climate change policy of the United States

{{See also|Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act|Energy policy of the United States|Environmental policy of the United States}}

{{multiple image| total_width=450

| image1= 20210626 Variwide chart of greenhouse gas emissions per capita by country.svg |caption1= Though China has the greatest annual carbon dioxide emissions (area of its rectangle), the U.S. exceeds China in per capita emissions.● Emissions data source: {{cite web |title=Territorial (MtCO₂) / 1) Emissions / Carbon emissions / Chart View |url=https://globalcarbonatlas.org/emissions/carbon-emissions/ |date=2024 |publisher=Global Carbon Atlas }} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20250113130608/https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country archive on Our World in Data])
● Country population data source: {{cite web |title=Population, total / All Countries and Economies / Most Recent Value (Thousands) |url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2023&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1960&view=chart |publisher=World Bank |date=2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250122171803/https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2023&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1960&view=chart |archive-date=22 January 2025 |url-status=live}}

|image2= 1850- Cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide, by country.svg |caption2= Cumulatively, the U.S. has emitted the greatest amount of {{CO2}}, though China's emission trend is now steeper.{{cite journal |last1=Friedlingstein |first1=Pierre |last2=O'Sullivan |first2=Michael |last3=Jones |first3=Matthew W. |last4=Anddrew |first4=Robbie M. |last5=Gregor |first5=Luke |display-authors=4 |title=Global Carbon Budget 2022 (Data description paper) |journal=Earth System Science Data |date=11 November 2022 |volume=14 |pages=4811–4900 |doi=10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022 |url=https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/ |doi-access=free |hdl=20.500.11850/594889 |hdl-access=free }} Data available for download at Our World in Data ([https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions cumulative] and [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country annual] and [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart per capita]).

}}

The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. In 1997, the US Senate voted unanimously under the Byrd–Hagel Resolution that it was not the sense of the Senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. In 2001, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, stated that the Protocol "is not acceptable to the Administration or Congress".{{cite news |last=Kluger |first=Jeffrey |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,104596,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010413115727/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,104596,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=April 13, 2001 |title=A Climate of Despair |newspaper=Time|date=April 1, 2001 |access-date=2010-01-30 }}{{Cite web |url=https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&clang=_en |title=United Nations Treaty Collection |access-date=2020-04-22}}

In October 2003, the Pentagon published a report titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. The authors conclude by stating, "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."{{cite web |url=http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3566_AbruptClimateChange.pdf |title=An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security |first1=Peter|last1=Schwartz|first2=Doug|last2=Randall|date=October 2003 |access-date=2007-09-08 |publisher=Environmental Defense}}

In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate.{{Cite web |date=2005 |title=McCain-Lieberman Greenhouse Gas Legislation to Reduce Global Warming |url=http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/senatevoteJune05.cfm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051028124251/http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/senatevoteJune05.cfm |archive-date=2005-10-28 |access-date=2022-03-11 |website=National Wildlife Federation}} In the 2005 vote, Republicans opposed the Bill 49–6, while Democrats supported it 37–10.{{cite web |url=http://www.c2es.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm |title=Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 |publisher=Center for Climate and Energy Solutions |access-date=November 11, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205131932/http://www.c2es.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm |archive-date=February 5, 2012 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all}}

In January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming.{{Cite web |date=2007-01-18 |title=Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pelosi-turns-up-heat-on-global-warming/ |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Associated Press, via CBS News |language=en-US}} Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus.""[http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070131-121250-1632r_page2.htm Senators sound alarm on climate]", The Washington Times, January 31, 2007

Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act on January 15, 2007. The measure would provide funding for R&D on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO₂), set emissions standards for new vehicles and a renewable fuels requirement for gasoline beginning in 2016, establish energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards beginning in 2008 and low-carbon electric generation standards beginning in 2016 for electric utilities, and require periodic evaluations by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether emissions targets are adequate.{{cite web |title=Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress |url=http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1075 |publisher=Environmental Defense |date=May 29, 2007 |access-date=August 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080212000544/http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1075 |archive-date=February 12, 2008}} However, the bill died in committee. Two more bills, the Climate Protection Act and the Sustainable Energy Act, proposed February 14, 2013, also failed to pass committee.{{Cite web |title=Sanders, Boxer Propose Climate Change Bills |url=http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-boxer-propose-climate-change-bills |website=Sen. Bernie Sanders |access-date=2015-10-10 |archive-date=January 18, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200118051226/https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-boxer-propose-climate-change-bills |url-status=dead }}

The House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212, but the bill failed to pass the Senate.{{cite news |last=Broder |first=John |title=House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 26, 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=1&hp}}Greg G. Hitt; Stephan Power, "[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124610499176664899 House Passes Climate Bill]", June 27, 2009; The Wall Street Journal

In March 2011, the Republicans submitted a bill to the U.S. Congress that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gasses as pollutants.Timothy Gardner, "[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-epa-emissions-bill-idUSTRE7226UJ20110304 Republicans launch bill to axe EPA carbon rules]", Reuters March 3, 2011 As of 2012, the EPA was still overseeing regulation under the Clean Air Act.[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/science/earth/epa-emissions-rules-backed-by-court.html Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming] June 26, 2012{{Cite web |date=2012 |title=Regulation of Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act |url=https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sequence-events-leading-regulation-greenhouse-gases-through-epa.pdf |website=Center for Climate and Energy Solutions}}

In 2019, there were 130 elected congresspeople who had expressed doubt about the science of climate change.{{Cite news|date=2021-05-05|title=Opinion {{!}} 'Climate Change Is Not a Subjective Thing.' How Does the U.S. Approach to the Environment Look From Abroad?|language=en-US|at=At 5:26 in the video|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/opinion/climate-change-recycling-america.html|access-date=2021-05-05|issn=0362-4331}}

Upon the start of his presidency in 1993, Bill Clinton committed the United States to lowering their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 through his biodiversity treaty,{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/world/clinton-declares-new-us-policies-for-environment.html |title=Clinton Declares New U.S. Policies for Environment |last=Berke |first=Richard L. |newspaper=The New York Times |date=April 22, 1993 |access-date=2018-11-02}} reflecting his attempt to return the United States to the global platform of climate policy. Clinton's British Thermal Unit (BTU) Tax and Climate Change Action Plan were also announced within the first year of his presidency, calling for a tax on energy heat content and plans for energy efficiency and joint implementations, respectively.

The Climate Change Action Plan was announced on October 19, 1993. This plan aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.{{Cite journal |pmc=1567135 |year=1994 |last1=Deangelis |first1=T. |title=Clinton's climate change action plan |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |volume=102 |issue=5| pages=448–449 |pmid=8593846 |doi=10.1289/ehp.94102448}} Clinton described this goal as "ambitious but achievable," and called for 44 action steps to achieve this goal. Among these steps were voluntary participation by industry, especially those in the commercial and energy supply fields. Clinton allotted $1.9 billion to fund this plan from the federal budget and called for an additional $60 billion funding to come voluntarily businesses and industries.

The British Thermal Tax proposed by Clinton in early 1993 called for a tax on producers of gasoline, oil, and other fuels based on fuel content in accordance to the British Thermal Unit (BTU). The British Thermal Unit is a measure of heat corresponding to the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of water by one degree Fahrenheit.{{Cite web |url=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=about_btu|title=British Thermal Units (Btu) - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy|publisher=U.S. Energy Information Administration |access-date=2018-11-20}} The tax also applied to electricity produced by hydro and nuclear power, but exempted renewable energy sources such as geothermal, solar, and wind. The Clinton Administration planned to collect up to $22.3 billion in revenue from the tax by 1997.{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-the-energy-plan-fuels-tax-spreading-the-burden.html |title=Clinton's Economic Plan: The Energy Plan; Fuels Tax: Spreading The Burden |last=Greenhouse |first=Steven |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 18, 1993 |access-date=2018-11-20}} The tax was opposed by the energy-intensive industry, who feared that the price increase caused by the tax would make U.S. products undesirable on an international level, and thus was never fully implemented.{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/09/us/clinton-backs-off-plan-for-new-tax-on-heat-in-fuels.html |title=Clinton Backs Off Plan for New Tax on Heat in Fuels |last=Rosenbaum |first=David E. |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 9, 1993 |access-date=2018-11-20}}

In 1994, the U.S. called for a new limit on greenhouse gas emissions post-2000 in at the August 1994 INC-10. They also called for a focus on joint implementation, and for new developing countries to limit their emissions. Environmental groups, including the Climate Action Network (CAN), critiqued these efforts, questioning U.S. focus on limiting the emissions of other countries when it had not established its own.{{Cite web |last=Royden |first=Amy |date=2002 |title=U.S. Climate Change Policy Under President Clinton: A Look Back |url=https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=1842&context=ggulrev%3BUS |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181120095724/https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=1842&context=ggulrev%3BUS |archive-date=2018-11-20 |access-date=2019-07-31 |website=Golden Gate University Law Review}}

The U.S. government under Clinton succeeded in pushing its agenda for joint implementation in the 1995 Conference of the Parties (COP-1). This victory is noted in the Berlin Mandate of April 1995, which called for developed countries to lead the implementation of national mitigation policies.{{Cite web |date=1995 |title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ON ITS FIRST SESSION, HELD AT BERLIN FROM 28 MARCH TO 7 APRIL 1995 |url=https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop1/07a01.pdf |access-date=2022-03-12}}

Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the United States in 1997, pledging the country to a non-binding 7% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.{{Cite web |url=https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol |title=Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first commitment period |website=UNFCCC |access-date=2018-10-24}} He claimed that the agreement was "environmentally strong and economically sound," and expressed a desire for greater involvement in the treaty by developing nations.{{Cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/ |title=Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact - Dec. 11, 1997 |website=All Politics |publisher=CNN |access-date=2018-11-20}}

In his second term, Clinton announced his FY00 proposal, which allotted funding for a new set of environmental policies. Under this proposal, the President announced a new Clean Air Partnership Fund, new tax incentives and investments, and funding for environmental research of both natural and man-made changes to the climate.{{Cite web |url=https://clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov/WH/SOTU99/climate.html |title=President Clinton's Climate Change Initiatives |website=National Archives |access-date=2018-10-24}}

The Clean Air Partnership Fund was proposed to finance state and local government efforts for greenhouse gas emission reductions in cooperation with EPA. Under this fund, $200 million was allotted to promote and finance innovation projects meant to reduce air pollution. It also supported the creation of partnerships between the local and federal governments, and private sector.{{Cite web |url=https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/1a0530a0365ec3148525670b0063e1b6.html|title=02/01/99: President Clinton's Fiscal Year 2000 EPA Budget |publisher=EPA |access-date=2018-11-27}}

The Climate Change Technology Initiative provided $4 billion in tax incentives over a five-year period. The tax credits applied to energy efficient homes and building equipment, implementation of solar energy systems, electric and hybrid vehicles, clean energy, and the power industry.{{Cite web |url=https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/20000204_9.html |title=Climate Change Technology Initiative |website=National Archives |access-date=2018-11-20}} The Climate Change Technology Initiative also provided funding for additional research and development on clean technology, especially in the building, electricity, industry, and transportation sectors.

{{Main|Climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration}}

In March 2001, the George W. Bush Administration announced that it would not implement the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan that would require nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that ratifying the treaty would create economic setbacks in the U.S. and does not put enough pressure to limit emissions from developing nations.Alex Kirby, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1247518.stm US blow to Kyoto hopes], 2001-03-28, BBC News. In February 2002, President Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.[http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/bush.global.warming/index.html Bush unveils voluntary plan to reduce global warming] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081212054358/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/bush.global.warming/index.html |date=December 12, 2008 }}, CNN.com, 2002-02-14.

