Connecting Climate Response to Economies in Rural America

Advancing Locally-Led Climate Solutions: Connecting Climate Response to Economies in Rural America

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2022, RuralOrganizing.org Education Fund interviewed 25 rural climate leaders and reviewed materials from over 150 organizations with locally-led rural climate agendas, along with hundreds of policy documents, international agreements, and legislative texts. The resulting landscape summary points to a suite of local solution innovators who are going it alone and a policy ecosystem with conflicts and glaring gaps.

We found robust locally-led innovation happening around the country, from community planning support to transition a rural economy from extraction to tourism in northwest Montana, to exploring affordable housing options to support climate migrants fleeing disaster-prone geographies in Texas and Louisiana, to leveraging international policy into legal recourse against racialized land grabs in Florida. While regional differences are significant, local innovators cite a need to hear from other local leaders’ challenges and solutions to combat isolation and echo chambers; a missing connective network is holding locally-led solutions back from their full potential.

Six Challenges:

1. Funding
2. Inequity
3. Outreach & Education Needs
4. Capacity
5. Short-Term Focus
6. Lacking Coordination & Integration

While regionality lifts up important differences in climate needs in rural communities, solutions can bridge geographical divides and support community and capacity strengthening. “Focus events” provide key moments for intervention.

This report details six challenges facing the community of activists, philanthropists, and policymakers striving to ensure rural communities are treated equitably in climate resilience programming, and suggests how each group can respond to these challenges.

Three recommendations will move locally-led climate solutions forward:

Move from Advocacy Silos to Integration: No more environmental silos. The climate crisis is in everything, so the climate solutions are, too.
Leverage “Focus Events”: Resource people to be ready for rapid response organizing and communication to elevate possibilities for policy change.
Build Capacity Across Regions: Find commonalities in a range of climate issues to scale, accelerate, and nurture place-based expertise.

OVERVIEW

As much as rural communities have particularities in common when compared against urban and suburban areas, radical regional differences create deep chasms between rural communities as they consider climate response needs. Overcoming the chasms from community to community requires connecting climate response strategies to economic development opportunities. This conclusion was validated by deep desk research reviewing rural-focused content from over 150 organizations (see appendix D) in 34 states. Information came from government agencies, nonprofit organizations, universities and research institutions, media outlets, grassroots organizations, and coalitions, interspersed with 25 interviews with rural stakeholder holding concerns for both their communities’ thriving and for environmental sustainability. A viable climate response must move beyond polarizing buzzwords and address the day-to-day realities that are impacting families, workers, youth, and aging people across the rural landscape. Policymakers, philanthropists, and advocates all have critical roles to play in elevating rural climate responses and coordinating them to accelerate climate mitigation and adaptation so that humanity can avoid the worst ecological (and economic!) possibilities of our near future.

Rural areas are not monolithic; in the face of significant differences in culture, history, and political beliefs between rural regions and communities, there is a lack of recognition of the diverse perspectives and experiences of rural communities. It is important to understand and address these differences in order to effectively engage rural communities in climate action. Closing these gaps will require greater collaboration and communication between rural communities, and with state, national, and international communities, as well as a more nuanced understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities facing rural areas in the context of climate change. This analysis aims to articulate how at least three sectors can work to fill these gaps: local civic leaders, policymakers, and philanthropists.

THREE RECOMMENDATIONS

One: Remove Climate Advocacy From Environmental Silos – Create a Rural Climate Space Wide Enough for “Climate Action” and “Economic Diversification”

Climate responsiveness now touches every aspect of community life; the issues both cannot be addressed as an environmental pillar nor can climate needs afford to be embattled in semantic gridlock. Instead, responsiveness to natural and man-made disasters, economic diversification to mitigate health risks, access to clean water and wastewater systems, and addressing increasing daily costs can be done most effectively through integrating long-term environmental and climate change considerations. This shift has begun at the federal level, where space is being made to address climate concerns through economic and community development programming; the recently-passed RECOMPETE Pilot Program and the proposed Rebuild Rural America Act each create this space of intersection through federal policy.

Two tools can help dismantle the “environmental” silo: Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies, or CEDS plans can be a home for integrating climate-sensitive actions into every other sector of a rural community’s development and revitalization.A newly coordinated “rural care” legislative strategy cohort is needed to fully integrate climate work into the existing advocacy environment, connecting existing rural health, racial equity, conservation, rural community development, and rural quality of life advocacy through the integration of climate considerations.

Two: Anticipate and Leverage “Focusing Events”

The public understanding of climate change is dominated by episodic “focusing events” in the media. Thomas A. Birkland defines “focusing events” as sudden, attention-grabbing events such as natural disasters and industrial accidents. Using natural disasters and industrial accidents as examples, focusing events are powerful forces for changing dominant political ideologies and can lead to mobilization and ultimately policy change.

Small town and rural-based advocacy and mutual aid groups are quickly overwhelmed in the face of catastrophic climate crises. Additional rapid response organizing and communications resources are needed to respond to the community needs and intensify public attention during times of crisis.

Three: Build Capacity Across Regions

Radical regional differences create deep chasms between rural communities as they consider climate response needs. Even this project began with a focus on the Rural West; but the analysis of existing climate action revealed rich and nuanced rural action across the US and the need to build across regions instead of further deepening a regional silo. Those chasms have led to regional climate response organizations and regionalized actions that are failing to recognize and maximize the commonalities across regions. Regionally-specific climate action networks and planning exist, and to accelerate locally-led rural climate solutions philanthropists, advocates, and policymakers must build additional capacity to meaningfully connect these regional networks.

Additional capacity must include:

Increases to human capacity that is locally based in rural communities and focused on integrating climate responsiveness into existing systems.
Financial support for time sharing success and challenges and molding these into scalable approaches that transcend regionality.
Technical expertise to adapt physical and social solutions from one context to another.
Policy making capacity to evaluate rural climate policies, identify conflicts and gaps among policies, and to help align federal policy to work as a cohesive suite of programs.
Time, material, and financial investments in every sector to bring climate into every system. Economic development entities serve as a ready starting place, as these institutions already include rural communities, house a variety of technical expertise, have access to policy, community, and philanthropic expertise, convene a variety of sectors, and qualify for state, federal, and philanthropic funding opportunities.

SIX CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Six essential gaps between federal agencies and local communities stand to be filled. Below we recommend immediate actions steps for philanthropic actors, local advocates, and policymakers to fill these six gaps.

One: Limited funding

Although there are federal programs that support climate adaptation in rural areas, the public funding available for these programs is often insufficient to fully address the needs of rural communities.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Fill immediate funding gaps to address the urgency of the climate crisis – providing funding at all levels of the ecosystem.
Fund local implementing organizations, those which have staff based locally and whose work involves members of the community to get a physical or social project in place and running, to scale up their work.
Support community-based organizations that are working directly with rural communities to address climate adaptation needs.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Organize to make their communities more competitive for public and private funding, and use this power in numbers to also pressure state and federal elected officials to dedicate more resources.
Innovate ideas for demonstration projects which will be attractive to philanthropic partners.
Work on identifying capacity gaps in their communities and work on small-scale projects to build resolve and skills simultaneously, positioning their communities with more capacity for future funding.
Engage with the local economic development entity and any existing planning tools, like a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, to link climate strategies with economic development investments.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Reintegrate the externalized environmental and social costs to a community of ignoring climate impacts; recommit policy solutions to addressing all of these costs.
Dramatically increase funding for climate adaptation and mitigation targeting rural communities.
Seek out perspectives of local activists to better-understand needs and be responsive.

Two: Insufficient focus on social equity

Federal programs do not adequately address the social and economic disparities that exist within rural communities, particularly for historically marginalized groups such as people of color, Indigenous communities, and low-income populations.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Prioritize equity with more than just words; for example, while a verbal commitment to a variety of voices is an important signal, it is also critical to invest in philanthropists’ self-education and commit to pillars of equity like compensating emotional labor.
Making sure you are co-creating with communities that have been silenced.
Engaging with Tribal communities with intentionality, respect for sovereignty, and a willingness to follow Tribal leadership. Fund these efforts robustly.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Advocate for policy change at the federal level, including for increased funding for underserved communities, demands for transparency, and greater attention to social equity in federal programs.
Acknowledge the necessity of and adjust to the leadership of Tribal communities in the response to climate change; step away from leadership and take a follower role.
Pushing for accountability for employers and government agencies.
Advocate for existing institutions to influence policy.
Spotlight successes that already exist.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Create policies that provide funding, technical support, and other resources to bring a social equity lens to climate action.
Engage rural communities in policymaking.
Increase funding for rural climate programs.
Align with international calls for green banking solutions to more equitably distribute funding.

Three: Limited outreach and education

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Provide the funding to test “proof of concept” projects that innovate on how to best reach rural audiences.
Communicate the results of field testing to activists and policymakers so that the best solutions can be funded and scaled.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Conduct community outreach and education to help rural communities better understand 1) the major climate concerns impacting or threatening their communities, 2) the federal programs that are available to support climate adaptation, and 3) to provide support and guidance on how to apply for and utilize these programs effectively.
Self-educate on the federal programs that are available to support rural communities.
Build relationships with agency staff.
Engage with elected officials, including congressional representatives and state officials, to advocate for federal programs that support rural communities, sharing local experiences.
Partner with other organizations.
Seek out documentation of the outcomes and impacts of the federal programs that do reach your local community and share.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Recognize the necessity of public outreach and marketing for awareness and support for climate solutions in rural areas.
Foster collaboration among stakeholders by writing policy with the incentives to collaborate.

Four: Limited capacity

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Fill technical assistance and capacity building gaps to access existing funding.
Invest in political infrastructure to help rural communities generate political power and influence.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Articulate the challenges you face due to limited capacity.
Work through coalitions at larger geographic scales to leverage resources that already exist.
Harness capacity from non-obvious resources, like the economic development district covering their areas.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Understand and acknowledge the built-in disadvantages of rural communities in operating within the policy framework that governs them.
Move from an equality mindset to an equity mindset in writing policy.

Five: Insufficient attention to long-term planning

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Promote and fund long-term planning, hard and soft infrastructure building, and investment in climate adaptation measures.
Support research and knowledge building.
Foster partnerships and collaboration.
Invest in community-led solutions that build resilience in both short and long time frames.
Support policy advocacy efforts that promote long-term climate adaptation solutions.
Support innovation in climate adaptation solutions, such as new technologies, tools, and practices that help rural communities build resilience over time.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Work towards environmental justice by addressing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Advocate for long-term planning and investment in climate adaptation measures that build long-term resilience.
Promote community-led solutions
Harness the synergy that already exists in the community as an opportunity to educate and engage people around climate issues.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Develop policies that incentivize long-term planning and investment in climate adaptation measures that build resilience over time.
Foster partnerships and collaboration between federal, state, and local government agencies, community-based organizations, and businesses.
Prioritize community-led solutions, especially those with longer time horizons built into the planning.

