a pro­vi­sion many renew­able ener­gy advo­cates hoped would get left behind in the House ver­sion of the tax pack­age — the Base Ero­sion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) pro­vi­sion — re-emerged in the Sen­ate ver­sion, prompt­ing a vocal response from solar and wind trade asso­ci­a­tions. ​“We nor­mal­ly don’t speak in these kinds of terms, where we talk about col­lapse of the tax equi­ty mar­ket,” a joint let­ter from sev­er­al renew­ables trade asso­ci­a­tions stat­ed in response. ​“We’re look­ing at the end of the prin­ci­pal financ­ing mech­a­nism that has fos­tered growth of the renew­able ener­gy sec­tor since the 1990s.”

The BEAT pro­vi­sion would essen­tial­ly add uncer­tain­ty for investors in renew­able projects that they could col­lect tax equi­ty from Pro­duc­tion and Invest­ment Tax Cred­its, which cur­rent­ly sub­si­dize around a third of wind and solar devel­op­ment. Accord­ing to a blog post from Kei­th Mar­tin, a lawyer spe­cial­iz­ing in tax and project financ­ing, so-called tax equi­ty financ­ing pro­vides around 40 to 50 per­cent of the funds for the aver­age solar project and 50 to 60 per­cent for the aver­age wind project.

Were it to be imple­ment­ed, the BEAT pro­vi­sion would mean that nei­ther renew­able ener­gy com­pa­nies nor their investors could be sure at the onset of a wind or solar project whether they could claim the rel­e­vant tax cred­its as tax equi­ty, threat­en­ing to upend one of the pri­ma­ry incen­tives offered by the gov­ern­ment to spur invest­ment in renew­able ener­gy. Because the mea­sure would also apply retroac­tive­ly, Mar­tin told the trade pub­li­ca­tion Util­i­ty Dive that it could cut into tax cred­it claims on deals ​“closed as far back as 2008.” (For more detailed explain­ers on the BEAT pro­vi­sion, see here and here.)

The bill may also lead to a slew of more indi­rect impacts as well. By over­turn­ing the ban on church­es and oth­er non-prof­it groups’ engage­ment in reli­gious activism, the bill could fur­ther empow­er cli­mate-deny­ing politi­cians around the coun­try. Reli­gious insti­tu­tions hold a range of beliefs on cli­mate change and the envi­ron­ment, though a 2015 sur­vey of evan­gel­i­cals — one of the country’s most influ­en­tial reli­gious groups — found that just 24 per­cent think of glob­al warm­ing as ​“a seri­ous problem.”

Should Con­gress pass the bill, it would like­ly lead to a wave of auto­mat­ic spend­ing cuts — many of which are crit­i­cal to cli­mate resilience. The already severe­ly indebt­ed Nation­al Flood Insur­ance Pro­gram — vir­tu­al­ly the nation’s only flood insur­ance provider, backed by FEMA — would take a $1.6 bil­lion hit. The bill could also elim­i­nate over $100 mil­lion from a fund to help clean-up mar­itime oil spills and sev­er­al oth­er funds across mul­ti­ple agen­cies deal­ing with coastal and wildlife restoration.

Since Trump took office and announced his inten­tion to pull the Unit­ed States out of the Paris Agree­ment, cities and states such as New York and Cal­i­for­nia have emerged as more hope­ful venues for cli­mate action than the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, and many have already pledged to make bold progress on tran­si­tion­ing to renew­able ener­gy. By elim­i­nat­ing the most mean­ing­ful parts of the state and local income tax (“SALT”) exemp­tion, this bill could con­strain bud­gets in these states, mak­ing cli­mate progress over the next sev­er­al years more difficult.

Then there are the good­ies thrown in for the world’s high­est emit­ters: The super-rich. The cur­rent pro­pos­al would expand exist­ing tax cred­its for pri­vate jets. Accord­ing to a new report from the Insti­tute for Pol­i­cy Stud­ies, an hour of trav­el by pri­vate jet emits more green­house gas emis­sions than the aver­age Amer­i­can does in a year of driving.

Attacks on renew­ables and give­aways to the fos­sil fuel indus­try aren’t the only things that make the GOP tax bill a plan­e­tary-scale dis­as­ter. As it turns out, trans­fer­ring mas­sive amounts of society’s wealth from the bot­tom to the top of the income scale real­ly only trick­les down in the sense that it will make most people’s lives worse — and the kind of ambi­tious action cli­mate change requires much more difficult.