Executive summary

Sustainable development is critical in maintaining a thriving economy with technology and infrastructure that is designed to last while combating climate change. Despite U.S. commitments to international sustainability goals, domestic policy falls short of achieving these established goals and protecting a thriving, independent economy. This leaves the United States vulnerable to major monetary losses due to climate damages, adverse health effects, and eroding international influence.
In order to ensure international goals and economic resilience, it is imperative that comprehensive policy promoting accountability, cleaner domestic industry, and economic growth be adopted by the United States.

Overview

Sustainable development is defined by the International Institute for Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising future generation’s ability to meet their own needs.” Perhaps the most well-known example is the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These 17 goals provide a global roadmap for building institutions and systems that ensure a healthy present and future for all life.
Among these goals are gender equality, no poverty, and notable for this brief, climate action, affordable clean energy, and industry, innovation, and infrastructure. The idea of sustainable development is a relatively new concept with the term’s first appearance happening in 1969. However, recent history, especially adverse trends caused by climate change, has forced nations to formulate policy roadmaps such as the SDGs to address the issue.
Alarming research showcases the failures and inaction of existing policies despite a public generally supportive of sustainable development. Especially as further studies show severe economic, health, and environmental impacts if the status quo is maintained.

Acknowledging the failures of existing domestic policy, this policy brief aims to evaluate the status quo, the negative impacts of it, and provide preliminary solutions to the imbalance of existing policy, international sustainability goals, and the security of the economy. The two recommended solutions are meant to complement each other by fusing comprehensive data collection and distribution, restructuring existing frameworks, and improving the energy permitting process and funding .
Each of these solutions is critical to realigning domestic policy to meet established sustainability goals while protecting the economy. Thus ensuring the longevity of American infrastructure, industry, health, and economic success.

Pointed Summary

Existing U.S. climate policy fails to meet international agreements’ timelines, protect the economy, and ensure corporate transparency.

The lack of comprehensive domestic policy balancing international sustainability goals and economic resilience threatens the global economy, human health, and U.S. international credibility.

Adjusting domestic policy to promote accountability and sustainable development prevents billions lost in tariffs and environmental damages. Policy adjustment towards data collection, regulatory frameworks, incentives for green technologies, and trade strategies ensures a growing economy on track to meet all established international goals.

Relevance

As deadlines for both international environmental agreements and reversing the effects of climate change draw near, it is of the utmost importance to secure American climate leadership while developing a resilient economy. In 2023 the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that 64% of Americans are worried about global warming while 70% believe it will harm future generations.
Furthermore, a 2016 study published by the Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans believe climate change will affect their way of life within the next 50 years. This is further supported by another Pew Research study from 2023 showing 74% of Americans support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. These three studies showcase that Americans are concerned about climate change and its future implications, and actively seek U.S.
participation in mitigation efforts.

Beyond majority public support there is the existing inaction regarding international environmental policy. It’s been nearly 9 years since the passage of the Paris Agreement by 196 parties on December 12, 2015. While the agreement did not go into effect until November 4, 2016, there has been little progress on meeting the UNFCC’s defined goal of holding “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
” Following the example set by allied nations such as the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and France, the Biden-Harris Administration committed to being at net zero emissions by 2050 and 100% clean electricity by 2035.
According to the World Research Institute in February 2024, the required transmissions and grid upgrades are happening, but far too slowly, with an additional 26 high-capacity transmissions projects underway in the midst of uncertainty as the ability to complete some are questioned and others are pending on policy reforms. The combined 36 transmission projects that could potentially begin construction in the near future only account for 10% of the needed domestic investment.
This is compounded with supply chain challenges, as U.S. solar tariffs expire the price of solar modules will increase; rising interest rates, increasing costs and stunting clean energy contracts’ progress; and clean energy stocks heading downward, companies managing clean energy projects are struggling to stay afloat amidst start-up costs.
This lack of progress is echoed across the globe as the Climate Action Tracker found that as of December 2023 there’s a 19-22 billion tonnes difference between existing policies projected impact and international climate goals for 2030. This showcases the need for a prompt shift in the domestic policies the United States is implementing to meet existing international sustainability goals.

