Report on United States Climate Policy Shifts and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report details a series of recent policy and administrative actions undertaken by the United States government that represent a fundamental reversal of national climate change strategy. These actions systematically dismantle the regulatory framework for environmental protection and directly conflict with the principles and targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The administration’s approach prioritizes deregulation and the expansion of fossil fuel industries, undermining both national and global efforts to combat climate change.

Systematic Dismantling of Climate Policy Frameworks

Reversing the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” in Defiance of SDG 13

The most significant policy shift is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announced plan to nullify the 2009 “endangerment finding.” This finding, which declares that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare, serves as the legal foundation for regulating such emissions under the Clean Air Act. Undoing this finding would cripple the federal government’s ability to address climate change, a direct contravention of SDG 13 (Climate Action), which calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

The administration justifies this move with a report commissioned from climate skeptics, a document that the broader scientific community has criticized as a legal argument rather than an objective scientific assessment. This action is part of a broader pattern of undermining scientific institutions, which violates the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• The authors of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment were dismissed, and previous reports detailing climate impacts have been obscured on government websites.
• EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has characterized the move as the “largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States,” signaling a transformation of the agency’s mission away from environmental protection.

Impacts on Energy, Health, and Global Partnerships

Contradiction of SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 3 (Good Health)

The administration’s policies actively promote fossil fuels while penalizing renewable energy sources, a direct reversal of the goals outlined in SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy). This approach not only hinders the transition to sustainable energy but also has tangible negative consequences for public health and energy costs.

1. Promotion of Fossil Fuels: Executive orders have been signed to boost the coal industry and end limits on pollution from coal- and gas-fired power plants.
2. Dismantling Clean Energy Incentives: Tax credits for electric vehicles are being terminated, and incentives for renewable energy projects are being ended, a move reportedly contributing to rising electricity costs.
3. Reversal of Emissions Standards: The administration has stripped California of its authority to ban new gas-powered vehicles and is expected to overturn national tailpipe emission standards.

These actions directly threaten SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by increasing exposure to harmful pollutants. Scientists note that particulate pollution from sources like coal results in tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US, a trend that these policies are poised to exacerbate. According to Katie Dykes, Commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, abandoning federal standards shifts the burden of health risks, such as respiratory illness, and the costs of climate impacts onto local communities, undermining SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Retreat from International Cooperation and SDG 17

The United States is withdrawing from its leadership role in global climate efforts, abandoning the collaborative approach essential to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). This retreat from the international stage weakens the global response to a crisis that requires unified action.

• International Agreements: After a history of wavering commitment, the US has signaled a definitive turn away from the Paris climate agreement’s objectives.
• Global Summits: The US will not attend the upcoming COP30 climate summit in Brazil, forgoing participation in crucial international negotiations.
• Scientific Collaboration: The administration has barred US government scientists from participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading body for climate science assessment.

This disengagement, coupled with the targeting of federal employees in offices focused on climate change, represents a comprehensive effort to remove the US from the global consensus on climate action and dismantle the institutional capacity required to address it.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article discusses issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals. The primary focus is on climate policy and environmental regulation, but the consequences described touch upon health, energy, institutional integrity, and international cooperation.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire piece details the US administration’s actions to reverse climate policies, dismantle regulations on greenhouse gases, withdraw from international climate agreements, and suppress scientific reports on climate change.

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

  The article explicitly mentions policies related to energy sources. It describes a deliberate shift away from clean energy by ending incentives for renewables and tax credits for electric vehicles, while simultaneously boosting the coal industry and oil production.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The connection is made through the discussion of the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” which links greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel pollution to human health. The article notes that reversing this finding ignores health risks like respiratory illness and deaths from particulate pollution.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights the weakening of a key government institution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It describes the EPA’s mission being shifted from protection to deregulation, the firing of scientists, the use of biased reports, and the hiding of official climate assessments, all of which undermine the principles of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The administration’s approach to international relations on climate change is a key theme. The article mentions the US being “in and out” of the Paris Agreement and its decision not to attend the upcoming global climate meeting in Brazil, indicating a withdrawal from global partnerships for sustainable development.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article touches on the impacts of climate change on communities, mentioning risks from “extreme weather events,” “flooding,” and negative impacts on “infrastructure, housing and neighborhoods.” It also discusses the federal government stripping California of its authority to implement its own environmental plans, affecting sub-national efforts towards sustainability.

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

Several specific targets are relevant to the actions described in the article, mostly in a contradictory sense, where the policies mentioned directly undermine the objectives of these targets.

1. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article is a case study of the opposite, describing the systematic dismantling of climate-related policies, such as ending limits on power-plant pollution and overturning tailpipe standards.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation… The administration’s actions, such as firing the authors of the National Climate Assessment, hiding the report, and barring scientists from IPCC work, directly attack this target by reducing institutional capacity and suppressing information.
   • Target 13.a: Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change… The article mentions the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and its refusal to attend the COP30 meeting, which is a direct failure to meet this target.
2. 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 policies described, such as ending incentives for renewable energy projects and boosting the coal industry, actively work against increasing the share of clean energy.
3. Under 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 move to undo the “endangerment finding” and end pollution limits for power plants directly contradicts this target by increasing the risk of illness and death from air pollution. The article cites a scientist stating “tens of thousands of Americans die every year as a result of particulate pollution.”
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article describes the EPA being turned into a “deregulatory agency,” justifying actions with a report from “five climate skeptics” rather than broad scientific consensus, and hiding official reports. These actions undermine the EPA’s effectiveness and transparency.
5. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The whiplash in US climate policy described in the article is an example of policy incoherence that undermines sustainable development.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development… The decision for the US to not attend the global climate meeting in Brazil is a clear example of failing to enhance global partnerships.

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

Yes, the article mentions or implies several qualitative and quantitative indicators that can be used to measure policy direction and impact, even if specific data points are not always provided.

• Indicator for Target 13.2 & 7.2: Existence of national policies and regulations on climate change and clean energy. The article provides a list of indicators of negative progress:
  • The reversal of the “endangerment finding.”
  • The ending of federal limits on coal- and gas-fired power-plant pollution.
  • The termination of tax credits for electric vehicles.
  • The ending of incentives for renewable energy projects.
  • The overturning of national tailpipe standards.
• Indicator for Target 13.3: Availability of public information and scientific assessments on climate change. The article points to the status of the “National Climate Assessment” as a key indicator, noting that its authors were fired and previous versions were “hidden from view on government websites.”
• Indicator for Target 13.a & 17.16: National participation in international environmental agreements. The article uses US participation in the Paris Agreement and its attendance at the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil as direct indicators of its commitment to global partnerships.
• Indicator for Target 3.9: Number of deaths and illnesses attributable to pollution. The article implies this indicator by quoting a scientist who states that “tens of thousands of Americans die every year as a result of particulate pollution” and that the administration’s policies would “reverse that trend” of decline.
• Indicator for Target 16.6: Use of scientific and evidence-based policymaking. An implied indicator is the basis for policy decisions. The article contrasts the broad, peer-reviewed reports from bodies like the IPCC with the administration’s reliance on a report “commissioned from five climate skeptics,” which is described as a “legal document, not a scientific one.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cnn.com