EPA Proposes Reversal of Greenhouse Gas Regulation Authority

Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the direction of Administrator Lee Zeldin, has announced a significant policy shift to discontinue the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. This decision aims to nullify the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which has served as the legal foundation for controlling emissions from the fossil fuel industry under the Clean Air Act. The current administration contends that the EPA lacks the statutory authority for such regulations, a move that has profound implications for national and global commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed policy reversal directly conflicts with multiple SDGs, primarily those concerning climate, health, and sustainable infrastructure. Civil society organizations have noted that the action prioritizes short-term corporate profits over long-term environmental stewardship and public well-being.

Direct Contradiction to SDG 13: Climate Action

The decision represents a significant setback for SDG 13: Climate Action, which calls for urgent measures to combat climate change and its impacts. The EPA’s withdrawal from GHG regulation undermines this goal in several key areas:

• It signals a failure to integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
• It represents an abdication of the agency’s role in strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards.
• It weakens the United States’ ability to meet its commitments under international climate agreements, thereby hindering global efforts.

Adverse Effects on Health, Energy, and Sustainable Communities

The policy has cascading negative effects on several interconnected SDGs, threatening progress in public health, energy transition, and urban sustainability.

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The 2009 endangerment finding explicitly recognized the danger GHG emissions pose to human health. By ceasing regulation, the EPA disregards the established link between fossil fuel pollution and adverse health outcomes, directly undermining the goal of ensuring healthy lives for all.
2. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: This policy change provides a clear advantage to the fossil fuel industry, creating a disincentive for the transition to and investment in clean and renewable energy sources. This impedes progress towards increasing the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Unregulated GHG emissions contribute to poorer air quality, which disproportionately affects urban centers. This action works against the objective of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Institutional and Governance Concerns

Critique from Civil Society and Impact on SDG 16

In response to the announcement, Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh criticized the move as a dereliction of the EPA’s fundamental duty. This critique highlights a significant challenge to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• The EPA is accused of abandoning its core mission to protect environmental and public health, weakening its institutional integrity.
• The assertion that the decision serves corporate interests over public welfare raises questions about institutional accountability and transparency.
• The comparison of the EPA’s stance to “a fire chief claiming they shouldn’t fight fires” underscores the perceived failure of the institution to fulfill its essential mandate.

Undermining Responsible Production and Global Partnerships

Finally, the policy shift undermines progress on two other critical goals. It counters the principles of SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production by removing a key regulatory mechanism designed to ensure sustainable production patterns within the energy sector. Furthermore, by unilaterally stepping back from established climate regulations, the action could damage trust and cooperation essential for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, particularly in the context of global environmental governance.

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

SDG 13: Climate Action

• The article’s central theme is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to “no longer regulate greenhouse gas pollution.” This directly relates to national efforts to combat climate change, which is the core focus of SDG 13. The text mentions the need to “control emissions from the fossil fuel industry” to ensure “climate stability,” highlighting a direct connection to climate action.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article explicitly links greenhouse gas emissions to public health, stating they pose a “clear danger” to “human health.” The response from Food & Water Watch accuses the administration of having “no care or concern for the health and wellbeing of the American people,” reinforcing the connection to SDG 3.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article critiques the effectiveness and accountability of a key government institution, the EPA. The statement, “Zeldin’s claim that the EPA shouldn’t address climate emissions is like a fire chief claiming they shouldn’t fight fires,” questions the EPA’s commitment to its mandate. The accusation that the decision serves to “maximize short-term profits for polluting corporations” instead of the public good points to issues of institutional integrity and justice, which are central to SDG 16.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

• The issue stems from emissions generated by the “fossil fuel industry.” The decision to halt regulation of these emissions directly impacts the energy sector by removing a key driver for transitioning away from polluting fossil fuels towards cleaner energy sources, a primary goal of SDG 7.

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

SDG 13: Climate Action

• Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article discusses the reversal of a major national policy. The EPA’s plan to stop regulating greenhouse gases under the “2009 endangerment finding” and the “Clean Air Act” represents a disintegration, rather than an integration, of climate change measures from national policy.

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 identifies “greenhouse gas pollution” as a “clear danger” to “human health.” The decision to cease regulation works directly against the goal of reducing illnesses and deaths from air pollution.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article portrays the EPA as an institution failing to be effective or accountable to the public. The policy change is described as “malicious as it is absurd” and serving corporate interests over the well-being of “the American people or future generations,” suggesting a breakdown in institutional accountability.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

• 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. By removing regulations on the “fossil fuel industry,” the administration’s action disincentivizes investment in and transition to clean energy technologies, thereby undermining progress toward this target.

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

Implied Indicators for SDG 13 (Climate Action)

• Indicator 13.2.2: Total greenhouse gas emissions per year. The article’s entire focus is on the regulation of “greenhouse gas pollution” and “emissions from the fossil fuel industry.” The amount of these emissions is the primary metric for measuring the success or failure of climate policies. The EPA’s decision would foreseeably lead to an increase in these emissions.
• Indicator 13.2.1: Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of an integrated policy/strategy/plan… The article describes the dismantling of a key national policy (“regulate greenhouse gas pollution under a 2009 endangerment finding”). This represents a negative action regarding this indicator, as it shows a country moving away from an integrated climate policy.

Implied Indicators for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

• Indicator 3.9.1: Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution. The article’s assertion that greenhouse gas pollution is a “clear danger” to “human health” directly implies that the level of this pollution affects health outcomes. Therefore, metrics tracking deaths and illnesses from air pollution are relevant for measuring the impact of the policy change.

Implied Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

• The article implies a failure in institutional accountability, which is what indicators under Target 16.6 seek to measure. The text’s description of the EPA acting on behalf of “polluting corporations” rather than the public suggests a decline in government effectiveness and public trust, which could be measured through public perception surveys on institutional performance and accountability.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foodandwaterwatch.org