Six: Insufficient coordination and integration

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Support – and fund! – efforts to foster collaboration and learning among federal agencies, rural communities, and other stakeholders to help bridge gaps in funding, outreach, education, and coordination.
Provide technical assistance to federal agencies, state and local governments, and community-based organizations to help build coordination and integration efforts.
Disseminate knowledge of technical assistance providers about the disconnects that exist among government programming with similar goals.
Support broad research and data sharing.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Put energy into developing partnerships and networks with federal agencies, state and local governments, and community-based organizations to share resources and expertise and to promote coordination and integration of programs.
Participate in planning processes for federal programs focused on climate adaptation in rural areas, including providing input on the needs and priorities of rural communities or advocating for the integration of programs to better address the needs of communities.
Provide training and technical assistance to community members to better understand federal programs and to engage more effectively with federal agencies.
Collaborate with researchers and data analysts to develop data-sharing platforms and participate in research projects focused on climate adaptation in rural areas.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Integrate and coordinate federal programming, better-collate information about programs with climate response goals, articulate the overlaps, and specify how programs can and cannot be implemented together.
Revise existing programs so that they can work together. Where federal programming is complex and in conflict, policymakers have a responsibility to create interconnections.
Ensure that the web of government programs focused on climate reaches the most vulnerable communities.

RURAL CLIMATE ACTION LEADERS

While rural communities are often left out of the climate conversation, rural action is, indeed, happening, and rural leaders, especially in Native American communities, are on the vanguard of climate solutions. Below is a short sampling of a long list of innovators, rural climate action and thought leaders. See the full report for additional examples of rural climate leadership, and reach out to RuralOrganizing.org to learn more about our full database of over 150 organizations creating locally-led rural climate solutions (see Appendix D for a list of these organizations).

Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN): IEN is a national network of Indigenous organizations and individuals working to address environmental and climate justice issues in Indigenous communities. The organization focuses on promoting Indigenous peoples’ rights and sovereignty, and works to build power and capacity in Tribal communities to respond to climate change.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community: The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is a federally recognized Tribe located in the Pacific Northwest. The Tribe has been recognized for its leadership in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts, and has developed a comprehensive climate adaptation plan that includes strategies for protecting critical infrastructure, preserving cultural resources, and promoting sustainable land use practices.
The Mississippi Association of Cooperatives: This organization supports Black farmers and rural communities in Mississippi through education, advocacy, and cooperative development. They are involved in a range of issues related to rural climate adaptation, including sustainable agriculture and disaster resilience.
The Rural Climate Dialogues: This initiative brings together rural communities in Minnesota to engage in conversations about climate change and develop local solutions to address its impacts. The project is led by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and involves a range of local partners.
The Southwest Organizing Project: This organization works on a range of issues related to environmental justice, including climate change impacts on rural and Indigenous communities in New Mexico. They work to build community resilience through education, advocacy, and community organizing.

THE RURAL CLIMATE ACTION LANDSCAPE

Climate change has now reached full-blown global crisis status and has crossed the rhetorical threshold of “if” into the “how” and “how much.” Rural communities, making up one-fifth of the US population, are on the frontlines of climate change but are often left out of the climate conversation. And as much as rural communities have particularities in common when compared against urban and suburban areas, radical regional differences create deep chasms between rural communities as they consider climate response needs. Where people can access information and whether they can can trust that information are critical questions for rural residents and the stakeholder groups who aim to ensure rural communities are continuing to keep pace with climate response across the country and, truly, across the globe. The map of climate thought leaders, climate actors, the opposition, and the abstainers is a vital component of the landscape to understand what is possible and which hurdles are in the way to sustainable and thriving rural communities on a healthy planet. While strengths are building and opportunities are arising with system changes, built-in inequities and active adversaries continue to stand in the way of rural survival in the face of ramping up disasters, climate migration, collapsing ecosystems, and infrastructure that may not hold up to these pressures. The gaps between the federal idea machine and the local day-to-day is still wide, in spite of growing efforts. This analysis aims to articulate how at least three groups can work to fill these gaps: local civic leaders, policymakers, and philanthropists. With attention to the policies which have failed in the past, successes from the the past, present, and near future, and an equity-lens view of existing policies and programs, there is hope for rural resilience in the face of climate change.

Defining the Climate Conversation

In a local, rural context, the climate conversation takes on a masked character. In Athens, Ohio, for example, the local Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) identifies a need to “diversify the economy” away from extractive industries which have health impacts. Keywords associated with climate change, environmental justice, or green economies are carefully avoided, but the issues articulated – water quality, air quality, sustainability – echo the environmental concerns of the global movement.

The characteristics of climate concerns at the three larger geographic scales can be found in varying degrees in local, rural contexts. National divides regarding which type of expert to trust do reach the local rural level in the form of media that creates opinions, but this divide is not as clearly visible in the evidence of projects and planning tools. More visible are the regional concerns which link to climate issues. In Texas, for example, there has been a decisive shift toward wind generation because this is a reliable income stream, not because an academic expert or a politician said it is the right direction to go. More urbanized climate conversations at the local level shape rural ones primarily as a comparison: are the issues we’ve identified similar or different than urban issues? While the language is often different in local rural contexts, environmental concerns in rural communities shape the larger geographic scale conversation at least as much as the other way around.

Outside of a geographic analysis, several characteristics of the climate conversation have particular importance for rural communities. Below are some of the nuances of these characteristics from a rural perspective.

Communities across the countries are beginning to experience first hand how climate change causes impact. As the changes are accelerating, there is growing awareness among rural residents and farmers of the impacts of climate change on their livelihoods, such as the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and the need to adapt to these changes. It is important to note that worldviews, norms, and political realities of many rural communities mean that climate change is often not spoken of in such explicit terms, but rather, people living the impacts are acknowledging the events, like the need to be prepared for disasters that happen more often. Awareness building in rural areas can have a distinct tenor from efforts in urban areas to speak to what is happening in real time, rather than what might be considered theoretical or abstract.

Many rural communities are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint and increase sustainability. This can include local initiatives such as investing in renewable energy sources, promoting energy efficiency in homes and businesses, and promoting sustainable agriculture practices. Here are three examples of local efforts to respond to climate concerns:

Community solar projects: Many rural communities have successfully implemented community solar projects that allow residents and businesses to invest in and benefit from solar energy. For example, in Minnesota, the Rural Renewable Energy Alliance has helped install community solar projects in rural areas, providing local jobs and reducing energy costs for residents.
Regenerative agriculture: This is a holistic approach to farming that focuses on building healthy soil and reducing carbon emissions. Many farmers in rural America have successfully adopted regenerative practices, such as planting cover crops and reducing tillage, leading to healthier soil, increased biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate-smart forestry: Forestry is a major industry in many rural areas, and climate-smart forestry practices can help reduce carbon emissions while also promoting economic development. For example, in Pennsylvania, the state’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has launched a program to promote climate-smart forestry practices, including the use of forest products for bioenergy and carbon sequestration.

The majority of rural Americans are concerned about the impact of climate change on their communities, but the hostile political landscape is preventing climate conversations among friends and neighbors.

Yet another key characteristic of the rural climate change landscape is a persistent political divide. Some rural residents and politicians are skeptical of climate change and are hesitant to support policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Others feel that they cannot trust government programs to address concerns, or believe that a private sector solution is the more appropriate approach. While climate concerns are certainly present in rural communities, skeptics dominate the conversation and the political space in most communities where Republicans control elected positions. People striving for climate action can be silenced by this political atmosphere, despite the fact that the majority of rural Americans are concerned about the impacts of climate change. In fact, polling shows rural people are generally reticent to talk about climate change with their friends and neighbors given the polarization and controversy surrounding the issue.

While the above characteristics each require attention, perhaps the most pressing rural climate concern is that rural communities often have limited resources and face unique challenges when it comes to climate action, such as far distances to government representatives who can view assets for a specific project or even discuss an opportunity; limited workers to research climate issues and solutions; limited access to renewable energy technologies and research institutions; and difficulty in transitioning to new farming practices due to lack of access to the needed supplies or vendors.

Current political and media narratives falsely assume rural people are resistant to climate action and this stereotype is holding us back.

Rural communities are not victims; they are collaborating with each other and with urban areas to find innovative solutions to address climate change, such as developing regional climate plans or testing carbon offset programs. A few examples include the Rural Climate Dialogues project in Minnesota, the Appalachian Carbon Partnership (a collaboration between the Nature Conservancy, the American Carbon Registry, and the Heartwood network of community organizations), and the Vermont Climate Council.

While there are challenges to climate action in rural America, there are also many opportunities to scale the innovative solutions and collaborative efforts which are already underway to address the impacts of climate change on these communities. While rural communities are often characterized as either left behind or falling behind in the climate conversation, this perspective ignores a great deal of leadership coming out of rural communities on climate issues. Native communities must be the first mention, here, with their enduring relationships with land, water, animals, and other elements of our shared environment. Native communities have been at the vanguard of effective bison herd restoration, salmon run restoration, forest management including controlled burning, adaptation to permafrost thaw, effective community relocations due to sea level rise, and much more. Other rural communities, too, are guiding the way through transitions away from fossil fuels to more diverse, less polluting, and more sustainable economies.

Power Map: Rural Climate Leadership

Two key slices help illuminate who is currently providing leadership regarding rural climate concerns: one slice looks at issue areas, while a second approach divides leaders in the climate landscape into a “thought leadership” lane or an “action leadership” lane. These two parallel approaches offer a multidimensional view of the power holders influencing the future of rural climate adaptation and mitigation in the US.

Issue Area Leadership

Climate change is an enormous field having credible claims to its reach into virtually every industrial sector, every type of community, every level of decision-making. To make sense of the spheres of influence, issue area divisions help categorize current efforts.

Adaptation Concerns

Energy
Conservation Agriculture
Water
Climate migration
Climate disaster response

Mitigation Efforts

How to slow greenhouse gas (GHG) releases
Built environment energy efficiency
How to influence rainfall
Electric vehicle transition
Moonshot efforts to cool the planet

Legal & Political Influence

Prioritizing Indigenous rights
Bringing global influence to the United States
Elevating climate legal cases
Strategic communications to shift climate perceptions

Thought/Action Leadership

A parallel approach to understanding the powerful influencers of rural climate concerns and action is to place leaders into two groups: thought leaders and action leaders. With over 150 organizational entities identified with a rural climate agenda, we are using this binary to help narrow the scope of the field and identify action partners according to a trust/agreement matrix. This map places leaders into the following categories in relation to one another:

Thought leaders are those in the rural climate space who are influencing how people understand climate, introducing and testing new ideas for understanding what is happening and what possible responses can be, and those who are helping sort through the theoretical and empirical information about impacts. Below is a sample, annotated list of thought leaders gleaned from this landscape analysis and a brief description of their work. Note: Below this section is a second list of action leaders; many of the thought leaders are also on the vanguard of implementing climate solution actions, especially the Tribal governments named here.

Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN): IEN is a national network of Indigenous organizations and individuals working to address environmental and climate justice issues in Indigenous communities. The organization focuses on promoting Indigenous peoples’ rights and sovereignty, and works to build power and capacity in Tribal communities to respond to climate change.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community: The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is a federally recognized Tribe located in the Pacific Northwest. The Tribe has been recognized for its leadership in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts, and has developed a comprehensive climate adaptation plan that includes strategies for protecting critical infrastructure, preserving cultural resources, and promoting sustainable land use practices.
White Earth Nation: The White Earth Nation is a federally recognized Tribe located in Minnesota. The Tribe has been a leader in developing community-based approaches to climate adaptation and resilience, and has implemented a number of initiatives focused on renewable energy development, sustainable land use practices, and natural resource management.
Blackfeet Nation: The Blackfeet Nation is a federally recognized Tribe located in Montana. The Tribe has developed a comprehensive climate adaptation plan that includes strategies for protecting cultural resources, promoting sustainable land use practices, and increasing community resilience to the impacts of climate change.
Native American Rights Fund (NARF): NARF is a nonprofit legal organization that provides legal assistance to Tribes and Indigenous communities on a range of issues, including environmental and climate justice. The organization has been a leading voice in promoting Indigenous peoples’ rights and sovereignty in climate policy and advocacy efforts.
University of Pittsburgh Congress of Neighboring Communities (CONNECT) – 40 municipalities which have come together to create a shared vision for the region.

