Analysis of Proposed Repeal of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to terminate the federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) presents significant challenges to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the proposal’s potential impacts on climate action, public health, institutional integrity, and corporate accountability, highlighting a direct conflict with the principles of SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Impact on SDG 13: Climate Action

The termination of the GHGRP directly undermines national efforts to combat climate change, a core objective of SDG 13. The program has served as a critical instrument for climate governance for nearly two decades.

• Data for Policy (Target 13.2): The GHGRP provides foundational data from approximately 8,000 industrial facilities, representing 90% of the nation’s emissions. The loss of this data would severely hamper the ability to formulate, monitor, and assess national climate policies.
• Weakened Climate Governance: Without mandatory reporting, tracking progress toward national and international climate commitments becomes difficult, if not impossible. This move represents a significant regression in integrating climate change measures into national policies and planning.
• Loss of Transparency: The program ensures transparency regarding the largest sources of greenhouse gas pollution, a key component for effective climate action and public awareness (Target 13.3).

Implications for SDG 3 (Good Health) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities)

The proposal carries direct consequences for public health and the sustainability of communities, impacting progress on SDG 3 and SDG 11.

1. Public Health Risks (Target 3.9): Environmental and health organizations, including the American Lung Association, have stated that eliminating emissions reporting is a “deadly choice.” The lack of data obscures the link between industrial pollution and adverse health outcomes, such as the estimated 135,000 annual deaths from air pollution in the U.S. and thousands of daily asthma attacks in children.
2. Community Right-to-Know (Target 11.6): The program empowers residents and local governments to identify nearby sources of pollution. Its termination would reduce the capacity of cities and communities to manage their environmental impact and make informed decisions to protect citizens’ health.
3. Erosion of Accountability: Without federal oversight, emissions could go unchecked, placing a disproportionate health burden on communities located near industrial facilities.

Sub-national Leadership and Institutional Divergence

While the federal proposal signals a retreat from climate commitments, state-level actions demonstrate a contrasting approach, highlighting the importance of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) through multi-level governance.

California’s Counter-Model

• Robust State-Level Framework: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) operates an independent and more stringent greenhouse gas reporting program, which will remain unaffected. This program is integral to the state’s climate strategy.
• Integration with Climate Policy: Unlike the federal program, California’s reporting is directly linked to compliance obligations under its cap-and-trade system, a market-based mechanism designed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
• Stricter Thresholds: CARB requires facilities emitting over 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent to report, compared to the federal threshold of 25,000 metric tons, ensuring more comprehensive data collection.

Conclusion: A Setback for Sustainable Development

The proposed elimination of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is inconsistent with the United States’ commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals. The administration’s justification of reducing regulatory costs of $2.4 billion is set against the unquantified costs to public health, environmental integrity, and the long-term stability of the climate. The action weakens institutional capacity for environmental protection (SDG 16) and removes a key tool for ensuring responsible production patterns (SDG 12). While sub-national entities like California provide a model for continued progress, the federal withdrawal from emissions monitoring represents a significant obstacle to cohesive and effective national climate action.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article directly connects greenhouse gas pollution and poor air quality to negative health outcomes. It mentions “deadly impacts,” “health emergencies and deaths,” and the risk of “toxic, cancer-causing chemicals.” Specific figures are cited, such as air pollution killing “about 135,000 Americans each year” and potentially causing “10,000 asthma attacks each day for U.S. children.”

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The article discusses the impact of industrial pollution on communities and cities. It highlights that ending the reporting program makes it harder for “residents to know if their neighboring power plant or factory is reducing or increasing emissions.” It also points out that cities like Los Angeles suffer from severe air pollution, having been ranked the “nation’s smoggiest city” repeatedly, which directly relates to the environmental quality of urban areas.

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • The core issue is the management and reporting of pollution from industrial production. The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is a mechanism to hold “industrial plants,” “power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities” accountable for their emissions, encouraging more sustainable production patterns. The debate over regulatory costs versus environmental protection is central to this goal.

4. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around the need to “track and report the greenhouse gas pollution,” which is described as the “largest driver of climate change.” The article discusses national and state-level policies (like California’s cap-and-trade program) designed to track and reduce emissions to meet climate goals, such as achieving “100% carbon neutrality by 2045.”

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article examines the role of government institutions like the EPA and California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) in creating, implementing, and dismantling environmental regulations. The proposal to end the federal reporting program is presented as a weakening of institutional accountability and transparency, while California’s robust state-level program is shown as an example of a strong, effective institution.

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

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article’s focus on premature deaths (“135,000 Americans each year”) and asthma attacks caused by air pollution directly relates to this target.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality. The article’s discussion of Los Angeles as the “nation’s smoggiest city” and the need for local governments to access emissions data to protect their communities aligns with this target.

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. The EPA and CARB reporting programs are direct implementations of this target, mandating that large polluters report their greenhouse gas emissions.

4. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and California’s cap-and-trade system are examples of climate change measures integrated into national and state policies. The proposal to end the federal program represents a reversal of this integration.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The reporting programs are tools for transparency, making polluters accountable. The article contrasts the federal EPA’s move to end its program with California’s CARB, which maintains a strict and transparent system.

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

1. For SDG 3 (Target 3.9)

   • Mortality rate attributed to air pollution: The article explicitly mentions that “Air pollution kills about 135,000 Americans each year.” This is a direct indicator of the health impact of pollution.
   • Incidence of respiratory illness: The article implies this indicator by citing an estimate that repealing safeguards could “cause more than 10,000 asthma attacks each day for U.S. children.”

2. For SDG 11 (Target 11.6)

   • Urban air quality levels: While not providing specific PM2.5 data, the article’s reference to Los Angeles as the “nation’s smoggiest city” for “25 out of the last 26 years” implies the use of air quality monitoring as an indicator.

3. For SDG 12 & 13 (Targets 12.6 & 13.2)

   • Total greenhouse gas emissions reported: This is the central indicator discussed throughout the article. Specific figures are provided, such as California’s reporting threshold of “10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent” and the EPA’s of “25,000 metric tons.” It also states the total reported emissions for 2023: “370 million metric tons” to the state and “2.58 billion metric tons” to the federal program. These figures are direct measures of industrial pollution.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: latimes.com