EPA’s Plan to Ignore Greenhouse Gas Emissions is Both Malicious and Absurd – Food & Water Watch

Proposed Reversal of EPA’s Authority on Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Policy Shift Announcement

A report indicates that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to announce a significant reversal of its policy concerning the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The agency will reportedly argue that it lacks the legal authority to regulate such emissions under the 2009 endangerment finding. This finding has historically served as the legal foundation for controlling pollution from the fossil fuel industry via the Clean Air Act, citing clear dangers to climate stability and public health.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This proposed policy change presents substantial challenges to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The decision to halt GHG regulation directly impacts global and national efforts to create a sustainable future.

Direct Opposition to SDG 13: Climate Action

• The policy directly undermines the core objective of SDG 13, which calls for urgent and comprehensive action to combat climate change and its impacts.
• By relinquishing its regulatory power over GHG emissions, the EPA impedes the nation’s ability to meet its climate commitments and contribute to global climate mitigation efforts.

Adverse Effects on Health, Energy, and Community Goals

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The move disregards the established connection between fossil fuel emissions and negative public health outcomes. A failure to regulate pollutants is inconsistent with the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.
• SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): This policy favors traditional fossil fuel industries, thereby creating significant barriers to the transition towards clean, affordable, and sustainable energy systems as envisioned by SDG 7.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Unchecked emissions exacerbate climate-related risks for urban populations, including poor air quality and extreme weather events, which conflicts with the goal of making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Undermining Institutional Integrity and Partnerships

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The decision raises critical questions regarding the role and effectiveness of key governmental institutions. Critics contend that the EPA is abdicating its primary mission, weakening the strong and accountable institutions necessary for sustainable development.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): This unilateral step back from established environmental regulation could undermine international cooperation and partnerships aimed at addressing the global climate crisis.

Stakeholder Analysis and Response

Critique from Environmental Advocates

In response to the announcement, policy experts from organizations such as Food & Water Watch have issued strong condemnations. The primary criticism is that the policy prioritizes the short-term financial interests of polluting corporations over the long-term health and well-being of current and future generations. The move is characterized by critics as a severe dereliction of the agency’s fundamental duty to protect the environment, likened to a fire department refusing to fight fires.

Summary of Key Impacts on the Sustainability Agenda

1. Reversal of Climate Policy: The action effectively dismantles a foundational legal framework for U.S. climate action.
2. Conflict with Global Goals: The decision is in direct opposition to multiple SDGs, most critically SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy).
3. Erosion of Institutional Mandate: The policy is viewed as undermining the core mission of the EPA, thereby eroding trust in the institutions tasked with environmental governance and protection.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
     
     The article directly discusses a major shift in national policy regarding climate change. The EPA’s announcement that it “will no longer regulate greenhouse gas pollution” is a reversal of integrating climate change measures into national policy, specifically under the Clean Air Act. The article highlights the administration’s move to “limit its power to curb climate pollution,” which is in direct opposition to this target.

2. 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 explicitly states that greenhouse gas emissions pose a “clear danger these emissions pose to… human health.” The criticism that the administration shows “no care or concern for the health and wellbeing of the American people” by ceasing to regulate these emissions directly relates to this target, as such a policy would likely increase illnesses related to air pollution.

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
     
     The core issue is the regulation of “greenhouse gas pollution” released into the air by the “fossil fuel industry.” The EPA’s decision to stop regulating these emissions is a failure to manage and reduce their release, thereby failing to minimize their “adverse impacts on human health and the environment” as stipulated by this target.
   • Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
     
     The article implies a move away from this target by stating the administration’s primary concern is “maximizing short-term profits for polluting corporations.” This suggests that corporate sustainability and responsibility are being deprioritized in favor of profit, which is the opposite of what this target aims to encourage.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     The article critiques the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a key national institution. The statement that “Zeldin’s claim that the EPA shouldn’t address climate emissions is like a fire chief claiming they shouldn’t fight fires” suggests the agency is abdicating its responsibilities and becoming less effective and accountable in its mandate to protect the environment and public health.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. For Target 13.2 (Integrate climate change measures)

   • Indicator: Existence and enforcement of national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
     
     The article’s central theme is the EPA’s plan to “no longer regulate greenhouse gas pollution under a 2009 endangerment finding.” The status of this regulation serves as a direct, though qualitative, indicator of whether climate change measures are integrated into national policy. The change from having a regulatory basis to not having one is a clear measure of regression from this target.

2. For Target 3.9 (Reduce deaths from pollution) and Target 12.4 (Reduce release of pollutants)

   • Indicator: Volume of greenhouse gas emissions.
     
     The article repeatedly mentions “greenhouse gas pollution” and “emissions from the fossil fuel industry.” While no specific figures are given, the amount of these emissions is the primary implied metric. An increase in emissions, which would be expected if regulations are removed, would indicate negative progress towards reducing pollution and its impact on health.

3. For Target 16.6 (Effective institutions)

   • Indicator: Institutional policy and fulfillment of mandate.
     
     The article implies an indicator related to the effectiveness of the EPA. The decision to “limit its power to curb climate pollution” and ignore the “clear danger” of emissions can be seen as a measure of the institution’s failure to fulfill its public health and environmental protection mandate, as criticized by Food & Water Watch.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foodandwaterwatch.org