Analysis of U.S. Climate Policy Documents and Their Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

This report provides an analysis of two key documents from United States government agencies: the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG) report, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to rescind the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding. The analysis evaluates the scientific quality, accuracy, and implications of these documents, with a significant emphasis on their relationship to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group Report Evaluation

Scientific Quality and Scope

The DOE CWG report was commissioned to provide a critical review of climate science. It is not a comprehensive assessment akin to those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead, it presents the high-quality perspectives of five scientists on topics they believe are underrepresented in major assessments. Key observations include:

• Substantial Overlap with IPCC: The report’s findings largely align with the IPCC’s AR6 report, sharing common ground on fundamental principles of climate science.
• Nuanced Differences: Divergences from the IPCC are primarily matters of emphasis rather than direct contradiction, reflecting legitimate scientific debate on topics such as climate model sensitivity and the role of natural variability.
• Accurate Representation: In specialized areas like climate scenarios and extreme weather, the report accurately summarizes the relevant scientific literature.

Contribution to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The DOE CWG report contributes to the broader climate discourse by fostering debate, a critical component for robust scientific understanding and effective policy-making. This aligns with SDG 17 by promoting dialogue among scientific experts. By challenging and adding nuance to mainstream assessments, the report encourages a more thorough evaluation of climate science, which is foundational to achieving the targets of SDG 13. It underscores that scientific progress relies on open discussion and the consideration of diverse, expert-led perspectives, rather than adherence to a single, monolithic view.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposal on the Endangerment Finding

Analysis of Scientific and Legal Arguments

The EPA’s proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding is primarily a legal document. However, it relies on several scientific assertions to question the original finding. An evaluation of these points reveals:

1. Impact of Vehicle Emissions: The claim that eliminating GHG emissions from new U.S. motor vehicles would not have a scientifically measurable impact on global GHG concentrations is mathematically correct in isolation, given the scale of global emissions. However, this does not negate the cumulative principle of endangerment under the Clean Air Act.
2. Evolution of Climate Science: The proposal correctly notes that plausible future emissions scenarios are now considered less extreme than in 2009. While this moderates projections, it does not eliminate the risks or impacts associated with climate change, nor does it invalidate the scientific basis for the endangerment finding.
3. Exclusion of Adaptation and Mitigation: The critique that the 2009 finding excluded adaptation and mitigation from its baseline analysis is a valid technical point. Plausible assumptions about societal responses should be included in scenarios for a complete policy analysis.
4. Extreme Weather Trends: The assertion that events like hurricanes and floods have not demonstrably increased relative to historical highs is largely accurate for those specific phenomena. However, the claim requires more nuance regarding wildfires, where a qualitative link between GHG emissions and influencing factors is well-established.

Implications for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

The EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding directly challenges the framework for protecting public health and welfare from climate change impacts. This has significant negative implications for several SDGs.

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The endangerment finding is a cornerstone for regulating GHGs to protect human health from climate-related impacts such as heat waves, degraded air quality, and the spread of vector-borne diseases. Rescinding it would weaken the basis for actions that safeguard public health.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The reality of sea-level rise, a direct consequence of GHG emissions, poses a clear and present danger to coastal communities. The original finding acknowledges such risks, which are central to ensuring cities are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The EPA’s argument overlooks the low legal threshold for “endangerment,” which is sufficiently met by established impacts like sea-level rise.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): The discussion on wildfires highlights risks to terrestrial ecosystems. While complex, the link between climate change and conditions conducive to wildfires underscores the threat to biodiversity and land resources, a key concern of SDG 15.

Conclusion: Scientific Integrity and the Path to Sustainable Development

The analysis of the DOE and EPA documents reveals a complex interplay between scientific debate, legal interpretation, and public policy. The DOE report serves a constructive role by broadening the scientific discussion, which is essential for advancing the knowledge base required for SDG 13 (Climate Action). In contrast, the EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding appears to be based on a selective interpretation of scientific evolution and a high legal bar that is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The existing body of science, including that presented in the DOE report, provides a sufficient basis to maintain the endangerment finding.