At this stage of the climate crisis, the action leaders are the critical players to know and understand. Below is a sample, annotated list of action leaders in the climate response in rural communities of the United States.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition: This coalition is made up of over 100 grassroots organizations working to advance federal policy to support family farmers and sustainable agriculture. They are involved in a range of issues related to rural climate adaptation, including supporting climate-smart agriculture practices and promoting the use of renewable energy on farms.
The Rural Renewable Energy Alliance: This organization is dedicated to promoting sustainable energy in rural communities through education, installation, and advocacy. They work to bring renewable energy solutions to underserved communities, particularly those in Native American reservations.
The Center for Rural Affairs: This organization works to support rural communities through policy advocacy, community organizing, and technical assistance. They are involved in a range of issues related to rural climate adaptation, including sustainable agriculture, energy efficiency, and climate-resilient infrastructure.
The Mississippi Association of Cooperatives: This organization supports Black farmers and rural communities in Mississippi through education, advocacy, and cooperative development. They are involved in a range of issues related to rural climate adaptation, including sustainable agriculture and disaster resilience.
The Rural Climate Dialogues: This initiative brings together rural communities in Minnesota to engage in conversations about climate change and develop local solutions to address its impacts. The project is led by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and involves a range of local partners.

Case Study: The North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council Links Climate Action and Economic Development Strategies

The Climate Action Toolkit developed by the North Olympic Peninsula Conservation & Development Council (NODC) provides a comprehensive guide for communities and organizations to take action on climate change. The toolkit aims to connect climate action with economic development by providing strategies for economic sustainability through climate-conscious transportation & land use, energy and housing, and water supply and infrastructure focuses.

The Transportation and Land Use section of the Climate Action Toolkit emphasizes the economic benefits of sustainable transportation practices and their connection to land use planning. By promoting active transportation, communities can not only reduce emissions but also improve public health and support local businesses by increasing foot traffic and reducing parking demand. The toolkit provides guidance on promoting and improving public transportation so communities can reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce emissions, and improve access to jobs and services for those who do not have access to a car. Additionally, improving public transportation can create new jobs in the transportation sector, such as bus drivers and mechanics. Planning and designing communities to be walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly, communities can reduce the need for driving and promote more sustainable transportation options. The toolkit provides guidance on how communities can incorporate sustainable land use practices, such as mixed-use development and density, to reduce transportation emissions and support local businesses. Active transportation and public transportation can increase property values, reduce transportation costs for households, and create new jobs in the transportation sector. By promoting sustainable transportation, communities can support local economic development while also mitigating the impacts of climate change.

The Energy and Housing section of the toolkit provides strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency and promoting sustainable housing practices. By reducing energy consumption and promoting renewable energy sources, communities can not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also create new economic opportunities in the renewable energy sector. Additionally, promoting energy efficiency measures and sustainable housing practices can create jobs in the construction industry and reduce energy costs for households, supporting local economic development.

The final section of the toolkit focuses on water supply and infrastructure and provides strategies for adapting to the impacts of climate change on water resources and promoting sustainable water management practices. By promoting sustainable water management practices, such as water conservation and green infrastructure, communities can not only build resilience to the impacts of climate change but also create new economic opportunities. For example, green infrastructure projects like rain gardens and green roofs can create jobs in the landscaping and construction industries while also reducing stormwater runoff and improving water quality. Water reuse and recycling projects can create new jobs in the water treatment industry while also reducing water consumption and saving money on water bills. Additionally, promoting sustainable water management practices can reduce water costs for households and businesses, supporting local economic development.

The NODC has linked the economic needs of the region’s communities and the climate crisis by exploring and planning for the interconnected solutions of climate action and economic prosperity. The toolkit highlights the interconnectedness of climate action and economic development by showcasing how strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy, and adapt to the impacts of climate change can also create new economic opportunities. By taking action on climate change, communities can not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also support local economic development through job creation, cost savings, and increased property values. The toolkit emphasizes that addressing climate change is not only an environmental imperative but also an economic opportunity.

The National Wildlife Federation: This organization works to protect wildlife and habitats while addressing climate change impacts. They have programs specifically focused on rural communities, such as the Climate-Smart Restoration Partnership, which helps rural communities to restore natural habitats that provide critical ecosystem services and climate resilience.
The Rural Community Assistance Partnership: This organization provides technical assistance and training to rural communities to help them address environmental and public health issues. They work on issues such as safe drinking water, wastewater management, and solid waste management, all of which are critical for climate resilience.
The Southwest Organizing Project: This organization works on a range of issues related to environmental justice, including climate change impacts on rural and Indigenous communities in New Mexico. They work to build community resilience through education, advocacy, and community organizing.
The Quivira Coalition: This organization is focused on building resilience in working landscapes, including ranches and farms, through regenerative agriculture practices. They work with ranchers and farmers in rural communities throughout the West to promote soil health, water conservation, and biodiversity.

Importantly, these two lists of thought and action leaders are certainly not exhaustive and largely overlapping. They represent a concerted effort to gather a robust and wide-ranging set of climate leaders guiding the climate response in rural America. A full list of over 150 organizations is included in the RuralOrganizing.org Education Fund database and in Appendix D.

Obstacles and Opportunities

Climate adaptation efforts in rural communities face obstacles due to funding gaps, lack of technical expertise, and political infrastructure. These communities often have smaller tax bases, unique economic drivers, and a lack of philanthropic presence. Additionally, civic leaders and activists may lack the expertise needed to design and implement effective adaptation measures. However, an opportunity exists to invest in advocacy and outreach to engage rural residents and ensure access to truthful information about climate change.

On the other hand, federal investments in green infrastructure present an opportunity for progressive advocates to achieve keystone climate goals, with a focus on a thoughtful, equity-led approach, for example, by prioritizing marginalized voices into the development of a renewable electricity grid. New governance structures, such as community benefits agreements, could also represent a new age of ensuring that initiatives benefit communities from the bottom up. Examples of rural communities with robust climate action plans highlight what is possible, but additional resources such as technical assistance and grant writer support are needed to fully leverage locally-led rural innovations into a national climate response.

For further reading, a deep dive into a few examples of rural communities that have robust and actionable plans will highlight what is possible and what is yet needed to ensure rural communities are fully integrated into a national climate response. For example, the North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (NODC) Climate Action Toolkit highlights ready-made strategies which can support a variety of communities in responding to climate needs. A similar resource is available through the US Geological Survey (USGS) Tribal Climate Adaptation Menu. These communities’ efforts underscore the need for technical assistance in the form of grant writer support, and additional human capacity to carry out the well-planned, climate-responsive, rural thriving strategies.

A traditional SWOT analysis uses four lenses – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats – to characterize what is possible in a given landscape.

It is under these assumptions that the following SWOT analysis evaluates the rural climate action landscape.

The climate is objectively changing
Rural communities are experiencing more frequent and more intense disasters related to climate change
Aspects of daily life in rural communities contribute to and mitigate climate change to varying degrees; these are variables within human control
Responding to climate change through both mitigation and adaptation lenses is a positive.

Strengths

Characteristics in this section describe strengths of the rural climate action landscape. Here we describe what is making a demonstrably positive impact on responding to climate concerns.

There is an evidence-based global concern that climate change is harming people who are in the most vulnerable situations. This concern is creating pressure for the US political leadership to respond. Specifically, the global actors creating this political pressure include
- The 2022 Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (COP27) – Among other United Nations conferring bodies and panels, COP27 is the most recent annual meeting to discuss progress on climate change and to negotiate new agreements. More than 33,000 delegates from about 200 countries attended in 2022.
- Members of the Paris Climate Accord – The US joined 175 other countries in taking actions to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature increase. Donald Trump withdrew the US from the agreement during his presidency and, under President Biden’s leadership, the US rejoined the agreement in 2021.
- The Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS) is a private sector parallel to the government actions. It is a gathering of businesses, cities, states, regions, and civil society organizations committed to taking action on climate change.
- C40 Cities – this is a network of more than 90 cities around the world committed to taking bold action on climate change. They work together to share knowledge and best practices and implement policies and programs to reduce emissions and increase adaptation.

But a gap persists between these global actions and rural communities in the United States, and many rural residents would say they see no connection to global climate agreements. Instead, dispersed local action is what feels visible for rural communities. In some cases, economic development entities are taking up the mantle by integrating climate resilience steps into economic growth strategies for their communities. This integration can be seen in the Community Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) documents created to guide the economic development of a community.

Recent federal legislation is making big investments in meaningful climate programming
- Justice40 Initiative – The Biden administration established this initiative with a goal of delivering 40 percent of the overall benefits of relevant federal investments to disadvantaged communities. Progress is tracked through an Environmental Justice Scorecard.
- Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) -This landmark legislation passed in 2022. Among many climate provisions, it is expected to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40% by 2030 while supporting disadvantaged communities and clean energy.
- Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA) – The IIJA invests in long-lasting infrastructure, like a network of electric vehicle charging stations. It also invests in green jobs, like wind and solar jobs, occupations that are about 21 percent higher paying than the average in other industries—including fossil-fuel extraction. Between this law and the IRA, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth estimates hundreds of thousands of green jobs bill be created.
Beyond major, recent legislation, a suite of existing federal programs like the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program recognize the urgent nature of climate responsiveness and everyday needs, such as energy efficiency and bike lanes.
The Biden administration is demonstrating a commitment to meaningful engagement with communities which have suffered racial discrimination and environmental racism. In particular, the Biden administration has made a concerted effort to engage with Tribal Nations through a Tribal Nations Summit and the Latino Community via the White House’s Virtual Roundtable on Climate, Environmental Justice, and Latinos.
Specific agencies are also taking steps toward the administration’s environmental justice commitment, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which announced, in August 2022, the availability of $11 million in initial grant funding to establish Environmental Justice (EJ) Thriving Community Technical Assistance Centers across the nation. The EPA funding is available under the first year of a partnership with the Department of Energy, with future phases of up to 10 multi-year awards for a maximum potential program value of $50 million. The EPA reports, “the Centers will provide an unprecedented level of support to help ensure that federal resources are equitably distributed and meet the on-the-ground environmental justice challenges that communities have faced for generations.”
Another agency response is the Department of Energy (DOE)’s Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas (ERA) program, which seeks to improve the resilience, reliability, and affordability of energy systems in communities across the country with 10,000 or fewer people. $11 million was dedicated to to the program in 2022.

Weaknesses

The following areas of concern are those for which rural communities are in various stages of building their abilities to fully respond to the climate crisis.

