While rural America produces some of the highest-emitting energy in the nation, it’s also where the majority of clean energy generation occurs and will need to be built. Decarbonizing the U.S. energy sector also has significant potential to deliver economic benefits to rural communities. Renewable energy projects can diversify rural economies while reducing energy costs for rural homes and businesses. 

The EPA reports that 14.5% of U.S. current electricity generation (MWh) comes from wind, solar, and geothermal. We estimate that a whopping 87% of this clean generation (524 TWh) is based in rural America, including 93% of wind, 75% of solar, and 97% of geothermal generation.

Rural America is where the land resources exist to site utility-scale clean energy projects. While rural clean energy projects are found throughout the U.S., we estimate that Texas leads the country with its number of rural wind farms, followed by Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Illinois. And we found that California leads the nation in terms of the number of rural solar farms, followed by Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Along with current clean energy build, most projected clean energy growth will need to happen in rural America. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that renewable energy potential, particularly for solar and wind, coincides with rurality. Similarly, the Department of Energy found that 90% of solar projects anticipated by 2050 will be built in rural areas, and the American Farmland Trust estimates that 83% of new solar projects have been built on agricultural lands, with conversion expected to continue for future projects. 

To achieve 100% clean electricity by 2035, NREL estimates that 58,000 square kilometers of land is required for onshore wind, solar, and interregional transmission rights-of-way. This represents approximately 0.76% of the total land area in the contiguous U.S., which NREL estimates is roughly equal to one-third of the land currently used for growing corn for ethanol and about equal to the land occupied by railroads. Interestingly, the land required for onshore wind turbines, excluding the spacing between turbines that can be utilized for other purposes, is similar to the total land area currently used for golf courses.

There are two factors that most greatly threaten the necessary growth of clean energy in rural America: federal policy shifts and siting restrictions, both driven by corporate lobbying and mis- and disinformation campaigns. 

2025 H.R.1 (the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)) cancelled and conditioned federal funding like tax credits for renewables while expanding financing for fossil fuel generation, making renewable power siting on federal lands more difficult, easing restrictions for fossil fuels, and loosening regulations on non-renewable plants to extend their operations. However, some public funding earmarked for clean energy in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) is anticipated to continue forward, including $9.7B for rural electric cooperatives to advance clean energy. Fortunately, even without subsidies and tax credits, research and investment reports suggest that wind and solar remain the most cost-effective and quickest to deploy sources of new energy generation.

Renewable energy siting restrictions are another major cause of project cancellations and delays, particularly in rural America. We found that, of the 355 county and municipal siting restrictions identified by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law in effect at the end of 2024, 85% (301) are in fully rural or partially rural counties. Siting restrictions are becoming increasingly prevalent. Indeed, 20% of all county-level clean energy siting restrictions reported by the Sabin Center were added in just 2024. 

Mis- and disinformation campaigns, primarily funded by fossil fuel and agribusiness corporations, are largely responsible for the scramble towards siting restrictions. While rural communities have legitimate concerns, organic local opposition is often propped up by astroturf groups funded by outside interests. Potential state and federal restrictions banning solar projects on farmland threaten one of the most promising paths for national decarbonization, denying rural landowners and farmers the opportunity to diversify their incomes and participate in the renewable energy transition. 

Opposition can be countered, in part, through public education and community organizing that ensures rural people are included in decision-making processes and can help shape projects to deliver local economic benefits. When done correctly, clean energy projects can boost the local economy during construction, generate additional income for family farms that lease land, and generate tax revenue that rural communities can invest in roads, public safety equipment, and schools. 

Support for clean energy development from trusted local messengers, clean energy education, and positive, benefit-forward communications can also help beneficial projects move forward. Investments in rural organizing and in local leaders to coordinate narrative, regulatory, political, and market efforts to deliver local benefits to rural communities can reverse the trend of clean energy siting bans and help unlock a clean energy future for rural America

The agriculture sector accounts for 10.5% of total U.S. emissions. We estimate that 88% of annual agriculture emissions come from rural America, about 570 MMT CO₂e annually. 

It’s important to note that the EPA does not count many agriculture-related emissions as part of the agriculture sector. For example, emissions from industrial fertilizer production are counted in the industry sector, and transportation emissions associated with moving agricultural products are counted in the transportation sector. Some estimates suggest that, if all factors are considered, agriculture's total emissions could account for one-third of U.S. emissions.

