Report on U.S. Budgetary Impacts on Climate Resilience and Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes the effects of recent and proposed budget and staffing cuts within the United States federal government on national disaster preparedness and climate resilience. It specifically evaluates these actions in the context of the nation’s capacity to meet key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to climate action, sustainable communities, and institutional strength.

Impact on National Climate and Disaster Response Capabilities

Recent administrative actions have curtailed the operational capacity of key federal agencies responsible for weather forecasting, climate research, and emergency management. These reductions occur as the nation faces an increase in extreme weather events, such as severe rainfall and flooding, linked to climate change.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

FEMA’s ability to prepare for and respond to disasters has been diminished through several measures, directly impacting progress towards SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

• Staffing Reductions: Significant staff cuts, including the departure of senior administrators, have reduced the agency’s institutional knowledge and capacity for disaster recovery, planning, and preparedness.
• Reduced Training Programs: FEMA’s role in providing standardized training for state and local emergency managers has been curtailed. This training is critical for ensuring effective inter-jurisdictional communication and coordination during disasters that cross regional boundaries, a key component of building resilient institutions under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• Program Termination: The administration has terminated the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, a primary vehicle for federal investment in pre-disaster risk reduction.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Cuts to NOAA, the nation’s premier meteorological and climate science service, undermine the foundational data and research necessary for climate adaptation and early warning systems, which are central to SDG 13 (Climate Action).

• Personnel and Forecast Accuracy: Reductions in staff, including meteorologists, jeopardize the accuracy and robustness of weather forecasts. These forecasts are essential for issuing effective early warnings that allow communities to take protective action, save lives, and mitigate property damage.
• Proposed Laboratory Closures: The proposed FY2026 budget includes the closure of 10 NOAA research laboratories. These labs are instrumental in advancing the understanding of climate change, improving flash-flood forecasts, and helping the nation prepare for future climate scenarios. Their closure would severely handicap the country’s ability to generate the scientific knowledge needed for effective climate adaptation.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The administrative changes represent a significant setback for achieving multiple SDGs by weakening the very systems designed to address them.

SDG 13: Climate Action

The actions directly contravene the targets of SDG 13.

1. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. The termination of the BRIC program and cuts to FEMA and NOAA directly weaken national resilience and adaptive capacity.
2. Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and institutional capacity on climate change. The dismantling of the National Climate Assessment and the removal of climate risk information from public websites actively reduces awareness and institutional capacity, leaving communities less informed and prepared.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The goal of making human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable is critically undermined.

1. Target 11.5: Significantly reduce the number of deaths and people affected by disasters. Reduced forecast accuracy and a weakened emergency response apparatus increase the risk of casualties and economic losses from disasters.
2. Target 11.b: Implement policies for adaptation to climate change and resilience to disasters. The termination of the BRIC program removes a key federal policy tool designed to help communities invest in disaster resilience, such as elevating homes in floodplains or protecting critical infrastructure like wastewater treatment plants, which also relates to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

Analysis of Key Programmatic Reductions

The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program

The termination of the BRIC program is a particularly significant blow to national climate resilience. The program was established to shift federal focus from post-disaster recovery to pre-disaster mitigation.

• High Return on Investment: Studies show that every dollar invested in risk reduction yields savings of up to $13 in disaster recovery costs. For example, investments in stronger building codes save an estimated $11 for every dollar spent.
• Proven Effectiveness: In its short existence, the program had already allocated nearly $5 billion in grants for projects that protect communities and infrastructure, demonstrating its high demand and utility.

The National Climate Assessment

The suspension of the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report, deprives states, communities, and citizens of vital, region-specific information on climate risks.

