Author: Candy

  • Despite U.S. Rejection of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Collective Action Remains a Powerful Force for Change

    Photo by Caroline S.

    The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the 2030 Agenda, were unanimously adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. There are 17 goals with the overarching ambition of achieving “peace and prosperity for people and the planet” by 2030 with specific focus on ending poverty, attaining gender equality, and taking urgent climate action, thus the SDGs emphasize the links between environmental, social and economic issues.

    The SDGs were built upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to create a more comprehensive and universal framework for addressing global challenges. The MDGs were established in 2000 with eight goals aimed at addressing poverty and development issues in developing countries by 2015. These goals were measured through 21 targets and indicators, focusing on basic human development issues such as health, education, and poverty reduction.

    Key differences between the SDGs and the MDGs include the fact that the MDGs largely focused on human development while the SDGs expand this scope to include sustainable development. Sustainable development aims to meet present needs without compromising the needs of future generations.

    Specific targets within the MDGs as they were developed in 2000 include eliminating poverty, promoting gender equality, achieving primary education, improving maternal health, and ensuring environmental sustainability. The SDGs include all of these human development focused goals and expand upon them with a sharper focus on sustainable development, for example the SDGs include specific targets for affordable clean energy, responsible production and consumption, and climate action. The SDGs are a global agenda that aim to address inequality within and between nations and is aligned with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    In opposition to the 2030 Agenda’s vision for a peaceful and prosperous planet, the United States of America stated that it “rejects and denounces” the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on March 7th.

    This announcement was made by Edward Heartney, Counselor for Economic and Social Affrairs (ECOSOC) at the U.S. Mission to the UN, while at the General Assembly. The statement preceded a vote on “creating an International Day of Peaceful Coexistence,” which included a reaffirmation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

    In his remarks to the UN General Assembly, Heartney stated:

    “We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.

    In the last U.S. election, the mandate from the American people was clear: the government of the United States must refocus on the interests of Americans. We must care first and foremost for our own – that is our moral and civic duty. President Trump also set a clear and overdue course correction on “gender” and climate ideology, which pervade the SDGs.

    Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course.”

    The SDGs aim to address issues that have been agreed upon as high priority by the UN and its member states for at least 25 years as highlighted by the MDGs. Matters such as gender inequality, maternal mortality, disease, lack of education, and environmental sustainability have been prevalent for decades and unanimously supported by UN member states as so. In the first quarter of Trump’s second term, these issues have all been negatively impacted and set back.

    Heartney’s statement underpins a broader withdrawal by the Trump administration from international climate and sustainability initiatives, such as removing the US from Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), pulling out of the Loss and Damage Fund, rescinding pledges of $4 billion to the Green Climate Fund, and exiting the Paris Agreement.

    There are currently 41 countries with registered commitments to SDG transformation, demonstrating public recognition and focus on building climate resilient nations. With 55% of the world’s GDP being moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services, the US is likely to fall behind economically, technologically and reputationally. As outlined by the IPCC scenarios for exploring potential warming pathways, relying on fossil fuels will lead to high physical risks which will impact the health and safety of people and the planet as well as the economy.

    As of March 11th, the U.S. has been added to the Global Human Rights Watchlist which further affirms global perception of the U.S. Government’s disregard for human and environmental rights as it not only refuses to provide support for initiatives that advance society towards human and sustainable development, but actively works against both, resulting in a declining nation.

    Although the US federal government will not be supporting the 17 goals outlined in the SDGs, individuals and community lead initiatives can support this agenda through informed economic decisions, collective action, and individual actions.

    Buying reused items, making items yourself, supporting sustainable businesses and buying local are all great economic decisions that individuals can make to support SDG 13 on responsible consumption and production. Practicing responsible consumption and production benefits the environment by reducing waste, conserving resources, minimizing pollution, and helps to divert profits away from heavy emitting corporations.