The EPA reports that 50% of agricultural emissions are driven by nitrous oxide from agricultural soil management (296 MMT CO₂e/yr). Annual fluctuations in nitrous oxide emissions are driven by crop production, synthetic fertilizer use, and weather, and do not change significantly year to year unless those factors change dramatically. The World Resources Institute estimates that 135 MMT CO₂e of annual agricultural emissions are attributable to synthetic nitrogen fertilizer production and use.

 The EPA reports that another 45% of agricultural emissions are driven by methane from enteric fermentation and manure management. Nearly all enteric fermentation emissions come from beef and dairy cattle burps and farts, and manure management emissions mostly come from cattle and swine.

Climate-smart agricultural practices and technological advances can support emissions reductions and carbon sequestration while increasing the resilience of farming and ranching in the face of climate change. They can also deliver water and air quality improvements that benefit rural communities and bolster farmer incomes.

Improving nutrient management on croplands can lower agricultural emissions while also reducing farmers' fertilizer costs. USDA estimates that 28% of croplands are overfertilized and exceed their nitrogen loss thresholds. Changing practices and applying the right amount of fertilizer on these croplands, USDA estimates, could save farmers $30 per acre, leading to $2.6 billion in total savings across U.S. farms. Other practices, like changing when fertilizer is applied, using different irrigation practices, diversifying crops, and planting cover crops, can also reduce nitrous oxide emissions and improve water quality. Using Naturebase data, we estimate that rural cropland emissions can be reduced by 13 MMT CO₂e annually through better soil nutrient management and through water management practices on rice fields. Opportunities to reduce emissions from synthetic nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing are described in the Industry sector.

Another avenue for reducing net agriculture emissions is through soil health practices that expand carbon sequestration. Using Naturebase data, we estimate that rural agriculture changes could help sequester an additional 394 MMT CO₂e/yr and reduce agriculture emissions by 21 MMT CO₂e/yr. On sequestration, we conservatively estimate that improved stocking density and pasture management in rural grazing lands could sequester 161 MMT CO₂e/yr, and practices on croplands such as cover crops, reduced tillage, green manure, and biochar could sequester another 159 MMT CO₂e/yr. We estimate that an additional 74 MMT CO₂e/yr could be sequestered through agroforestry on rural croplands and savannas. Realizing this potential requires place-based work with rural farmers, ranchers, and local governing bodies. 

It’s valuable to consider these strategies alongside land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) pathways as well. As is highlighted in Michael Grunwald’s recent book, We Are Eating the Earth, increased agricultural intensification and efficiency can help take pressure off of further grassland and forest conversion to agriculture and therefore protect existing carbon sequestration and avoid future potential agriculture emissions on these lands.

Livestock emissions can be reduced through technological interventions and the adoption of regenerative soil health practices. NREL found that adopting anaerobic digestors at large-scale swine and dairy operations could reduce livestock emissions by 55 MMT CO₂e annually, or 69% of all manure management emissions. Adoption is currently limited, but growing. The EPA-USDA AgStar program clocks steady growth in anaerobic manure digesters, with 400 in operation and 73 under construction as of 2024. Anaerobic manure digestors and the concentrated animal farming operations associated with them can have negative local impacts that should be considered beyond their pure emissions-reduction potential. 

On enteric emissions, livestock feed additives show promise for reducing, though adoption of this relatively new technology remains limited. Using Naturebase data, we estimate that at least 8 MMT CO₂e annually can be reduced through diet formulation and feed additives in rural intensive cattle systems. Comparative dairy analyses show that lifecycle management choices around feed additives, feed quality, and grazing regimens drive large differences in emissions intensity across systems. Research has found that intensified pasture systems for beef cattle reduce enteric methane per kilogram of weight gain by improving forage mass and nutrient availability. When paired with soil pH correction, fertilization, rotational grazing, or maize-pasture integration, cattle achieve higher average daily gains and final weights, cutting the methane intensity per kilogram of weight gain. Genetics also play a significant role in determining which dairy cows produce the least methane, and efforts are underway to develop selective breeding programs in the U.S. and internationally to minimize emissions.

The figure below shows all of the Naturebase carbon sequestration and emissions reductions potential across different pathways.

It is important to note that the actual potential for carbon sequestration and emissions reductions in rural areas via agricultural pathways is likely higher than our current estimate. As detailed in the Methodology section, these figures are derived by applying the percentage of county land classified as rural by HRSA to the total potential estimated by Naturebase in that county. More precise estimates would require further in-depth analysis and spatial work.

