Climate Change Cities leading the charge: How localized climate action can transcend federal policy

The re-election of President Donald Trump has raised concerns about potential setbacks in U.S. climate action. However, we’ve navigated similar challenges before.

U.S. cities, often operating under the radar of the investment community, have been at the forefront of climate action, particularly during the Trump Administration’s first term. The reality remains that there is significant opportunity to invest in climate initiatives at the city and state levels, regardless of federal engagement.

It may surprise some that the economies of certain U.S. cities and states surpass those of many countries. As of 2023, California is the fifth-largest economy globally, exceeding both the UK and India. Meanwhile, New York City ranks as the world’s 12th-largest economy, with 8.8 million residents across its five boroughs.

With 80% of the U.S. population living in cities, local and regional governments wield significant authority, often more so than their European counterparts. Many U.S. cities and states have enacted impactful climate policies, particularly during the first Trump administration. Cities with "strong mayor" governance structures have substantial control over zoning, transportation, energy and waste management, enabling swift implementation of climate initiatives—often within weeks or months, rather than years.

For example, New York City’s Local Law 97, enacted in 2019, mandates emissions reductions for buildings over 25,000 square feet by 2024, with annual fines beginning in 2025 for noncompliance. These targets become stricter post-2030. This law has galvanized the NYC real estate industry, inspiring global cities to adopt similar legislation.

During the Trump Administration’s first term, many U.S. cities and states developed robust climate plans, leveraging support from networks like C40 and 100 Resilient Cities. These global alliances facilitated the exchange of best practices and technical expertise through webinars, workshops and mayoral convenings. Even cities in Republican-led regions actively participated, driven by the immediate threats of hurricanes, wildfires, and rising sea levels. For example, Miami’s tri-city coalition (Miami, Miami-Dade County, and Miami Beach) spans multiple political parties yet they maintain a unified stance on climate resilience, as proven in their prior participation in 100 Resilient Cities as Greater Miami and the Beaches. In 2019, even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appointed the state’s first Chief Resilience Officer in recognition of Florida’s climate vulnerabilities.

Globally, cities have long led climate action independently of their national governments. Chinese and Indian cities, for instance, have prioritized air quality improvements to address public health crises. Shenzhen offers a remarkable example, achieving full electrification of its public transportation system by 2021, including 20,000 electric buses, 24,000 electric taxis, and over 60,000 private EVs. Such initiatives, often shared through international city networks, underscore the critical role of local governments in advancing climate goals.

As NYC’s climate diplomat from 2016–2021, I witnessed firsthand how cities—regardless of political leanings—acted decisively to address climate impacts like hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, and air quality crises. These local actions can independently achieve 25% of global climate commitments, demonstrating the power of subnational governance.

Key Challenges and Opportunities in the Upcoming Trump Administration

1. Offshore Wind: Federal permitting for offshore wind projects will likely face significant delays. Projects lacking approval may struggle to progress under the new administration.
2. Congestion Pricing: While NYC has implemented this as of January 2025, resulting in a 7.5% reduction in traffic and a notable increase in public transit riders, continued lawsuits could provide an opening for further federal or local opposition, especially from NY Republicans entering the administration.
3. Justice40 Initiative: This Biden-era policy directing 40% of federal climate funds to environmental justice communities will likely be dismantled, reshaping future funding priorities.
4. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): While most IRA funds have already been allocated and cannot be rescinded, the Act’s economic benefits are concentrated in Republican districts, creating bipartisan resistance to rollbacks. Notably, Texas leads in both onshore wind and solar energy.
5. Consumer Demand vs. Federal Policy: During his first term, Trump sought to revive coal, but market forces favoured cheaper solar and wind energy, even in Republican-led states. Similarly, efforts to cut gas prices may conflict with oil producers’ profit strategies.

Conclusion

Despite potential federal setbacks, climate action at the city and state levels in the U.S. will persist—and may even intensify—as leaders respond to worsening climate impacts. Local officials, regardless of political affiliation, prioritize protecting their communities from extreme weather, flooding and other crises. The recent devastating fires in California, with estimates ranging from $45 to $200 billion in losses, are just the most recent example of the importance of local resources and action.  While local efforts may not always garner national attention, they remain critical drivers of progress toward global climate goals.​​​​​​​