[co-author: Pieter Booth]*
What are SBTs?
Science-based targets (SBTs) rely on scientific facts to achieve specific conditions or outcomes. SBTs reflect the best available science and set goals intended to prevent human activities from harming the environment. They were born in the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), launched in 2015 to align explicitly with the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal to keep global warming well below 2°C. At that time, SBTs were praised as objective numeric goals aligned with the latest climate science and necessary to stay within planetary boundaries and reduce climate risks. Four years later, the Science-Based Targets Network (SBTN) expanded the SBT goal-setting approach to include nature and ecosystems.
SBTs now serve as a multi-sectoral, multi-domain framework aligned with science and free from political influence. They are based on scientific consensus from peer-reviewed research. SBTs are quantitative and time-specific, clearly outlining how much and by when environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), land use, or water consumption must be reduced or altered to prevent ecological degradation. Unlike aspirational or self-set goals, SBTs aim to align businesses and governments toward common objectives, working together to accelerate the mitigation or prevention of environmental crises globally.
More Than Climate Goals
The integration of ecosystem thresholds, impact and risk assessments, life cycle assessments, and planetary boundary analysis has strengthened the scientific foundation of SBTs. These and other environmental decision-making support tools have transformed ambitious environmental targets into clear business, economic, and regulatory goals that intentionally recognize ecological limits. SBT frameworks now encompass four environmental dimensions:
-
Freshwater - focusing on limiting or changing activities that affect water quality and quantity, addressing issues like water scarcity, pollution, and ecosystem health in priority water basins.
Structured, legally enforceable SBTs, although less common and developed than climate-focused SBTs, have been enacted and applied to water, biodiversity, land, and pollution. They are most prevalent in the European Union (EU). Examples include the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, which mandates member states to achieve specific SBTs derived from hydrological, chemical, and biological thresholds necessary for a "good ecological and chemical status” in EU water bodies by 2027. The EU’s Nature Restoration Law (2024) is another example, legally obligating member states to restore 20% of EU ecosystems by 2030 with specific SBTs based on ecological thresholds and assessments from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services / Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPBES/IPCC) of aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
Other examples of legally enforceable SBT frameworks used in environmental regulation include chemical and nutrient loading limits based on ecological modeling in Australia’s Murray-Darling Water Basin Plan, conservation goals outlined in Japan’s Nature Conservation Law and Biodiversity Action Plan, spatial boundaries restricting land-use changes under China’s Ecological Redlines Policy, and species population targets and habitat thresholds established in Canada’s Species at Risk Act.
The US is Changing the Paradigm
Unfortunately, the US is among the few nations where the idea of SBTs has led to harsh treatment of scientists involved in environmental and health-related regulatory decisions. The White House's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement signaled a rejection of internationally agreed-upon climate goals and a step back from commitments aligned with scientific advice. Power plant and vehicle emissions, along with mercury and air toxic standards, are other examples of regulations rejecting specific SBTs.
Such actions tend to favor short-term economic gains at the expense of potentially more serious environmental problems in the future. Rolling back environmental regulations developed from scientific data and risk assessments, like those targeting emissions from power plants, vehicles, and methane leaks from oil and gas operations, will likely hinder climate goals. Coupled with workforce reductions and environmental agency realignments, White House actions reflect a broader skepticism or rejection of SBTs and evidence-based policy. The alternative approach favors politically negotiated targets, technologies, and feasibility-based standards that lack the rigor and effectiveness of science-based frameworks.
SBTs in Legal Arguments
For many decades, the courtroom has been the place where judges and lawyers examine the details of risk assessments, regulatory actions, and environmental limits. Legal disputes over environmental compliance have served as key tests of scientific certainty and the strength of environmental regulations and a company's business strategy. The close examination of scientific research has helped courts interpret environmental laws. Although judicial opinions on environmental issues are often influenced by factors beyond scientific data, science still plays an important role in the courtroom.
Set aside the current political climate in some countries, the entry of SBTs in legal disputes will likely intensify as resource scarcity grows and the alignment between environmental law and scientific evidence becomes stronger by necessity. Science and law in the courtroom will align because compliance with environmental regulations and assessments of resource damages and compensation will be judged by adherence to scientifically validated facts and theories.
Recognizing a Properly Derived SBT
Legal teams need scientific experts to interpret findings and assist in developing case strategies. The complexity of environmental issues calls for a legal approach based on reliable scientific data. Trusted experts are needed to help craft legal arguments that are practical, understandable, and aligned with scientific consensus on ecological and social health and safety.
To validate an SBT from both a procedural and substantive legal perspective, it should meet several key attributes. A legal team should look for evidence that certain attributes have been met in a transparent, methodologically sound, and verifiable manner. This includes checking its legal and scientific foundation by asking if it is grounded in scientific literature or international consensus reports; evaluating documentation and transparency by confirming that assumptions, data sources, and methodologies are explicitly disclosed; verifying the use of recognized standards, protocols, or methodologies; assessing measurability and enforceability by determining if compliance can be monitored, verified, and enforced; and, finally, checking for validation or certification by independent third parties.
Recent Articles by Legal Scholars
Although legal discourse on SBTs continues to focus primarily on climate litigation, recent scholarly articles explore the legal landscape and emphasize the importance of aligning legal arguments with scientific data to tackle other environmental and sustainability challenges.
Albright, 2023 - discusses the adjudication process and challenges of scientific complexity in legal disputes, highlighting the importance of robust science-based evidence for shaping legal interpretations (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301839120).
Gifford et al., 2023 - examine integrating science-based targets in law and governance frameworks relative to sustainable, equitable outcomes (https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2264255).
Soininen et al., 2023 - discuss the shift in EU environmental law from behavior-based to impact-based regulation and the science-dependent nature of the impact-based strategy in environmental directives https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqad013.
Otto et al., 2022 – examine the handicap caused by social perceptions of an environmental issue on science and legal arguments in litigation (https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13113).
Anderson et al., 2021 - define ‘science-based’ in relation to SBTs and distinguish between SBTs for the world and specific SBTs for individual entities https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa186.
Hubert, 2020 - examines the human right to science and conceptions of how science and technology are understood, practiced, and used in international environmental law https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa038.
Fisher, 2019 - examines the role and challenges facing science in environmental law. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198790952.003.0033.
*Net Gain Ecological Services LLC, Shelton, Washington, US