Another issue exacerbating the urgency of American climate leadership in building a resilient economy is the newly implemented European Union (EU) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). In simple terms the tax forces EU companies to pay a premium if goods come from countries it deems as having lax environmental regulations. The initial phase of this tax is imposed on cement, fertilizers, iron and steel, electricity, aluminum, and hydrogen.
This is critical as according to the Observatory for Economic Complexity the United States exports $688 million worth of fertilizer to EU members. Even when we look at just the fertilizer sector, the United States is positioned to lose millions in taxes with no American data to defend domestic emissions should the EU impose the CBAM.

Ensuring the United States adjusts its domestic policy to simultaneously meet international sustainability goals and develop an economy resilient to changing environmental policy abroad is crucial in light of the aforementioned issues.

Current Stances

As previously mentioned, a 2023 Pew Research study found that 74% of Americans support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. 56% of U.S. adults say the U.S. should do about as much as other large economies to reduce the effects of climate change, while 27% think the nation should do more than others.
However, in terms of domestic mitigation, the majority of Americans believe the federal government (56%), their state elected officials (58%), large corporations (67%), and energy industry (55%) are doing too little. Nevertheless, the partisan divide on the importance of addressing climate change continues to grow. 78% of Democrats say that climate change is a major threat to our country while 23% of Republicans say the same.
A recent decline in the percentage of Americans viewing climate change as a threat has been noticed since 2020 as Americans shift their focus to developing a strong economy.

Additionally, in December 2021 JUST Capital and polling partner SSRS surveyed a representative sample of 1,115 U.S. adults in an effort to understand Americans’ views on the need for corporate closure and reporting standards. A key takeaway from the survey was that 85% of those surveyed believe companies need to disclose more on their business practices and its societal impacts. 73% believe large corporations have a responsibility to help solve societal issues, including climate change.
When broken down by category a whooping 94% of those surveyed believe it is somewhat or very important that companies are transparent about their environmental impact. While this feels detached from international sustainability goals, a major reason the United States falls short of climate pledges is a fundamental lack of transparency and accountability that can shape policy-based solutions due to a lack of standardized, verifiable domestic data.

Briefly on the economic side of the issue there is no dispute that Americans are more concerned than ever about the economy.
A survey conducted in January 2023 by the Pew Research Center (published with the previously mentioned studies), finds that while partisan divides on climate change itself are continuing to grow, the belief that strengthening the economy should be a top priority for the president and Congress is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans regardless of party divides with 84% of Republicans and 75% of all American adults sharing that as the top priority.

Collectively all the stances mentioned highlight a need amongst Americans for more policy-based action to combat climate change, enhance corporate transparency, and a strengthened economy.

Tried Policy

As previously mentioned, the Paris Agreement is a global climate agreement seeking to keep the average global temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The English text of the Paris Agreement outlines its goals further.
In addition to maintaining a stable temperature increase, the agreement also seeks to increase “the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience” and “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” Furthermore, developed nations are encouraged to lead climate action by providing financial assistance or incentives to developing countries and private entities.
To achieve its outlined purposes, signing parties agree to determine their own contribution and timeline as long as they communicate such developments with other signatories. Parties can also alter their planned contribution at any time. This flexibility was instrumental in getting the agreement to pass and has seen success getting governments to set net zero targets. The United Nations measures 140 different countries as having made pledges.
However, this flexibility fails due a lack of accountability mechanisms built into the agreement. The agreement’s “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) are followed with requirements to report emissions and implementation efforts every 5 years, but no penalties for consistently stagnant progress. Since parties can alter their goals at any point in time without repercussions there’s no legal means to ensure current projections for emissions reduction meets their outlined targets by 2030.

Moving to domestic policy the United States has recently passed its largest investment in energy and the environment with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. With $300 billion invested in these sectors respectively, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicts a roughly 40% reduction in domestic emissions from the IRA. Most of the funding is allocated to grants and rebates as well as implementation costs.
With such a hefty investment in funding emissions reducing technology and infrastructure it’s unlikely Congress will seek passage for legislation funding more climate action anytime soon. However, a pending resolution titled the Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable, Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2023 (S.1863), or PROVE IT Act, seeks to collect data regarding the emissions of key industries.
While pending House introduction and approval it can lead America to take the first steps towards realigning domestic policy with international goals while balancing the domestic economy. There is also the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, more commonly known as the debt ceiling deal, which passed in May 2023. It includes some measures that help streamline clean energy permitting.
While the details will be elaborated on in a later section it leaves more to be desired regarding transmission infrastructure. Transmission infrastructure being crucial to ensuring cohesive, sustainable energy across the country.