The Bush administration has been accused of implementing an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters", according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine that reviewed hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.{{cite news |first=Tim |last=Dickinson |author-link=Tim Dickinson |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050118/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 26, 2007 |title=The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming |newspaper=Rolling Stone |date=June 8, 2007 |access-date=2010-01-24}} The book Hell and High Water asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research. The book claims that, to delay action, industry and government spokesmen suggest falsely that "technology breakthroughs" will eventually save us with hydrogen cars and other fixes. It calls on voters to demand immediate government action to curb emissions.{{cite news |last=Hamilton |first=Tyler |url=https://www.thestar.com/article/166819 |title=Fresh alarm over global warming |newspaper=The Toronto Star |date=January 1, 2007 |access-date=2010-01-30 }} Papers presented at an International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, held in 2009 under the sponsorship of the University of Copenhagen in cooperation with nine other universities in the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), maintained that the climate change skepticism that is so prevalent in the USARiley Dunlap, "Why climate-change skepticism is so prevalent in the USA: the success of conservative think tanks in promoting skepticism via the media", Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions, Institute of Physics (IOP) Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 532010 [http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1755-1315/6/53/532010/] {{doi|10.1088/1755-1307/6/3/532010}} "was largely generated and kept alive by a small number of conservative think tanks, often with direct funding from industries having special interests in delaying or avoiding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions".William Freudenburg, "The effects of journalistic imbalance on scientific imbalance: special interests, scientific consensus and global climate disruption", Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 532011 [http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1755-1315/6/53/532011] {{doi|10.1088/1755-1307/6/3/532011}}

According to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming{{cite news|author1=Zabarenko, Deborah|title=Scientists charge White House pressure on warming|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000985.html|access-date=13 April 2017|agency=Reuters|newspaper=Washington Post|date=30 January 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170413044902/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000985.html|archive-date=13 April 2017}}Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at {{cite web|url=http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf |title=Written Testimony of Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists |access-date=2009-12-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090805213620/http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf |archive-date=August 5, 2009 |df=mdy }} "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out", as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change", produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law,written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at {{cite web |url=http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf |title=Testimony of Rick Piltz director, climate science watch government accountability project |access-date=2007-01-31 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070131202854/http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf |archive-date=2007-01-31 }} last visited Jan 30, 07 Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming. and removed key portions of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report given to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers to human health of global warming.{{cite news|author1=Hebert, H. Josef|title=White House edits CDC climate testimony|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-10-23-1240098457_x.htm|access-date=13 April 2017|work=USA Today|agency=Associated Press|date=23 October 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170413043637/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-10-23-1240098457_x.htm|archive-date=13 April 2017|location=usatoday.com}}

The Bush Administration worked to undermine state efforts to mitigate global warming. Mary Peters, the Transportation Secretary at that time, personally directed US efforts to urge governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California's first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.{{Cite web |last=Coile |first=Zachary |date=September 25, 2007 |title=How the White House Worked to Scuttle California's Climate Law |url=http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/25/4099 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130617052823/http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/25/4099 |archive-date=2013-06-17 |access-date=2022-03-11 |website=San Francisco Chronicle, via Common Dreams}}

{{Further|Environmental policy of the Barack Obama administration}}{{Overly detailed|section|date=April 2021}}

New Energy for America is a plan to invest in renewable energy, reduce reliance on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and make coal a less competitive energy source. It was announced during Barack Obama's presidential campaign. A form of it was signed into law in February 2009 as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which invests $26.6 billion in renewable energy, $19.9 billion in energy efficiency and conservation, $18.1 billion in transit and high-speed rail, $10.5 billion in electric power transmission upgrades, $6.1 billion in alternative fuel vehicles, $3.4 billion in carbon capture and storage, and at least $600 million in Superfund, underground fuel tank and brownfield land cleanups.{{cite web |last=Romer|first=Christina |title=Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on the Clean Energy Transformation | website=White House | date=April 22, 2010 | url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/04/21/impact-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-clean-energy-transformation | access-date=May 16, 2024}}{{cite web | title=Implementation of the Recovery Act | website=US EPA | date=August 3, 2015 | url=https://archive.epa.gov/recovery/web/html/basic.html | access-date=May 16, 2024}} An estimate in 2016 by Obama's Council of Economic Advisers found the ARRA boosted GDP by 2-3%, supported 900,000 clean energy job-years and leveraged $150 billion in private sector clean energy investments.{{cite web | title=FACT SHEET: The Recovery Act Made The Largest Single Investment In Clean Energy In History, Driving The Deployment Of Clean Energy, Promoting Energy Efficiency, And Supporting Manufacturing | website=White House | date=February 25, 2016 | url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/25/fact-sheet-recovery-act-made-largest-single-investment-clean-energy | access-date=May 16, 2024}}

On November 17, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama proposed, in a talk recorded for YouTube, that the US should enter a cap and trade system to limit global warming.{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211220/hvG2XptIEJk |archive-date=2021-12-20 |url-status=live|title=YouTube – A New Chapter on Climate Change |date=November 17, 2008 |publisher=It.youtube.com |access-date=2009-04-03}}{{cbignore}} The American Clean Energy and Security Act, a cap and trade bill, was passed on June 26, 2009, in the House of Representatives, but was not passed by the Senate.

President Obama established a new office in the White House, the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, and selected Carol Browner as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Browner is a former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and was a principal of The Albright Group LLC, a firm that provides strategic advice to companies.{{cite web |url=http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12144 |title=EERE News: President-Elect Obama Nominates Dr. Steven Chu as Energy Secretary |access-date=2009-01-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081225094640/http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id%3D12144 |archive-date=December 25, 2008 |df=mdy }}

On January 27, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Todd Stern as the department's Special Envoy for Climate Change.{{cite web|url=https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/01/115409.htm|title=We're sorry, that page can't be found|access-date=November 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111201834/http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/01/115409.htm|archive-date=2016-11-11|url-status=dead}} Clinton said, "we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy." Stern, who had coordinated global warming policy in the late 1990s under the Bill Clinton administration, said that "The time for denial, delay and dispute is over.... We can only meet the climate challenge with a response that is genuinely global. We will need to engage in vigorous, dramatic diplomacy."{{cite news | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN26361321 | title=Clinton climate change envoy vows 'dramatic diplomacy' | author=Whitesides, John | work=Reuters | date=January 26, 2009 | access-date=2009-01-28}}

In February 2009, Stern said that the US would take a lead role in the formulation of a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen in December 2009. He made no indication that the U.S. would ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the meantime.{{cite news|newspaper=The New York Times|date=February 28, 2009|first=Elisabeth|last=Rosenthal|title=Obama's Backing Raises Hopes for Climate Pact|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/science/earth/01treaty.html?_r=2&ref=politics}} US Embassy dispatches subsequently released by whistleblowing site WikiLeaks showed how the US 'used spying, threats and promises of aid' to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord, under which its emissions pledge is the lowest by any leading nation.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord |title=WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord |newspaper=The Guardian |access-date=December 21, 2010 |location=London |first=Damian |last=Carrington |date=December 3, 2010}}{{cite web |url=http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copenhagen-accord-commitments |title=Who's on Board with the Copenhagen Accord |access-date=December 21, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101216210246/http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copenhagen-accord-commitments |archive-date=December 16, 2010 }}

President Obama said in September 2009 that if the international community would not act swiftly to deal with climate change that "we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe... our prosperity, our health, and our safety are in jeopardy, and the time we have to reverse this tide is running out."

{{cite news | first=Jordyn | last=Phelps | title=President Obama Says Global Warming is Putting Our Safety in Jeopardy | url =http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/president-obama-says-global-warming-is-putting-our-safety-in-jeopardy-.html | work =ABC News | access-date = 2010-03-14 }} In 2010, the president said, similarly, that it was time for the United States "to aggressively accelerate" its transition from oil to alternative sources of energy and vowed to push for quick action on climate change legislation, arguably seeking to harness the deepening anger over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.{{Cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/politics/03obama.html?hpw |newspaper=The New York Times | title=Obama Says He'll Push for Clean Energy Bill | first=Helene | last=Cooper | date=June 2, 2010}}

The 2010 United States federal budget proposed to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US$15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $83 billion in new revenue by FY 2019.{{Cite web |url=http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/presidents-budget-draws-clean-energy-funds-from-climate-measure |title=President's Budget Draws Clean Energy Funds from Climate Measure |publisher=Renewable Energy World |access-date=2009-04-03 |archive-date=January 14, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150114203327/http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/presidents-budget-draws-clean-energy-funds-from-climate-measure |url-status=dead }}

New rules for power plants were proposed March 2012.{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/new-rules-will-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html | work=The New York Times | first1=Felicity | last1=Barringer | first2=Justin | last2=Gillis | title=New Limit Pending on Greenhouse Gas Emissions | date=March 27, 2012}}{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/new-rules-for-new-power-plants.html |newspaper=The New York Times | title=New Rules for New Power Plants | date=March 28, 2012}}

In the US and China's Sunnylands Summit on June 8, 2013, President Obama and Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping worked in accordance for the first time, formulating a landmark agreement to reduce both production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). This agreement had the unofficial goal of decreasing roughly 90 gigatons of {{CO2}} by 2050 and implementation was to be led by the institutions created under the Montreal Protocol, while progress was tracked using the reported emissions that were mandated under the Kyoto Protocol. The Obama administration viewed HFCs as a "serious climate mitigation concern."{{Cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/08/united-states-and-china-agree-work-together-phase-down-hfcs|title=United States and China Agree to Work Together on Phase Down of HFCs|date=2013-06-08|work=White House|access-date=2018-11-16|language=en}}

On March 31, 2015, the Obama administration formally submitted the US Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The United States committed to reducing emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, a reflection of the Obama administration's goal to convert the U.S. economy into one of low-carbon reliance.{{Cite web |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc |title=Fact Sheet: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC |date=2015-03-31 |website=The White House |access-date=2018-11-16}}{{Cite web |date=2015-03-31 |title=US Emissions under 2020 and 2025 Targets |url=https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/United%20States%20of%20America/1/U.S.%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%20Accompanying%20Information.pdf |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=INDC Published Documents}}

In 2015, Obama also announced the Clean Power Plan, which was the final version of regulations originally proposed by the EPA the previous year, and which pertained to carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.{{cite web | url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/02/politics/obama-climate-change-plan/ | title=Obama unveils major climate change proposal | website=CNN | date=2 August 2015 | access-date=3 August 2015 | author=Malloy, Allie}} Even though it had never been fully implemented, it was replaced by the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy rule in 2019,{{cite web |last1=Green |first1=Miranda |title=EPA to reconsider cost benefit analysis of air pollution on human life |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/444878-epa-to-reconsider-cost-benefit-analysis-of-air-pollution-on/ |website=The Hill |date=May 21, 2019 |access-date=May 25, 2019}} itself voided by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/climate/trump-climate-change.html|title=Court Voids a 'Tortured' Trump Climate Rollback|first=Lisa|last=Friedman|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 19, 2021}}{{cite web|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epas-industry-friendly-climate-rule-struck-down-by-court|title=EPA's Industry-Friendly Climate Rule Struck Down by Court|website=news.bloomberglaw.com}}

In the same year, President Obama announced his aim for a 40-45% reduction below 2012 levels in methane emissions by 2025. In March 2016, the President would later solidify this goal in an agreement with Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, stating that the two federal governments will jointly work together to reduce methane emissions in North America, coordinating particularly on research and development and standards creation.{{Cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/us-canada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership|title=U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership|date=2016-03-10|work=White House|access-date=2018-11-16|language=en}}

On May 12, 2016, the administration released an Information Collection Request (ICR), requiring all methane-emitting operations to provide emission levels reports to EPA analysts to deal with high-emitting sources. New standards set emission limits for methane; reductions were to be made through transition to newer and cleaner production equipment, fixed monitoring of leaks at operation sites using innovative techniques, and the capturing of emissions from hydraulic fracturing.{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=EPA's Actions to Reduce Methane Emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry: Final Rules and Draft Information Collection Request |url=https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/nsps-overview-fs.pdf |access-date=2022-03-12}}

A September 2016 study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analyzed a set of definite and proposed climate change policies for the United States and found that these were insufficient to meet the US intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) under the 2015/2016 Paris Agreement. Additional greenhouse gas reduction measures were required to meet this international commitment.

{{cite journal

| last1 = Greenblatt | first1 = Jeffery B

| last2 = Wei | first2 = Max

| title = Assessment of the climate commitments and additional mitigation policies of the United States

| date = 26 September 2016

| journal = Nature Climate Change

| volume = 6

| issue = 12

| pages = 1090–1093

| doi = 10.1038/nclimate3125

| bibcode = 2016NatCC...6.1090G

| issn = 1758-6798

| url = https://zenodo.org/record/1233369

}}

{{Cite journal|last1=Kanitkar|first1=Tejal|last2=Jayaraman|first2=T|year=2016|title=The Paris Agreement: Deepening the Climate Crisis|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292463857|journal=Economic & Political Weekly|volume=51|pages=4}}

An October 2016 report compared US government spending on climate security and military security and found the latter to be 28 times greater. The report estimated that public sector spending of $55{{nbsp}}billion was needed to tackle climate change. The 2017 national budget contained $21{{nbsp}}billion for such expenditures, leaving a shortfall of $34{{nbsp}}billion that could be recouped by scrapping underperforming weapons programs. The report recommended the F-35 fighter and close-to-shore combat ship projects as possible targets.

{{cite news

| first = Kenneth | last = Pennington

| title = We have money to fight climate change. It's just that we're spending it on defense

| date = 8 October 2016

| work = The Guardian

| location = London, UK

| issn = 0261-3077

| url = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/08/climate-change-defense-spending-fighter-plane-climate-change-defense-spending-fighter-plane-program

| access-date = 2016-10-08

}}

{{cite web

| first1 = Miriam | last1 = Pemberton

| first2 = Nathan | last2 = Doctor

| first3 = Ellen | last3 = Powell

| title = Report: Combat Vs. Climate

| date = 5 October 2016

| website = Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)

| location = Washington DC, USA

| url = http://www.ips-dc.org/report-combat-vs-climate/

| access-date = 2016-10-08

}}

{{cite book

| first1 = Miriam | last1 = Pemberton

| first2 = Nathan | last2 = Doctor

| first3 = Ellen | last3 = Powell

| title = Report: Combat Vs. Climate: The Military and Climate Security Budgets Compared

| date = 5 October 2016

| publisher = Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)

| location = Washington DC, USA

| url = http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CvsC-Report-1.pdf

| access-date = 2016-10-08

}}

In June 2015, the Obama administration released the President's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan with the goal of reducing carbon pollution by converting the nation's century old infrastructure into one based on clean energy. The President's multibillion-dollar proposal provided incentives to reduce reliance on international oil and fossil fuels. It involved adding $20 billion per year transit and high-speed rail investments, $10 billion per year to improved regional transportation planning reform, and $2 billion per year to alternative fuel and autonomous vehicle research.{{Cite web |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/04/fact-sheet-president-obamas-21st-century-clean-transportation-system |title=Fact Sheet: President Obama's 21st Century Clean Transportation System |date=2016-02-04 |website=The White House |access-date=2018-11-16}}

Previously, similar investments in transportation were supported by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST), an act passed in December 2015 by the Obama administration. FAST was formulated to reduce traffic and increase the quality of air by reducing emissions, yet it proved to be slow in gathering infrastructure investments.{{cite web |url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/02/08/dont-dismiss-obamas-clean-transportation-plan/ |title=Don't dismiss Obama's clean transportation plan |last=Puentes |first=Joseph Kane and Robert |date=8 February 2016 |publisher=The Brookings Institution |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2018-11-16}} Thus, the President proposed a tax on oil of $10 per barrel to pay for it. The plan failed in the House due to the Republican majority.{{Cite web |url=https://gosar.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1736 |title=House Passes Five Gosar Amendments that Defund Obama's Climate Agenda, Protect Vital Water and Energy Resources |date=2016-05-26 |website=Congressman Paul Gosar |access-date=2018-11-19}}

In June 2015, under Obama's Climate Action Plan Progress Report, the EPA announced that they were going to propose new standards for both medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, building off standards that were already enacted. These proposals were projected to decrease emissions by 270 million metric tons and save vehicle owners around $50 billion in fuel costs.[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cap_progress_report_final_w_cover.pdf President Obama's Climate Action Plan 2nd Anniversary Progress Report], June 2015. Retrieved 2022-03-10.

