Commentary. The climate debate in the United States is entering a familiar but consequential phase: federal policy is retreating while state and local governments try to keep moving. Our view is straightforward: the retreat should be resisted, but resistance is not enough. States and cities must prove that climate action can deliver reliable energy, lower long-term costs and visible public benefits.
Recent developments show why this matters. The Climate Action Tracker has rated the current U.S. climate policy direction “critically insufficient,” citing a broad rollback of mitigation measures. Meanwhile, states and municipalities continue to pursue emissions reductions, including through the U.S. Climate Alliance and Climate Mayors, whose members announced a partnership in September.[1][2]
This is not merely a dispute over environmental ambition. It is a test of whether the country can sustain long-term infrastructure policy when national leadership changes. Power plants, transmission lines, buildings and transport systems last for decades. Reversing course every four years imposes costs on businesses and households, weakens investor confidence and leaves communities exposed to both extreme weather and energy-price shocks.
The case for persistence
State-led action has practical advantages. Governors and mayors can tailor policies to local resources, labor markets and grid conditions. California and Washington, for example, have been working to connect Washington’s carbon market with the California–Québec system in 2027, creating a larger regional framework for emissions pricing.[2]
Such efforts can also create policy continuity. A regional market, building code or clean-energy procurement program is harder to dismantle than a temporary grant. That durability matters to manufacturers deciding where to invest and to communities seeking stable employment rather than short-lived political promises.
There is a moral argument as well. The United Nations has warned that climate disruption is intensifying pressures on food security and livelihoods, particularly amid conflict and energy-market instability.[3] Climate policy cannot solve every crisis, but postponing emissions cuts guarantees higher adaptation costs and greater harm to people with the fewest resources.
The objections deserve an answer
Critics are right about one thing: climate policy can become detached from affordability. Fuel prices remain a major burden for households and transport-dependent businesses, and the energy transition requires costly investment in grids, storage and new generation. A policy that raises bills without improving reliability will not maintain public support. The debate over data centers and electricity prices illustrates the same concern: rapidly growing electricity demand can shift infrastructure costs onto ordinary customers unless regulators impose clear safeguards.[4]
Nor should every local initiative be treated as automatically wise. Fragmented rules can create inefficiency, permitting delays can slow construction, and carbon markets require transparent accounting to ensure claimed reductions are real. Opponents also argue that unilateral action can disadvantage domestic industry if production moves to jurisdictions with weaker standards.
Those are arguments for better policy, not for surrender. Climate measures should include consumer protections, faster permitting for clean infrastructure, worker transition support and regular public audits of costs and emissions. Governments should publish who pays, who benefits and whether promised reductions occur. If a program cannot answer those questions, it should be revised.
Build what can survive elections
The strongest climate agenda is neither maximalist nor complacent. It is an industrial strategy tied to reliability, jobs and public health. That means expanding transmission, modernizing buildings, supporting low-carbon manufacturing and preserving a diverse electricity mix while cleaner technologies scale. It also means treating adaptation—cooling centers, flood protection and resilient water systems—as an essential public service rather than a political afterthought.
Federal policy still matters enormously; states cannot replace national standards, sustained research funding or coordinated infrastructure planning. But federal retreat should not become a reason for local governments to wait. The better response is to build programs that earn trust through measurable results.
Our position is therefore conditional but firm: continue climate action, but make it disciplined, affordable and accountable. The country does not need another symbolic promise. It needs durable institutions capable of lowering emissions while keeping the lights on and the costs visible.