The Role of Federal, State, and Local Governments in Combating Climate Change: Lessons from the United States

Climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing global challenges of our time, encompassing not only environmental dimensions but also political, economic, and social ones. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies are accelerating worldwide. Yet addressing the crisis cannot be left solely to national governments. Instead, it requires the collaboration of multiple levels of governance and diverse actors. The United States, with its federal system, offers one of the clearest examples of multi-layered climate governance. Federal, state, and local governments play distinct yet complementary roles in responding to the climate crisis.

In this essay, We examine the dynamics of the United States’ multi-level climate governance system, focusing on how federal, state, and local governments interact in shaping climate policy. By looking at the different responsibilities and approaches taken at each level, it becomes possible to understand not only the strengths and limitations of the American model but also the broader lessons it may offer for other countries, including unitary states such as Turkey.

State-Level Climate Policies: Innovations and Constraints

U.S. states are often referred to as the “laboratories of democracy,” reflecting their ability to experiment with innovative policies under the federal system. This has certainly been the case with climate policy. States like California, Massachusetts, and New York have led the way in renewable energy development, emissions trading, and energy efficiency regulations, thereby reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions while also shaping the national debate.

For instance, California’s pioneering energy efficiency standards in the 1970s directly influenced the adoption of the federal National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987. Today, twenty states require green building standards for public buildings, fifteen states have implemented appliance efficiency standards beyond federal requirements, and forty-five states provide tax credits or subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles. Many states have also adopted their own climate action plans, setting ambitious mid- and long-term emission reduction goals.

Yet state action is not without its challenges. First, there is inconsistency. While some states continue to push ambitious renewable portfolio standards, others have rolled back such policies or weakened net metering provisions. Second, powerful economic and political interests constrain policymaking. Fossil fuel industries, conservative movements, and segments of public opinion skeptical of climate science exert significant influence on state-level decisions. Third, even within the environmental movement, disagreements persist between those who favor market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade and those who emphasize climate justice and equity. These challenges illustrate that while state policies are critical, they are insufficient on their own to confront a crisis of global magnitude.

The Federal Role in Climate Governance

At the federal level, the government possesses unparalleled resources and regulatory authority to shape the trajectory of climate action. In fiscal year 2022 alone, the federal budget exceeded $6.6 trillion, enabling large-scale investments in green infrastructure, research and development, disaster insurance, and renewable energy subsidies.

The federal government influences climate action in several ways. Through tax incentives, it can make renewable energy and clean technology investments more attractive. By controlling energy permitting, it regulates nuclear, hydroelectric, and interstate transmission projects. By setting national standards, it ensures at least a baseline level of compliance across states. Perhaps most importantly, the federal government represents the United States in international climate agreements, something states cannot do independently.

Federal climate policy has also been shaped by pressure from the states. A landmark example came in 2007, when Massachusetts and other states sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, thus granting the EPA the authority—and responsibility—to regulate them. This case illustrates the dynamic nature of American federalism: states do not merely receive directives from Washington but can actively push the federal government toward stronger action.

Federal–state cooperation has also produced notable successes. In Texas, for example, the ambitious “Ike Dike” coastal barrier project—designed to protect against hurricanes and rising seas—was largely funded by federal resources, covering about 65 percent of its costs. In Maryland, the development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure has been supported by a mix of state initiatives and federal grants. Such examples underscore the importance of combining federal resources with local innovation to achieve large-scale impact.

The Role of Local Governments

Local governments, though sometimes overlooked in climate debates, are essential actors in both mitigation and adaptation. They are closest to citizens and responsible for implementing policies that directly affect daily life.

Urban planning and zoning decisions, for example, can limit construction in flood-prone areas or require buildings to meet resilience standards against storms and sea-level rise. Investments in public transportation, bike lanes, and electric buses reduce urban emissions while improving quality of life. Local disaster management plans ensure rapid responses during climate-related emergencies.

Concrete examples abound. Maryland’s tax incentives for EV charging stations, Ohio’s local carbon tax initiatives, and Houston’s coastal resilience planning all highlight the innovative capacity of municipalities and counties. Importantly, local policies also build public legitimacy for climate action by demonstrating tangible benefits at the community level.

Multi-Level Climate Governance in Practice

Taken together, the U.S. case demonstrates the necessity of multi-level governance in addressing climate change. Federal, state, and local governments do not act in isolation; rather, they interact dynamically, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in tension.

• Federal government provides resources, national frameworks, and international representation.
• States innovate, experiment, and often lead with ambitious policies.
• Local governments bring these policies to life in ways that directly touch citizens.

This system requires both vertical coordination—between different levels of government—and horizontal collaboration—between states and cities learning from each other’s successes. Only such a comprehensive approach can meet the complex and multi-dimensional challenges posed by the climate crisis.

Lessons for Unitary States

Although the U.S. federal system differs significantly from unitary states such as Turkey, there are still valuable lessons to be drawn. Local governments in Turkey already play a substantial role in urban planning, transportation, and disaster management. By adopting policies similar to those pioneered by U.S. states and cities, Turkish municipalities could advance national climate goals. Examples might include mandating green building standards, incentivizing electric vehicles, or investing in renewable-powered public transit.

The central government, meanwhile, should provide an overarching framework consistent with international agreements such as the Paris Accord, while granting flexibility to municipalities to tailor solutions to local conditions. The judiciary can also play a role, as seen in the U.S., by ensuring the enforcement of environmental protections through litigation and judicial review

Climate change is too vast and complex a problem to be addressed by any single level of government. The U.S. experience underscores the importance of federalism and multi-layered governance in developing effective climate responses. States have pioneered innovative policies, the federal government has provided resources and regulatory authority, and local governments have implemented measures that directly shape people’s lives.

The synergy of these efforts shows that climate action is most effective when it emerges from collaboration across governance levels. This lesson extends beyond the United States. Even in unitary systems, empowering local actors while maintaining strong national leadership can yield more comprehensive, equitable, and impactful climate policies.

Ultimately, the climate crisis demands not only technological innovation and financial investment but also governance structures capable of integrating diverse actors and perspectives.

The U.S. model of multi-level governance, with all its tensions and complexities, offers a valuable blueprint for countries around the world striving to confront the defining challenge of our century.