International and Domestic Leadership by U.S. States on Ocean Acidification

Abstract

Reducing global carbon dioxide emissions is the fundamental action required to make progress on climate change and to reduce ocean acidification. Acting on climate this way is acting on acidification, as CO2 emissions are driving both outcomes. State and local leaders have been deeply involved in the global response to ocean acidification (OA), partly in response to concerns of local business owners and citizens, and partly in response to regional science findings about OA and other water quality concerns (Cross et al. 2019; Barton et al. 2015). Their actions provide lessons and examples about how to create successful coalitions, policies, management strategies, and lasting progress. These local efforts add up to global-level changes that benefit the overall health of our ocean, climate, and communities and demonstrate how emerging ocean-related climate concerns can be addressed by local, state, and regional action. When U.S. Federal action on climate has been stalled or stymied, state and local efforts have been key components of sustaining climate progress. Even when Federal action does advance, subnational governments have complemented this progress by serving as “laboratories of democracy”1 and acting quickly to innovate and experiment with new policies and programs. Furthermore, states and local communities are where climate impacts–like OA–manifest and are felt, and where actions can respond to local concerns. State climate leadership helps pave the way for ambitious national and international climate action, and it will continue to be needed as the world works to build durable climate efforts. Regardless of Federal actions, subnational climate ambition ensures that critical on-the-ground implementation can continue to move forward. From 2016 to 2020, U.S. Federal ambition and action on addressing the climate crisis sharply decreased. Under the Trump Administration, the United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement; rolled back more than one hundred environmental regulations governing clean air, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, toxic substances, and more (Popovich et al. 2020); attempted to defund climate science with proposed Federal budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other agencies that directly deal with climate change (Witze et al. 2020); and left a gaping hole where the U.S. had