Finally there is the existing policy roadmap of the Biden-Harris Administration. The U.S. Department of State and Executive Office of the President published their long-term plan for being net zero by 2050 in a full-length report in November 2021.
The outlined pathway to net zero emissions within the United States is based on the integration of five key technological transformations: decarbonizing electricity, electrifying end uses and switching to other clean fuels, cutting energy waste, reducing methane and other non-CO2 emissions, and scaling up CO2 removal. However, much of the success of these individual strategies is still uncertain. For example, scaling up CO2 removal is stated to require scaling up land carbon sinks.
Forests are the most well-known natural carbon sinks as the photosynthesis process within plants requires absorbing CO2. Nonetheless in 2023, the Global Forest Watch found that the United States lost 1.09 Mha of natural forest, the equivalent of 729 Mt of CO2 emissions. The existing inadequacies within U.S. policy make it hard to implement sustainability public infrastructure and technology in a timely manner.
This is further exacerbated by the lack of funding for many private companies which in light of the IRA and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law can not realistically expect greater funding in the near-term future. All of which is compounded with the uncertainty of the Biden-Harris long-term plan’s survivability upon the election of a new administration with less environmentally oriented policy plans.

While the passage of the Paris Agreement, IRA, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are landmarks in the legal progress of climate action they leave much to be desired by means of securing the American economy while meeting international goals.

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

Much of the complexity regarding balancing international sustainability goals and economic resilience stems from the multitude of stakeholders involved. Given the range of issues from energy infrastructure to international relations to domestic manufacturers. All are affected and must have an equal chance to be represented in policy-based solutions.

Some of the most important stakeholders are the EPA, DOE, and State Governments. The EPA oversees much of the grant and rebate programs designed to support the sustainable development of energy and technology within the United States. This is in addition to collecting data on the environmental impact of various industrial activities, enforces environmental policy, and reduces environmental risks with the best available science.
The EPA is therefore vital to ensuring implemented policy is properly adhered to. They can also fund additional research on sustainable infrastructure, both synthetic and natural, to ensure the United States not only meets international standards, but develops technology to fuel a green economy.

In a similar fashion, the DOE is crucial in ensuring there are nationwide standards on data collection and energy efficiency, particularly when it comes to legislation like the PROVE IT Act. Additionally, the DOE could provide funding for research on energy based solutions such as efficiency, grid integration, greater grid capacity, and utilizing renewable energy to power such grids.

Ensuring the United States is a climate leader building a resilient economy other major stakeholders include energy companies, manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Energy companies taking the steps to shift towards clean energy is vital to ensuring the United States actually meets its established goals on clean electricity and net zero carbon emissions.
Domestic manufacturers, particularly those in carbon intensive industries such as fertilizer and steel, must be consulted to ensure implementation of carbon efficient methods of manufacturing is established and maintained in a healthy manner. Finally, since the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regulates domestic trade it can play a major role in advocating for positive environmental policies that impact American business.
All three can work in tangent to ensure sustainable development is done efficiently, safely, and cost effectively, so the economy does not erode during the transitional period.

Given the need to realign American development to meet international standards it’s critical that the United Nations has a stake. Especially since the long term success of balancing American economic resilience and international sustainability goals requires the federal government to properly coordinate with the UN on realistic yet progressive environmental goals.
While this is more of a communicative relationship instead of a decision-making one for the United Nations it establishes a firmer relationship regarding international environmental policy with the UN positions the United States as a climate leader capable of advocating for greater accountability from high-polluting nations such as China and India.

Last, but not least, there is the role of the average American consumer. Public opinion and consumer behavior can influence political decisions and corporate practices. This is especially true if the aforementioned stakeholders ensure cheap, reliable green energy for the general public. As the market for sustainable energy grows it will be easier for companies to operate a thriving business that actively assists the U.S. in achieving its domestic and international climate goals.
Which further promotes the growth of a thriving, climate resilient economy.

