Analysis of U.S. Energy and Climate Policy in 2025 and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Policy Shift Away from Climate Action

In 2025, the U.S. administration initiated a significant policy reversal, prioritizing fossil fuel energy dominance over renewable energy development and climate change mitigation. This approach stands in direct opposition to globally recognized sustainability targets, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy). The administration’s actions occurred concurrently with a series of extreme weather events globally, highlighting the growing urgency of the climate crisis.

First Quarter (January – March) Policy Reversals and Climate Impacts

The administration’s agenda was established early in the year through executive actions that undermined national and international climate commitments. These actions coincided with severe climate-related events that impacted health, food security, and community safety.

• Executive Actions:
  1. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, directly impeding progress on SDG 13 (Climate Action).
  2. Suspension of federal grants and loans for renewable energy, hindering the transition required by SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy).
• Concurrent Climate Events:
  • The Palisades Fire in California, linked to 440 excess deaths, underscored threats to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
  • Severe drought and heat waves in Argentina and Chile decimated crops, threatening SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
  • Major floods in Appalachia and famine-inducing drought in the Horn of Africa (Somalia and Ethiopia) further demonstrated the widespread impact on SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2, and SDG 3.
• Fossil Fuel Promotion:
  • Advancement of oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, impacting SDG 15 (Life on Land).
  • Reversal of methane emission restrictions and cancellation of wind power expansion programs, further undermining SDG 13.

Second Quarter (April – June) Deregulation and Economic Consequences

The administration continued its deregulation of the fossil fuel industry while actively creating obstacles for the renewable energy sector. These policies threatened clean energy jobs and ignored the scientifically established link between greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather.

• Regulatory and Policy Changes:
  1. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempted 47 coal plants from emissions conformance.
  2. The Department of the Interior fast-tracked oil and gas drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
  3. The Department of Energy shut down carbon capture initiatives.
  4. The Bureau of Land Management rescinded protections in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve.
• Impact on Sustainable Development:
  • The anti-wind power stance undermined the industry, threatening thousands of jobs in regions like New England and impeding progress on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 7.
  • The cancellation of clean energy projects in both conservative and liberal-leaning districts resulted in significant job and investment losses.
• Global Weather Events and Scientific Context:
  • Smoke from Canadian wildfires affected air quality in U.S. cities, a direct threat to SDG 3.
  • Catastrophic flooding in France, Germany, and Kentucky highlighted the vulnerability of communities, a key concern of SDG 11. Climate attribution science confirmed that climate change made the Kentucky floods 40% more likely, reinforcing the need for action under SDG 13.
  • Life-threatening heatwaves in India and Pakistan and flash floods in Texas resulted in significant loss of life, impacting SDG 3.

Third Quarter (July – August) Legislative Setbacks and Intensifying Disasters

Major legislative and administrative actions were taken to dismantle foundational climate regulations. These occurred as the human and economic costs of climate-related disasters continued to mount, demonstrating a profound disconnect from the principles of sustainable development.

• Major Policy and Legislative Actions:
  1. The EPA proposed to rescind its 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins all greenhouse gas regulations, and shuttered its research office, laying off over 1,000 scientists. This action directly obstructs the evidence-based policymaking required for SDG 13.
  2. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) was signed into law, dismantling industrial policies designed to promote wind and solar energy, representing a historic reversal of progress on SDG 7 and SDG 13.
  3. The administration moved to cancel the “Solar for All” program, which was designed to bring renewable energy to low- and moderate-income communities, thereby undermining SDG 7 and SDG 1 (No Poverty).
  4. Approval was granted for a coal mine expansion in Wyoming.
• Escalating Climate Disasters:
  • Deadly flooding of the Guadalupe River in Texas killed at least 138 people, a severe blow to SDG 3 and SDG 11.
  • Maricopa County, Arizona, reported nearly 400 suspected heat-related deaths, highlighting extreme vulnerability to climate change.
  • Devastating floods occurred in Pakistan, Hong Kong, and Bangladesh, causing widespread displacement and loss of life.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Lost Progress on Sustainable Development