The Climate Action Plan progress report also addressed aircraft, transit, and maritime emissions. The EPA proposed a rule tightening carbon pollution standards in civil aviation. Additionally, under the Next Generation Air Transportation System, the Federal Aviation Administration worked with the aviation industry on lower-emissions technologies, the Maritime Administration oversaw an increase of investments into more fuel-efficient ships, and incentives made it possible for buses and other forms of transit to switch to other forms of energy such as natural gas and electric.

In April 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) formulated a national program that would finalize new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 most consumer road vehicles. With these new standards, vehicles were required to meet an average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile by model year 2016. This was the first time the EPA had taken measures to regulate vehicular GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Additionally, the administration established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Regulatory Announcement: EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks |url=https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100AKHW.PDF?Dockey=P100AKHW.PDF |access-date=2022-03-10 |website=US EPA Office of Transportation and Fuel Quality}}

In August 2012, the administration expanded on these standards for model years 2017 through 2025 vehicles, issuing final rules and standards that were to result in a 163 gram emission per mile by model year 2025.{{Cite web |date=2012 |title=Regulatory Announcement, EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks |url=https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100EZ7C.PDF?Dockey=P100EZ7C.PDF |access-date=2022-03-10 |website=US EPA Office of Transportation and Fuel Quality}}

{{Further|Environmental policy under the Trump administration}}

{{quote box

|title = During the 2020 California wildfires

|quote = {{font|font=Times New Roman|size=12pt|{{nbsp|5}} It'll start getting cooler. You just watch. ...
I don't think science knows, actually.}}

|source = —Donald Trump, on climate change
September 13, 2020{{cite news |last1=Baker |first1=Peter |last2=Friedman |first2=Lisa |last3=Kaplan |first3=Thomas |title=As Trump Again Rejects Science, Biden Calls Him a 'Climate Arsonist' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/us/politics/trump-biden-climate-change-fires.html |work=The New York Times |date=September 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200915000751/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/us/politics/trump-biden-climate-change-fires.html |archive-date=September 15, 2020 |url-status=live }}

|align = right |width = 339px |border = 1px |fontsize = 100% |bgcolor = #fafafa |title_bg = #fafafa |title_fnt = #202060 |qalign = left |salign = right

}}

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to roll back some of the Obama-era regulations enacted with the purpose of combating climate change. He questioned the existence of climate change and stated that efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions could harm the United States' global competitiveness.{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/trump-says-nobody-really-knows-if-climate-change-is-real/ |title=Trump says 'nobody really knows' if climate change is real |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=2017-03-18}} He pledged to roll back regulations placed on the oil and gas industry by the EPA under the Obama administration in order to boost the productivity of both industries.{{Cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-epa-idUSL1N1FK0UB |title=U.S. will change course on climate policy, Trump official says |date=2017-01-30 |work=Reuters |access-date=2017-03-18}}

As president, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, a major international convention to address climate change.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html |title=Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement |last=Shear |first=Michael D. |date=June 1, 2017 |work=The New York Times|access-date=June 2, 2017 |archive-date=June 10, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170610224451/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html |url-status=live}}

As president, Trump appointed Scott Pruitt, a climate change denialist with a history of close ties to energy industry interests,{{cite news |last1=Davenport |first1=Coral |last2=Lipton |first2=Eric |title=Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html |access-date=December 9, 2016 |work=The New York Times |date=December 8, 2016 |ref=NYT8Dec |page=A1}}Chicago Tribune, 16 Feb. 2017 [https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-scott-pruitt-epa-emails-20170216-story.html "Judge Orders EPA Nominee Pruitt to Release Emails with Oil, Gas, Coal Industry"] to head the EPA. While serving as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt removed Oklahoma's environmental protection unit and sued the EPA a total of fourteen times, thirteen of which involved "industry players" as co-parties.{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4635162/scott-pruitt-science-denial/ |title=Trump's EPA Pick Imperils Science—And Earth |magazine=Time |access-date=2017-03-18}} He was confirmed to head the EPA on February 17, 2017, with a 52–46 vote{{Cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515802629/scott-pruitt-confirmed-to-lead-environmental-protection-agency |title=Scott Pruitt Confirmed To Lead Environmental Protection Agency |work=NPR |access-date=2017-03-18}} and resigned on July 5, 2018, amid ethics violation controversies. Trump then nominated Andrew Wheeler, an attorney who worked as a coal lobbyist.{{Cite news |date=March 16, 2017 |title=Trump to name coal lobbyist as deputy EPA chief |work=The Hill |url=https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324418-trump-to-name-coal-lobbyist-as-deputy-epa-chief-report/ |access-date=August 25, 2017}}{{Cite news |date=September 29, 2017 |title=Trump to tap longtime coal lobbyist for EPA's No. 2 spot |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/21/trump-to-tap-longtime-coal-lobbyist-for-epas-number-two-spot/ |access-date=August 25, 2017}}{{Cite web |date=January 10, 2020 |title=Lobbying Disclosure Act Database |url=https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=processSearchCriteria |website=Lobbying Disclosure Act Database |access-date=March 14, 2021 |archive-date=January 4, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210104095542/https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=processSearchCriteria |url-status=dead }} Wheeler was confirmed as head of the EPA on February 28, 2019, by a 52–47 vote.{{Cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/28/trumps-new-epa-chief-andrew-wheeler-who-replaced-scott-pruitt/3014406002/ |title=Andrew Wheeler, who's been leading Trump deregulatory charge, confirmed by Senate as EPA chief |last=King |first=Ledyard |date=28 February 2019 |work=USA Today |access-date=2019-09-23}}

Trump nominated Rex W. Tillerson, the former CEO and chairman of Exxon Mobil, the multinational oil and gas giant, as Secretary of State. His nomination was confirmed on February 1, 2017, by a 56–43 vote.{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-confirmed.html |title=Rex Tillerson Is Confirmed as Secretary of State Amid Record Opposition |last=Harris |first=Gardiner |date=2017-02-01 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2017-04-24}} He was fired on March 31, 2018, and replaced by Mike Pompeo.

After less than a week as president, on January 24, 2017, Trump issued an executive order that removed barriers from the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, making it easier for the companies sponsoring them to continue with production.{{Cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pipeline-idUSKBN15820N |title=Trump clears way for controversial oil pipelines |date=2017-01-25 |work=Reuters |access-date=2017-03-18}} On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order aimed towards boosting the coal industry. The executive order rolls back on Obama-era climate regulations on the coal industry in order to grow the coal sector and create new American jobs. The White House indicated that any climate change policies that they deem hinder the growth of American jobs will not be pursued. In addition, the executive order rolled back on six Obama-made orders aimed at reducing climate change and carbon dioxide emissions and called for a review of the Clean Power Plan.{{Cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/index.html |title=Trump dramatically changes US approach to climate change |last=Merica |first=Dan |work=CNN |access-date=2017-04-20}}

In his first year in office, President Trump ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to remove references to climate change from its website, suppressed government publication of scientific reports showing the threat of climate change and the effectiveness of renewable energy, and politicized decisions made at the EPA.Sabine Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, Columbia University Earth Initiative, [https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/doe-reports-cancelled "DOE Reports Cancelled"]Sabine Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, Columbia University Earth Initiative, [https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/release-solar-energy-studies-blocked-doe "Release of Solar Energy Studies Blocked by DOE"]Sabine Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, Columbia University Earth Initiative, [https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/scientific-research-subject-political-interference-epa "Scientific Research Subject to Political Interference at EPA"]Sabine Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, Columbia University Earth Initiative, [https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/epa-science-advisors-excluded-decision-making "EPA Science Advisors Excluded from Decision-Making"]Union of Concerned Scientists, 20 Jan. 2017, Updated 16 Dec. 2020, [https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science "Attacks on Science"] In a similar vein, the Trump Administration prevented scientists from reporting to Congress regarding the threat of climate change and the urgent need to address it.Sabine Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, Columbia University Earth Initiative, [https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/state-department-scientist-prevented-submitting-written-testimony-congress "State Department Scientist Prevented from Submitting Written Testimony to Congress"] However, buried inside a 500-page Environmental Impact Statement (EIP) published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Trump administration acknowledged that, without a course correction, the planet is on track for global average temperature warming by approximately four degrees Celsius by the end of the century, compared with preindustrial levels. Such warming would be catastrophic for organized human life, according to scientists. The EIP supports the U.S. government's decision to maintain without increase fuel-efficiency standards for cars and other vehicles.The Washington Post, 28 Sept. 2018, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html "Trump Administration Sees a 7-Degree Rise in Global Temperatures by 2100"]

In his budget proposal for 2018, President Trump proposed cutting the EPA's budget by 31% (reducing its current $8.2 billion to $5.7 billion). Had it passed, it would have been the lowest EPA budget in 40 years adjusted for inflation,{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/budget-epa-state-department-cuts.html |title=Donald Trump Budget Slashes Funds for E.P.A. and State Department |last1=Thrush |first1=Glenn |date=2017-03-15 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2017-04-06 |last2=Davenport |first2=Coral}} but Congress did not approve it. Trump tried again unsuccessfully in his budget proposal for 2019 to cut EPA funding by 26%.{{Cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/13/epa-budget-would-epa-would-slashedsuffers-big-hit-president-trumps-budget-and-democrats-predictably/333523002/ |title=EPA budget would be slashed by a fourth in President Trump's budget and Democrats are upset |last=King |first=Ledyard |date=13 February 2018 |work=USA Today |access-date=2019-09-23}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget |title=EPA's Budget and Spending |date=February 8, 2013 |publisher=EPA |access-date=2019-09-23}} The EPA provides technical assistance to cities as they update their infrastructure to adapt to climate change, according to Joel Scheraga, the EPA senior advisor for climate change adaptation who has worked for the EPA for three decades. Scheraga said he was working with a reduced staff under the Trump administration.{{Cite magazine |last=Grace |first=Stephanie |title=Weather Warrior |magazine=Brown Alumni Magazine |volume=September/October 2018 |page=50}}

The shift in direction of environmental policy in the United States under the Trump administration has led to a change in the environmental justice sector. On March 9, 2017, Mustafa Ali, a leader of the environmental justice office at EPA, resigned over proposed cuts to the agency's environmental justice program. The preliminary budget proposals would cut the environmental justice office's budget by 1/4, causing a 20% reduction in its workforce. The program is one of a dozen vulnerable to losing all governmental funding.{{Cite news |date=March 9, 2017 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/09/epas-environmental-justice-leader-steps-down-amid-white-house-plans-to-dismantle-program/ |title=EPA environmental justice leader resigns, amid White House plans to dismantle program |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=April 20, 2017}}

{{Main|Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration}}

File:P20211102AS-3753 (51845518077).jpg.]]

The Biden administration paused construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline,Gillies, Rob. "Keystone XL pipeline halted as Biden moves to cancel permit." PBS NewsHour, 20 Jan. 2021, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-halted-as-biden-moves-to-cancel-permit. created a National Climate Task Force, paused oil and gas leases on public lands,{{cite news |last1=Rosane |first1=Olivia |title=Biden Signs Sweeping Executive Orders on Climate and Science |url=https://www.ecowatch.com/joe-biden-climate-crisis-orders-2650167632.html |access-date=31 January 2021 |agency=Ecowatch |date=28 January 2021}} and re-joined the Paris Agreement. His administration proposed spending on climate change in his $2.1 trillion infrastructure bill, including $174 billion for electric cars and $35 billion for research and development in climate-focused technology.{{Cite web |last=Newburger |first=Emma |date=2021-03-31 |title=Here's how Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan addresses climate change |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/31/biden-infrastructure-plan-spending-on-climate-change-clean-energy.html |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=CNBC |language=en}}

In June 2021 the Keystone XL pipeline, considered by some as dangerous for climate, was cancelled, following strong objection from environmentalists, indigenous peoples, the Democratic Party, and the Joe Biden administration.{{cite news |last1=Davenport |first1=Coral |title=The Keystone XL pipeline project has been terminated. |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/keystone-xl-pipeline-canceled.html |access-date=11 June 2021 |agency=The New York Times |date=9 June 2021}}