B. Risks of Indifference

If comprehensive policy that balances sustainable development and economic resilience is not introduced the nation, and globe, stand to lose trillions. A May 2022 report from the Deloitte Center for Sustainable Development found that climate change could cost the global economy an excess of $178 trillion by 2070. Most of this is due to climate change’s impact on human health, infrastructure, agriculture, and property.
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), a study found that from 2009 to 2019 the cost of extreme weather averaged to roughly $143 billion. This breaks down to an estimated $16.3 million per hour. Extreme weather is a long established side effect of climate change. The researchers found human-related climate change could be linked to approximately $260.8 billion in damages from 185 extreme weather events from 2000 to 2019.
Accounting for 53% of total damages and nearly 61,000 human lives lost. This alarming statistic is made worse as Forbes reports a new study could result in a 19% loss in productivity, with the authors claiming this is a conservative estimate and the actual loss could be as high as 29% of the global GDP. Pushing the deadline for decisive action even closer as this equates to $19 trillion to $59 trillion in annual damages by 2049.
These economic penalties threaten the United States directly by means of lost productivity and environmental damages, and indirectly as international trading partners face their own losses.

This is in addition to the environmental impacts posed by climate inaction. Besides worsening extreme weather there are also the specific effects on human health. The EPA has cited climate change as a cause of respiratory and heart diseases, pest-related diseases such as the West Nile Virus, water- and food-related illnesses, and other injuries. EPA also states climate change has been linked to increases in violent crime and mental health issues.
Climate change also increases “zoonotic spillover”: pathogens spreading from animal to human populations due to closer proximity from habitat loss, another common effect of climate change. This is according to the United Nations Foundation which goes on to explain that 76% of new infectious diseases in humans originated in animal populations. These emerging diseases even have the possibility to develop into pandemics.
SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is a prime example as it originates from bat populations. A failure to align domestic policy with sustainability goals continues to allow the development and spread of climate change’s adverse health effects.

To a lesser, but notable, extent, inaction regarding policy solutions to balance sustainability goals with economic resilience undermines the United State’s industrial reputation and international authority. In surveying young adults in France, Britain, and Germany the Pew Research Center found many believe Americans lack accountability at home and lessen their credibility abroad.
With young Europeans saying they believe the United States does not take other countries’ interests into account when making foreign policy decisions. With one German woman stating she has “the impression that the U.S. doesn’t cooperate with anybody.
” When combined with the fact that the majority of young Europeans view China as the largest economy and world’s factory, it’s evident that the United States is positioned to lose a considerable amount of influence in Europe as the younger generations phase into the workforce and leadership.

The highest praise the study participants shared was the belief in the United States is the strongest military power. While this does see some wishing to remain close allies out of protective interest it does little to build a resilient economy within America, especially if EU trading partners view the U.S. has an eroding credibility and lax regulations regardless.

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

At its core, securing American climate leadership through balancing domestic policy with international sustainability goals and economic resilience is nonpartisan in its economic benefits, international influence, and conservation efforts.

As aforementioned, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe strengthening the economy should be the top priority for the president and Congress. Adjusting domestic policy to align with international sustainability goals does just that. Given the United State’s role as the second largest exporter, it’s crucial to optimize our trade for as few tariffs as possible.
With the EU’s CBAM launching, and no clear evidence that it won’t be developed into a hefty tax on a broader range of goods, it’s in the interest of American trade to ensure accountability for domestic emissions is in place. Furthermore, while climate inaction creates a net loss for the global GDP, meeting international sustainability goals is predicted to have net gains.
In fact Reuter’s found that when surveying 44 economists most agreed that a larger temperature rise correlates to a higher percentage of economic damage. Most of which is lost due to the environmental and health figures detailed in the previous section.

This can even be broken down to the estimated gains from individual trees with the Institute for Local Government reporting strategic tree placement in urban areas can reduce cooling costs by 30% and heating costs up to 50%. This is in addition to an average of 10% added to property value, individual benefits of $30-50 per tree, and a rate of return of $1.50-3.00 per every dollar invested.
Unfortunately, climate change itself is a polarized issue, but economic security is perhaps the least polarized of all (see Current Stances). Aligning domestic policy with international sustainability goals positions the U.S. to avoid extensive cuts to domestic GDP and save long term. Therefore, economically speaking this shift is nonpartisan in it satisfies both parties' desire to strengthen the economy as opposed to weakening it.

