Publications

Getting to Implementation: The Status of Local Climate Action in California

Many California cities need additional staffing and planning to capitalize on historic influx of federal climate cash. Even local governments with detailed blueprints for slashing greenhouse emissions often lack the dedicated resources needed to realize ambitious climate pledges. That’s according to our recent report — Getting to Implementation: The Status of Local Climate Action in California — surveyed municipalities across the state to gauge the progress of local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect residents against the worst impacts of climate change, from flooding and drought to wildfires and extreme heat. About a third of cities and counties responded to the survey, representing more than half of the state’s population.

Of the responding jurisdictions, only about half of had adopted an official climate action plan, and these are areas that tend to be larger and wealthier. Smaller, more conservative jurisdictions with lower median household incomes were less likely to have such a document. However, some jurisdictions include climate planning in other documents, such as in their General Plan or Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Jurisdictions repeatedly identified a lack of financial resources and adequate staffing as both the biggest barriers and the most important resources for implementing climate policy. Though local governments will automatically qualify for some of the new state and federal funding, large pots of money are allocated through competitive grants. Researchers said that cities and counties with robust staffing and detailed blueprints for addressing the climate emergency will have a significant advantage when applying for these crucial resources. Additionally, only 6% of responding jurisdictions reported having more than five employees working on climate issues, and most local governments maintain less than one full-time position. A third of respondents said they had no staff at all working on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other actions with climate impacts. However, smaller, and more conservative jurisdictions are more likely to implement policies that support climate goals while achieving other co-benefits for residents, even if they do not have a Climate Action Plan and/or dedicated staff. 

Local officials were well aware of the challenges facing their cities and counties, according to the survey. The large influx of state and federal funding could help many jurisdictions jumpstart their climate programs, but only if they can first secure the new resources. Nearly half of respondents said accessing state or federal grants was “not easy.”

California is at a critical point in its efforts to decarbonize the economy. In 2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 1279, enshrining the state’s carbon neutrality target into law. Meeting this goal will require planning and coordination across all levels of government. This report provides valuable insights into the needs of cities and counties of all sizes, helping policy makers better understand where support is needed in order to achieve California’s ambitious goals.

Next 10, CLEE and ILG will host webinar on Tuesday, November 28th at 11am PT, in which the authors will discuss the key findings from the report and implications for policy. To sign up for the webinar, please click here.

Next 10 is not the sole owner of rights to this publication. Usage of this content is subject to permissions, please contact us at info@next10.org for more information.

  • Staffing capacity and funding were consistently ranked by municipalities among the highest needs for implementation of climate policies, from launching composting programs to promoting dense walkable neighborhoods served by transit. These resources were ranked far above other factors, such as political will and community partnerships.
    • The majority of responding jurisdictions had fewer than one full-time staff member dedicated to climate planning. Only about a quarter of respondents had between one and five people working on such issues.
    • About 53% of respondents said state and federal grants were a top need, and only 42% said they needed assistance identifying and applying for available funding.
  • Responding jurisdictions were most active in implementing climate policies related to land use and transportation, followed by energy and buildings.
  • Many jurisdictions needed additional resources dedicated to protecting residents against climate-driven disasters, such as drought, flooding, wildfire, and extreme heat. However, the results show higher levels of planning activity for wildfire (52%) and flooding (49%) and much lower levels of activity preparing for extreme heat (23%).
  • Respondents in smaller communities are more likely to implement policies that support climate goals while achieving other co-benefits for residents, frequently framing these strategies as in support of public health.
  • Respondents in the lowest-income group (43%) were much more likely to implement an environmental justice element or environmental justice policies into other general plan elements than both middle (36%) and high-income groups (0%).
  • The waste sector presents opportunities for increased action, which is important for reducing methane emissions. Besides the implementation of a municipal compost or food recovery program, few responding jurisdictions indicated that they had implemented actions related to waste.

Next 10 cannot grant permission to use graphics from this publication; additional permissions may be required from the copyright holder. Please view our Terms of Use policy for more information or contact Next 10 at info@next10.org with any questions.

Table ES1
Table ES1
Download
Table ES1
Table 1
Table 1
Download
Table 1
Chart 1
Chart 1
Download
Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 2
Download
Chart 2
Table 2
Table 2
Download
Table 2
Table 3
Table 3
Download
Table 3
Chart 3
Chart 3
Download
Chart 3
Chart 4
Chart 4
Download
Chart 4
Chart 5
Chart 5
Download
Chart 5
Chart 6
Chart 6
Download
Chart 6
Chart 7
Chart 7
Download
Chart 7
Chart 8
Chart 8
Download
Chart 8
Chart 9
Chart 9
Download
Chart 9
Chart 10
Chart 10
Download
Chart 10
Chart 11
Chart 11
Download
Chart 11
Chart 12
Chart 12
Download
Chart 12
Chart 13
Chart 13
Download
Chart 13
Chart 14
Chart 14
Download
Chart 14
Chart 15
Chart 15
Download
Chart 15
Chart 16
Chart 16
Download
Chart 16
Chart 17
Chart 17
Download
Chart 17
Chart 18
Chart 18
Download
Chart 18
Chart 19
Chart 19
Download
Chart 19
Chart 20
Chart 20
Download
Chart 20
Chart 21
Chart 21
Download
Chart 21
Chart 22
Chart 22
Download
Chart 22
Chart 23
Chart 23
Download
Chart 23
Chart 24
Chart 24
Download
Chart 24
Chart 25
Chart 25
Download
Chart 25
Chart 26
Chart 26
Download
Chart 26
Table 4
Table 4
Download
Table 4
Table 5
Table 5
Download
Table 5
Table 27
Table 27
Download
Table 27
Table 6
Table 6
Download
Table 6
Chart 28
Chart 28
Download
Chart 28
Chart 29
Chart 29
Download
Chart 29
Table 7
Table 7
Download
Table 7
Chart 30
Chart 30
Download
Chart 30
Chart 31
Chart 31
Download
Chart 31
Table 8
Table 8
Download
Table 8
Chart 32
Chart 32
Download
Chart 32
Table 9
Table 9
Download
Table 9
Chart 33
Chart 33
Download
Chart 33
Table 10
Table 10
Download
Table 10
Chart 34
Chart 34
Download
Chart 34
Table 11
Table 11
Download
Table 11
Chart 35
Chart 35
Download
Chart 35
Chart 36
Chart 36
Download
Chart 36
Chart 37
Chart 37
Download
Chart 37
Chart 38
Chart 38
Download
Chart 38
Chart 39
Chart 39
Download
Chart 39
Chart 40
Chart 40
Download
Chart 40
Chart 41
Chart 41
Download
Chart 41