However, in 2023, the Biden administration approved the Willow project, a new oil refinery in northern Alaska,{{Cite news |last1=Milman |first1=Oliver |last2=Lakhani |first2=Nina |last3=Singh |first3=Maanvi |date=March 13, 2023 |title=Biden approves controversial Willow oil drilling project in Alaska |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/13/alaska-willow-project-approved-oil-gas-biden |access-date=2023-03-13 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=March 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313161758/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/13/alaska-willow-project-approved-oil-gas-biden |url-status=live }} and faced many objections from climate activists, who said it would contribute 287 million tons of carbon emissions.{{cite web|author=Marris, Emma|title=The Alaska Oil Project Will Be Obsolete Before It's Finished|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/03/biden-willow-alaska-arctic-oil-drilling/673382/|date=2023-03-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313195458/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/03/biden-willow-alaska-arctic-oil-drilling/673382/|archive-date=2023-03-13|website=The Atlantic |language=en}} It came amid a slew of hundreds of other new oil and gas project approvals under Biden.{{cite web | last=Bearak | first=Max | title=It's Not Just Willow: Oil and Gas Projects Are Back in a Big Way | website=The New York Times | date=April 6, 2023 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/climate/oil-gas-drilling-investment-worldwide-willow.html| access-date=May 16, 2024}} In response, Biden stopped oil and gas leases in and around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (though not the Willow lease itself) in September 2023,{{Cite news |last=Ximena Bustillo |date=2023-09-06 |title=Biden ends drilling in ANWR, sparking criticism, as Willow Project moves forward |work=NPR |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/09/06/1197945859/anwr-alaska-drilling-oil-gas-leases-environment-energy-climate-change |access-date=2023-09-09}} and temporarily suspended regulatory approvals for new natural gas export terminals in January 2024,{{cite web | last=McKibben | first=Bill | title=Joe Biden just did the rarest thing in US politics: he stood up to the oil industry | website=the Guardian | date=February 7, 2024 | url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/07/joe-biden-big-oil-lng-permits | access-date=May 16, 2024}} though this suspension was halted by Louisiana federal judge James D. Cain Jr. in July.{{cite web | agency=Associated Press | title=A judge sides with states over Biden and allows gas export projects to move forward | website=NPR | date=July 2, 2024 | url=https://www.npr.org/2024/07/02/g-s1-7645/judge-sides-with-16-states-putting-on-pause-bidens-delay-of-consideration-of-gas-export-projects | access-date=July 3, 2024}}

Even still, the Biden administration presided over record oil and gas production highs, reaching 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023{{cite web | title=United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever | website=Homepage - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) | date=May 13, 2024 | url=https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545 | access-date=May 16, 2024}} and 530,000 barrels per day from public lands since 2020 (despite a campaign pledge to halt drilling on said lands), though growth has been driven more by Permian Basin drilling than by the administration's policies.{{cite web | last=Richards | first=Heather | title=What Biden's oil record means for the industry's future | website=E&E News by POLITICO | date=May 13, 2024 | url=https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-bidens-oil-record-means-for-the-industrys-future/ | access-date=May 16, 2024}}

{{Pie chart

| caption= Global carbon dioxide emissions by country in 2023:

| other = yes

| label1 = China

| value1 = 31.8 | color1=#E33

| label2 = United States

| value2 = 14.4 | color2=#1A9

| label3 = European Union

| value3 = 4.9 | color3=#36A

| label4 = India

| value4 = 9.5 | color4=#CC5

| label5 = Russia

| value5 = 5.8 | color5=#E72

| label6 = Japan

| value6 = 3.5 | color6=#928

}}

Biden's goals in developing a federal climate change policy were hampered by the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, where the court ruled against the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.{{Cite web |date=2022-07-06 |title=Global dismay as supreme court ruling leaves Biden's climate policy in tatters |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/06/supreme-court-epa-ruling-biden-climate-policy-global-reaction |access-date=2022-07-07 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2022-06-30 |title=US supreme court rules against EPA and hobbles government power to limit harmful emissions |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-restricts-federal-power-greenhouse-gas-emissions |access-date=2022-08-19 |website=the Guardian |language=en}}

Around spring 2024, the Biden administration announced several changes to its climate policy approach. First, the EPA issued new tailpipe emissions limits that it projected would cut emissions by 7 billion metric tons, or 56% of 2026 levels, by 2032.{{cite web | last1=Daly | first1=Matthew | last2=Krisher | first2=Tom | title=EPA issues new auto rules aimed at cutting carbon emissions, boosting electric vehicles and hybrids | website=AP News | date=March 20, 2024 | url=https://apnews.com/article/epa-electric-vehicles-emissions-limits-climate-biden-e6d581324af51294048df24269b5d20a | access-date=May 16, 2024}} Second, the Interior Department raised royalty rates from 12.5% to 16.7%, doubled rents and increased lease bond minimums by a factor of 15 on federal lands for oil and gas companies.{{cite web | last=Groom | first=Nichola | title=US finalizes higher fees for oil and gas companies on federal lands | website=Reuters | date=April 12, 2024 | url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-finalizes-big-reforms-federal-oil-gas-drilling-2024-04-12/ | access-date=May 16, 2024}} Third, it allowed wildlife conservation groups to pay rents to restore federal lands for the first time.{{cite web | last=Brown | first=Matthew | author2=The Associated Press | title=Biden administration moves to let conservation groups rent government-owned land just like oil, ranching and mining companies do | website=Fortune | date=April 19, 2024 | url=https://fortune.com/2024/04/19/biden-administration-conservation-groups-rent-government-owned-land-oil-ranching-mining-companies/ | access-date=May 16, 2024}} Fourth, the EPA finalized new standards for power plant carbon emissions, projecting cuts of 65,000 tons by 2028 and 1.38 billion tons by 2047.{{cite web | title=Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants | website=US EPA | date=April 24, 2024 | url=https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-suite-standards-reduce-pollution-fossil-fuel | access-date=May 16, 2024}} Fifth, the DOE announced that it would assume the role of default lead agency on regulatory approvals for most new power transmission projects, streamline permitting approvals, enact a two-year deadline, require only one environmental impact statement per project, and increase transparency around the permitting process.{{cite web | title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Transmission Permitting Rule and Latest Investments To Accelerate the Build Out of a Resilient, Reliable, Modernized Electric Grid | website=Energy.gov | date=April 25, 2024 | url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-transmission-permitting-rule-and-latest | access-date=May 16, 2024}} Lastly, it issued a new rule to make large water heaters much more energy-efficient by 2029, cutting carbon emissions by a projected 332 million tons over 30 years, as part of the DOE's overall effort since 2020 to drive 2.5 billion tons in 30-year appliance emissions cuts.{{CodeFedReg|89|37778}}{{cite web | title=DOE Finalizes Efficiency Standards for Water Heaters to Save Americans Over $7 Billion on Household Utility Bills Annually | website=Energy.gov | date=April 30, 2024 | url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-finalizes-efficiency-standards-water-heaters-save-americans-over-7-billion-household | access-date=May 17, 2024}}

In May 2024, the Biden administration doubled tariffs on solar cells imported from China and more than tripled tariffs on lithium-ion electric vehicle batteries imported from China.{{Cite web |last1=Boak |first1=Josh |last2=Hussein |first2=Fatima |last3=Wiseman |first3=Paul |last4=Tang |first4=Didi |date=2024-05-14 |title=Biden hikes tariffs on Chinese EVs, solar cells, steel, aluminum — and snipes at Trump |url=https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles-evs-solar-2024ba735c47e04a50898a88425c5e2c |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=AP News |language=en}} The increased tariffs will be phased in over a period of three years.

In 2021, due to pressure from Senate Republicans, Biden's infrastructure plan was shrunk to $1.2 trillion, and signed into law as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Act makes several investments germane to climate policy. These include the largest investment in public transit in American history at $89.9 billion,{{cite news |last1=Long |first1=Heather |title=What's in the $1.2 trillion infrastructure law |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/08/10/senate-infrastructure-bill-what-is-in-it/ |access-date=3 January 2024 |agency=Washington Post |date=16 November 2021}}{{cite web |title=Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/ |date=November 6, 2021 |publisher=The White House |access-date=April 14, 2023 |archive-date=January 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220126170901/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/ |url-status=live }} $66 billion in rail transport,{{cite web | title=FRA | website=Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Information from FRA | date=November 15, 2021 | url=https://railroads.dot.gov/BIL | access-date=July 11, 2023}} $11 billion in electric power transmission reform, $8.6 billion in carbon capture and storage projects, $7 billion in hydrogen economy projects, $430 million in factory decarbonization projects,{{cite web | title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces $6 Billion To Drastically Reduce Industrial Emissions and Create Healthier Communities | website=Energy.gov | date=March 8, 2023 | url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-6-billion-drastically-reduce-industrial-emissions | access-date=May 26, 2023}}{{cite journal | last=Higman | first=Morgan | title=The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Will Do More to Reach 2050 Climate Targets than Those of 2030 | website=Center for Strategic and International Studies | date=August 18, 2021 | url=https://www.csis.org/analysis/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-will-do-more-reach-2050-climate-targets-those-2030 | access-date=March 30, 2023}} $8 billion in Western state drought mitigation programs,{{cite web |last1=Kanzig |first1=Erin |title=What's Inside the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for Water? |url=https://www.rivernetwork.org/whats-inside-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-for-water/ |website=River Network |date=November 15, 2021 |access-date=3 January 2024}} $7.5 billion in charging stations, and boosts to transit-oriented development,{{cite web | title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces $17.6 Million to Help Communities Add Affordable Housing Near Transit | website=Federal Transit Administration | date=April 2, 2024 | url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-administration-announces-176-million-help-communities-add-affordable | access-date=May 15, 2024}} freeway removal,{{cite web |title=Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program – Planning Grants and Capital Construction Grants |url=https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities |publisher=U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION |access-date=29 September 2022 |archive-date=September 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220929141158/https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities |url-status=live }} cycling and complete streets,{{cite web | title=What's Happening With Infrastructure Investment? | website=League of American Bicyclists | date=August 30, 2021 | url=https://bikeleague.org/whats-happening-with-infrastructure-investment/ | access-date=May 16, 2024}} and numerous ecosystem restoration and wildlife conservation programs.{{cite web |url=https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/culverts_fact_sheet.cfm |title=National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grants (Culvert AOP Program) |publisher=Federal Highway Administration |access-date=April 14, 2023 |archive-date=April 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230415015455/https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/culverts_fact_sheet.cfm |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/programs/wildlife-crossings |title=Wildlife Crossings Program |publisher=Federal Highway Administration |access-date=April 14, 2023 |archive-date=April 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230414172422/https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/programs/wildlife-crossings |url-status=live }}

However, before its passage into law, the impact of the Act on climate was forecast to be small (with emissions reductions on the order of 200 million metric tons in the best-case scenario), and highly dependent on implementation of the highway provisions.{{cite report |title=Preliminary Report: The Climate Impact of Congressional Infrastructure and Budget Bills |date=20 October 2021 |publisher=Rapid Energy Policy Evaluation and Analysis Toolkit|page=9 |url=https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_Preliminary_Report_102021.pdf |access-date=26 January 2022 |archive-date=October 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020161736/https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_Preliminary_Report_102021.pdf |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=Issue Brief: Estimating the Greenhouse Gas Impact of Federal Infrastructure Investments in the IIJA |url=https://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/federal-infrastructure-investment-analysis.html |website=Georgetown climate center |date=16 October 2021|access-date=27 November 2023}}

Under the IIJA, in April 2023, President Biden's administration made $450 million available for solar farms and other sustainable energy projects at the sites of active or former coal mines.{{cite web | title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces $450 Million To Deploy Clean Energy Projects on Mine Lands | website=Energy.gov | date=April 4, 2023 | url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-450-million-deploy-clean-energy-projects-mine-lands | access-date=May 15, 2024}}{{Cite web |date=2023-04-04 |title=Biden makes $450M available for clean energy projects at coal mines |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-makes-450m-available-for-clean-energy-projects-at-coal-mines |access-date=2023-07-10 |website=PBS NewsHour |language=en-us}}

The Inflation Reduction Act was a reconciliation bill that was the largest investment in climate change mitigation in US history to date, setting out provisions to invest in increasing renewable energy and electrifying areas of the US economy. The legislation, signed into law by Biden on August 16, 2022, invests approximately $400 billion to climate-related projects, primarily in the form of tax credits for consumers and private businesses. The majority of these investments is intended to increase the amount of wind and solar energy in the United States grid by providing tax incentives to renewable energy producers, as well as companies that manufacture batteries and wind and solar power components.{{Cite web |last=Dinneen |first=James |title=What does the Inflation Reduction Act mean for US carbon emissions? |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2332499-what-does-the-inflation-reduction-act-mean-for-us-carbon-emissions/ |access-date=2022-08-19 |website=New Scientist |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=The $369bn Climate Deal: America's Path To Climate Resilience - Renewables - United States |url=https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220810-369bn-climate-deal-americas-path-to-climate-resilience |access-date=2022-08-21 |website=Morrison Foerster}}{{Cite web |date=2022-08-12 |title=Democrats compromise climate goals to pass Inflation Reduction Act |url=https://branchoutnow.org/democrats-in-congress-compromise-on-climate-goals-to-pass-inflation-reduction-act/ |access-date=2023-07-10 |website=Branch Out |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |last1=Paris |first1=Francesca |last2=Parlapiano |first2=Alicia |last3=Sanger-Katz |first3=Margot |last4=Washington |first4=Eve |date=2022-08-13 |title=A Detailed Picture of What's in the Democrats' Climate and Health Bill |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/13/upshot/whats-in-the-democrats-climate-health-bill.html |access-date=2023-07-10 |issn=0362-4331}} The Act may also invest $28–48 billion in building retrofits and energy efficiency, $23–436 billion in clean transportation, $22–26 billion in environmental justice, land use, air pollution reduction and resilience, and $3–21 billion in sustainable agriculture.{{cite web | last=Beachy|first=Ben|title=Reconciliation: Climate, Energy, and Environmental Justice Investments | website=Google Sheets | date=August 12, 2022 | url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iHbr4Ph3cD7r30Z093pWUMV2P1kLhywAeW2UilVp09U/edit| access-date=May 24, 2023}}{{Cite web|url=https://media-publications.bcg.com/BCG-Executive-Perspectives-US-Inflation-Reduction-Act-16August2022.pdf|date=August 16, 2022|access-date=March 29, 2024|title=BCG Executive Perspectives: US Inflation Reduction Act: Climate & Energy Features and Potential Implications |website=Boston Consulting Group|last1=Baker|first1=Tom|last2=Dewar|first2=Alex|last3=Phillips|first3=Katherine|last4=Pieper|first4=Cornelius|last5=Seshadri|first5=Pattabi}}{{cite web | title=US Inflation Reduction Act: A catalyst for climate action |last1=Jiang|first1=Betty|last2=Mandloi|first2=Maheep|last3=Carlson|first3=Richard |last4=Hope|first4=Matt |last5=Ziffer|first5=Mike|last6=Campanella|first6=Nick|last7=Rosa|first7=Ariel|last8=Walsh|first8=John|last9=Kuske |first9=Andrew|last10=Tse|first10=Horace |last11=Kim|first11=Sang Uk|last12=Quiroga|first12=Vanessa |last13=Roberts|first13=John |last14=Chigumira|first14=Danielle |last15=Okusanya|first15=Tayo|last16=Oppenheim |first16=Dan|last17=Freshney|first17=Mark|last18=Leonard|first18=Christopher|last19=Woodworth|first19=Curt |last20=Abrams|first20=Randy|first21=Alex|last21=Liu|website=Credit Suisse | date=November 30, 2022 | url=https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/news-and-expertise/us-inflation-reduction-act-a-catalyst-for-climate-action-202211.html | access-date=August 29, 2023}}

