At a Loss for Words? Resist Climate Silence – Legal Planet

Report on Environmental and Climate Policy Developments and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

H2: Federal Policy and Its Contradiction with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

H3: Institutional Suppression of Climate-Related Terminology

Recent directives within the U.S. Energy Department (DOE) have established a list of prohibited terms for both internal and public-facing communications. This policy directly obstructs progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action) by institutionalizing silence on critical issues.

• Banned terms include: “climate change,” “emissions,” “sustainability,” “green,” and “clean.”
• The directive aims to align all departmental communication with the administration’s perspectives, undermining the scientific and data-driven approach required by SDG 16 (Strong Institutions).

H3: Dissemination of Misinformation and Rejection of Climate Science

Statements by administration officials, particularly the Energy Secretary, have actively promoted misinformation, further eroding the foundation for effective climate policy and accountability under SDG 16.

1. Denial of Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The Energy Secretary publicly denied the existence of oil and gas subsidies, contrary to reports from organizations like Oil Change International, which quantify them at $34.8 billion annually. This misrepresentation hinders efforts under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) to phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies.
2. Dismissal of Attribution Science: The Secretary incorrectly labeled attribution science—a field critical for understanding the link between climate change and extreme weather events—as “not science.” This undermines the scientific basis for policies aimed at achieving SDG 13.
3. Misrepresentation of Scientific Consensus: False claims were made that scientists did not dispute the facts within a recent DOE climate report, when in fact, 85 scientists published a 500-page rebuttal detailing numerous errors and misrepresentations.

H3: Reversal of Climate and Environmental Policies

The administration has undertaken significant actions to dismantle existing climate frameworks, directly impeding the achievement of multiple SDGs.

• Funding Recoupment: The DOE plans to claw back $13 billion in unspent climate funds, a move that directly defunds initiatives supporting SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13.
• Regulatory Rollbacks: The EPA is proceeding with plans to scrap the endangerment finding, a cornerstone of U.S. climate regulation. Furthermore, the administration has bypassed standard notice-and-comment procedures for repealing regulations, weakening the institutional integrity central to SDG 16.
• Suspension of Enforcement: During a potential government shutdown, EPA enforcement inspections are slated to pause, while oil and gas permitting continues, demonstrating a prioritization that conflicts with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

H2: Global and Sub-National Efforts to Advance Climate Goals

H3: International Leadership and Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17)

While federal U.S. policy regresses, international and non-state actors continue to advocate for robust climate action.

• Papal Encyclical Anniversary: Pope Leo XIV called for an “ecological conversion” and urged citizens to pressure governments for environmental regulations, reinforcing the global partnership and civic engagement principles of SDG 17.
• China’s Climate Pledges: China pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7-10 percent by 2035 and has significantly expanded its wind energy capacity. While experts deem the targets insufficient to meet global climate goals, they represent a step toward SDG 13 and demonstrate a commitment to SDG 7.

H3: State-Level Initiatives Supporting SDGs in California and New York

U.S. states are implementing policies that directly support the SDG framework, creating a contrast with federal actions.

• California’s Regulatory Leadership:
  • The California Air Resources Board proposed tightening its Landfill Methane Regulation, a direct action to mitigate potent greenhouse gases in line with SDG 11 and SDG 13.
  • The state is advancing toward its goal of 200,000 public EV chargers, building infrastructure for SDG 7 and SDG 11.
  • The “Zone Zero” regulations are being developed to enhance community resilience to wildfires, a key aspect of SDG 11.
• New York’s Clean Energy Plan: Governor Hochul detailed a $1 billion plan to invest in thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and EV charging, directly contributing to SDG 7 and SDG 11.
• Legal Action for Accountability: California Attorney General Rob Bonta has secured court victories against the administration’s attempts to cut disaster and energy program funding and is pursuing further litigation to uphold environmental laws, reinforcing SDG 16.

H2: Progress and Challenges in SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities)

H3: Promoting Clean Energy Access and Infrastructure

Initiatives at the state and local levels aim to accelerate the energy transition and improve energy equity.

• Low-Income Solar Access: The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) launched a program to install free solar and battery systems for qualifying low-to-moderate-income households, advancing SDG 7 and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Renewable Energy Siting: A new report is tracking how states are legislatively expanding or restricting where renewable energy projects can be built, a critical factor for scaling up clean energy as required by SDG 7.
• Grid Modernization Efforts: House Democrats introduced proposals to encourage new power line construction and strengthen utility regulation, addressing infrastructure needs for a clean energy grid under SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).