One of the gaps in the climate conversation between rural America and larger scales of the climate response is the lack of representation and inclusion of rural communities in global, national, and state climate policy discussions. While rural communities are often the most affected by the impacts of climate change, their voices and perspectives are not always heard or considered. Even more, there are many examples of rural voices being silenced in the climate conversation. Here are a few:

Lack of rural representation in international climate negotiations: Rural communities are often not represented at international climate negotiations, which leads to their perspectives and needs being overlooked. This is particularly true for Indigenous communities, who may face significant barriers to participating in these negotiations.
“Just Transitions” are still in their infancy. We are seeing localized success but we have not passed transformative policies at scale.
Opposition to renewable energy projects: Renewable energy projects like wind and solar farms can bring significant benefits to rural communities, including jobs and economic development. However, these projects are sometimes opposed by people who are concerned about lowered property values, that the projects may lead to job losses in traditional industries like mining or oil and gas, or that electromagnetic radiation from solar panels could have negative health impacts. This opposition can be so strong that it silences the voices of those who support the projects, like the Highland Wind Farm in Wisconsin.
Dismissal of rural concerns by urban-based environmental groups: Many environmental groups are based in urban areas and may not have a deep understanding of the challenges faced by rural communities. This can lead to rural concerns being dismissed or overlooked, even by groups that are working to address climate change.
Misinformation from both bad actors, like those in extractive industries, and people with realistic concerns but bad information, is loud enough to catch the attention of decision-makers and stop projects that are otherwise popular in rural communities.
Rural communities face different challenges than urban areas, such as limited access to resources, lower population densities, and greater dependence on natural resources for livelihoods. At the same time, rural areas also have significant potential for climate mitigation and adaptation, through practices such as forest management, renewable energy development, and regenerative agriculture. The lack of attention to rural communities means that rural communities don’t get the support needed nor are they invested in as solution-generators.
Rural climate solutions tend to be isolated by geography and industry sector. While regionality is an important way to divvy up climate adaptation and mitigation work, accelerating the pace of the response is essential, and at least three inter-regional opportunities are yet to be harnessed: highlighting rural successes as a means to surface common issues and opportunities; identifying common goals which can be worked on collaboratively, and sharing best practices from solutions innovations to how to access nationwide programs.

Finally, there is a lack of recognition of the diverse perspectives and experiences of rural communities. Rural areas are not monolithic, and there are significant differences in culture, history, and political beliefs between rural regions and communities. It is important to understand and address these differences in order to effectively engage rural communities in climate action. Closing these gaps will require greater collaboration and communication between rural communities, and with state, national, and international communities, as well as a more nuanced understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities facing rural areas in the context of climate change.

Opportunities

Implicit in each of the weaknesses detailed above that additional investment of time, energy, and financial resources can transform them into strengths. Three opportunities, though, present themselves as the most promising for rapidly advancing climate action in rural communities of the US:

Cross-regional collaboration: While some rural projects are demonstrating the will and skill of rural leaders to collaborate within their own communities and across geographic boundaries for effective climate adaptation, many other communities remain isolated from resources and partners. Supporting rural leaders to build relationships among a range of stakeholders, including government agencies, community organizations, businesses, and academic institutions will increase rural communities’ ability to respond to the climate crisis. Further extending collaboration across regions will help rural communities see the patterns among the diversity, harness good ideas that can be adapted locally, and accelerate sustainable rural thriving strategies.
Connection among climate action-takers and economic developers: infrastructure already exists, via economic development institutions, with the charge to ensure rural communities thrive. Climate resilience is an integral component of rural thriving, but is currently treated as a separate issue; the outdoor recreation industry, the conservation agriculture movement, and the environmental sustainability movements are all well-established, but disconnected from the economic resilience institutions that have the potential to build sustainability and resilience values and priorities into the economic fabric of rural America. Connecting climate action with the economic development specialists and their organizations, for instance, can help integrate these complementary efforts instead of driving two parallel rural strategies.
Create a Rural Climate Space Wide Enough for “Climate Action” and “Economic Diversification” – Rural communities are on the frontlines of climate change and take a variety of approaches to responding. In communities where climate change has been politicized, the understanding of the threats sometimes looks like using language to steer around controversial labels into a space of community collaboration. For example, in Athens County, Ohio, the Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley Regional Development District mentions climate or environment only one time in their Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and the document does not mention any guiding climate policy, but also the document mentions energy, water access, water quality, wastewater, wildfires, floods, and derechos, as community issues to be addressed through an economic strategy. The organization mentions a lack of economic diversity as a key vulnerability in addressing these concerns and calls for greater economic diversification as one of the key solutions. They have steered around controversial language of “climate change” or “environmental sustainability” while still raising those concerns and gaining critical local buy-in for solutions. A national rural climate action plan must appreciate and integrate this breadth.

Additionally, opportunities exist to expand funding for locally-led rural climate response efforts, to better-connect rural civic leaders with technical expertise, to build political infrastructure that supports the political will for climate responsive actions, and to increase advocacy and outreach so that rural communities have access to reliable information.

Threats

First and foremost, the biggest threat to the climate action landscape is truly existential: time is not on our side with the climate crisis, and inaction could truly be the demise of humans as a species in less time than we can wrap our minds around. While glacial melt can be hard to personalize, other issues are close at hand: the Great Salt Lake, for instance, may have 5 years or less before it completely dries up and unleashes toxic sediment over the American West.

Assuming we can overcome the most dire threats, additional obstacles stand as a second guard. Both individuals and organizations have well established track records of speaking and acting in opposition to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, impacting rural communities’ abilities to continue to thrive in the face of climate change. Some of these these opponents include:

Climate change denialists: There are individuals and organizations that deny the existence of climate change or the role of human activity in causing climate change. These groups actively sabotage climate mitigation and adaptation at many levels. For example, in 2017, the Trump administration disbanded a federal advisory committee that was tasked with helping the government prepare for the impacts of climate change, citing the need to streamline federal programs. This move was criticized by environmental groups, who argued that it was an attempt to downplay the seriousness of climate change
Fossil fuel industry interests: The fossil fuel industry has ample history opposing climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts that could threaten their bottom line, including efforts to transition away from fossil fuels or to reduce emissions from their operations. For example, in 2014, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative policy group with close ties to the fossil fuel industry, drafted model legislation that would prevent states from planning for the impacts of climate change.
Anti-regulatory groups: A significant set of Individuals and groups hold philosophies opposed to regulation or oversight of any kind, including those related to climate change adaptation. One example: the Edison Electric Institute. This association counts all of the country’s investor-owned electric utilities as its members and is the power industry’s main representative before Congress. They have attracted attention for their national campaign against rooftop solar panels, and for its role in the legal fight against the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. These groups argue that these regulations are unnecessary or infringe on individual rights.
Property rights advocates: In some cases, rural landowners or property rights advocates oppose climate adaptation efforts that could impact their property rights or land use decisions. Examples include the Cato Institute and the American Energy Alliance.

Many stakeholder groups are actively working to organize landowners to hear and respond to these concerns while also responding to climate adaptation needs.

Monopolistic corporate interests: With overlap in each of the previous groups, some opponents to climate action in rural communities take their position from an interest in helping large corporations continue to consolidate market and political power. The American Farm Bureau Federation, for example, has lobbied against climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan from the Obama administration.

In each of these categories there exist organizations which may not take an explicit stance on climate change, they have taken actions which actively work against climate adaptation and resilience. The Pacific Legal Foundation, for example, has supported lawsuits against environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, arguing they infringe upon property rights.

There are also systemic threats to an effective climate response in addition to those with intent to halt climate progress. When the interdependent governmental and finance systems disincentivize climate action, we see a backward trajectory.

When funding is not allocated directly to local communities, the application process and state-level politics can prevent it from ever reaching these final destinations. Wyoming Public Radio reported how drought and resilience funding from packages like the Infrastructure, Investments and Jobs Act are falling into this trap.
Brownfields, or areas of industrial pollution no longer in use may not be cleaned up if a community is getting funding because they exist. Perverse financial incentives lead to unnecessary exposure to harmful substances and continuation of factors that depress local economies. If brownfields are seen as assets it will be hard to overcome political will to keep them.
Mobile homes house 22 million people, and provide three times the number of affordable housing US public housing does. Most mobile home residents are low or very low income, are disproportionately non-white, seniors and families with small children. Most often residents of mobile home parks rent the land they are on, leaving them with no claim to growing property value and no right to return should disaster strike. And because of more frequent climate crises like wildfires and floods, the climate crisis means a rural affordable housing crisis.
In the details of policy negotiations, compromises often mean that harms flow to communities of color in the name of “worthwhile trade-offs.” The most recent example is the Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, which accommodated additional oil and gas infrastructure that has been shown, time and again, to flow the negative impacts to Black and Brown communities.
Economic pressures, and the economic development that can come with an extractive industry, can make accepting extractive industry feel necessary to a community that does not get investment from other sources. Consider this example from the Crow Tribe in Montana.
As population is beginning to shift away from coasts and toward the American West as residents face the impacts of sea level rise and increasing storm intensity and frequency, population change is creating pressure on rural housing availability which, in turn, pressures conservation efforts aiming to conserve open spaces, habitats, and natural resources. These changes are anticipated to drive increases in diversity, but also increases in inequality with and between rural places.

Local to Federal Gaps

Despite the existence of federal programs in multiple agencies aiming to address climate adaptation in rural areas, there are still many gaps that these programs are leaving. For example, the USDA has several programs and initiatives that address climate change in rural areas, including

The Climate Hubs Program: Provides regional support and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to help them adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Pays farmers and ranchers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production and restore it to native vegetation, such as grasslands, wetlands, and forests, which can sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP): Provides grants and loans to farmers, rural businesses, and other rural entities for the development of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has several programs that support rural clean energy development and energy efficiency. Examples include:

The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP): Provides grants to states, territories, and Tribal governments to improve the energy efficiency of low-income homes, which can reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Tribal Energy Program: Provides grants to Native American Tribes and Alaska Native villages for the development of clean energy projects and energy efficiency improvements.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)also has programs that support climate action in rural areas, such as:

The State and Local Climate and Energy Program: Provides technical assistance and funding to state and local governments for the development of climate and energy plans and programs.
The Brownfields Program: Provides grants and technical assistance to clean up contaminated land and revitalize communities, which can help address environmental justice concerns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Clean Diesel Program: Provides grants to reduce diesel emissions from vehicles and equipment, which can improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Rural programs through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture cover:

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE): Provides funding and support for research and education projects that promote sustainable agriculture practices, including those related to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI): Provides funding for research and education projects that address key challenges in agriculture, including those related to climate change and sustainability.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP): Provides funding and support for education and training programs for beginning farmers and ranchers, including those focused on sustainable agriculture and climate change adaptation.

Those rural programs available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are:

Coastal Zone Management Program: Provides grants and technical assistance to states and territories to manage and protect their coastal areas, including those impacted by climate change.
Regional Climate Services: Provides regional climate information and services to support climate resilience and adaptation, including for rural areas.
Climate and Global Change Program: Conducts research and provides information on climate variability and change, including impacts on rural areas and natural resources.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) climate programs consist of:

National Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCASC): Provides scientific information and tools to support adaptation to climate change in natural and cultural resource management, including in rural areas.
Earthquake Hazards Program: Conducts research and provides information on earthquake hazards and risks, including in rural areas.
Land Change Science Program: Conducts research on land use and land cover change, including impacts on natural resources and ecosystem services in rural areas.

In spite of this long list of programs, critical gaps still exist for rural communities. Some of these gaps are listed below, along with how three major stakeholder groups – climate-concerned activists or local leaders, the philanthropy community, and policymakers – can respond.