Additionally, it furthers the United State’s role as a leader in international policy. In March 2023, Gallup found that 65% of Americans believe the United States should take a major or leading role in international policy. An additional 20% said the U.S. should be in the leading role. This shows a clear majority of Americans believing the United States should act in some form of leadership in international policy and diplomacy.
Pew Research Center supports this further as even with political affiliation in all but one group the majority of Americans believe good diplomacy ensures peace and allies’ interests must be accounted for. Europe and Asia are making it known they have prioritized sustainable development. Since the majority of Americans support the U.S.
not only actively engaging in international policy with allied interests in mind, but also taking a major role in diplomacy it’s within the best interest of all Americans, regardless of political leanings. Especially since much of the needed developments to realign with international sustainability goals boosts the economy and makes great strides towards conservation efforts, the far less polarized side of climate change mitigation.

Policy Options

Passing the PROVE IT Act and Adjusting Regulatory Frameworks

One important piece of legislation that is pending passage is the aforementioned PROVE IT Act. As briefly mentioned, the act seeks to collect data on the carbon footprint of key industries – including aluminum, cement, crude oil, fertilizer, iron, steel, plastic, and more – within the United States and several other countries, including China and Russia. Introduced by Sens.
Chris Coons (D-DE) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), the act was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in a large bipartisan vote (14-5) in January 2024. It’s expected to be introduced into the House of Representatives by Reps. John Curtis (R-UT-03) and Scott Peters (D-CA-50). The bill directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a study over the aforementioned industries’ emissions intensity.
Beyond creating a government database for this information it also requires the establishment of a public online database containing the information retrieved from the study. The PROVE IT Act simultaneously provides the data that can defend American manufacturing against foreign tariffs, such as the EU CBAM, and promotes accountability amongst American manufacturers.
Despite the PROVE IT Act’s success in the Senate there is skepticism on its ability to pass the House as some conservatives view it as the first step to a domestic carbon tax. However, PROVE IT serves as purely a data collection bill, and the implementation of a domestic carbon tax would require a separate bill and vote from Congress. This leaves the PROVE IT Act as a middle ground capable of satisfying both sides of the aisle, as seen in the large bipartisan vote for the bill in the Senate.

The importance of the structure of the act is that it provides policymakers, manufacturers, and consumers alike with a comprehensive database on domestic carbon emissions. This database can then be used as a reference point for a variety of initiatives. For example, the information provided to the public promotes accountability among businesses in a time when Americans seek more of it (see Current Stances).
This also equips the general populace with detailed information to formulate their own policy opinions which develops political will driving legislators to sustainable development. Another example is the database provides industries with comprehensive data on their own carbon emissions which can then be used to restructure production processes to maximize efficient, clean manufacturing.
In a similar fashion this data provides policymakers and federal agencies, especially the EPA and DOE as the primary authoritative parties, necessary information to reformat regulatory frameworks. This is vital as realistic net zero and 100% clean energy timelines require a multifaceted, thorough analysis of the status quo. This ensures regulations give ample time, resources, and target the appropriate industries.
All while providing verifiable data to defend domestic industry from foreign taxes and tariffs such as the EU CBAM.

Ultimately, passing the PROVE IT Act provides the data necessary to create comprehensive regulatory frameworks that lead the U.S. towards meeting international sustainability goals and protecting the economy and domestic manufacturing from foreign tariffs. All of which avoids worsening the existing and projected adverse effects of climate change (see Risks of Indifference).

Energy Permitting Reform

As previously stated (see Relevance) clean energy alternatives are lagging behind due to time delays, funding issues, and lack of ample projects being implemented. To expand on this more, more than 92% of new energy projects awaiting permits are solar, wind, and battery storage. Building new transmission lines takes more than a decade on average, and transmission projects are litigated at higher rates than other infrastructure projects.
While the briefly mentioned Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 designates a lead agency when multiple federal agencies on involved on the permitting of a project, prevents duplicative work by having agencies collaborate on a single review document, and sets time and page limits on environmental assessments (1 year) and impact statements (2 years) with extensions available, and allows applicants to choose to write their own documents for agency review.
While this is a great first step, comprehensive legislation needs to be passed to progress permitting reform further. Some key areas include speeding up the process so projects can be permitted, sited, and built between regions at a much faster rate to ensure projections with emissions reduction meet the established goals in the Paris Agreement.
There is also creating reasonable timelines for judicial review since litigation affects transmissions projects at a higher rate which slows down progress substantially as cases must be settled for work to resume. Realistic timeframes that give ample time to contest harmful projects while giving beneficial ones quicker establishment. As well as giving space for thorough, accessible processes for community engagement and input as the energy needs of individual regions can differ greatly.
Given the highly multifaceted nature of energy permitting reform, a large package bill needs to be introduced in Congress that contains all of the above provisions to ensure consistent, timely energy development. This approach is made simpler by the existing array of proposed bills that can be consolidated into one large legislative package. All which takes great strides towards meeting sustainability goals while maintaining a resilient economy.