However, the law also requires that for federal lands, oil and gas projects be considered before wind and solar rights of way, even as it brought about the aforementioned royalty rate increases.{{cite web |last=Hart|first=Sarah| title=Potential Impacts of the IRA's Onshore Energy Leasing Provisions | website=Harvard Law School - Environmental & Energy Law Program | date=March 24, 2023 | url=https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2023/03/ira-onshore-leasing/ | access-date=May 16, 2024}}

The law explicitly defines carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act to make the Act's EPA enforcement provisions harder to challenge in court,{{cite news |last1=Friedman |first1=Lisa |title=Democrats Designed the Climate Law to Be a Game Changer. Here's How. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=22 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220823165028/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html |archive-date=23 August 2022 |url-status=live }} and created a first-of-its-kind green bank, among a wide variety of other provisions to cut pollution.{{cite web | author=The White House | title=Biden-Harris Administration Announces Historic $20 Billion in Awards to Expand Access to Clean Energy and Climate Solutions and Lower Energy Costs for Communities Across the Nation | website=The White House | date=April 4, 2024 | url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/04/biden-harris-administration-announces-historic-20-billion-in-awards-to-expand-access-to-clean-energy-and-climate-solutions-and-lower-energy-costs-for-communities-across-the-nation/ | access-date=April 5, 2024}} According to several independent analyses, the law is projected to reduce 2030 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2005 levels.{{Cite news |last=Tankersley |first=Jim |date=2022-08-16 |title=Biden Signs Expansive Health, Climate and Tax Law |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/business/biden-climate-tax-inflation-reduction.html |access-date=2022-08-18 |issn=0362-4331}}

By the Act's first anniversary, emissions projections had begun to shift. According to Rhodium Group and the World Economic Forum, in the first year of implementation, the Act had a significant impact on the environment: their expectations for GHG emissions reductions by 2030, relative to 2005 levels, moved from 17%-30% to 29%-42%, and to 32%-51% by 2035. The EPA used dozens of millions of dollars to improve air quality and hundreds of millions for environmental justice and local climate plans, NOAA spent hundreds of millions to adapt coastlines to climate change, and more than $1 billion was allocated to equitable access to urban heat island reductions.{{cite web |last1=Broom |first1=Douglas |title=The US Inflation Reduction Act one year on – what's been achieved for the green economy? |url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/08/inflation-reduction-act-one-year-green-jobs/ |website=World Economic Forum |date=August 21, 2023 |access-date=24 September 2023}}{{cite web |title=Taking Stock 2021: US Emissions Outlook Under Current Policy |url=https://rhg.com/research/taking-stock-2021/ |website=Rhodium Group |date=July 15, 2021 |access-date=24 September 2023}}{{cite web |title=Taking Stock 2023 US Emissions Projections after the Inflation Reduction Act |url=https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Taking-Stock-2023_Rhodium-Group.pdf |website=Rhodium Group}}

{{update section|date=May 2024}}

[[File:Climateregistry map Dec2008.svg|thumb|Map of states and regions and Climate Registry status, 2008

{{legend|green|RGGI Members}}

{{legend|lime|RGGI Observers}}

{{legend|maroon|WRCAI Members}}

{{legend|red|WRCAI Observers}}

{{legend|#705d00|MGGRA Members}}

{{legend|#bc9c00|MGGRA Observers}}

{{legend|#0000c1|Unaffiliated Registry Participants}}]]

Across the country, regional organizations, states, and cities are achieving real emissions reductions and gaining valuable policy experience as they take action on climate change. These actions include increasing renewable energy generation, selling agricultural carbon sequestration credits, and encouraging efficient energy use.{{Cite journal |author= Engel, Kirsten and Barak Orbach |title= Micro-Motives for State and Local Climate Change Initiatives |journal= Harvard Law & Policy Review |volume= 2 |pages= 119–137 |year= 2008 |ssrn= 1014749 }} The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a joint program of over twenty U.S. cabinet departments and federal agencies, all working together to investigate climate change. In June 2008, a report issued by the program stated that weather would become more extreme, due to climate change.{{Cite web |url= https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_go_ot/sci_weather_extremes;_ylt=ApgxLfjbrNsYCTb0l7Xyx6ZI2ocA |title=Extreme weather to increase with climate change |first=Randolph E. |last=Schmid |publisher=Associated Press via Yahoo! News |date=June 19, 2008

}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25268181 |title=U.S. experts: Forecast is more extreme weather |work=NBC News |date=June 19, 2008}}

As described in a 2007 brief by the PEW Center on Global Climate Change, "States and municipalities often function as "policy laboratories", developing initiatives that serve as models for federal action. This has been especially true with environmental regulation—most federal environmental laws have been based on state models. In addition, state actions can have a significant impact on emissions, because many individual states emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Texas, for example, emits more than France, while California's emissions exceed those of Brazil."{{cite web|url=http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Pew_State_Climate_Change_Update_2007_.pdf|title=Learning from State Action on Climate Change|website=ClimateKnowledge.org|access-date=June 15, 2017}}

City and state governments often act as liaisons to the business sector, working with stakeholders to meet standards and increase alignment with city and state goals.{{Cite web|url=https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/local-climate-action-cities-tackle-emissions-commercial-buildings-final.pdf|title=Local Climate Action: Cities Tackle Emissions of Commercial Buildings|last1=McGarvey|first1=Todd|last2=Morsch|first2=Amy|date=September 2016|website=Center for Climate and Energy Solutions|access-date=24 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425024643/https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/local-climate-action-cities-tackle-emissions-commercial-buildings-final.pdf|archive-date=25 April 2017|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}} This section will provide an overview of major statewide climate change policies as well as regional initiatives.

{{main|climate change in Arizona}}

On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.{{Cite web |date=2006-09-12 |title=Arizona Governor Issues Executive Order for Reduction of Greenhouse Gases; Focus on Transportation |url=https://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/arizona_governo.html |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Green Car Congress}}{{Cite web |title=Executive Order 2006-13, Climate Change Action |url=https://apps.azsos.gov/public_services/register/2006/37/governor.pdf |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Arizona Administrative Register / Secretary of State. Governor's Executive Orders/Proclamations}}

{{Excerpt|Climate change policy of California}}

The state of Connecticut passed a number of bills on global warming in the early to mid 1990s, including—in 1990—the first state global warming law to require specific actions for reducing CO₂.

Connecticut is one of the states that agreed, under the auspices of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP), to a voluntary short-term goal of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The NEG/ECP long-term goal is to reduce emissions to a level that eliminates any dangerous threats to the climate—a goal scientists suggest will require reductions 75 to 85 percent below current levels.{{cite web |title= Executive Summary of Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan |url= http://ctclimatechange.com/ExecutiveSummary.html |access-date=May 3, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071210073501/http://ctclimatechange.com/ExecutiveSummary.html |archive-date= December 10, 2007 }} These goals were announced in August 2001. The state has also acted to require additions in renewable electric generation by 2009.{{cite web |title= Executive Summary CCCAP 2005 |url= http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_000.pdf |id= Accessed 2011-05-03 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104451/http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_000.pdf |archive-date= March 20, 2009 }}

Maryland began a partnership with the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) in 2015 to research impacts and solutions to climate change called the Maryland Climate Change Commission.{{Cite web|url=https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions|title=U.S. Cities and States {{!}} Center for Climate and Energy Solutions|website=www.c2es.org|language=en|access-date=March 23, 2017}}

In 2007, the state of Minnesota implemented a goal of 80% greenhouse gas emissions reductions from 2005 levels, by 2030. However, under the state's 2022 Climate Action Framework, the goal was revised to 50% by 2030, and 100% by 2050.{{cite web|url=https://mn.gov/mmb/one-mn-plan/measurable-goals/ghg-emissions.jsp|date=January 2023|access-date=August 9, 2024|title=Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the One MN Plan|website=MN.gov}}

Under a Democratic trifecta headed by Tim Walz, from 2023 to 2024, the state enacted 40 Framework initiatives to deal with climate change. These include a clean energy standard of 100% by 2040, a green-collar worker apprenticeship program, a new green bank, improvements to electric vehicle charging networks, weatherization and building-related embedded emissions programs, and increased financial aid to peatland, stream and forest conservation and pollinator breeders.{{cite web|url=https://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/press-releases/index.jsp?id=1055-579538|title=Governor Walz, Lieutenant Governor Flanagan Celebrate Historic Climate Action Legislation in Minnesota|date=June 1, 2023|access-date=August 9, 2024|website=MN.gov}} The state government also passed a $9 billion transportation package focused on raising the gas tax and improving transit, biking and walking,{{cite web | last=Brasuell | first=James | title=How Transit Advocates Scored a Major Victory in Minnesota | website=TransitCenter | date=August 15, 2023 | url=https://transitcenter.org/how-transit-advocates-scored-a-major-victory-in-minnesota/ | access-date=August 8, 2024}} and implemented a bipartisan energy permitting reform bill.{{cite web | last=Harrison | first=Derek | title=Minnesota Eyes Permitting Reform for Clean Energy Amid Gridlock in Congress | website=Inside Climate News | date=March 11, 2024 | url=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11032024/minnesota-clean-energy-permitting-reform/ | access-date=August 8, 2024}}{{cite web | last=Mackin | first=Mel | title=Minnesota's permitting reforms will accelerate its clean energy boom and can serve as a national model | website=Utility Dive | date=June 5, 2024 | url=https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-permitting-reform-clean-energy-grid-infrastructure-google-rei-holcim/718055/ | access-date=August 8, 2024}} It implemented California's stricter tailpipe emissions standards for cars,{{cite web | last=Karnowski | first=Steve | title=Walz says 'clean car' rules haven't hurt in 14 other states | website=AP News | date=July 26, 2021 | url=https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politics-business-environment-and-nature-minnesota-1808afe5d06edd7127b0566c29850915 | access-date=August 8, 2024}} and set a goal of 20% electric vehicles as a share of all cars by 2030.{{cite web | last=Karnowski | first=Steve | title=Minnesota governor rolls out plan to fight climate change | website=AP News | date=September 16, 2022 | url=https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-technology-minnesota-voting-electric-vehicles-eb18e6d0de5cd0ebeb3a82118447d8a8 | access-date=August 8, 2024}}

However, the state government came under criticism for its lax approach to regulatory capture regarding climate action in the agricultural{{cite web | last=Wagenius | first=Jean | title=Knowing the history of regulatory capture on ag pollution can help us end it • Minnesota Reformer | website=Minnesota Reformer | date=December 13, 2023 | url=https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/12/13/knowing-the-history-of-regulatory-capture-on-ag-pollution-can-help-us-end-it/ | access-date=August 8, 2024}} and iron processing{{cite web | last=Hazzard | first=Andrew | title=East Side foundry with past violations has 30 days to reduce lead, air pollution St. Paul foundry has 30 days to reduce lead, air pollution | website=Sahan Journal | date=April 16, 2024 | url=https://sahanjournal.com/climate-environment/northern-iron-east-side-saint-paul-foundry-deadline-lead-air-pollution/ | access-date=August 8, 2024}} sectors, and for its fast-tracking of the Line 3 pipeline expansion and police brutality-filled response to the indigenous-led Stop Line 3 protests.{{cite magazine | last=Baram | first=Marcus | title=Tim Walz Is One of the Nation's Most Forceful Climate Advocates | magazine=Rolling Stone | date=August 7, 2024 | url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/tim-walz-forceful-climate-advocate-1235075485/ | access-date=August 8, 2024}}{{cite web | last1=Atkin | first1=Emily|last2=Samuelson|first2=Arielle | title=Tim Walz's green resume has an oily stain | website=HEATED (Substack) | date=August 8, 2024 | url=https://heated.world/p/tim-walzs-green-resume-has-an-oily | access-date=August 8, 2024}}

{{Update section|date=April 2021}}

In August 2009, Governor David Paterson created the New York State Climate Action Council (NYSCAC) and tasked them with creating a direct action plan. In 2010, the NYSCAC released a 428-page Interim Report which outlined a plan to reduce emissions and highlighted the impact climate change will have in the future.{{Cite web|url=https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/state-information/new-york/overview.html|title=Overview of New York's Climate Change Preparations - Georgetown Climate Center|website=georgetownclimatecenter.org|language=en|access-date=2018-10-22}} In 2010, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority also commissioned a report about statewide climate change impacts, later published in November 2011. After Hurricanes Sandy and Irene along with Tropical Storm Lee, the state updated vulnerability in regards to the condition of its critical infrastructure.

File:Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Pier cropped.jpg

According to the 2015 New York State Energy Plan, renewable sources, which include wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal, and sustainable biomass, have the potential to meet 40 percent of the state's energy needs by 2030. {{As of|2018}}, sustainable energy use comprises 11 percent of all energy usage.{{Cite web|url=https://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40899.html|title=Department of Environmental Conservation|website=New York State Government|access-date=22 October 2018}} The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority offers incentives in the form of grants and loans to its residents to adopt renewable energy technologies and create renewable energy businesses.

Other state climate change mitigation laws have gone into effect. The net metering laws make it easier for both residents and businesses to use solar power by feeding unused energy back into electrical fields and receive credit from their power suppliers. Although one version was released in 1997, it was exclusively limited to residential systems using up to 10 kilowatts of power. However, on June 1, 2011, the laws were expanded to include farm and non-residential buildings.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Researchers-and-Policymakers/Power-Generation/Net-Metering-Interconnection|title=Net Metering/Remote Net Metering and Interconnection - NYSERDA|website=www.nyserda.ny.gov|access-date=2018-12-07}} The Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard set a statewide target for renewable energy and offered incentives to residents to use the new technologies.

In June 2018, the state announced its first major update in over two decades to its Environmental Quality Review (EQR) regulations. The update involves streamlining the environmental review process and encouraging renewable energy. It also expanded the Type II actions, or "list of actions not subject to further review", including green infrastructure upgrades and retrofits. Furthermore, solar arrays are set to be installed in sites like brownfields, wastewater treatment facilities, and land zoned for industry. The regulations will take effect on January 1, 2019.

In 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo enforced the state's hallmark energy policy, Reforming the Energy Vision. This involves building a new network that will connect the central grid with clean, locally generated power. The method for this undertaking falls to the Energy Plan, a comprehensive plan to build a clean, resilient, affordable energy system for all New Yorkers. It will foster "economic prosperity and environmental stewardship" and cooperation between government and industry. Concrete goals thus far include a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas from 1990 levels, electricity sourced from 50% of renewable energy sources, and a 600 billion BTU increase in statewide energy efficiency.{{Cite web|url=https://energyplan.ny.gov/|title=New York State Energy Plan|website=energyplan.ny.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-10-22}}

Under the administration of Governor Jay Inslee, the Washington state government has enacted laws creating the following:

• "A landmark 100% clean electricity policy that puts Washington on the nation’s most ambitious pathway to 100% clean electricity by 2045
• "A nation-leading clean buildings policy
• "A cap-and-invest program [i.e., cap-and-trade] that will help fund new climate-friendly transportation options and community reinvestments that help businesses and families to transition away from fossil fuels
• "Rapid electric vehicle adoption
• "Launch of a state Clean Energy Fund, the Clean Energy Institute at University of Washington, and the Institute for Northwest Energy Futures at Washington State University"{{cite web | title=Energy & Environment | website=Governor Jay Inslee | date=August 19, 2022 | url=https://governor.wa.gov/issues/energy-environment | access-date=August 8, 2024}}

{{Main|Regional climate change initiatives in the United States}}

Clean Energy Standard (CES) policies are policies which favor lowering non-renewable energy emissions and increasing renewable energy use. They are helping to drive the transition to cleaner energy, by building upon existing energy portfolio standards, and could be applied broadly at the federal level and developed more acutely at the regional and state levels. CES policies have had success at the federal level, gaining bipartisan support during the Obama administration. Iowa was the first state to adopt CES policies, and now a majority of states have adopted CES policies.{{Cite web|url=https://www.c2es.org/publications/clean-energy-standards-state-federal-policy-options-implications|title=Clean Energy Standards: State and Federal Policy Options and Implications {{!}} Center for Climate and Energy Solutions|website=www.c2es.org|date=November 15, 2011|language=en-US|access-date=2017-04-24}} Similar to CES policies, Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are standards set in place to ensure a greater integration of renewable energies in state and regional energy portfolios. Both CES and RPS are helping increase the use of clean and renewable energies in the United States.

In 2003, New York State proposed and attained commitments from nine Northeast states to form a cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions program for power generators, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This program launched on January 1, 2009, with the aim to reduce the carbon "budget" of each state's electricity generation sector to 10 percent below their 2009 allowances by 2018.[http://www.rggi.org/docs/mou_12_20_05.pdf Memorandum of Understanding] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511191906/http://www.rggi.org/docs/mou_12_20_05.pdf |date=2011-05-11 }} – Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

11 Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,{{Cite web |title=Welcome |url=https://www.rggi.org/ |access-date=2021-12-11 |website=RGGI, Inc.}} It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.{{Cite web |title=What Is The Kyoto Protocol? |url=https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol |access-date=2022-12-15 |website=unfccc.int}} The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap and trade system for CO₂ emissions from power plants in the member states. Emission permit auctioning began in September 2008, and the first three-year compliance period began on January 1, 2009. Proceeds will be used to promote energy conservation and renewable energy.{{cite web|url=http://www.rggi.org/docs/20080711news_release.pdf|title=RGGI States Announce Preliminary Release of Auction Application Materials|publisher=Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc.|date=July 11, 2008|access-date=2010-01-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100713054805/http://www.rggi.org/docs/20080711news_release.pdf|archive-date=July 13, 2010|url-status=dead}} The system affects fossil fuel power plants with 25 MW or greater generating capacity ("compliance entities").{{cite web |url=http://www.rggi.org/docs/program_summary_10_07.pdf |title=Overview of RGGI CO₂ Budget Trading Program |publisher=Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. |date=Oct 2007 |access-date=2010-01-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801100501/http://rggi.org/docs/program_summary_10_07.pdf |archive-date=2010-08-01 |url-status=dead }} Since 2005, the participating states have collectively seen an over 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by RGGI-affected power plants. This has resulted in cleaner air, better health, and economic growth.{{Cite web|url=https://dec.ny.gov/energy/rggi.html|title=The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation|website=dec.ny.gov|access-date=2018-10-29}}

• Participating states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island
• Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario.[http://www.rggi.org/states.htm Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – Participating States] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080820112714/http://rggi.org/states.htm |date=2008-08-20 }}, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc.

Western Climate Initiative

File:Map of North America, WRCAI members-2008-21-07.svg

Since February 2007, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined to create the Western Climate Initiative, a regional greenhouse gas emissions trading system.[https://web.archive.org/web/20070826180538/http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/WCI_Documents.cfm WCI Design Documents] The Initiative was created when the West Coast Global Warming Initiative (California, Oregon, and Washington) and the Southwest Climate Change Initiative (Arizona and New Mexico) joined efforts with Utah and Montana, along with British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.{{Cite web |title=History |url=http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/history |access-date=March 23, 2017 |website=Western Climate Initiative |language=en-gb}}

The nonprofit organization WCI, Inc., was established in 2011 and supports implementation of state and regional greenhouse gas trading programs.{{Cite web|url=https://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/regional-climate-initiatives|title=Multi-State Climate Initiatives {{!}} Center for Climate and Energy Solutions|website=www.c2es.org|language=en|access-date=March 23, 2017}}

The Powering the Plains Initiative (PPI) began in 2001 and aims to expand alternative energy technologies and improve climate-friendly agricultural practices.{{Cite web |date=2006-12-01 |title=Powering the Plains |url=https://betterenergy.org/blog/powering-the-plains/ |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Great Plains Institute |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2018 |title=Powering the Plains: Energy Transition Roadmap |url=https://www.betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GPI_Powering_the_Plains.pdf |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Great Plains Institute}} Its most significant accomplishment was a 50-year energy transition roadmap for the upper Midwest, released in June 2007.{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qOTUclzIEcUC&q=powering+the+plains+initiative|title=Climate Change Law and Policy: EU and US Approaches|last=Carlarne|first=Cinnamon Piñon|date=2010-01-01|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199553419|language=en}}

• Participating states: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Canadian Province of Manitoba

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. In 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that

the Clean Air Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, such as tailpipe emissions. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.{{cite web

|first=Justin R.

|last=Pidot

|publisher=Georgetown University Law Center

|year=2006

|url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf

|title=Global Warming in the Courts – An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues

|access-date=April 13, 2007

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070604183808/http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf

|archive-date=June 4, 2007

|url-status=dead

|df=mdy

}}

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court overturned 8–0 a U.S. appeals court ruling against five big power utility companies, brought by U.S. states, New York City, and land trusts, attempting to force cuts in United States greenhouse gas emissions regarding global warming. The decision gives deference to reasonable interpretations of the United States Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency.{{cite web |title= Supreme Court rejects Global Warming lawsuit |website= Scientific American |url= http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id%3Dsupreme-court-rejects-global-warmin |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160916221638/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin |url-status= dead |archive-date= September 16, 2016 |access-date= June 23, 2011 }}{{cite news| url= https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-backs-epa-over-state-govts-on-climate-change/ | work=CBS News | title= Supreme Court backs EPA over state govts on climate change}}{{cite news |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3JR20110620 | work=Reuters |title= Supreme court rejects global warming lawsuit |date=June 20, 2011}}

Held v. Montana was the first constitutional law climate lawsuit to go to trial in the United States, on June 12, 2023.{{cite news |last1=Noor |first1=Dharna |title=Young Montana residents bring climate change case to court for first time ever |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/montana-young-residents-first-ever-climate-change-trial |newspaper=The Guardian |date=12 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230612103609/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/montana-young-residents-first-ever-climate-change-trial |archive-date=12 June 2023 |url-status=live }} The case was filed in March 2020 by sixteen youth residents of Montana, then aged 2 through 18,{{Cite news |last1=Uyeda |first1=Ray Levy |title=Fossil fuels v our future: young Montanans wage historic climate fight |newspaper=The Guardian |date=April 13, 2022 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/young-people-montana-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310133419/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/young-people-montana-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis |archive-date=March 10, 2023 |url-status=live }} who argued that the state's support of the fossil fuel industry had worsened the effects of climate change on their lives, thus denying their right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations"{{cite web |title=The Constitution of the State of Montana |url=https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf |website=courts.mt.gov |publisher=Montana Judicial Branch |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230528082413/https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf |archive-date=May 28, 2023 |date=March 22, 1972 |url-status=live }}^{:Art. IX, § 1} as required by the Constitution of Montana.{{Cite news |last1=Gelles |first1=David |title=In Montana, It's Youth vs. the State in a Landmark Climate Case |newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 24, 2023 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/climate/montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230614235620/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/climate/montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |archive-date=June 14, 2023 |url-status=live |issn=0362-4331 }} On August 14, 2023, the trial court judge ruled in the youth plaintiffs' favor, though the state indicated it would appeal the decision.{{cite news |last1=Hanson |first1=Amy Beth |last2=Brown |first2=Matthew |title=Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana |url=https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0 |work=AP News |date=August 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817023428/https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0 |archive-date= August 17, 2023 |url-status=live }} Montana's Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 10, 2024, its seven justices taking the case under advisement.{{cite news |last1=Brown |first1=Matthew |last2=Hanson |first2=Amy Beth |title=Republicans urge reversal of landmark ruling in Montana climate change lawsuit by young plaintiffs |url=https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-supreme-court-faece0aec42abc7f5302c40e31faacea |work=AP News |date=July 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240711020853/https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-supreme-court-faece0aec42abc7f5302c40e31faacea |archive-date=July 11, 2024 |url-status=live }} On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the county court ruling.{{cite news |last1=Zraic |first1=Karen |title=Youth Climate Activists Get Major Win in Montana Supreme Court |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/climate/held-montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |work=The New York Times |date=18 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241219000610/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/climate/held-montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html |archive-date=19 December 2024 |url-status=live }}

In June 2023, Multnomah County, Oregon filed a lawsuit against seven defendants, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Association, for materially contributing to the 2021 heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, which is thought to have killed hundreds of people. According to the Center for Climate Integrity, the Multnomah County lawsuit is the 36th action filed against fossil fuel interests for worsening the effects of climate change.{{cite news |last1=Bush |first1=Evan |title=Oregon county sues fossil fuel companies, alleging they caused deadly 2021 heat wave in Northwest |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-county-sues-fossil-fuel-companies-alleging-caused-deadly-2021-h-rcna90707 |agency=NBC News |date=June 22, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230623013656/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-county-sues-fossil-fuel-companies-alleging-caused-deadly-2021-h-rcna90707 |archive-date=June 23, 2023}}

{{

multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = 450

| image1 = 2009- Pew survey - is climate change a major threat, by political party.svg | caption1 = Democrats and Republicans differ in views of the seriousness of climate change, with the gap widening in the 2010s{{cite web |title=As Economic Concerns Recede, Environmental Protection Rises on the Public's Policy Agenda / Partisan gap on dealing with climate change gets even wider |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/ |website=PewResearch.org |publisher=Pew Research Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116155958/https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/ |archive-date=16 January 2021 |date=13 February 2020 |url-status=live}} and Democrats more than three times as likely to view it as a major threat.{{cite web |title=54% of Americans view climate change as a major threat, but the partisan divide has grown |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/sr_2023-04-18_climate_5/ |publisher=Pew Research Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422182323/https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/sr_2023-04-18_climate_5/ |archive-date=22 April 2023 |date=18 April 2023 |url-status=live }}

| image2 = 2021 Survey on existence of global warming and responsibility for climate change - bar chart.svg | caption2 = The sharp divide over the existence of and responsibility for global warming and climate change falls largely along political lines. Overall, 60% of Americans surveyed said oil and gas companies were "completely or mostly responsible" for climate change.{{cite news |last1=McGreal |first1=Chris |title=Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame for the climate crisis |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment |work=The Guardian |date=26 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026122356/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment |archive-date=26 October 2021 |url-status=live |quote=Source: Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error.}}