    Additionally, as of 2024, 74% of the world’s largest companies voluntarily report on commitments to the SDGs, according to KPMG’s Survey of Sustainability Reporting. However, it is important to note that a survey of 206 companies found that while 83% expressed support for the SDGs, only 40% had put in place measurable commitments and only 20% included evidence to assess their impacts. As of January 2025, 10,000 corporations have committed to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), and of those 16% have set net-zero targets. In 2024, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) assessed more than 22,000 corporations on their transparency and ability to integrate Earth-positive decisions into their business models. CDP and sustainability reports can often be found as publicly available information through company websites and the CDP website. Therefore, individuals can access information to make educated decisions about products they purchase by researching companies’ commitments to sustainability.

    Community led initiatives play a crucial role in supporting the 2030 Agenda. One example is the creation of community gardens, which provide fresh produce, reduce reliance on commercial food systems, and foster local food security—directly supporting SDG 2’s goal of achieving zero hunger.

    Additionally, community-based energy cooperatives (CECs) help provide affordable, clean, and reliable energy to communities. CECs are self organizing groups that empower communities to take control of their energy production and consumption.

    Energy efficiency initiatives in workplaces, homes, and community spaces help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and resource consumption.

    Community-led climate mitigation projects, such as planting native plant gardens, help absorb carbon dioxide and enhance biodiversity. Furthermore, encouraging cycling, walking, carpooling and public transportation can significantly reduce GHG emissions and contribute to a sustainable future.

    Locally led climate adaptation projects play an essential role in building a sustainable future as well. The difference between climate mitigation projects and climate adaptation projects is that mitigation projects focus on reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, while adaptation projects aim to help communities and ecosystems adjust to its effects by enhancing resilience and minimizing risks.

    Locally led adaptation efforts include setting up early warning systems for extreme weather events to ensure timely evacuations, educating communities on disaster preparedness and health risks, and supporting displaced or injured individuals through community care funds. By implementing these measures, we can reduce harm and better respond to climate-related disasters. Characteristics of successful locally led climate adaptation projects include flexibility, investments in community leadership and local institutional capacities, and reinforcing adaptation across programs.   

    There are synergies between the SDGs that can be leveraged for greater impact, for example goal 13 on climate action interconnects with several other SDGs including goal 7 on clean energy, goal 3 on health, and goal 12 on responsible consumption and production. This can empower SDG focused funding and projects to address multiple goals at once as these issues are inherently interconnected.

    Despite a challenging political landscape, strong support for a sustainable future remains evident among U.N. member states, nations with national commitments to the SDGs, corporations aligned with these goals, and grassroots community efforts. Now more than ever, it is crucial to leverage local resources and coordinate community initiatives to shape the future we want to live in.

  • Oppression to Action: Ecofeminism’s Critical Role in Solving the Climate Crisis

    As we witness both the decline of women’s rights and the weakening of environmental protections, the ecofeminist movement has become more crucial than ever.

    Shane Rounce, Unsplash.com

    Ecofeminism is a philosophical and political movement that emerged in the 1970s, connecting feminist and environmental concerns by recognizing the interconnected oppression of women and nature under patriarchal systems. The term was coined by French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974, sparking a wave of academic and activist interest. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, ecofeminism gained traction as scholars and activists explored the links between gender inequality and environmental degradation. 

    Key figures in the movement include Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies, whose work has been instrumental in shaping ecofeminist theory and practice. Together, Shiva and Mies developed a comprehensive ecofeminist framework that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and ecological issues, challenges the dominant paradigm of exploitation, and promotes a more sustainable and equitable world. 

    Patriarchal capitalism simultaneously exploits women and nature through interconnected systems of domination that view both women and nature as resources to be controlled and exploited for profit. As evidenced by Shiva and Mies, our capitalist-patriarchal framework has led to environmental degradation, the marginalization of women, and the erosion of sustainable economies.

    Shiva argues that women, especially in the Global South, often bear the brunt of this exploitation as they are the primary caretakers of natural resources and communities while being most vulnerable to climate impacts. Patriarchal capitalism not only perpetuates gender inequality but also threatens the very foundations of life by undermining ecological balance and sustainable practices. This system is built on a hierarchical worldview that prioritizes masculine traits like dominance and aggression while devaluing feminine qualities such as compassion and empathy.