Limited funding

Although there are federal programs that support climate adaptation in rural areas, the funding available for these programs is often insufficient to fully address the needs of rural communities. USDA officials routinely describe their programs as “oversubscribed,” meaning that the number of qualified applicants is outstripping the funding available. With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act which has unlocked additional funding for federal climate programs, there is enough demand that several states are hiring new federal program officers.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Philanthropists can fill immediate funding gaps to address the urgency of the climate crisis – providing funding at all levels of the ecosystem, including project implementation, but also community organizing to conduct assessments, visioning, and planning activities, as well as leaders working to shift the social and political environments. To make climate response a reality.
This group can fund local implementing organizations to scale up their work to include the projects they want to do but cannot get funded. Pilot projects to demonstrate the true cost of the response can give a baseline for the government funding that should come to every community.
Climate-conscious philanthropists should support community-based organizations that are working directly with rural communities to address climate adaptation needs. This support could include funding for capacity-building, technical assistance, and project implementation.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Local leaders can organize to make their communities more competitive for public and private funding, and use this power in numbers to also pressure elected officials to dedicate more resources.
Local leaders can innovate ideas for demonstration projects which will be attractive to philanthropic partners.
This stakeholder group can also work on identifying capacity gaps in their communities and work on small-scale projects to build resolve and skills simultaneously, positioning their communities with more capacity for future funding.
Engage with the local economic development entity and any existing planning tools, like a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, to link climate strategies with economic development investments. By integrating climate goals into existing infrastructure and existing funding opportunities, climate action has a greater chance of being implemented.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Policymakers have the responsibility to realistically assess the true cost of helping people have thriving, climate-resilient communities and writing policy which invests the appropriate level of resources.
Provide funding for climate adaptation and mitigation. Policies that provide funding for climate adaptation and mitigation projects in rural communities could help these communities invest in new technologies and infrastructure that can help them adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. While recent major investments address climate change, no estimates calculate it will be enough. Further, very few of these investments are targeted to rural communities, and experience from past federal funding shows that rural carve outs and accountability mechanisms are necessary to effectively ensure federal funding reaches rural communities.
This stakeholder group can seek out perspectives of local activists to understand better what is needed in policy, and be responsive.

Insufficient focus on social equity

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Philanthropy can prioritize equity with more than just words in its support for climate adaptation efforts. This support should recognize the disproportionate impact of climate change on historically marginalized communities and work to ensure that these communities have access to the resources and support they need to build resilience.
This also means making sure they are co-building the conversation and strategy, being paid for their lived expertise which is unique knowledge these community members bring to the table.
With the prominent role Native American communities must have in any equitable response to climate change, increasing a focus on equity must mean engaging with Tribal communities with intentionality, respect for sovereignty, and a willingness to follow Tribal leadership. Philanthropists must fund these efforts robustly.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Activists should advocate for policy change at the federal level to address gaps in climate adaptation programs and promote more effective and equitable support for rural communities. This should include advocating for increased funding for underserved communities, demands for transparency regarding who is and isn’t being reached by federal climate dollars, and greater attention to social equity in federal programs by utilizing streamlined and evidence-based tools for decision-making and program evaluation.
Local leaders must also acknowledge the necessity of and adjust to the leadership of Tribal communities in the response to climate change. This may mean stepping away from leadership and taking a follower role.
Activists have a critical role to play in pushing for accountability for employers and government agencies. A model is a February 2023 report that seven state attorneys general petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to set an emergency occupational heat standard.

“…arguing that climate change-driven temperature increases are posing a “grave danger” to workers. They urged OSHA to set a standard requiring employers by May 1 to give workers breaks, water and access to cool areas when the heat index reaches 80 degrees Fahrenheit. A POLITICO and E&E News investigation in 2021 revealed that OSHA has for decades been reluctant to set a heat standard, despite rising temperatures increasing the risk for workers. The agency launched the rulemaking process for a heat standard later that year, but a final rule is likely years away.

OSHA chief Doug Parker said the agency is reviewing the letter and has received thousands of comments on its proposed heat rulemaking. ‘Rulemaking takes time, and it’s critical that we get it right,’ Parker said in a statement.”

Local leaders can also form existing institutions to influence policy. For example, One Voice is a Mississippi nonprofit organizing and educating rural residents about how to advocate for their rural electrical cooperatives to both push for renewable energy in federal policy, and also to implement it. Through the democratic governance structure of a cooperative, this is a way for rural residents to tap into an existing decision-making power structure.
Spotlighting the successes that already exist can help make social equity in climate action feel more possible. Activists should study success stories to identify components of those successes that can translate into their own communities. Several case studies of successes are listed in Appendix A.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Philanthropic organizations can support the development of human capacity through rural organizations by creating policies that provide funding, technical support, and other resources to bring a social equity lens to climate action. By building capacity among rural activists and organizations, particularly providing funding for underserved groups to be involved, they can better address the social inequities of climate change impacts and lopsided solutions.
Engage rural communities in policymaking. Rural communities are often left out of policymaking processes that affect them, exacerbating inequities. Policymakers can work to engage rural communities, especially those individuals in underserved demographics, in the development of policies for climate responsiveness.
Increase funding for rural climate programs. Policymakers can expand on philanthropic funding for climate programs that target rural and underserved communities, with a focus on underserved and marginalized communities and accountability measures to ensure the funding reaches the intended beneficiaries.
Align with international calls for green banking solutions to more equitably distribute funding. COP27 saw landmark movement toward equitable environmental financing, and US advocates like Dream.org have included green banking in their environmental justice platforms for domestic policy advocacy. Green banking solutions can help alleviate congressional timelines that pressure agencies to deliver funding to those who are already well-resourced, rather than those who need it most, and green banking can offer solutions.

Limited outreach and education

Many rural communities are not aware of the federal programs available to support climate adaptation, and many lack the knowledge and resources to effectively apply for and utilize these programs. Accessing information about federal programs can be challenging because of the bureaucratic systems and lack of symmetry between similar programs and between agencies, and further complicated by federal government infrastructure that is not keeping pace with the digital environment we now live in. Rural activists report that the farther a community is from a USDA Rural Development office, for instance, the fewer programs and federal dollars are accessed by that community. Having in-person access to federal personnel is still a critical component of accessing federal resources, a fact which inherently disadvantages rural communities when outreach and education are not flowing through modern, digital channels.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Philanthropists can provide the funding to test “proof of concept” projects that innovate on how to best reach rural audiences. By testing a range of approaches in a variety of settings, philanthropic entities play an important role in setting up policies that can gain wide-ranging buy-in.
Philanthropists also have the responsibility to communicate the results of field testing to activists and policymakers so that the best solutions can be funded and scaled. Knowledge dissemination is a key role for philanthropy to play in overcoming outreach and education hurdles.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Activists are well-positioned in their communities to conduct community outreach and education to help rural communities better understand 1) the major climate concerns impacting or threatening their communities, 2) the federal programs that are available to support climate adaptation, and 3) to provide support and guidance on how to apply for and utilize these programs effectively. Traditional community organizing tools and strategies can be deployed to fill this gap, should local leaders have adequate resources.
Local leaders will need to self-educate on the federal programs that are available to support rural communities. Visit the websites of federal agencies like USDA, DOE, EPA, NIFA, NOAA, and USGS to learn about the programs they offer and how to apply.
Build relationships with agency staff. Reach out to agency staff responsible for the programs of interest and build relationships with them. Attend agency-sponsored meetings and events, and invite agency staff to attend meetings and events in your community.
Engage with elected officials, including congressional representatives and state officials, to advocate for federal programs that support rural communities. Share local experiences and challenges, and ask for their support in securing federal funding and resources for your community.
Partner with other organizations in your region or state that share your goals and interests. Collaborate on grant applications, joint projects, and advocacy efforts to amplify your impact and build a stronger network.
Seek out documentation of the outcomes and impacts of the federal programs that do reach your local community and share this information with agency staff, elected officials, and other stakeholders. This will help demonstrate the effectiveness of these programs and make the case for continued support.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Policy makers must recognize the necessity of public outreach and marketing for awareness and support for climate solutions in rural areas. Philanthropic organizations and activists can be the implementers of effective policy to educate and engage rural residents on the impacts of climate change and the importance of taking action to address it.
Foster collaboration among stakeholders by writing policy with the incentives to collaborate. Rural activists, policymakers, and philanthropic organizations can work together to identify common goals and strategies for addressing the impacts of climate change in rural communities. By creating policy incentives to collaborate and partner, more is possible.

Limited capacity

Rural communities may lack people power and/or the technical and administrative capacity to effectively implement climate adaptation measures, particularly in the face of ongoing economic and social challenges. Coupled with the human capacity gaps articulated in other parts of this report and the bureaucracy of the federal grants and loans system, limited human capacity makes accessing programs difficult. Philanthropists and policymakers must play the leading roles in overcoming this challenge.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Fill technical assistance and capacity building gaps to access existing funding. Climate adaptation efforts can be expensive, and many rural communities lack the financial resources to invest in adaptation measures on their own. Activists may need support to secure funding from government agencies, philanthropic organizations, or other sources, but often lack the grant writing, scientific, and other expertise in their communities to be able to do this on their own.
Philanthropists must invest in political infrastructure to help rural communities generate political power and influence. Without the political infrastructure to support rural activists, it is difficult to secure support from elected officials or to advance climate policy priorities. Philanthropists can invest in local political efforts, help connect rural activists with coalitions, fund their participation in state, regional, and national efforts, and help invest in the boots on the ground efforts to build political power, which can be more resource-intensive in rural areas than in urban areas.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Local leaders have a role to play in articulating the challenges they face due to limited capacity. With clarity on the needs, activists can help philanthropists and policymakers fill these gaps.
While capacity is being built, local leaders can work through coalitions at larger geographic scales to leverage resources that already exist.
Local leaders can also work to harness capacity from non-obvious resources, like the economic development district covering their areas. By finding ways to integrate climate action into the infrastructure that is already established, local leaders can find the most efficient pathways to action.

What Can Policymakers Do?

The number one responsibility of policymakers with regard to limited rural capacity is to understand and acknowledge the built-in disadvantages of rural communities in operating within the policy framework that governs them. In doing so, policymakers will be tasked with addressing these inequities and these gaps in a comprehensive national climate response.
Second, policymakers must move from an equality mindset to an equity mindset in writing policy. Rural solutions can often require acceptance that the same investment may reach fewer people over a wider area, for instance. An equity approach will include accountability measures to ensure federal funding reaches the rural communities with the greatest need, naming Tribal governments as eligible for every program, providing locally-competent technical assistance, and addressing the ongoing needs for capacity building in every climate policy.