}}

{{

multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = 450

| image3= 20220301 Opinions by political party - Climate change causation - Action for carbon neutral 2050 - Pew Research.svg | caption3= Opinion about human causation of climate change increased substantially with education among Democrats, but not among Republicans. Conversely, opinions favoring becoming carbon neutral declined substantially with age among Republicans, but not among Democrats.{{cite web |last1=Tyson |first1=Alec |last2=Funk |first2=Cary |last3=Kennedy |first3=Brian |title=Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050 / Appendix (Detailed charts and tables) |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/carbon-neutral-2050-appendix/ |website=Pew Research |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220418220503/https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/carbon-neutral-2050-appendix/ |archive-date=18 April 2022 |date=1 March 2022 |url-status=live }}

| image4= 20220831 Climate change is a "major threat" to my country - Pew survey.svg | caption4= National political divides on the seriousness of climate change consistently correlate with political ideology, with right-wing opinion being more negative.{{cite web |last1=Poushter |first1=Jacob |last2=Fagan |first2=Moira |last3=Gubbala |first3=Sneha |title=Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat Across 19-Country Survey |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-global-threat-across-19-country-survey/ |website=pewresearch.org |publisher=Pew Research Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831225832/https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-global-threat-across-19-country-survey/ |archive-date=31 August 2022 |date=31 August 2022 | quote=Only statistically significant differences shown. |url-status=live }}

}}

In the 2016 presidential campaigns, the two major parties established different positions on the issue of global warming and climate change policy. The Democratic Party seeks to develop policies which curb negative effects from climate change. The Republican Party, whose leading members have frequently denied the existence of global warming, continues to meet its party goals of expanding the energy industries {{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/2/12772198/democrat-republican-party-platforms-environment-climate-change|title=Even the basics of climate change are still being debated in the 2016 election: Republican and Democratic platforms lay out very different plans for the environment|last=Smith|first=Lindsey J.|date=September 2, 2016|website=The Verge|access-date=2019-09-07}} and curbing the efforts of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2016/08/02/republican-platform-free-the-epa/#2ded694c3d7b|title=Republican Platform: Free The EPA|last=Dudley|first=Susan E.|date=Aug 2, 2016|website=Forbes|access-date=2019-09-06}} Other parties, including the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party possess various views of climate change and mostly maintain their parties' own long-standing positions to influence their party members.

In its 2016 platform, the Democratic Party views climate change as "an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time." Democrats are dedicated to "curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America's natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations."{{Cite news|url=http://www.planetexperts.com/republicans-democrats-differ-climate-environment-policies/|title=How Do Republicans and Democrats Differ on Climate & Environment Policies? - Planet Experts|date=August 5, 2016|work=Planet Experts|access-date=2017-03-22|language=en-US}}

With respect to climate change, the Democratic Party believes that "carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gasses should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals."{{Cite web|url=https://www.democrats.org/party-platform|title=Democrats.org|website=Democrats.org|access-date=2017-04-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171220164838/https://www.democrats.org/party-platform|archive-date=2017-12-20|url-status=dead}} Democrats are also committed to "implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards."

Democrats emphasize the importance of environmental justice. The party calls attention to the environmental racism as the climate change has disproportionately impacted low-income and minority communities, tribal nations and Alaska Native villages. The party believes "clean air and clean water are basic rights of all Americans."

{{Update section|date=April 2021}}

The Republican Party has varied views on climate change.{{Cite magazine|title=Conservative Environmentalist Benji Backer on Crossing Partisan Lines to Solve The Climate Crisis|url=https://time.com/5955373/benji-backer-conservative-climate-change/|access-date=2021-04-29|magazine=Time}} The most recent 2016 Republican Platform denies the existence of climate change and dismisses scientists’ efforts of easing global warming.

The GOP does champion some energy initiatives following: opening up public lands and the ocean for further oil exploration; fast tracking permits for oil and gas wells; and hydraulic fracturing. It also supports dropping "restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy."

In 2014, President Barack Obama proposed a series of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan that would reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. The Republican Party has viewed these efforts as a "war on coal" and has significantly opposed them. Instead, it advocates building the Keystone XL pipeline, outlawing a carbon tax, and stopping all fracking regulations.

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has said that "climate change is a hoax invented by and for Chinese."{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html|title=Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But.|last=Wong|first=Edward|date=November 18, 2016|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-04-24|issn=0362-4331}} During his political campaign, he blamed China for doing little helping the environment on the earth, but he seemed to ignore many projects organized by China to slow global warming. While Trump's words might be counted as his campaign strategy to attract voters, it brought concerns from the left about environmental justice.

From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist," according to The New York Times.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html |title=How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science |last1=Davenport |first1=Coral |last2=Lipton |first2=Eric |author-link2=Eric Lipton |date=June 3, 2017 |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 22, 2017 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |quote=The Republican Party's fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation.}}

In 2011 "more than half of the Republicans in the House and three-quarters of Republican senators" said "that the threat of global warming, as a man-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and at worst an utter 'hoax'", according to Judith Warner writing The New York Times Magazine.{{cite news |title=Fact-Free Science |last=Warner |first=Judith |author-link=Judith Warner |magazine=The New York Times Magazine |date=February 27, 2011 |pages=11–12 |access-date=September 9, 2017 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/magazine/27FOB-WWLN-t.html |quote=It would be easier to believe in this great moment of scientific reawakening, of course, if more than half of the Republicans in the House and three-quarters of Republican senators did not now say that the threat of global warming, as a man-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and at worst an utter "hoax," as James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, once put it. These grim numbers, compiled by the Center for American Progress, describe a troubling new reality: the rise of the Tea Party and its anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-elite worldview has brought both a mainstreaming and a radicalization of antiscientific thought.}}

In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers, according to NBC News.{{cite news |work=Hardball With Chris Matthews |date=May 12, 2014 |publisher=MSNBC |last=Matthews |first=Chris |author-link=Chris Matthews |quote=According to a survey by the Center for American Progress' Action Fund, more than 55 percent of congressional Republicans are climate change deniers. And it gets worse from there. They found that 77 percent of Republicans on the House Science Committee say they don't believe it in either. And that number balloons to an astounding 90 percent for all the party's leadership in Congress. |title=Hardball With Chris Matthews for May 12, 2014}}{{cite news |title=Earth Talk: Still in denial about climate change |work=The Charleston Gazette |location=Charleston, WV |date=December 22, 2014 |page=10 |quote=...a recent survey by the non-profit Center for American Progress found that some 58 percent of Republicans in the U.S. Congress still "refuse to accept climate change. Meanwhile, still others acknowledge the existence of global warming but cling to the scientifically debunked notion that the cause is natural forces, not greenhouse gas pollution by humans.}}

According to PolitiFact in May 2014, "...relatively few Republican members of Congress...accept the prevailing scientific conclusion that global warming is both real and man-made...eight out of 278, or about 3 percent."{{cite news |title=Meet the Republicans in Congress who don't believe climate change is real |first=Tom |last=McCarthy |date=November 17, 2014 |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/climate-change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress |access-date=September 18, 2017 |quote=It's much easier to list Republicans in Congress who think climate change is real than it is to list Republicans who don't, because there are so few members of the former group. Earlier this year, Politifact went looking for congressional Republicans who had not expressed scepticism about climate change and came up with a list of eight (out of 278).}}{{cite news |title=Jerry Brown says 'virtually no Republican' in Washington accepts climate change science |first=Julie |last=Kliegman |date=May 18, 2014 |access-date=September 18, 2017 |work=PolitiFact |publisher=Tampa Bay Times |url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/ }} A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans.{{cite web |title=RELEASE: CAP Action Releases 2017 Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus |date=April 28, 2017 |access-date=September 5, 2017 |url=https://www.americanprogressaction.org/press/release/2017/04/28/167312/release-cap-action-releases-2017-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus/ |publisher=Center for American Progress}}{{cite web |title=The Climate Denier Caucus in Trump's Washington |first1=Claire |last1=Moser |first2=Ryan |last2=Koronowski |date=April 28, 2017 |access-date=September 5, 2017 |url=https://thinkprogress.org/115th-congress-climate-denier-caucus-65fb825b3963/ |website=ThinkProgress}}

However, many Republicans see ways to address the issue of climate change using conservative principles. In 2019, Luntz Global released polling indicating that a majority of Republican voters would support government action on emissions reduction, and worry the GOP's position on climate hurts its standing within young voting blocs.{{Cite web|title=Luntz Poll: May 2019|url=https://clcouncil.org/poll/luntz-poll-may19/|access-date=2021-10-17|website=Climate Leadership Council|date=May 19, 2019 |language=en-US}} Also in 2019, several Republican legislators broke with the party to advocate taking action on climate change, with market-based solutions rather than traditional regulations.{{Cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-republican-lawmakers-break-with-party-on-climate-change-11560337010 |title=Some Republican Lawmakers Break With Party on Climate Change |last=Campo-Flores |first=Arian |date=June 12, 2019 |work=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=2019-09-07}} Additionally, groups of younger Republicans began advocacy efforts in favor of a climate policy response, such as Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions and [https://yccdaction.org Young Conservatives For Carbon Dividends] (YCCD).{{Cite web |url=https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060789485|title=POLITICS: Young conservatives press GOP for climate reset |last=Sobczyk |first=Nick |date=July 26, 2019 |website=E&E News |access-date=2019-09-07}}{{Cite web|date=2021-04-13 |title=Poll: The partisan gap on climate change is widening |url=https://grist.org/politics/poll-the-partisan-gap-on-climate-change-is-widening/|access-date=2021-04-29 |website=Grist}}{{Cite news|date=2019-12-12|title=Young U.S. Republicans defy party to fight climate change|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-politics-trfn-idUSKBN1YG00J|access-date=2021-10-17}} [https://www.republicEn.org republicEn.org] is a conservative non-profit in support of a national, revenue-neutral carbon tax.

By 2022, a group of Republican state treasurers had formed which actively opposed private sector climate initiatives. The group also raised objections to government appointments and regulations due to climate-related issues.{{Cite news |last=Gelles |first=David |date=2022-08-05 |title=How Republicans Are 'Weaponizing' Public Office Against Climate Action |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/climate/republican-treasurers-climate-change.html |access-date=2022-08-07 |issn=0362-4331}}

{{Update section|date=April 2021}}

The Green Party of the United States advocates for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and increased government regulation.

In 2010 Platform on Climate Change, the Green Party leaders released their proposal to solve and integrate the problem and policy of climate change with six parts. First, Greens (the members of the Green Party) want a stronger international climate treaty to decrease greenhouse gases at least 40% by 2020 and 95% by 2050. Second, Greens advocate economic policies to create a safer atmosphere. The economic policies include setting carbon taxes on fossil fuels, removing subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass and waste incineration, and biofuels, and preventing corrupt actions from the rise of carbon prices. Third, countries with few contributions should pay for adaption to climate change. Fourth, Greens champion more efficient but low-cost public transportation system and less energy demand economy. Fifth, the government should train more workers to operate and develop the new, green energy economy. Last, Greens think necessary to transform commercial plants where have uncontrolled animal feeding operations and overuse of fossil fuel to health farms with organic practices.{{Cite web |url=http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=522|title=Green Party of the United States - National Committee Voting - Proposal Details|website=Green Party |access-date=2017-04-06}}

In its 2016 platform, the Libertarian Party states that "competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems."{{Cite web |url=https://www.lp.org/platform/|title=2016 Platform |website=Libertarian Party |access-date=2017-04-24}} The Libertarians believe the government has no rights or responsibilities to regulate and control the environmental issues. The environment and natural resources belong to the individuals and private corporations.

The Constitution Party, in the 2014 Platform, states that "it is our responsibility to be prudent, productive, and efficient stewards of God's natural resources."{{Cite web |url=https://www.constitutionparty.com/principles/platform-preamble/ |title=Platform Preamble |date=2013-09-21 |publisher=Constitution Party |access-date=2017-04-24}} On the issue of global warming, it says that "globalists are using the global warming threat to gain more control via worldwide sustainable development."{{Cite web |url=http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Constitution_Party_Energy_+_Oil.htm |title=Constitution Party on Energy & Oil |website=On The Issues |access-date=2017-04-24}} According to the party, eminent domain is unlawful because "under no circumstances may the federal government take private property, by means of rules and regulations which preclude or substantially reduce the productive use of the property, even with just compensation."

In regards to energy, the party calls attention to "the continuing need of the United States for a sufficient supply of energy for national security and for the immediate adoption of a policy of free market solutions to achieve energy independence for the United States," and calls for the "repeal of federal environmental protections."{{Cite web |url=http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/l/5/Constitution-Party |title=Constitution Party |website=Inside Gov |access-date=2017-04-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606144344/http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/l/5/Constitution-Party|archive-date=2017-06-06|url-status=dead}} The party also advocates the abolition of the Department of Energy.