Ultimately, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires that policy be guided by a comprehensive and intellectually honest assessment of scientific evidence. Fostering open debate while upholding established protective regulations is critical for navigating the challenges of climate change and ensuring a sustainable and resilient future for all.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  This is the central SDG addressed. The article revolves around the scientific and legal basis for climate action in the United States, specifically discussing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) climate report, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding, and the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects climate change to public health. It references the EPA’s proposal regarding the “endangerment to public health and welfare” and mentions that the original 2009 Endangerment Finding projected “adverse health impacts from increased frequency and severity of hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires.”

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

  The discussion is heavily focused on emissions from the transport sector. The article analyzes the impact of “reducing GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines to zero,” which is directly related to energy consumption in transportation and the transition to cleaner energy sources.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The impacts of climate change on human settlements are highlighted. The article mentions the “rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts,” and discusses the risks from extreme weather events like hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, which directly threaten communities.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  The article explicitly mentions sea-level rise as a key impact of climate change. The statement that “the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts” points to the degradation of coastal ecosystems, a core concern of SDG 14.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The article discusses the impact of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems through the topic of wildfires. It notes that while North America has a “fire deficit,” a linkage between “greenhouse gas emissions with factors that influence wildfire is well established,” touching upon the health of forest ecosystems.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article exemplifies the complex interactions required to address climate change. It describes a partnership and dialogue between scientists, government agencies (DOE, EPA), international bodies (IPCC), and the media (Associated Press), highlighting the need for policy coherence and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

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.

   The article discusses the need to include “adaptation – human responses that reduce potential adverse impacts” in climate projections. It also analyzes trends and risks associated with climate-related hazards like heat waves, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and sea-level rise.

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

   The entire article is a commentary on this target. It analyzes the DOE’s climate report and the EPA’s proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which are core components of U.S. national climate policy and strategy.

3. Target 3.d: Strengthen the capacity of all countries… for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.

   This target is relevant through the discussion of the “endangerment to public health and welfare” from climate change. The analysis of extreme weather events like heat waves and hurricanes as health risks aligns with the need to manage national health risks associated with climate change.

4. Target 11.5: Significantly reduce the number of deaths and… losses caused by disasters.

   The article directly addresses this by discussing the frequency and severity of disasters like “hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires.” The debate over whether these events have “demonstrably increased relative to historical highs” is a debate about progress toward this target.

5. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

   The article highlights a lack of policy coherence. The author points out differences in perspective between the DOE, the EPA, and the IPCC, and discusses how scientific findings are used or interpreted differently for legal and political arguments, demonstrating the challenge of achieving coherent policy.

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

• Total greenhouse gas emissions: The article provides a specific quantitative estimate related to vehicle emissions: “new vehicles would emit at most ~3.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide to 2050.” This serves as a direct indicator for measuring GHG emissions from a specific sector, relevant to Target 13.2.
• Frequency and intensity of extreme weather events: The article explicitly mentions several indicators. It includes a figure used by the EPA as an “indicator of heat waves.” It also refers to data and analyses on the frequency of “hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires” relative to historical highs, which are direct indicators for Target 11.5 and 13.1.
• Global temperature change: The article references projections from the IPCC AR4 of “global temperature increases between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius by 2100.” It also notes that current trends “have tracked the IPCC’s more optimistic scenarios,” using global temperature as a key indicator of climate change.
• Sea level change: The article uses sea-level rise as a critical indicator of climate impact, stating, “the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts.” This is a measurable indicator for Target 13.1 and relevant to SDG 14.
• Trends in wildfire occurrence and severity: The discussion of the “North American fire deficit” and the established linkage between “climate conditions… for fire occurrence and severity” implies that fire data is used as an indicator to understand the impact of climate change on land ecosystems (Target 15.1).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: aei.org