A recent study indicates that state-level initiatives can play a crucial role in lowering carbon emissions and combating climate change, particularly in the absence of a robust national plan.

The study, which appeared in Nature Communications, also reveals that while state-led efforts are only marginally more expensive than a nationally coordinated approach, they are likely to prioritize different methods of decarbonization.

Jeremiah Johnson, corresponding author of the study and an associate professor at North Carolina State University, stated, “Given that there is little expectation the Trump administration will promote a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change, we think there is important value in assessing what kind of difference state-led efforts could make.”

The research focused on 23 states identified as most likely to pursue collaborative action on carbon emissions reduction.Researchers compared the potential cost, technologies, and overall impact of these state-level efforts to those of a coordinated federal strategy.

Scientists analyzed publicly accessible data from across the energy systems of the 48 contiguous states, encompassing power generation, transportation, building operations, and consumer needs. This data was then integrated into decarbonization models, enabling the assessment of changes within individual states.

Gavin Mouat, first author of the paper and a former graduate student at NC State, explained, “We first looked at what the costs and technologies would be if the 23 states that already seemed inclined to strive for net zero carbon emissions actually achieved it. That would reduce US carbon emissions by about 46% by 2050.We then looked at what the costs and technologies would be if all 48 contiguous states worked together to achieve that same 46% reduction.”

The study revealed that the costs associated with state-led and federal initiatives were more comparable than initially thought, with only a 0.7% difference in total cost. However, the specific technologies employed to achieve the carbon emissions target varied significantly.

“That’s as different states have different resources,” Johnson noted. “Such as, some Great Plains states are excellent locations for establishing wind farms but are less likely to participate in a state-led initiative to address climate change.”

Industrial Decarbonization vs. Clean Energy

“State-led action can achieve substantial emission reductions, even without federal support, but that the world looks very different than one where there is federal coordination.”

The research highlighted that in a state-led scenario, industrial decarbonization, such as the adoption of cleaner manufacturing technologies, would play a more prominent role compared to a federally coordinated effort. Conversely, a federally coordinated approach would rely more heavily on clean energy production methods like wind and solar power.

The study also indicated that state-level initiatives could influence climate-related pollution in neighboring states.

Johnson explained, “Essentially, our model suggests it is possible that non-participating states could increase greenhouse gas emissions, becuase they might produce a product or service more cheaply for export to those states working to reduce their emissions.”

However, he added that non-participating states might also reduce their emissions due to the cost-effectiveness of clean energy technologies or by drawing power from cleaner facilities in participating states.

Johnson concluded, “Ultimately the most significant takeaway hear is that state-led action can achieve substantial emission reductions, even without federal support, but that the world looks very different than one where there is federal coordination. This has some important implications, not just for those states that choose to participate, but also for those who don’t.”