In September 2019, the Nebraska Farmers Union called for "more government action on climate change." The organization wants better agricultural research that develops tools for increasing carbon sequestration in soils, and increased participation by government at state and national levels.{{Cite news |url=https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/459904-nebraska-farmers-union-president-calls-for-government-action-on-climate-change/ |title=Nebraska Farmers Union president calls for government action on climate change |last=Bonn |first=Tess |date=September 4, 2019 |work=The Hill (newspaper) |access-date=2019-09-06}}

File:Per Capita CO2 by Region.svg

Climate justice is part of environmental justice, which EPA defines as: "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."{{Cite web |url=https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice |title=Environmental Justice |date=November 3, 2014 |publisher=EPA |access-date=2017-03-18}}

Poor and disempowered groups often do not have the resources to prepare for, cope with or recover from climate disasters such as droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, etc.{{Cite journal |last=Roberts |first=J. Timmons |year=2009 |title=The International Dimension of Climate Justice and the Need for International Adaption Funding |journal=Environmental Justice |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=185–186 |doi=10.1089/env.2009.0029}} This occurs not only within the United States but also between rich nations, who predominantly create the problem of climate change by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and poor nations who have to deal more heavily with the consequences.

States and local governments are often tasked with defense against climate change affecting areas and peoples under state and local jurisdiction.

{{main|Mayors National Climate Action Agenda}}

The Mayors National Climate Action Agenda was founded by Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, former Houston mayor Annise Parker, and former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter in 2014.{{cite web |title=Mayors' National Climate Action Agenda |url=https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/mayors-national-climate-action-agenda |website=Clinton Foundation |access-date=2 June 2017}} The MNCAA aims to bring climate change policy into the hands of local government and to make federal climate change policies more accountable.{{Cite news |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-climate-policies-wont-be-enforced-say-75-us-mayors |title=Trump climate policies won't be enforced, say 75 US mayors|date=2017-03-30 |work=Fox News|access-date=2017-04-20}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.climate-mayors.org/ |title=Mayors National Climate Action Agenda |website=Mayors National Climate Action Agenda |access-date=2017-04-20}}

As a part of MNCAA, 75 mayors from across the United States, known as the "Climate Mayors", wrote to President Trump on March 28, 2017, in opposition to proposed rollbacks of several major climate change departments and initiatives. They maintain that the federal government should continue to build up climate change policies, stating "we are also standing up for our constituents and all Americans harmed by climate change, including those most vulnerable among us: coastal residents confronting erosion and sea level rise; young and old alike suffering from worsening air pollution and at risk during heatwaves; mountain residents engulfed by wildfires; farmers struggling at harvest time due to drought; and communities across our nation challenged by extreme weather."{{Cite web|url=https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climatemayors-letter-to-president-trump-on-roll-back-of-us-climate-actions-639389c80f1c|title=#ClimateMayors write to President Trump to 'strongly object' to roll back of US climate actions|date=2017-03-28|website=Medium|access-date=2017-04-20}}{{Unreliable source?|date=April 2021}}{{Cite web|url=http://pacificcoastcollaborative.org|title=Home - Pacific Coast Collaborative|website=Pacific Coast Collaborative|language=en-US|access-date=2017-04-24}} Climate Mayors currently has over 400 cities involved in the network.{{Cite web|url=http://climatemayors.org/about/members/|title=Members – Climate Mayors|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}} Their current key initiative is the Electric Vehicle Request for Information (EV RFI).{{Cite web|url=http://climatemayors.org/actions/initiatives/|title=Initiatives – Climate Mayors|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}} They have also produced responses to the announcement of the plan for the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement{{Cite web|url=http://climatemayors.org/actions/paris-climate-agreement/|title=Paris Climate Agreement – Climate Mayors|date=June 2017 |language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}} and opposition to the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan.{{Cite web|url=http://climatemayors.org/actions/clean-power-plan/|title=Climate Mayors Submit Comments on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan – Climate Mayors|date=February 20, 2018 |language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}}

{{main|United States Climate Alliance}}

The United States Climate Alliance is a group of states committed to meeting the Paris Agreement emissions targets despite President Trump's announced withdrawal from the agreement. Currently, there are 22 states that are members of this network.{{Cite web|url=https://www.usclimatealliance.org/about-us|title=ABOUT US|website=U.S. Climate Alliance|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}} This network is a bipartisan network of governors across the United States and is governed by three core principles: "States are continuing to lead on climate change", "State-level climate action is benefiting our economies and strengthening our communities", "States are showing the nation and the world that ambitious climate action is achievable."{{Cite web|url=https://www.usclimatealliance.org/alliance-principles|title=ALLIANCE PRINCIPLES|website=U.S. Climate Alliance|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}} Their current initiatives include green banks, grid modernizations, solar soft costs, short-lived climate pollutants, natural and working lands, climate resilience, international cooperation, clean transportation, and improving data and tools.{{Cite web|url=https://www.usclimatealliance.org/about-initiatives|title=About|website=U.S. Climate Alliance|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-04}}

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (commonly known as AB 32) mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.{{Cite web|url=https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm|title=Assembly Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act|last=Board|first=California Air Resources|website=www.arb.ca.gov|language=en|access-date=2017-04-13}} The Environmental Defense Fund and the Air Resources Board recruited staffers with environmental justice expertise as well as community leaders in order to appease environmental justice groups and ensure the safe passage of the bill.{{Cite journal|last=Sze|display-authors=et al|first=Julie|year=2009|title=Best in Show? Climate and Environmental Justice Policy in California|journal=Environmental Justice|volume=2|issue=4|pages=179–184|doi=10.1089/env.2009.0028}}

The environmental justice groups who worked on AB 32 strongly opposed cap and trade programs being made mandatory. A cap and trade plan was put in place, and a 2016 study by a group of California academics found that carbon offsets under the plan were not used to benefit people in California who lived near power plants, who are mostly less well off than people who live far from them.Cushing, Lara J.; et al. [http://dornsife.usc.edu/PERE/enviro-equity-CA-cap-trade A Preliminary Environmental Equity Assessment of California's Cap and Trade Program]. Research Brief, September 2016. UC Berkeley, USC, Occidental College, San Francisco State University.

{{update section|date=May 2024}}

Twenty-eight states have climate action plans and nine have statewide emission targets. The states of California and New Mexico have committed most recently to emission reductions targets, joining New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Washington and Oregon.

Regional initiatives can be more efficient than programs at the state level, as they encompass a broader geographical area, eliminate duplication of work, and create more uniform regulatory environments. Over the past few years, a number of regional initiatives have begun developing systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increase renewable energy generation, track renewable energy credits, and research and establish baselines for carbon sequestration.

{{Update|date=February 2019}}

{{main|Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative}}

In December 2005, the governors of seven Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states agreed to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap and trade system covering carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from regional power plants. Currently (at the time of this edit), Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont have signed, and Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich signed legislation in March 2006 that commits Maryland to join RGGI by 2007. To facilitate compliance with reduction targets, RGGI will provide flexibility mechanisms that include credits for emissions reductions achieved outside of the electricity sector. The successful implementation of the RGGI model will set the stage for other states to join or form their own regional cap and trade systems and may encourage the program to expand to other greenhouse gases and other sectors.{{Cite web|url=http://www.rggi.org/home |title=Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) CO₂ Budget Trading Program - Welcome |publisher=www.rggi.org |access-date=2010-01-30 }} RGGI states, along with Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, are also developing a GHG registry called the Eastern Climate Registry.

On November 29, 2011, New Jersey withdrew from the initiative, effective January 1, 2012."Program Design Archive". RGGI, Inc. Groups such as Acadia Center have since reported on lost revenue resulting from New Jersey's departure, and argued for renewed participation."New Jersey and RGGI: Potential Benefits of Renewed Participation" (PDF). Acadia Center. March 2015.

After the election of Ralph Northam in the 2017 Virginia gubernatorial election and Phil Murphy in the 2017 New Jersey gubernatorial election, New Jersey and Virginia began to make preliminary moves to join RGGI."Virginia moving forward with cap-and-trade plan soon after Democratic win"."With Christie Out, New Jersey Poised To Rejoin New England In Climate Pact".

The Western Governors' Association (WGA) Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, including 18 western states, has begun investigating strategies to increase efficiency and renewable energy sources in their electricity systems. Governors Richardson (NM), Schwarzenegger (CA), Freudenthal (WY) & Hoeven (ND) serve as lead Governors on this initiative. To meet its goals, the Initiative's advisory committee (CDEAC) appointed eight technical task forces to develop recommendations based on reviews of specific clean energy and efficiency options. The CDEAC made final recommendations to the Western Governors' Association on June 11, 2006.{{cite web|url=http://www.westgov.org/wga/meetings/am2006/CDEAC06.pdf |access-date=September 14, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104451/http://www.westgov.org/wga/meetings/am2006/CDEAC06.pdf |title=Clean Energy, a Strong Economy and a Healthy Environment |archive-date=March 20, 2009 }} Additionally, the WGA and the California Energy Commission are creating the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information State (WREGIS). WREGIS is a voluntary system for renewable energy credits and tracks renewable energy credits (RECs) across 11 western states in order to facilitate trading to meet renewable energy portfolio standards.

As of 2020, several states in the northeastern United States were discussing a regional cap and trade system for carbon emissions from motor vehicle fuel sources, called the Transportation Climate Initiative.[https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/10/01/massachusetts-carbon-cap-emissions-agreement-tci-rggi Mass. Part Of Regional Effort To Drive Down Emissions From Gas And Diesel] In 2021, Massachusetts withdrew citing as one of the reasons that it was no longer necessary.{{cite news |first1=David |last1=Abel |title=Baker pulls support for regional pact that would address climate change |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/11/18/science/baker-pulls-support-regional-pact-that-would-address-climate-change/ |access-date=21 November 2021 |work=The Boston Globe |date=18 November 2021 |quote=He suggested the initiative was no longer necessary, given the state's economic rebound from the pandemic and the large infusion of federal aid to Massachusetts, as a result of Congress's recent passage of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill}}

The governors of Arizona and New Mexico signed an agreement to create the Southwest Climate Change Initiative in February 2006. The two states collaborated to assess greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change in the Southwest{{cite web |date=2006-02-28 |title=Governors Napolitano and Richardson Launch Southwest Climate Change Initiative |url=http://www.azclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O40F8086.pdf |url-status=dead |website=State of Arizona Executive Office, Janet Napolitano, Governor |access-date=May 3, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104452/http://www.azclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O40F8086.pdf |archive-date=March 20, 2009}} and on September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano issued an executive order to implement recommendations included in the Climate Change Advisory Group's Climate Action Plan.[http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/ Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions]. California Office of the Governor, 2006-08-27. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060928031617/http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?%2Fpress-release%2F4111%2F|date=2006-09-28}} The West Coast states—Washington, Oregon, and California—are cooperating on a strategy to reduce GHG emissions, known as the Western Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative.{{Cite web |date=2004 |title=Governor Gary Locke. Combating Global Warming, continued |url=https://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/GovernorLocke/globalwarming/globalwarming2.htm |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=www.digitalarchives.wa.gov}} Finally, on February 26, 2007, these five Western states (Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, and New Mexico) agreed to combine their efforts to develop regional targets for reducing greenhouse emissions, creating the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative.{{Cite web |date=2008 |title=Responding to the Climate Change Challenge: Focus On: The Western Climate Initiative |url=https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/0801006.pdf |access-date=2022-03-12 |website=Department of Ecology, State of Washington}}

In 2001 six New England states committed to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) Climate Change Action Plan 2001, including short and long-term GHG emission reduction goals. Powering the Plains, launched in 2002, is a regional effort involving participants from the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. This initiative aims to develop strategies, policies, and demonstration projects for alternative energy sources and technology and climate-friendly agricultural development.{{cite web |title=Powering the Plains |url=http://www.gpisd.net/resource.html?Id=61 |url-status=dead |website=Great Plains Institute |access-date=May 3, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501132137/http://gpisd.net/resource.html?Id=61 |archive-date=May 1, 2008}}

In 1993, at the invitation of ICLEI, municipal leaders met at the United Nations in New York and adopted a declaration that called for the establishment of a worldwide movement of local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance urban sustainability. The result was the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign. Since its inception, the CCP Campaign has grown to involve more than 650 local governments worldwide that are integrating climate change mitigation into their decision-making processes.{{cite web |title=Home |url=http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=405#5 |url-status=dead |website=ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability |access-date=May 3, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090207195134/http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=405 |archive-date=February 7, 2009}}

{{Update section|date=April 2021}}

On February 16, 2005, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities, and as of October, 2006, 319 mayors representing over 51.4 million Americans had accepted the challenge.{{cite news|last=Mulady|first=Kathy|title=Seattle dreams of 'green' team|url=http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Seattle-dreams-of-green-team-1166626.php|access-date=4 May 2011|newspaper=Seattle Post-Intelligencer|date=16 February 2005}} Under the terms of the Mayors Climate Protection Center, cities must commit to three actions in striving to meet the Kyoto Protocol in their own communities.{{cite web |title=Endorsing the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement |url=http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/PDF/Resolution_FinalLanguage_06-13-05.pdf |url-status=dead |website=City of Seattle, Mayor's Office |access-date=May 3, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104451/http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/PDF/Resolution_FinalLanguage_06-13-05.pdf |archive-date=March 20, 2009}} These actions include:

• Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;
• Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol—7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and
• Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system.

• {{seclink|List of climate change initiatives#North America}}
• Climate Change Action Plan 2001 is New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) Climate Change Action Plan 2001
• Carbon pricing
• Citizens' Climate Lobby
• Climate change in the United States
• Climate change and agriculture in the United States
• Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States
• Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord
• Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States
• Politics of the United States
• Politics of climate change in Oklahoma
• Public opinion on climate change
• Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
• Scientific consensus on climate change
• The Climate Registry
• The Republican War on Science – a 2005 book by Chris Mooney
• U.S. Climate Change Science Program
• United States Wind Energy Policy
• Western Climate Initiative

{{reflist}}

{{World topic|Climate change policy of|noredlinks=yes}}

{{climate change}}

{{United States policy}}

Category:United States federal policy