{"id":20722,"date":"2020-12-08T07:19:25","date_gmt":"2020-12-08T12:19:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=20722"},"modified":"2025-12-03T12:45:06","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T17:45:06","slug":"states-with-climate-commitments-off-track-emissions-goals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2020\/12\/08\/states-with-climate-commitments-off-track-emissions-goals\/","title":{"rendered":"Rhetoric to reality: U.S. states must turn climate commitments into policies that deliver"},"content":{"rendered":"

With an incoming Biden-Harris administration, many Americans are hopeful for a complete reversal of the Trump administration\u2019s assault on climate and environmental progress at the federal level.\u00a0While that change in federal leadership will be game-changing for the U.S., we cannot forget about the progress that state leaders have made on climate these last four years. It is imperative <\/strong>\u2014 for our health, economies and ecosystems <\/strong>\u2014 that we continue to hold them to it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

To curb the most catastrophic impacts of climate change \u2014 from species collapse to financial breakdown \u2014 we must meet an incredibly ambitious timeline for reducing emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), reducing global emissions to around 45% below what they were in 2010 by 2030 and continuing to reduce emissions dramatically through 2050 is consistent with a path that can avert devastating impacts of climate change.<\/p>\n

Meeting those targets will require strong action at every level of government and from every sector of the economy.<\/p>\n

A new report<\/strong> <\/a>by Environmental Defense Fund using emission projections data from Rhodium Group\u2019s U.S. Climate Service shows that, collectively, states that have made climate commitments are not on track<\/strong><\/em> to bring their emissions down consistent with science-based trajectories for 2030. They are also off track for achieving the original U.S. commitment under the Paris Agreement for 2025. This report also reveals key insights about these states\u2019 progress, as well as recommendations for turning goals into policies that can get the job done.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

State progress amid federal inaction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Before diving into the findings, it is critical to understand the role that states have played in U.S. climate action. Over the last four years, the Trump administration has dealt a series of devastating blows to climate progress: withdrawing the U.S.<\/a> from the Paris Agreement, repealing the Clean Power Plan<\/a> to slash power plant emissions, rolling back Clean Car Standards<\/a>, eliminating rules<\/a> to limit potent methane pollution from oil & gas production, and more. All of this has happened as Americans have increasingly seen climate change take form in stronger hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves in their own backyards.<\/p>\n

Many governors and state leaders have admirably stepped up to fill the void: 25 governors have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of states and Puerto Rico committed to implementing policies that advance the goals of the Paris Agreement, including achieving reductions of at least 26-28% below 2005 levels \u2014 our intended near-term contribution<\/a>. Louisiana, which is not a part of the alliance, also agreed to reach reductions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Many of these states also have committed, either by executive order or in statute, to additional reductions by 2030 and 2050. Together, all of these states represent an economy that ranks third in the world behind the U.S. and China and make up about 42% of total U.S. emissions.<\/p>\n

But beneath the high-level commitments, how much progress are states actually<\/em> making on curbing emissions?<\/p>\n

Key findings from the report:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

1. States with climate commitments face a substantial emissions gap in 2030<\/strong><\/p>\n

While a number of states have committed to net zero by 2050, staying on track with trajectories that limit climate damages requires meeting key interim goals, such as the 45% reduction below 2010 by 2030. Therefore, 2030 is a critical reference point for assessing progress at the pace and scale that\u2019s required \u2014 and some states have also explicitly set targets generally consistent with this trajectory<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, our report finds that by 2030 these states are collectively projected to reduce emissions only by 11% from 2010 levels <\/strong>\u2014 rather than the 45% needed to achieve reductions consistent with this target. <\/strong>These states are also projected to face an emissions gap in 2025, in which the original U.S. commitment under the Paris Agreement calls for reducing emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels. Here, states are projected to reduce emissions by only about 18% below 2005 levels by 2025.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Emissions<\/a>
The historical emissions and emissions projections for 25 states and Puerto Rico in relation to the 2030 and 2025 reduction goals. We present a range of emission projections based on different economic recovery scenarios as provided in Rhodium Group\u2019s U.S. Climate Service data, including a high emissions scenario, in which there is no COVID-19 and a low emissions scenario, which reflects a series of economic lockdowns that slow economic recovery for an extended period. We calculated the MMT CO2e gap using Rhodium Group\u2019s V-shaped economic recovery scenario to represent a mid-range case.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Looking at total U.S. emissions, if this group of states were to close these gaps, they could bring the entire country closer to its climate goals: shrinking the remaining gap in 2030 by nearly half and cutting the 2025 gap by a third.<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Progress varies by state<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Our report highlights four states in different regions \u2014 Washington, Colorado, Minnesota and North Carolina \u2014 with varying policy and political environments to gain a better understanding of where roadblocks lie. Each of these states has taken a different approach to target setting: Minnesota and Washington have reduction goals set in statute, Colorado\u2019s reduction targets<\/a> are also statutory but carry a mandatory directive to promulgate regulations to meet them and North Carolina\u2019s goals<\/a> have been set via executive order. Nevertheless, they all have yet to take these targets from paper and put the policy framework in place that will deliver.<\/strong> This means assigning responsibility to specific sources and sectors of the economy through statutory or regulatory requirements that result in quantifiable, definite reductions in pollution.<\/p>\n

For example, the Colorado legislature passed a suite of landmark climate policies<\/a> over a year ago. While state regulators were required to propose regulations that would allow the state to meet its goals this past July, state officials have instead focused on compiling a comprehensive catalogue of the technological and systems changes needed across the economy and haven\u2019t yet developed of the regulations necessary to limit pollution the requisite amount. Consequently, Colorado faces an emissions gap in 2030 ranging from 28-37 MMT CO2e, despite having passed one of the strongest pieces of climate legislation in the country.<\/p>\n

\"Colorado's<\/a>
Colorado’s historical emissions and projected emissions in relation to the 2030 and 2025 reduction goals. The state faces a 28-37 MMT CO2e emissions gap in 2030.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

On the east coast, North Carolina faces a similar analysis paralysis: Gov. Cooper first issued his climate directive<\/a> in October 2018, but has yet to direct agency action to implement the policies that will ensure persistent reductions over time. This lies in \u00a0contrast to North Carolina\u2019s neighbors to the north: Pennsylvania<\/a> and Virginia have been busy putting regulatory programs in place that limit pollution from their power sector \u2014 both states\u2019 largest emissions sources.<\/p>\n

And in the middle of the country, Minnesota has had climate reduction commitments longer than nearly any state \u2014 their goals were put into statute in 2007 by then Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Yet despite early leadership, Minnesota is not on pace to secure the reductions envisioned \u2014 and recently has been at a standstill. Despite expansive existing authority to tackle climate pollution stemming, and the growing impact of extreme heat on the state\u2019s agriculture<\/a>, emissions are projected to rise over the next decade and no regulations have been adopted to drive reductions consistent with their targets.<\/p>\n

3. Policies that can help close the emissions gap<\/strong><\/h3>\n

While each state has a unique political and geographical environment, our report identifies several key ways they can close the gap:<\/p>\n