H3: Addressing Pollution and Environmental Justice

Community-led and regulatory efforts are underway to tackle pollution, which disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

• Community Air Quality Monitoring: Latino communities across the U.S. are installing air quality sensors to gather data and advocate for cleaner air, a grassroots action supporting SDG 3 and SDG 11.
• Post-Disaster Contamination: Following rapid wildfire cleanup efforts in Los Angeles, university scientists found elevated lead levels in nearly half of the tested properties, highlighting a critical challenge to ensuring public health (SDG 3) and safe communities (SDG 11) during disaster recovery.
• Litigation on Industrial Pollution: Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the EPA for abandoning proposals to reduce slaughterhouse waste, seeking to enforce regulations that protect water resources and public health under SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The entire article is centered on climate change, discussing government policies, climate science denial, emissions reduction efforts, and the importance of public discourse (“climate silence”). It directly addresses the need for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
2. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The article discusses the transition to clean energy by mentioning China’s new wind energy capacity, California’s solar programs, and investments in EV charging stations. Conversely, it highlights barriers to clean energy, such as the $34.8 billion in annual subsidies for the oil and gas industry and the clawback of climate funds.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article critiques the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of governmental institutions. It cites examples like the U.S. Energy Department banning words like “climate change,” misrepresenting scientific reports, ignoring public comment periods on regulations, and using taxpayer money to fight climate initiatives, all of which undermine strong and accountable governance.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Issues relevant to cities and communities are discussed, including disaster recovery from wildfires in California, proposed “Zone Zero” regulations to make communities more resilient to fire, air quality monitoring by residents in polluted areas, and regulations on landfill methane emissions.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • This goal is addressed through the specific mention of fossil fuel subsidies. The article highlights the U.S. government providing “$34.8 billion a year” to subsidize domestic oil and gas, which is a direct contradiction to the goal of ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns by phasing out inefficient subsidies.

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

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • This target is central to the article’s narrative. It is highlighted both positively and negatively. China’s pledge to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7-10 percent by 2035” and California’s various regulations (e.g., Landfill Methane Regulation) are examples of integrating climate measures. The U.S. administration’s actions, such as scrapping the “endangerment finding” and banning climate-related terminology, represent a direct reversal of this target.
2. Target 12.c: Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.
   • The article directly addresses this target by citing an Oil Change International report that “Americans subsidize domestic oil and gas to the tune of $34.8 billion a year.” This points to the continued existence of the very subsidies this target aims to eliminate.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article provides multiple examples of institutional failure. The Energy Department’s directive to avoid specific words in official documents, the misrepresentation of a climate report, and the administration’s move to repeal regulations without a proper “notice-and-comment” period all point to a lack of transparent and accountable governance.
4. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The article mentions progress toward this target, noting that “China has also added 46 gigawatts of new wind energy in just the first five months of this year.” It also references California’s program to install solar systems and its goal of reaching 200,000 EV chargers.
5. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
   • This is referenced through California’s proposed tightening of its “Landfill Methane Regulation” to minimize emissions. Additionally, the mention of “Latinos across the US who have installed air quality sensors around their homes” shows a community-level focus on monitoring and addressing urban air pollution.

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

1. Indicator 12.c.1: Amount of fossil-fuel subsidies per unit of GDP (production and consumption).
   • The article provides a specific monetary value that can be used for this indicator: the “$34.8 billion a year” that Americans subsidize domestic oil and gas. This figure is a direct measure of fossil-fuel subsidies.
2. Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption.
   • Progress towards this indicator is implied by the statistic that “China has also added 46 gigawatts of new wind energy.” This quantifiable amount of new renewable capacity is a measure of the increasing share of renewables in the energy mix.
3. Indicator 13.2.1: Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of an integrated policy/strategy/plan which increases their ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change.
   • The article implies this indicator by discussing national and sub-national strategies. China’s pledge to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7-10 percent by 2035” serves as an example of a national plan. The U.S. administration’s actions to roll back climate rules would be measured as a negative contribution toward this indicator.
4. Indicator 11.6.2: Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population-weighted).
   • This indicator is implied by the mention of community action where “a growing number of Latinos across the US who have installed air quality sensors around their homes… to better understand the polluted air they’re breathing.” The use of sensors is a direct method for measuring particulate matter in the air.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: legal-planet.org