Insufficient attention to long-term planning

Many federal programs focus on short-term solutions to immediate problems, rather than supporting long-term planning and investment in climate adaptation measures that can help rural communities build resilience over time. A longer timeline for federal programming is both a better fit for addressing climate concerns and better-matches the ground-level realities of rural communities facing capacity constraints to develop and implement programs.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Philanthropists have a powerful voice to promote and fund long-term planning, hard and soft infrastructure building, and investment in climate adaptation measures, recognizing that short-term solutions may not be sufficient to address the complex and evolving challenges facing rural communities.
Support research and knowledge building. Philanthropists should fund research and knowledge building initiatives that identify best practices and evidence-based approaches to climate adaptation in rural areas. This research can help to inform federal policies and programs that support long-term planning and investment.
Foster partnerships and collaboration. between federal agencies, state and local governments, and community-based organizations. These partnerships can help to build trust, share resources, and leverage expertise to implement long-term climate adaptation solutions.
Philanthropists should invest in community-led solutions that build resilience in both short and long time frames, such as community decision-making structures that require time and energy investments, energy efficiency initiatives for homes, businesses, and public buildings, green infrastructure, renewable energy systems, and sustainable agriculture practices. These solutions can help to build local capacity, create jobs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Support policy advocacy efforts that promote long-term climate adaptation solutions, such as policies that incentivize climate-smart land use practices, carbon sequestration, and investment in resilient infrastructure. These policies can help to create a more supportive environment for long-term planning and investment.
Philanthropists play an important role in supporting innovation in climate adaptation solutions, such as new technologies, tools, and practices that help rural communities build resilience over time. By investing in early-stage solutions testing, philanthropy helps build the evidence base for effective policy solutions. These innovations can help to create new opportunities for long-term planning and investment and can spur economic growth and development.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Work towards environmental justice. Local leaders and activists can do this by addressing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable and marginalized communities. This may involve advocating for policies and programs that promote equitable access to resources and support for all members of the community. A focus on justice necessarily focuses on long term solutions.
Advocate for long-term planning and investment in climate adaptation measures that build long-term resilience. This involves engaging with local and state government officials to ensure that policies and programs prioritize long-term solutions.
Promote community-led solutions. Local community members know best what they need, so leaders and activists can elevate community-led solutions to climate adaptation that build resilience that will last. This may involve supporting local initiatives that have humble beginnings or that have indirect links to climate, but address communities’ biggest needs first.
Harness the synergy that already exists in the community as an opportunity to educate and engage people around climate issues. Where community events, local media, and hometown enthusiasm already exists, there is an opportunity to insert new priorities. By starting with the existing strengths of a community, activists can help bring climate concerns into the long-term vision that residents have for their own communities.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Develop policies that incentivize long-term planning and investment in climate adaptation measures that build resilience over time. This may include workforce development programs, zoning and redevelopment efforts, grants, and other financial mechanisms that prioritize long-term solutions that support residents first and lean into a bottom-up approach.
Policymakers can foster partnerships and collaboration between federal, state, and local government agencies, community-based organizations, and businesses to share resources and leverage expertise to implement long-term climate adaptation solutions. Short-term planning can often be a product of short election-cycles, nonprofit organizations responding to short grant performance windows, and other system pressures. Policymakers have a powerful role to play in reducing those pressures through policy change.
Prioritize community-led solutions, especially those with longer time horizons built into the planning. This may involve providing funding and technical assistance on longer timeframes than are typical for government funding, supporting integration of programs across government bodies, and widening the parameters for how policy is implemented, to include prioritizing Indigenous knowledge, local expertise, and place-based innovations.

Insufficient coordination and integration

Federal programs addressing climate adaptation in rural areas often lack coordination or integration which can lead to duplication of efforts, confusion among stakeholders, and missed opportunities for collaboration and innovation. For example, USDA runs two programs – the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) and USDA Climate Hubs – both with scopes including addressing climate needs. The RCDI is a federal program that provides technical assistance and training to rural communities to develop their capacity to undertake community development projects while the Climate Hubs are a network of regional centers that provide technical assistance and outreach to farmers and ranchers on climate adaptation strategies. While both programs focus on building resilience in rural communities, there is little coordination between the two.

Another example is the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NRCS is a federal agency that provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to implement conservation practices that improve soil health, water quality, and wildlife habitat. FEMA provides disaster assistance and emergency management services to communities impacted by natural disasters. While both agencies have a role to play in climate adaptation in rural areas, they, too, are uncoordinated.

A final example is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Department of the Interior (DOI). NOAA is a federal agency that provides weather forecasting and climate data, while DOI manages natural resources and ecosystems on federal lands. Both agencies have programs that address climate adaptation in rural areas, but little coordination between the two can lead to missed opportunities for synergy.

What Can Philanthropists Do?

Support – and fund! – efforts to foster collaboration and learning among federal agencies, rural communities, and other stakeholders to help bridge gaps in funding, outreach, education, and coordination. This could look like funding the development of coordination mechanisms like cross-agency working groups or coordination centers and supporting efforts to integrate programs at the local level.
Technical assistance providers with expertise across many programs are essential resources in building coordination and integration of government programing. Philanthropists can provide technical assistance to federal agencies, state and local governments, and community-based organizations to help build coordination and integration efforts. This may involve providing expertise on best practices for coordination and integration or supporting the development of tools and resources to promote coordination and integration.
Philanthropists also play a crucial role in disseminating the knowledge of these technical assistance providers about the disconnects that exist among government programming with similar goals; by elevating these gaps, philanthropists can drive policy changes to better integrate programs. This can happen through research and data sharing.
Support broad research and data sharing. In addition to helping elevate the knowledge of technical assistance providers, resourcing research and data sharing can help build a better understanding of the needs and priorities of rural communities that would be served by better coordination and integration of federal programs. This may involve funding research on the impacts of climate change in rural areas or supporting efforts to develop data-sharing platforms.

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

Local leaders and activists can put energy into developing partnerships and networks with federal agencies, state and local governments, and community-based organizations to share resources and expertise and to promote coordination and integration of programs. This may involve participating in working groups or developing networks focused on climate adaptation.
This group should participate in planning processes for federal programs focused on climate adaptation in rural areas, including providing input on the needs and priorities of rural communities or advocating for the integration of programs to better address the needs of communities.
Providing training and technical assistance to community members to better understand federal programs and to engage more effectively with federal agencies. This can help build integration and coordination capacity in the community.
Collaborate with researchers and data analysts to develop data-sharing platforms and participate in research projects focused on climate adaptation in rural areas to elevate local knowledge and place-based solutions that could be important learning for others.

What Can Policymakers Do?

Policymakers play the most important role in integrating and coordinating federal programming as they hold the strongest decision making power. This group has a responsibility to better collate information about programs with climate response goals, articulate the overlaps, and specify how programs can and cannot be implemented together.
In addition to better communication about how existing programs can work together, policymakers have work to do to revise existing programs so that they can work together. Where federal programming is complex and in conflict, policymakers have a responsibility to create interconnections. For example, the Rebuild Rural America Act of 2021 articulated that recipients of the rural partnership block grant that would be created through the bill would receive preference for being selected for 16 additional rural-serving federal programs. Creating this kind of coordination is a responsibility of policymakers.
Another action for policymakers is to ensure that the web of government programs focused on climate reach the most vulnerable communities. Many of these programs serve large corporate interests and landowners, while renters, farmworkers, people in the oldest homes needing the most significant upgrades, and people with the lowest incomes and in the economies with the fewest living wage jobs often go unreached by programs intended to create thriving, sustainable communities. A renewed commitment to cut through government inefficiencies to help the most strapped rural residents benefit from government programs is essential.

Regional Variation in Climate Concerns and Climate Action

The existing activism and political infrastructure regarding climate concerns in the US is regional in nature with significant disconnects due to regional differences. Prominent regional clusters include Appalachia, the intermountain West, The Northwest, and the South, based on the distinct concerns existing in each; while the following highlights are far from exhaustive, they highlight some of the regional variation.

Appalachia: mountaintop removal coal mining, its health impacts, and the impending economic transition away from coal.
Intermountain West: water rights and the dwindling Colorado River; open lands conservation efforts centered around wildlife and water issues; wildfire management and mitigation.
Northwest: Salmon run ecosystem restoration and Tribal co-management of forests, including controlled burns.
South: legacy of petrochemical pollution and the resulting health and physical environmental impacts; sea level rise.
Far north: permafrost thaw and related damage to housing and infrastructure and release of CO2, reduced sea ice and impacts to Tribal lifeways, Tribal co-management of wildlife.

Several governmental structures defines regions which overlay the organic regional groupings listed above. These regional systems include:

The Economic Development Administration’s six regions –
- Seattle region
- Denver region
- Austin region
- Chicago region
- Philadelphia region
- Atlanta region
Seven Federal Regional Commissions –
- Appalachian Regional Commission
- Delta Regional Authority
- Denali Commission
- Northern Border Regional Commission
- Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
- Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
- Southwest Border Regional Commission
Twelve Bureau of Indian Affairs regions –
- Alaska Region
- Eastern Region
- Eastern Oklahoma Region
- Great Plains Region
- Midwest Region
- Navajo Region
- Northwest Region
- Pacific Region
- Rocky Mountain Region
- Southern Plains Region
- Southwest Region
- Western Region
Ten Environmental Protection Agency Regions
- Region 1 – Boston (serving CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT)
- Region 2 – New York City (serving NJ, NY, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and 8 federally recognized Indian Nations)
- Region 3 – Philadelphia (serving DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV and 7 federally recognized Tribes)
- Region 4 – Atlanta (serving AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, and TN)
- Region 5 – Chicago (serving IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI)
- Region 6 – Dallas (serving AR, LA, NM, OK, and TX)
- Region 7 – Kansas City (serving IA, KS, MO, and NE)
- Region 8 – Denver (serving CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, and WY)
- Region 9 – San Francisco (serving AZ, CA, HI, NV, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau)
- Region 10 – Seattle (serving AK, ID, OR, WA and 271 native Tribes)
Six National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) regional climate centers:
- High Plains
- Midwestern
- Northeast
- Southeast
- Southern
- Western

Of course, private entities, nonprofits, and activists have their own structures which clump into regions:

The National Association of Counties has a Western Interstate Region for collaborative advocacy
The Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) operates in 11 states and divides its service area into five sub-regions.
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) is another nonprofit organization using another regional system, utilizing three sub-regions.

These are just three nonprofit organizations using separate geographic divisions to do climate work, alongside the many possible government geographic systems to choose from. Compelling arguments can be made for each system, but the overarching need being addressed is the critical information to glean: climate action is radically different from place to place within the United States, and a single “rural” approach to any climate response requires local knowledge.

Regionalism has created a sense of competition for climate related funding in which each region feels under-resourced. As recently as 2023, Midwestern elected officials created the Heartland Caucus due to a perceived inequity between their states and those in the West that are served by the Bureau of Reclamation. With differences in the landscapes, the industries, and especially in the government agencies that have dominance, it is essential that regional variation be understood through an equity lens to ensure all areas of the country are adequately resourced to be able to respond to climate threats.

While local specificity is essential, organizations with a rural climate agenda lack a cross-regional structure to draw lessons from region to region. While the issues are regionally specific, the solutions can have commonalities. Take the permafrost thaw threat in Alaska, causing whole communities to relocate. The issue is dramatically different than the sea level rise causing United Houma Nation communities to consider relocating from the bayous of Louisiana, but the community relocation is similar. What funding sources have these two distant communities been able to secure? What challenges did they face in finding a location to relocate to? What community assets have they called on most to implement their response? Cross-regional efforts have the potential to accelerate locally driven climate responses by creating space to learn from one another.