In addition to reforming the actual permitting process measures need to be taken to ensure the funding funneled to energy infrastructure within the IRA and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is being maximized. Many projects stall due to budget constraints, but funding is available in previously passed legislation. Steps need to be taken by the EPA and DOE to ensure as many projects as possible are being properly funded to keep steady development.
This also helps support the infrastructure and energy industries ability to afford the initial transition, which forces companies to alter their existing structures, but ultimately benefits domestic energy, infrastructure, and GDP.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The current status of sustainable development within the United States threatens the economy, authority abroad, and the environment. From net losses to the GDP to lost credibility with young Europeans to the adverse impact on human health. All while international sustainability goals’ deadlines draw near with existing policy roadmaps failing to produce the necessary projections to be on track to meet these goals.
While existing policies, both domestically and internationally, make some effort, a lack of comprehensive data, accountability, and timely enforcement weakens their effectiveness. Implementing new policy and frameworks with the U.S. securing its own economy while acting as climate leaders in international politics has bipartisan support with the majority of Americans.

Passing the PROVE IT Act and utilizing the acquired data to rework regulatory frameworks is one notable way of mitigating the adverse effects of inaction and protecting the future of American industry and the economy. This act would ensure a comprehensive, verifiable database for both policymakers and the general public.
This data could then be used by consumers to build political will and by industries and policymakers to use as a reference in establishing realistic frameworks to achieve net zero by 2050. The federal government should also implement energy permitting reform legislation to expedite energy infrastructure, reduce unnecessary litigation slowdowns, and provide space for community input given the individual needs of regions differ.
A process made easier by an existing array of proposed permitting reform related bills and funding opportunities, via grants and programs, made possible by the IRA and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law through the EPA and DOE.

Balancing domestic policy with international sustainability goals and economic resilience is crucial in ensuring the longevity of domestic infrastructure, health, economics, and diplomatic authority. To ensure all the above is secured it’s imperative that the United States realign domestic policy with established sustainable development goals while promoting a stronger economy.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Paul Kramer, Carlos Bindert, Gwen Singer, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Programming Department within the Institute.

References

International Institute for Sustainable Development. “Sustainable Development.” IISD, 2022, www.iisd.org/mission-and-goals/sustainable-development.

United Nations. “The 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” United Nations, 2024, sdgs.un.org/goals.

Marlon, Jennifer, et al. “Yale Climate Opinion Maps - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, 23 Feb. 2022, climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/.

Kennedy, Brian and Cary Funk. “1. Public Views on Climate Change and Climate Scientists.” Pew Research Center, 4 Oct. 2016, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/.

Tyson, Alec, et al. “What the Data Says about Americans’ Views of Climate Change.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 9 Aug. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/.

United Nations. “The Paris Agreement.” United Nations Climate Change, United Nations, 2015, unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.

Bird, Lori, and Joseph Womble. “State of the US Clean Energy Transition: Recent Progress, and What Comes Next.” Www.wri.org, 7 Feb. 2024, www.wri.org/insights/clean-energy-progress-united-states.

Climate Action Tracker. “Temperatures | Climate Action Tracker.” Climateactiontracker.org, Nov. 2022, climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/.

European Commission. “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.” European Commission, 2023, taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en.

“Fertilizers in United States | OEC.” OEC - the Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/fertilizers/reporter/usa.

Tonti, Jennifer. “SURVEY ANALYSIS: Americans Want to See Greater Transparency on ESG Issues and View Federal Requirements as a Key Lever for Increasing Disclosure.” JUST Capital, 15 Feb. 2022, justcapital.com/reports/americans-want-transparency-on-esg-and-federal-requirements/.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris Agreement. United Nations, 2015, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

United Nations. “For a Livable Climate: Net-Zero Commitments Must Be Backed by Credible Action.” United Nations, 2023, www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition.

Inflation Reduction Act Overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/12%2009%202022_OAR%20IRA%20Overview_vPublic.pdf.

