Federal Policy Reversal and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Undermining Climate Action and Public Health (SDG 13 & SDG 3)

Recent federal administration actions signal a significant reversal of environmental policy, primarily through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The announced intention is to rescind the 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. This policy shift directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 13 (Climate Action) by seeking to dismantle the primary legal authority under the Clean Air Act for regulating climate pollutants.

The consequences of this reversal pose a direct threat to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The anticipated rollback of regulations is expected to increase the concentration of toxic substances in the air, soil, and water. Potential impacts include:

• Repeal of emission limits for vehicles, industrial facilities, and energy production sectors.
• Increased public exposure to harmful pollutants linked to fossil fuels.
• Heightened risk of widespread illness and negative health outcomes.

Erosion of Institutional Integrity and Scientific Principles (SDG 16)

The decision to reverse the endangerment finding represents a departure from established scientific consensus and data-driven methodologies. This undermines the ability of key institutions to form collective agreements on best practices for public and environmental safety, a core tenet of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The move is expected to face significant legal challenges in federal courts, citing the substantial body of scientific evidence accumulated since 2009 that reinforces the original finding.

State-Level Response in Pursuit of Sustainability Targets

Hawaii’s Proactive Measures for Climate Resilience (SDG 7, SDG 11, SDG 13)

In response to the federal policy direction and the broader climate crisis, the state of Hawaii has initiated several measures that align with multiple Sustainable Development Goals. These actions demonstrate a sub-national commitment to upholding global sustainability targets.

1. Legal Accountability: The state has filed a lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry, citing the need to combat deceptive practices and address the impacts of global warming on Hawaii’s public health, economy, and natural resources. This action supports the principles of justice and institutional accountability within SDG 16.
2. Climate Impact Funding: A climate impact fee has been established to generate funds for mitigating climate-related damages, such as the increased risk of wildfires. This directly contributes to adaptation and resilience efforts under SDG 13 (Climate Action) and protects terrestrial ecosystems as outlined in SDG 15 (Life on Land).
3. Transportation Decarbonization: Through a partnership with youth climate activists, a key example of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), Hawaii has committed to a comprehensive plan to decarbonize its transportation systems. This plan focuses on achieving SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by establishing clean fuel requirements and promoting electric and other zero-emission transportation alternatives.

Broader Implications for National and Global Sustainability

Hawaii’s commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions serves as a critical counter-narrative to the federal policy reversal. The state’s actions underscore the importance of localized efforts in preserving worldwide momentum towards achieving climate goals. The divergence in policy highlights a fundamental conflict regarding national priorities for sustainable development, with significant risks to long-term economic and environmental well-being.

• Economic and Environmental Risks: The federal course risks more frequent and severe weather events, diminished agricultural capacity, and economic disruption, undermining progress toward SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• Biodiversity Threats: The potential for further extinctions and damage to terrestrial and marine ecosystems presents a direct threat to SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The article is centered on the issue of “global warming” and “climate change,” directly referencing the need to combat its effects. It discusses the federal administration’s move to abandon regulations on “fossil fuel-related pollution” and Hawaii’s commitment to “turn back global warming’s looming threats.”

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article explicitly links pollution to public health, citing a 2009 determination that “greenhouse gas emissions endanger the U.S. citizenry’s collective health.” It warns of “widespread illness” and the concentration of “toxic substances in our air, soil and waters” as consequences of deregulation.

3. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

   • The article contrasts “gas-, oil- and coal-fueled energy production” with the need for “clean, economical energy sources.” Hawaii’s plan to support “electric and other emission-free alternatives” is a direct effort to transition towards cleaner energy systems.

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The focus on adapting “state transportation systems” to “largely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from ground, air and ocean transportation” relates to creating sustainable infrastructure. The article also mentions using a climate impact fee to “reduce the risk of wildfires and mitigate against other climate-related damages,” which is key to making communities more resilient.

5. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • The article warns that regressive environmental policies risk “further extinctions” and the contamination of “soil,” which directly impacts terrestrial ecosystems.

6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article discusses the role and power of government institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It highlights the “evisceration of EPA’s regulatory power” and the subsequent legal challenges (“will be challenged in federal courts,” “Hawaii filed suit”), which speaks to the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions that uphold environmental law.

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

1. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.

   • This is identified through Hawaii’s actions, such as establishing a “climate impact fee” which will be used to “reduce the risk of wildfires and mitigate against other climate-related damages.”

2. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

   • This target is central to the article. It is discussed negatively in the context of the federal administration’s reversal of the “endangerment determination” to “derail federal climate efforts.” It is addressed positively through Hawaii’s actions, including its agreement with youth activists to “adapt state transportation systems and largely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.”

3. 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 directly connects to this target by mentioning the EPA’s original finding that greenhouse gases endanger health by “concentrating toxic substances in our air, soil and waters” and that deregulation will lead to “widespread illness.”

4. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

   • This is reflected in Hawaii’s state plan, which focuses on “establishing clean fuel requirements, while supporting electric and other emission-free alternatives.” This is a clear move away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy sources.

5. Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all.

   • Hawaii’s agreement to “adapt state transportation systems and largely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from ground, air and ocean transportation” directly addresses the goal of creating sustainable transportation.

6. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   • The article critiques the federal administration’s actions as undermining the EPA, an institution created to regulate pollution. The mention of legal challenges by states and the Natural Resources Defense Council highlights efforts to hold these institutions accountable to their scientific and legal mandates.

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

1. Indicator: Greenhouse gas emissions.

   • This is the primary indicator mentioned throughout the article. Progress can be measured by tracking the levels of “greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, factories and other industries, waste disposal and energy production.” Hawaii’s goal to “largely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions” from transportation provides a clear metric.

2. Indicator: Existence and enforcement of environmental regulations.

   • The article’s entire premise is based on the “reversal” of regulations and limits under the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the existence, repeal, or reinstatement of these federal and state regulations serves as a direct indicator of policy action on climate change.

3. Indicator: Share of clean energy in the transportation sector.

   • Hawaii’s plan to establish “clean fuel requirements” and support “electric and other emission-free alternatives” implies a measurable shift in the energy mix for transportation. Progress can be tracked by the adoption rate of these alternatives.

4. Indicator: Public and private investment in climate adaptation.

   • The establishment of a “Hawaii climate impact fee” is a specific financial mechanism. The amount of funds collected and used to “reduce the risk of wildfires and mitigate against other climate-related damages” is a quantifiable indicator of investment in resilience.

5. Indicator: Number of legal actions related to climate change.

   • The article mentions that the EPA’s actions “will be challenged in federal courts” and that “Hawaii filed suit” against the fossil fuel industry. The number and outcomes of such lawsuits are an indicator of efforts to enforce climate accountability through the justice system.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thegardenisland.com