Rural Climate Information Sources

This landscape analysis includes information gleaned from personal interviews with 25 individuals with a professional, and personal concerns for adjusting to climate change which supplement desk research pulled from over 150 organizations in 34 states with rural climate agendas. Information sources also include policy and position statements released by the US government via the White House, federal agency materials, and federal program information. Beyond federal resources, government programs at state and local levels, nonprofit programs, and grassroots groups’ meetings and public materials were analyzed to understand the nature of rural climate concerns and rural climate responses. These resources can be grouped into the following categories for consideration:

Government agencies: Federal agencies like the USDA and the EPA have climate programs and resources, as do state agencies like state departments of agriculture and natural resources. These resources include climate data and assessments, and policy and program guidance. Information from these government resources are critical, as they usually lay the baseline for what geographic boundaries will be relevant for programming, and the census data, economic data, and environmental data is usually treated as the primary source to lay the groundwork for climate response programming.
Nonprofit organizations: Nonprofits focused on agriculture, conservation, and rural communities often have programs and resources related to climate adaptation and mitigation that are specific to their members’ needs and the organization’s target issues. Nonprofit organizations often curate and communicate technical information to specific audiences. They also play a crucial role in collating information from a variety of sources and digesting it into an information product that can be used in a variety of settings. Examples of these types of information providers include the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, the National Young Farmers Coalition, and the Rural Advancement Foundation International.
Universities and research institutions: Many academic institutions have climate programs and research centers focused on agriculture, forestry, and natural resources. These resources include climate modeling, climate impacts assessments, and research on climate adaptation strategies. In-depth analysis and scientific experimentation primarily comes from these information sources. Academic institutions also provide policy think tanks and legal scholars who argue and test environmental policies, study new and existing sources of policy, and sometimes litigate.
Media outlets: News organizations covering rural issues and environmental topics cover climate change and climate impacts in rural areas. These information sources are critical for getting current happenings and information about how ideas are playing out in a variety of real-world situations. Examples include High Country News, Grist, and the Daily Yonder.
Grassroots organizations: Organizations focused on environmental justice and community organizing sometimes include climate programs and resources that center the experiences and perspectives of rural communities. Examples include the Just Transition Alliance and the Indigenous Environmental Network.
Coalitions: In addition to the individual organizations and institutions playing specific roles in the rural climate solutions ecosystem, there are also existing coalitions guiding the rural branch of the climate movement. These include National Economic Transition, Black Appalachian Coalition, ReImagine Appalachia, Resources Legacy Fund, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

These are just a few examples within each category of information provider, and are not mutually exclusive in the information provided – there is overlap among the types of resources provided by each.

Rural Resources

The following appendices include collections of resources to further detail the locally-led rural climate solutions landscape.

APPENDIX A: RURAL SUCCESS STORIES

Below are several examples of communities that have successfully overcome opposition to climate adaptation efforts.

Case Study 1: Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana

The Isle de Jean Charles Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw Indians is a Native American Tribe that has lived on the Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana for generations. The island has been severely impacted by coastal erosion and sea level rise, which has forced many residents to relocate. The Tribe has worked with government agencies, non-profit organizations, and academic institutions to develop a plan to resettle the community on higher ground. This plan has received support from local, state, and federal officials, as well as from environmental and social justice advocates.

Case Study 2: Greensburg, Kansas

After being devastated by a tornado in 2007, the town decided to rebuild as a sustainable community, with a focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Despite initial resistance from some community members who were skeptical about the benefits of these efforts, Greensburg was able to successfully implement a range of climate adaptation strategies, including the installation of wind turbines, solar panels, and geothermal heating and cooling systems.

Case Study 3: Wood River, Nebraska

In response to increasing frequency and severity of floods, the town of Wood River worked with local organizations and government agencies to implement a range of adaptation measures, including the construction of a new levee and the creation of new wetlands to absorb floodwaters. The town also implemented a buyout program to help residents in flood-prone areas relocate to safer areas.

Case Study 4: Marshalltown, Iowa

After a devastating tornado hit the town in 2018, community members worked together to rebuild in a more sustainable and resilient way. This included the installation of new green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and bioswales, to manage stormwater runoff and reduce the risk of flooding. The town also implemented a program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels and other energy-efficient upgrades.

Case Study 5: Village of Suttons Bay, Michigan

Suttons Bay, a small village located on the shores of Lake Michigan, implemented a shoreline protection program to address erosion and flooding. The program includes the installation of rock revetments, breakwaters, and other measures to protect the shoreline and nearby properties from storm surges and wave action.

Case Study 6: Paonia, Colorado

Paonia, a small agricultural town in western Colorado, has been dealing with drought and other climate-related challenges. To address this, the town implemented a community solar program that allows residents to purchase solar panels and receive credits on their utility bills. The program has been successful in reducing energy costs and promoting renewable energy use in the community.

Case Study 7: Sharon, Vermont

Sharon, a small rural town in central Vermont, implemented a program to promote renewable energy use in the community. The program includes the installation of solar panels on public buildings, as well as the implementation of energy efficiency measures in municipal buildings and schools.

APPENDIX B: POLICIES AND PROGRAMS WITH DEMONSTRATED POTENTIAL TO ACCELERATE RURAL CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION

Encouraging the use of renewable energy: Policies that incentivize the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, have demonstrated success transitioning rural communities away from fossil fuels and reducing their carbon footprint.

Rural electrification through clean energy: Many rural areas in America still lack access to reliable electricity, and many communities are turning to clean energy sources to provide power to residents and businesses. For example, in Alaska, the Kodiak Electric Association has developed a microgrid powered by hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy that provides reliable and affordable electricity to remote communities.
Net Metering: Net metering policies allow households and businesses to generate their own renewable energy and sell excess energy back to the grid. This policy has been particularly effective in rural areas where there is ample space for solar and wind installations. Net metering policies have helped to reduce the cost of energy for households and businesses, and have also encouraged investment in renewable energy projects.
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS): RPS policies require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources. This policy has been successful in encouraging the development of renewable energy projects in rural areas, particularly wind farms. RPS policies have also helped to create jobs in rural communities, as new renewable energy projects require construction, maintenance, and operation.
Investment Tax Credits (ITC): ITC policies provide tax incentives for households and businesses that invest in renewable energy projects. This policy has been particularly effective in rural areas, where households and businesses may have higher energy costs due to their location. ITC policies have helped to reduce the cost of renewable energy projects, making them more accessible to rural communities.
Community Solar: Community solar programs allow households and businesses to invest in a shared solar project and receive credits on their energy bill. This policy has been particularly effective in rural areas where households and businesses may not have the space or resources to invest in their own renewable energy project. Community solar programs have helped to increase access to renewable energy for rural communities, while also creating jobs and reducing energy costs. For example, in Minnesota, the Rural Renewable Energy Alliance has helped install community solar projects in rural areas, providing local jobs and reducing energy costs for residents.
Tribal renewable energy projects: Many Native American Tribes are leading the way in developing renewable energy projects that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also promote economic development and energy independence. For example, the Navajo Nation in Arizona has built a 27.3 MW solar farm that provides clean energy to the local grid and creates jobs for Tribal members.

Investing in green infrastructure: Policies that support the development of green infrastructure, such as green roofs and permeable pavement, could help rural communities adapt to climate change by reducing the risk of flooding and heat stress.

Green Roofs: Green roof policies can incentivize the installation of green roofs on new and existing buildings. Green roofs can help reduce the urban heat island effect, improve air quality, and reduce stormwater runoff. This policy has been successful in urban areas, but could also be applied in rural areas where buildings and infrastructure are more spread out.
Permeable Pavement: Permeable pavement policies can require new construction projects to use permeable pavement materials. This type of pavement allows rainwater to seep through the surface and be absorbed into the ground, reducing stormwater runoff and the risk of flooding. This policy could be particularly effective in rural areas where unpaved roads and parking lots are more common.
Forest Preservation:These policies can encourage the preservation and planting of trees in rural areas. Trees provide shade, absorb carbon dioxide, and help reduce the urban heat island effect. This policy could be particularly effective in rural areas where there is more space to plant trees and forests often cover large areas.
Green Infrastructure Grants: Green infrastructure grant programs can provide funding for local governments, nonprofits, and businesses to develop green infrastructure projects. This policy can help encourage the development of green infrastructure projects in rural areas, where there may be less funding available for these types of projects.

Providing funding for climate adaptation and mitigation: Policies and programming that provide funding for climate adaptation and mitigation projects in rural communities could help these communities invest in new technologies and infrastructure that can help them adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. A non-exhaustive list:

The Canada-United States Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration: This plan includes funding for the development of critical minerals in rural areas, which can support the transition to renewable energy and other climate mitigation efforts.
The Green Climate Fund: This international fund provides funding for climate mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries, including those in rural areas. Projects that can receive funding include sustainable agriculture, forest management, and water management.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Hubs: This program provides technical assistance and funding to farmers and ranchers to adopt practices that increase soil health, water conservation, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Adaptation Fund: This fund provides funding for developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including in rural areas. Projects that can receive funding include water management, agriculture, and forestry.
The USDA Rural Energy for America Program (REAP): This program provides grants and loans to rural small businesses and agricultural producers to install renewable energy systems, make energy efficiency improvements, and conduct energy audits.
The USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): This program provides financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to implement conservation practices that reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat, among other benefits.
The USDA Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): This program provides financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to improve their conservation practices, including those that mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP): This program provides funding to partnerships between agricultural producers, conservation groups, and other stakeholders to implement conservation practices and address natural resource concerns, including those related to climate change.
The USDA Forest Service Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: This program provides funding to communities to acquire and manage forests and other open spaces, which can help protect and conserve natural resources and provide benefits related to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Encouraging sustainable transportation: The use of sustainable transportation, such as electric vehicles or public transportation, could help rural communities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Rural communities are also taking steps to promote sustainable transportation, such as bike and pedestrian infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations. For example, in Vermont, the Mad River Valley community has developed a bike path that connects residents and visitors to local businesses, reducing emissions and promoting physical activity.
Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP): This program provides funding and technical assistance to rural transit agencies to help them improve service quality, expand routes, and increase ridership. The program also provides training and resources to transit operators and staff to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Grants: The US Department of Energy provides grants to support the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure, including electric vehicle charging stations and alternative fuel refueling stations, in rural communities. These grants can help improve access to sustainable transportation options in rural areas.
Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Grants: The Federal Highway Administration provides grants to support the development of bike and pedestrian infrastructure, such as trails and sidewalks, in rural communities. These grants can help improve access to active transportation options and promote physical activity.
Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs): RPOs are regional organizations that work with local communities to develop transportation plans that address their unique needs and priorities. RPOs can help rural communities identify and prioritize sustainable transportation options, such as public transit, active transportation, and alternative fuels.
Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA): The CTAA is a national nonprofit organization that provides technical assistance, training, and resources to rural transportation providers. The CTAA can help rural communities identify and implement sustainable transportation options that meet their needs and resources
Electrification of School Buses: The $2.5 billion in funding for electric school buses in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill is part of a broader effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and improve air quality in communities across the country. Electric school buses can help reduce emissions from the transportation sector, which is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US, and improve air quality in and around schools, where children may be exposed to high levels of pollution. Additionally, the Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Trust, is providing funding for electric school buses in the US. Established as part of a settlement between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Justice, and VW, the trust was created to resolve allegations that the company violated the Clean Air Act by selling diesel vehicles equipped with emissions cheating software. Under the terms of the settlement, VW established a $2.9 billion trust to fund projects that reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the US. States and territories are eligible to receive funds from the trust based on the number of affected VW diesel vehicles registered in their jurisdiction. Many states are using funds from the VW Environmental Mitigation Trust to support the purchase of electric school buses. Electric school buses can help reduce NOx emissions, improve air quality, and reduce fuel costs for school districts. In addition, electric school buses can provide a reliable source of power in the event of an emergency, such as a power outage or natural disaster.