Sen. Coons, Chris A. Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2024. 118th (2023-2024) U.S. Congress, 18 Jan. 2024. S.1863. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1863.

United States Department of State and the United States Executive Office of the President. THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY of the UNITED STATES Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050. Nov. 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/us-long-term-strategy.pdf.

Global Forest Watch. “United States Deforestation Rates & Statistics | GFW.” Www.globalforestwatch.org, www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/USA/.

“U.S. Public EV Charging Stations and Charging Outlets.” Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/416750/number-of-electric-vehicle-charging-stations-outlets-united-states/#statisticContainer. ‌

“Deloitte Research Reveals Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the World’s Economy US$178 Trillion by 2070 | Deloitte Global | Press Release.” Www.deloitte.com, www.deloitte.com/an/en/about/press-room/deloitte-research-reveals-inaction-on-climate-change-could-cost-the-world-economy-us-dollar-178-trillion-by-2070.html.

Bennett, Paige. “Climate Change Is Costing the World $16 Million per Hour: Study.” World Economic Forum, 12 Oct. 2023, www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/climate-loss-and-damage-cost-16-million-per-hour/.

McGowan, Jon. “New Study: Climate Change Could Reduce the World Economy 19% by 2049.” Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan/2024/04/29/new-study-climate-change-could-reduce-the-world-economy-19-by-2049/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change and Human Health.” Www.epa.gov, 20 Mar. 2022, www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-and-human-health.

“How Biodiversity Loss Harms Human Health.” Unfoundation.org, 18 May 2023, unfoundation.org/blog/post/how-biodiversity-loss-harms-human-health/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4MSzBhC8ARIsAPFOuyUGS_m-j5fFtDNAxuqeEp8PQfOLo0j8dS8ToVtcwDCetM6kjNG5CjEaAvbHEALw_wcB.

Greenwood, Shannon. “Young Adults in Europe Are Critical of the U.S. And China – but for Different Reasons.” Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, 22 Mar. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/03/22/young-adults-in-europe-are-critical-of-the-u-s-and-china-but-for-different-reasons/.

Mordecai, Richard Wike, Jacob Poushter, Laura Silver, Janell Fetterolf and Mara. “America’s Image Abroad Rebounds with Transition from Trump to Biden.” Pew Research Center, 10 June 2021, www.pewresearch.
org/global/2021/06/10/americas-image-abroad-rebounds-with-transition-from-trump-to-biden/#only-about-a-third-say-the-u-s-considers-their-interests-in-foreign-policy.

“Exports - The World Factbook.” CIA, 2023, https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/exports/country-comparison/.

Nair, Swathi. “Climate Inaction Costlier than Net Zero Transition: Reuters Poll.” Reuters, 25 Oct. 2021, www.reuters.com/business/cop/climate-inaction-costlier-than-net-zero-transition-economists-2021-10-25/.

Institute For Local Government. The Fiscal and Economic Benefits of Sustainability, https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/the_fiscal_and_economic_benefits_of_sustainability_draft.pdf

Inc, Gallup. “Fewer Americans Want U.S. Taking Major Role in World Affairs.” Gallup.com, 3 Mar. 2023, news.gallup.com/poll/471350/fewer-americans-taking-major-role-world-affairs.aspx.

Pew Research Center. “Americans’ Views of Foreign Policy.” Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy, 17 Dec. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/6-views-of-foreign-policy/.

Nuccitelli, Dana. “Permitting: America’s next Big Climate Conundrum» Yale Climate Connections.” Yale Climate Connections, 11 Oct. 2022, yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/10/permitting-americas-next-big-climate-conundrum/.

Norris, Olga Baranoff, Zachary. “A Closer Look at the Role of Litigation and Opposition in Transmission Projects Undergoing Federal Permitting - Niskanen Center.” Niskanen Center - Improving Policy, Advancing Moderation, 4 Mar. 2024, www.niskanencenter.
org/a-closer-look-at-the-role-of-litigation-and-opposition-in-transmission-projects-undergoing-federal-permitting/.

Rep. McHenry, Patrick T. Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. 118th (2023-2024) U.S. Congress, 29 May 2023. H.R.3746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746.

“Permitting Reform Bills in Congress.” Citizens’ Climate Lobby, citizensclimatelobby.org/clean-energy-permitting-reform-in-congress/.