Reviewing the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Local Climate Action within the United States
State and local governments are key drivers of climate action across the United States. Many government agencies are adopting Climate Action Plans (CAPs) that scope specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate-related impacts within their jurisdiction. Agencies are also joining regional collaborations to develop coordinated climate strategies. But how do they know which policies are most effective for the populations they intend to serve?
As jurisdictions implement their CAPs, rigorous research can play a key role in helping policymakers identify the most cost-effective, equitable interventions. J-PAL’s Evidence Review, “Reviewing the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Local Climate Action within the United States,” highlights research findings on policies and programs included in many government CAPs. The publication synthesizes policy insights from an academic analysis developed by researchers in the J-PAL network, drawing on 161 rigorous experimental and quasi experimental evaluations conducted in high-income countries after 2000.
The Evidence Review outlines research findings across five sectors—energy, transportation, solid waste, water and wastewater, and agriculture and conservation—and highlights important gaps in evidence where more research is critical to inform effective, equitable climate action.
Key insights from the Evidence Review are as follows:
- Building energy efficiency: programs often delivered smaller energy savings than originally estimated, and engineering models tended to overstate potential savings. Additionally, the impact of energy programs varied widely based on design details.
- Renewable energy: incentive and financing programs, such as rooftop solar subsidies and PACE financing, as well as informational strategies were generally effective at increasing renewable energy adoption.
- Transportation: policies that directly change the economics of high-emission choices or clean alternatives drove the largest behavior shifts compared to light-touch nudges or information alone. Moreover, combining instruments such as pricing, building standards, targeted subsidies, and streamlined processes, created stronger and more durable impacts.
- Solid waste: most evidence focused on sustainability measures such as unit-based pricing, plastic bag taxes, and informational nudges, which show mixed effectiveness and often produce unintended consequences.
- Water and wastewater: existing evidence focused on reducing household water use through informational nudges and rebate programs for efficient appliances. Providing households with information on their neighbors and their own water use was the most effective in reducing water consumption.
- Agriculture and conservation: research was limited. Existing studies showed that payments to farmers improved biodiversity and reduced chemical use, but cost-effectiveness varied.
For more information on J-PAL North America’s climate action work, visit our Evidence for Climate Action Project webpage.