• Function: The assessment, compiled by 400 volunteer scientists, translates complex climate science into actionable information for policymakers and the public, detailing expected regional impacts such as flooding, drought, and wildfires.
• Consequences of Suspension: Without this publicly available, authoritative source of information, communities—especially those lacking the resources to hire private consultants—are “flying blind.” They are at greater risk of underestimating future climate threats, leading to inadequate preparation, unsound fiscal decisions, and increased danger to lives and property.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article extensively discusses the vulnerability of communities to extreme weather events like flash floods and wildfires. It highlights the importance of disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and building resilient infrastructure (e.g., protecting wastewater treatment plants, moving homes from flood areas) to make communities safer and more sustainable. The termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program is presented as a major setback for community resilience.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  This is a central theme of the article. It directly links extreme weather events to “a hotter atmosphere that can hold much more moisture.” The discussion revolves around strengthening climate resilience, the importance of climate research conducted by NOAA, and the need for adaptation measures. The cuts to NOAA and the dismantling of the National Climate Assessment are framed as actions that undermine the ability to understand, prepare for, and adapt to climate change impacts.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article details how budget and staffing cuts are weakening key governmental institutions responsible for public safety and environmental science. It describes how FEMA and NOAA are being made less effective, impacting their capacity to respond to disasters and provide crucial scientific information. The dismantling of the National Climate Assessment and the removal of climate information from public websites undermine the principles of transparent, accountable, and effective institutions that provide essential information for public decision-making.

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 in all countries.

   The entire article is focused on this target. It discusses the need for disaster preparedness, early warning systems (via NOAA forecasts), and pre-disaster risk reduction investments. The BRIC program, which “took about 6 percent of what the nation spends on disasters and put that to reducing risk in advance,” is a direct example of an initiative aimed at achieving this target. The cuts to FEMA and NOAA are presented as actions that directly reduce the nation’s adaptive capacity.

2. Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters…

   The article supports this target by emphasizing the life-saving and economic benefits of preparedness. It mentions that early warnings “allow people to take action before disaster strikes to reduce harm, save lives and take care of their property.” It also quantifies the economic argument for risk reduction, citing studies that “for every dollar invested in risk reduction, there’s a huge payoff—up to $13” and that stronger building codes “will save $11 in damages for every dollar invested.”

3. Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.

   This target is addressed through the discussion of several key programs. The National Climate Assessment is described as a tool to “inform Americans about the nature of climate risk in the United States,” thereby raising awareness. NOAA’s work is crucial for “early warnings.” FEMA’s training for emergency managers is a direct example of building human and institutional capacity. The article argues that cutting these programs means “communities are flying blind” and are less prepared.

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

   The article critiques actions that weaken the effectiveness of key institutions. It details how “staff cuts took place” at FEMA, leaving senior administrators “unavailable going forward to help with future disaster recovery.” Similarly, cuts at NOAA have meant that “forecasts are at risk for accuracy.” These actions directly impact the ability of these institutions to effectively perform their mandated functions.

5. Target 11.b: …implement integrated policies and plans towards… adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement… holistic disaster risk management at all levels.

   The BRIC program is presented as a key federal policy for implementing disaster risk management at the community level, providing “close to $5 billion in grants” for projects like moving homes and protecting infrastructure. The National Climate Assessment is described as a foundational report that helps communities create informed plans by detailing regional risks like flooding and wildfires.

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

• Financial Investment in Risk Reduction:

  The article explicitly mentions the financial aspects of the BRIC program, which had “given close to $5 billion in grants” and was designed to allocate “about 6 percent of what the nation spends on disasters” to pre-disaster mitigation. The termination of this funding is a clear negative indicator.

• Cost-Benefit Ratio of Preparedness:

  The article provides specific metrics that serve as indicators of the value of resilience investments. It states, “for every dollar invested in risk reduction, there’s a huge payoff—up to $13” and “investment, for example, in stronger building codes will save $11 in damages for every dollar invested.” These ratios can be used to measure the effectiveness of disaster risk reduction spending.

• Institutional Capacity (Staffing and Resources):

  The article points to staffing levels and the number of functioning scientific labs as key indicators. It mentions “staff cuts” at FEMA and NOAA, the fact that “400 volunteer scientists” from the National Climate Assessment were disbanded, and the proposed closure of “10 NOAA labs.” These are direct measures of declining institutional capacity.

• Availability of Climate Information and Early Warnings:

  The accuracy of weather forecasts and the accessibility of climate risk data are implied indicators. The article notes that cuts put NOAA forecasts “at risk for accuracy” and that the government has “removed from public websites information about climate risk.” The existence and regular publication of the National Climate Assessment is another key indicator, which the article notes is “on pause.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insideclimatenews.org