Supporting conservation and restoration efforts such as reforestation and wetland restoration, could help rural communities adapt to climate change by restoring ecosystems that provide important ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration and flood control. The following are policies and programs which provide for ecosystem services. Those USDA which provide funding above also support ecosystem restoration.

Carbon sequestration through conservation: Many rural landowners, including Native American Tribes, are taking steps to conserve land and promote carbon sequestration in forests, wetlands, and grasslands. For example, the InterTribal Agriculture Council has launched a program to promote conservation practices on Tribal lands that not only reduce carbon emissions but also promote biodiversity and protect cultural resources.
USDA Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): The WRP provides technical and financial assistance to landowners to restore and protect wetlands on their property. This program helps improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, and provide habitat for wildlife in rural areas.
USDA Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP): The ACEP provides financial assistance to landowners and partners to conserve agricultural lands and wetlands through easements or other conservation practices. This program helps preserve working lands in rural areas and protects wildlife habitat, wetlands, and other sensitive ecosystems.
USDA Forest Service Programming: The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners, state and local governments, and other partners to manage and restore forests and grasslands. This program helps improve the health and resiliency of forest ecosystems, reduce the risk of wildfires, and provide habitat for wildlife in rural areas.

Providing education and outreach: Policies that provide education and outreach to rural communities about the impacts of climate change and how they can adapt and mitigate its effects could help these communities become more resilient in the face of a changing climate.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office: The Climate Program Office provides funding and technical assistance to support climate education and outreach efforts across the US. This includes programs that focus specifically on rural communities, such as the Climate Adaptation Science Centers.
NOAA Climate Resilience Toolkit: The Climate Resilience Toolkit provides online resources and tools to help communities understand and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The Toolkit includes resources specifically designed for rural communities, including case studies and guidance on climate adaptation strategies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Education Grants: The EPA provides grants to support environmental education programs, including those that focus on climate change. These grants help organizations develop and implement educational programs that address climate change in rural communities, such as the Climate Change Education Partnership program.
EPA State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreement Program: This program provides funding to state and Tribal governments to help them develop and implement environmental justice programs. These programs often include education and outreach efforts to address climate-related health impacts in low-income and minority communities, including those in rural areas.

Supporting sustainable agriculture or regenerative agriculture as a holistic approach to farming that focuses on building healthy soil and reducing carbon emissions, is another demonstrated success. These practices include crop rotation and reduced use of pesticides and help rural communities adapt to the changing climate and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the policies and programs listed above support sustainable agriculture practices.

APPENDIX C: UNSUCCESSFUL RURAL CLIMATE POLICIES

Cap and trade policies: Cap and trade policies, which limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow companies to trade emissions permits, have faced opposition in rural areas due to concerns over the impact on industries such as agriculture and manufacturing. One example of rural opposition to cap and trade policies in rural America can be seen in the resistance to the Clean Power Plan, which was a federal policy proposed by the Obama administration in 2014 to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The plan included a cap-and-trade system as one of its key components. Many rural communities in coal-producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky, and Wyoming opposed the Clean Power Plan, arguing that it would harm their local economies by reducing demand for coal and increasing energy prices. In 2016, several states, including West Virginia and Kentucky, sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block the Clean Power Plan. Another example of rural opposition to cap and trade policies can be seen in the resistance to California’s cap-and-trade program, which is the largest such program in the United States. The program requires companies to purchase permits for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit, with the goal of reducing emissions over time. In 2019, a group of rural California residents and business owners sued the state over the cap-and-trade program, arguing that it unfairly targets rural communities and harms their ability to compete economically. The plaintiffs claimed that the program would increase fuel prices, which would disproportionately impact rural residents who have to travel long distances for work and errands.
Carbon taxes: Carbon taxes, which impose a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, have faced resistance in rural areas due to concerns over increased energy costs and the impact on energy-intensive industries. Many rural communities oppose carbon markets because they disproportionately impact low-income, minority and other disadvantaged communities.
Renewable energy mandates: Renewable energy mandates, which require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, have faced opposition in rural areas due to concerns over the impact on fossil fuel industries and rural economies. Organized opposition has prevented these policies in the past, although the Biden administration has made headway with an incentive-based approach through the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
Environmental regulations: Environmental regulations, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, have faced opposition in rural areas due to concerns over the impact on industries such as agriculture and mining. In addition to industries effectively clawing back the protections provided in these regulations, rural areas are some of the most egregious sites of regulatory failure, where the laws are not enforced and environmental racism plays out at its worst.
Federal land management policies: Federal land management policies, such as those governing national forests and wildlife refuges, have faced opposition in rural areas due to concerns over restrictions on land use and resource extraction.

APPENDIX D: RURAL CLIMATE ACTION ORGANIZATIONS

The following organizations have been reviewed for identifiable rural and climate-related agendas.

1	ABR INC Environmental Consulting & Research Services
2	Access for Rural Community Health (ARCH) Coalition
3	Akiptan
4	All in Wisconsin
5	American Conservation Coalition
6	Appalachian Carbon Partnership
7	Appalachian Studies Association
8	Appalachian Voices
9	Atlas Community Studios
10	Audubon Society
11	Barry University School of Law
12	Black Appalachian Coalition (BLAC)
13	Blackfeet Nation
14	Bluestem Ecological Services
15	Boise Bicycle Project
16	Center for American Progress
17	Center for Coalfield Justice
18	Center for Disaster Philanthropy
19	Center for Health Innovation
20	Center for Rural Affairs
21	Center for Rural Entrepreneurship
22	Center on Race, Policy, and the Environment
23	Clean Energy Works
24	Climate Advocates Voices Unidas (CAVU)
25	Climate and Energy Project
26	Climate One
27	Coalfield Justice
28	Color of Water
29	Colorado Blueprint to End Hunger, Mountain Harvest Consulting
30	Come Dream Come Build
31	Communities Unlimited
32	Communities Unlimited, CEO
33	Community and Economic Development Initiative of Kentucky, University of Kentucky
34	Community Builders of Color Coalition
35	Community Water Coalition
36	Dream.org
37	Ducks Unlimited
38	Earthjustice
39	Elizabeth Rowe Consulting
40	Farm Action Alliance
41	Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
42	Firelands Workers United
43	First Nations Development Institute & Visiting Scholar at The University of New Mexico
44	Food & Water Watch
45	Food and Water Watch
46	Forum For the Future
47	Generation West Virginia
48	Georgia Climate Project
49	Georgia Health Policy Center
50	Global Exchange
51	Grand Canyon Trust
52	Growing Rural Oregon
53	Headwaters Economics
54	Heart of the Rockies Initiative
55	HECHO
56	Hispanics in Philanthropy
57	HPM Building Supply, Hawai’i
58	Idaho Conservation League
59	Imperial Valley Wellness Foundation
60	Indigenous Environmental Network
61	Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN)
62	Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)
63	Institute for Local Self-Reliance
64	International Economic Development Council
65	Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA)
66	Just Transition Fund
67	Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
68	Kettering Foundation
69	Kua O Ka La PCS
70	Local Initiatives Support Corporation
71	Lumpkin Family Foundation
72	MDC Rural Forward North Carolina
73	Minority Landowner Magazine
74	Mountain Association
75	NAACP
76	National AgrAbility Project
77	National Economic Transition
78	National Issues Forums
79	National Parks Foundation
80	National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
81	National Young Farmers Coalition
82	Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
83	Native Organizers Alliance
84	Native Renewables
85	Nature Conservancy
86	Navajo Trust Foundation
87	NDN Collective
88	North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council
89	Northeast Arizona Native Democrats, and Navajo County Democrats
90	Northern Forest Center, Vice President
91	Nourish Colorado
92	Oregon Rural Action
93	Oxfam America
94	Patagonia
95	Peaceful Pines Farm
96	PMG Building Supply Hawai’i
97	Powder River Basin Resource Council
98	Prairie Rivers Network
99	Quivira Coalition
100	READY Appalachia
101	Regenerative Agriculture Foundation
102	Region Five Development Commission
103	ReImagine Appalachia
104	Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) Associates LLC
105	Resilient Rural
106	Resources for the Future
107	Resources Legacy Fund
108	Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
109	Rocky Mountain Institute
110	Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
111	Rural Community Assistance Partnership
112	Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition
113	Savory Institute
114	Sierra Club
115	Southerly Magazine
116	Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
117	Sunrise
118	Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
119	Texas A&M University
120	The High Divide Collaborative
121	The Mississippi Association of Cooperatives
122	The National Wildlife Federation
123	The Quivira Coalition
124	The Rural Climate Dialogues
125	The Rural Renewable Energy Alliance
126	The Southwest Organizing Project
127	The Trust for Public Land
128	Tribal Healthy Homes Network
129	Tribe Awaken
130	Trout Unlimited
131	Union of Concerned Scientists
132	United Today, Stronger Tomorrow
133	University of Central Missouri, Institute for Rural Emergency Management
134	University of North Dakota
135	University of North Texas
136	University of Pittsburgh Congress of Neighboring Communities
137	University of Illinois
138	Vermont Climate Council
139	Vibrant Hawai’i
140	Wallowa Resources
141	We the People
142	West Virginia Citizen Action Group
143	Western Conservation Foundation
144	Western Resource Advocates
145	Western Rural Development Center, University of Utah
146	Whidbey Island Land and Shore Trust
147	White Earth Nation
148	Wild Salmon Center
149	Wild Turkey Foundation
150	Wilderness Society
151	Western Organization of Resource Council (WORC) (and affiliates)
152	World Wildlife Fund

Connecting Climate Response to Economies in Rural America

Related Articles

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Three recommendations will move locally-led climate solutions forward:

OVERVIEW

THREE RECOMMENDATIONS

One: Remove Climate Advocacy From Environmental Silos – Create a Rural Climate Space Wide Enough for “Climate Action” and “Economic Diversification”

Two: Anticipate and Leverage “Focusing Events”

Three: Build Capacity Across Regions

Additional capacity must include:

SIX CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

One: Limited funding

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Two: Insufficient focus on social equity

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Three: Limited outreach and education

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Four: Limited capacity

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Five: Insufficient attention to long-term planning

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Six: Insufficient coordination and integration

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

RURAL CLIMATE ACTION LEADERS

THE RURAL CLIMATE ACTION LANDSCAPE

Defining the Climate Conversation

Outside of a geographic analysis, several characteristics of the climate conversation have particular importance for rural communities. Below are some of the nuances of these characteristics from a rural perspective.

The majority of rural Americans are concerned about the impact of climate change on their communities, but the hostile political landscape is preventing climate conversations among friends and neighbors.

Current political and media narratives falsely assume rural people are resistant to climate action and this stereotype is holding us back.

Power Map: Rural Climate Leadership

Issue Area Leadership

Adaptation Concerns

Mitigation Efforts

Legal & Political Influence

Thought/Action Leadership

Case Study: The North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council Links Climate Action and Economic Development Strategies

Obstacles and Opportunities

It is under these assumptions that the following SWOT analysis evaluates the rural climate action landscape.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

Local to Federal Gaps

Limited funding

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Insufficient focus on social equity

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Limited outreach and education

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Limited capacity

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Insufficient attention to long-term planning

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Insufficient coordination and integration

What Can Philanthropists Do?

What Can Local Leaders and Activists Do?

What Can Policymakers Do?

Regional Variation in Climate Concerns and Climate Action