    Traditionally feminine traits such as compassion and empathy are critical to include in the formation of systems that prioritize sustainability, longevity and equality over endless economic growth powered by exploitation. Research demonstrates a strong correlation between women’s political leadership and proactive climate change policies. Countries with higher percentages of women in parliament consistently show greater commitment to environmental protection, evidenced by their increased likelihood to ratify international climate treaties and implement more stringent environmental regulations. There is a statistically significant and positive correlation between the presence of women in climate negotiations and an increased mention of gender in climate policy discussions. This suggests that women’s participation leads to increased climate action in general as well as more comprehensive and effective climate responses by amplifying the focus on gendered impacts within environmental policy.

    A crucial aspect of ecofeminist thought is the recognition and valuation of women’s work and knowledge. This acknowledgment extends to women’s roles in grassroots organizing and community-based activism, which often drive sustainable practices and environmental justice initiatives. Ecofeminists also emphasize the importance of biodiversity and sustainable practices, viewing them as integral to creating a more equitable and environmentally sound future. 

    Furthermore, there is a profound connection between women and biodiversity as women play a critical role in preserving the earth’s health. Women in rural and indigenous communities often possess deep knowledge of local ecosystems and sustainable resource management practices. This traditional ecological knowledge is invaluable for developing effective conservation strategies and sustainable land use practices.

    Shiva states that “the marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand,” highlighting women’s position as both vulnerable to and crucial for conserving biodiversity.

    Ecofeminist alternatives seek to promote systems that support a sustainable world which radically reimagines our economic and social structures, recognizes the importance of all living things, and prioritizes regeneration and equality over exploitation and domination. This movement is more urgent than ever in the current state of climate emergency paired with increasing violence against women and diminishing women’s rights.

    The Trump Administration has amplified interrelated social and environmental challenges as the they have withdrawn the US from the Paris agreement, removed climate change mentions from USDA websites, reversed support and incentives for low-carbon technology, overturned women’s rights resulting in increased maternal mortality and significant threats to women’s health, while setting the precedent that violence  against women is acceptable.

    President Trump and many of his elected officials have been accused and convicted of sexual assault and abuse, perpetuating and further normalizing exploitation of women’s bodies. Upholding this kind of behavior supports a culture that takes women’s ownership of their bodies away from them and puts it in the hands of those who want to harm and control them. This sends the message that your body does not belong to you and you don’t get to control what happens to it which is exactly what anti-reproductive rights movements support.

    Similarly, patriarchal capitalists have normalized and rewarded practices that abuse the earth by polluting ecosystems, degrading soil quality, and exploiting natural resources in pursuit of personal and economic gain with no regard for the impact this has on ecosystems and the beings that live within them.

    The diminishing support for climate action under the Trump administration exacerbates danger to women on a global scale as women are disproportionately affected by climate change. With 6 of 9 planetary boundaries already crossed, climate inaction will lead to increased natural disasters and decreased access to critical natural resources such as food and water.

    Climate-related disasters often lead to increased gender-based violence with women being 14 times more likely to be harmed during a disaster, as women are more vulnerable during displacement and when competing for scarce resources. On a global scale, women are more likely to be impacted by floods, storms, and heatwaves due to their roles in the household, limited mobility, and limited economic freedom.

    In this context, ecofeminist principles have become more critical than ever, offering a framework for understanding and addressing the intertwined issues of environmental protection and women’s rights. By recognizing the intersection of social inequalities and climate change, we can develop more effective and equitable solutions that address the unjust systems which have supported the current level of environmental degradation and inequality.

    Elevating women’s voices in environmental policymaking and ensuring their active participation in climate action is crucial for creating comprehensive and impactful strategies to combat the climate crisis.

    Ecofeminist solutions often promote alternative economic models such as subsistence economies, recognizing their potential to reduce environmental impact and foster community resilience. A subsistence economy is one where economic activity is primarily directed towards needs rather than profit. This shifts economic focus onto necessities without overexploiting resources, thus these economies naturally tend to stay within planetary boundaries and sustainable ecological limits. By emphasizing local production and consumption, ecofeminism advocates for decentralized models that can lead to shorter lead times, lower transportation costs, and increased flexibility in meeting local demands. 

    Prioritizing ecofeminist values and strategies can inspire collective climate action by reframing narratives, addressing root causes, empowering diverse voices, fostering community-based solutions, promoting holistic approaches, and cultivating hope and resilience.