The administration’s 2025 energy and climate policies represent a systematic abandonment of commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals. By promoting fossil fuels and dismantling renewable energy initiatives, the administration has actively worked against SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy). The consequences of this agenda are evident not only in policy but in the tangible economic disruption to the clean energy sector, impacting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and in the heightened vulnerability of communities worldwide to climate disasters, which undermines SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The long-term legacy will be measured in the loss of critical years of progress needed to address the global climate crisis.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The article’s central theme is the administration’s policy shift away from renewable energy (solar, wind) and towards fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal). Actions like suspending renewable energy grants, canceling wind power programs, and shuttering the “Solar for All” program directly relate to this goal.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • This is the primary focus of the article. It discusses the stalling of climate change mitigation efforts, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and the direct link between policy decisions and the worsening effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article explicitly links extreme weather events to human casualties. It mentions “440 deaths” from the Palisades Fire, dozens killed by floods in Appalachia, 13 deaths from flash floods in San Antonio, 138 deaths from flooding in Texas, and “almost 400 deaths” from heat in Arizona.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The economic consequences of the policy shift are highlighted, specifically the negative impact on employment. The article states that “dozens of clean energy programs have been canceled or downsized, resulting in many thousands of lost jobs.”
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article describes how climate-related disasters directly impact communities. It details catastrophic flooding in Appalachia, Kentucky, and San Antonio, as well as wildfires near Los Angeles, which cause deaths, damage, and displacement. The cancellation of the “Solar for All” program also impacts the sustainability of low- and moderate-income communities.
6. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article connects climate change-induced weather events to food security. It reports on drought and heat waves that “decimated crops” in Argentina and Chile, “severely damaged soybean crops in Brazil,” and damaged the “U.S. winter wheat crop.” It also mentions that drought brought famine to Somalia and Ethiopia.
7. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The administration’s policies are shown to impact terrestrial ecosystems directly. The article mentions the advancement of “oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” and the rescinding of protections in “Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve,” which threaten these sensitive environments.
8. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article begins by noting the administration’s executive order “withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.” This action represents a direct reversal of international cooperation and partnership on the critical global issue of climate change.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy):
   • Target 7.2: “By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.” The article describes policies that actively work against this target, such as canceling wind power expansion, suspending renewable energy grants, and promoting fossil fuels.
   • Target 7.a: “By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology… and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.” The administration’s actions, including canceling the “Solar for All” program and suspending federal grants and loans for renewables, directly undermine investment in clean energy technology.
2. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.1: “Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.” The article’s extensive list of deadly floods, fires, and heatwaves, coupled with policies that will “assuredly make matters worse,” indicates a weakening, not a strengthening, of resilience.
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article details a systematic “unraveling of the Biden administration’s climate and energy policies,” such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and rescinding the EPA’s endangerment finding, which is the opposite of integrating climate measures.
3. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.5: “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses… caused by disasters.” The article provides specific death tolls from floods and fires (e.g., 138 killed in Texas flooding) and mentions “billions in damage” from floods in Appalachia, showing a failure to meet this target.
4. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.4: “Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation.” The push for fossil fuels and the dismantling of clean energy initiatives represents a move toward, not away from, environmental degradation linked to economic activity.
5. Under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger):
   • Target 2.4: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices… that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters.” The reports of decimated crops in multiple countries due to drought and heat show a lack of resilient agricultural practices in the face of climate change.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for Mortality and Economic Loss (Targets 11.5 & 13.1):
   • The article provides specific quantitative data that can be used as indicators.
     • Number of deaths attributed to disasters: “440 deaths” (Palisades Fire), “dozens” (Appalachian floods), “13 people” (San Antonio floods), “138 people” (Texas floods), “almost 400 deaths” (Arizona heat).
     • Direct economic loss from disasters: “billions in damage” (Appalachian floods).
2. Indicators for Climate Policy (Target 13.2):
   • The article implies indicators related to national policy and international commitments.
     • Status of national climate policies: The article describes the “unraveling” of policies, the reversal of methane restrictions, and the rescinding of the EPA’s endangerment finding.
     • Participation in international agreements: The “withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement” is a clear, measurable indicator.
3. Indicators for Clean Energy (Target 7.2):
   • While not providing exact percentages, the article implies negative trends for indicators measuring the share of renewable energy.
     • Public investment in clean energy: The suspension of “federal renewable energy grants and loans” and cancellation of programs like “Solar for All” serve as negative indicators.
     • Renewable energy capacity: The cancellation of “wind power expansion programs” indicates a stall or decline in the growth of renewable capacity.
4. Indicators for Employment (SDG 8):
   • The article provides a qualitative but significant indicator for employment in the green economy.
     • Number of jobs in the renewable energy sector: The mention of “many thousands of lost jobs” due to canceled clean energy programs is a direct indicator of a negative trend.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wbur.org