Fusing subnational with national climate action is central to decarbonization: the case of the United States

Hultman, Nathan; Clarke, Leon; Frisch, Carla; Kennedy, Kevin C.; McJeon, Haewon; Cyrs, Tom; Hansel, Pete; Bodnar, Paul; Manion, Michelle; Edwards, M. L.; Cui, Ryna; Bowman, Christina; Lund, Jessie; Westphal, Michael I.; Clapper, Andrew; Jaeger, Joel; Sen, Arunava; Lou, Jiehong; Saha, Devashree; Jaglom, Wendy S.; Calhoun, Koben; Igusky, Kristin; DeWeese, James A.; Hammoud, Kareem; Altimirano, J. C.; Dennis, Margaret; Henderson, Chris; Zwicker, Gill; O’Neill, John

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18903-w

Cited by 64 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Progress has been made on methodologies to evaluate the impact of sub‐ and non‐state commitments (e.g. Hsu et al, 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Hultman et al, 2018, 2019, 2020). The number of evaluations has also been increasing, especially with regards to the potential to reduce GHG emissions.…”

Section: An Evaluative Gcaa?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the Global Climate Action Agenda (GCAA) and discusses options to improve sub‐ and non‐state involvement in post‐2020 climate governance. A framework that stimulates sub‐ and non‐state action is a necessary complement to national governmental action, as the latter falls short of achieving low‐carbon and climate‐resilient development as envisaged in the Paris Agreement. Applying design principles for an ideal‐type orchestration framework, we review literature and gather expert judgements to assess whether the GCAA has been collaborative, comprehensive, evaluative and catalytic. Results show that there has been greater coordination among orchestrators, for instance in the organization of events. However, mobilization efforts remain event‐driven and too little effort is invested in understanding the progress of sub‐ and non‐state action. Data collection has improved, although more sophisticated indicators are needed to evaluate climate and sustainable development impacts. Finally, the GCAA has recorded more action, but relatively little by actors in developing countries. As the world seeks to recover from the COVID‐19 crisis and enters a new decade of climate action, the GCAA could make a vital contribution in challenging times by helping governments keep and enhance climate commitments; strengthening capacity for sub‐ and non‐state action; enabling accountability; and realizing sustainable development.

show abstract

Section: An Evaluative Gcaa?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The policy scenarios applied to U.S. states through 2030 stem from pre-identified pathways (Hultman et al, 2020 (Hultman et al, 2020). For both U.S. scenarios, all policies have been scaled to the state level, correcting for potential overlapping between, for example, city, state and federal policies.…”

Section: Emission Pathways In the Us And The Rest Of The Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the Trump Administration announced the U.S.'s planned withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017, multiple U.S. states, cities, businesses and other organizations committed, or enhanced their commitments, to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Even in the absence of federal engagement, these non-federal commitments on top of ongoing technology-driven trends are projected to reduce emissions in 2030 relative to 2005 (Hultman et al, 2020). While this reduction is inconsistent with most pathways to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C (Robiou du Pont et al, 2016), any analysis of U.S. engagement must nonetheless acknowledge this evolving context of U.S. climate action.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this commentary we explore feasible combinations of sectoral energy and climate policies in U.S. states (Hultman et al, 2020), and climate pledges in other regions, to understand the direct effect of U.S. ambition on emissions and the potential, indirect climate leadership implications. We extrapolate state-and country-specific climate "effort" in climate policies and pledges for 2030 to estimate emissions levels in 2050 and explore a range of temperature intervals for 2100.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of U.S. Re‐engagement in Climate on the Paris Targets

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is a global challenge requiring ambitious action by all the world's countries. The Paris Agreement is meant to bind together international efforts to reduce temperature increase to well-below 2°C in comparison to pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C. Insufficient ambition to achieve this goal is however pervasive across the signatories of the Paris Agreement-the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), put forward in 2015, set the world on a path that is, unlikely to limit global temperature increase to well-below 2°C (Climate Action Tracker, 2020;Fawcett et al., 2015;Rogelj et al., 2016), let alone 1.5°C. New NDCs will be put forward soon, presenting an opportunity to ratchet ambition and actions upwards.In the second half of 2020, several major emitters set the tone with enhanced mitigation targets: the E.U. stated that it will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2030 by 55% compared to 1990 instead of its initial reduction target of 40%; China pledged to become carbon-neutral before 2060, a timing that could be compatible with 1.5°C consistent global emission pathways (Robiou du Pont et al., 2016). Japan, South-Korea, the United Kingdom, and Canada also put forward net-zero goals for 2050 (Climate Action Tracker, 2020).During the Trump Administration, the U.S. remained on the sidelines as other countries took leadership. More broadly, the stance of the U.S. federal government on climate change has been inconsistent over the last three decades and characterized by partisan polarization on environmental policy (Dunlap et al., 2016). Yet the U.S. plays a critical role in international climate ambition. The U.S. is the world's largest economy and second-largest GHG emitter, accounting for 12% of global GHG emissions in 2017 (Climate Action Tracker, 2020). Equally importantly, U.S. leadership has had an important influence on climate negotiations

show abstract

“…Those with goals vary in detail and structure. Currently, 25 US governors have committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement ( 9 ), and 23 of these, and the District of Columbia, have set economy-wide GHG reduction targets using statutory and/or legally binding executive action ( 10 ). Twenty-two of these same states have climate plans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for localizing global climate solutions and their carbon reduction potential

Brown

Dwivedi²,

Mani³

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Localized carbon reduction strategies are especially critical in states and regions that lack top-down climate leadership. This paper illustrates the use of coupled systems in assessments of subnational climate solutions with a case study of Georgia, a state located in the southeastern United States that does not have statewide climate goals or plans. The paper illustrates how robust place-specific plans for climate action could be derived from foundational global and national work and by embedding that research into the context of socio-ecological-technological systems. Our replicable methodology advances the traditional additive sectoral wedge analysis of carbon abatement potential by incorporating solution interdependencies and by spanning both carbon sources and sinks. We estimate that a system of 20 solutions could cut Georgia’s carbon footprint by 35% in 2030 relative to a business-as-usual forecast and by 50% relative to Georgia’s emissions in 2005. We also produce a carbon abatement cost curve that aligns private and social costs as well as benefits with units of avoided CO2-e. The solutions are affiliated with various social co-costs and co-benefits that highlight societal concerns extending beyond climate impacts, including public health, environmental quality, employment, and equity.

show abstract

Fusing subnational with national climate action is central to decarbonization: the case of the United States

Cited by 64 publications

References 17 publications

Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework

Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework

The Impact of U.S. Re‐engagement in Climate on the Paris Targets

A framework for localizing global climate solutions and their carbon reduction potential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About