The IRA expanded funding for climate-smart agriculture. The OBBBA rescinded the IRA funds and added those that were unobligated to the baseline funding for USDA core conservation programs: the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). While these funds are no longer strictly focused on climate-smart practices like they were under the IRA, the new additions to core conservation programs do represent a dramatic increase in funding for farmers and ranchers to advance soil health and livestock management practices that can reduce emissions. 

Agricultural climate solutions are intertwined with the wider rural economy and with climate solutions across other sectors. For example, as noted in the Electric Power section, much of the nation’s wind and solar will be integrated on farms and ranches. Agriculture is linked to transportation through biofuels. 40% of U.S. corn acres are grown for ethanol. However, analyses indicate corn ethanol is 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline; repurposing some of these acres toward lower-emitting food, feed, fiber, or energy production could help reduce pressure on land and water while creating more revenue for farmers. In addition, solar net energy generation is 100-125 times greater than that from corn ethanol. Getting these linkages right requires rural-led strategies that sequence projects and address tradeoffs across sectors.

Industry accounts for 29% of total U.S. emissions. We estimate that 34% of annual industry emissions come from rural America, about 484 MMT CO₂e annually. 

Industry sector emissions largely come from the combustion of fossil fuels to power fossil fuel extraction, produce raw materials, and develop products used nationally and internationally. Industrial facilities in rural America produce everything from iron and steel, cement, petrochemicals, ammonia (primarily for fertilizer), nitric acid, hydrogen, electronics, pulp and paper products, cars, and other industrial and retail products. Petroleum and natural gas systems are also major contributors to industry sector emissions. We estimate that 44% of U.S. industry facilities that report to the EPA are located in rural areas (2,233 out of 5,075).

Manufacturing industries are an important economic driver for many rural communities. The USDA finds that 25% of rural counties depend on manufacturing as the primary source of employment, wages, and revenue, compared to 17% that depend on agriculture. Relatedly, the USDA also finds that manufacturing earnings accounted for 21% of non-farm earnings in rural areas (versus 11% in urban areas) and 14% of non-farm jobs in rural areas (versus 7% in urban areas).

Rural industries can lower emissions through efficiency upgrades, electrification, cleaner fuels, and local renewable power generation. These strategies also lead to cost savings, which are particularly beneficial for rural industries that often operate with tight margins. Some of these cleaner practices are already being adopted, and the EPA reports that overall U.S. industry emissions have fallen 17% since 1990 due to broad economic shifts, operational improvements, and fuel switching. There are ongoing opportunities to expand clean industry practices in rural America.

For example, the conventional production of ammonia, a primary fertilizer for crops, is carbon-intensive and relies on natural gas. Each ton of ammonia generates about 2.3 tons of CO₂e, according to the International Energy Agency, and recent research estimates that all U.S. synthetic nitrogen fertilizer production generates 7.6 MMT CO₂e per year. There are readily available solutions to help cut these industry emissions. Technology controls can help reduce emissions from fertilizer production by up to 70-90%, according to the EPA. There is a significant opportunity to cut emissions, given that currently half of all U.S. ammonia production facilities lack control mechanisms. In addition, green ammonia production can shift feedstocks from natural gas toward renewable electricity, and when these facilities are distributed throughout rural America, they can help offset emissions from transporting fertilizers from faraway production facilities. 

Rural economies are closely linked to industry, and enhancing existing industries while investing in new, clean ones is crucial for generating rural jobs and providing local benefits. 

Transportation accounts for 29% of total U.S. emissions. We estimate that 20% of annual transportation emissions come from rural America, about 367 MMT CO₂e annually.

The EPA reports that light-duty trucks and passenger vehicles, collectively referred to as “light-duty vehicles,” make up more than half (56%) of national transportation emissions, followed by medium and heavy-duty trucks (23%). Rhodium Group expects that emissions from light-duty vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty trucks will decline by only 3% through 2030, underscoring the need to focus on passenger and freight vehicle decarbonization. The remaining transportation sector emissions come from aircraft (10%) and other relatively minor sources, including ships and boats, rail, and buses.

Rural people are particularly car-dependent. The Department of Transportation estimates that only 36% of rural residents have access to bus, rail, and air transportation. The nonprofit Coltura found that rural drivers, who make up 18.8% of all U.S. drivers, consume a disproportionate 25.6% of all light-duty vehicle gasoline in the U.S. Moreover, of the top 10% of all U.S. drivers, known as “Superusers,” Coltura found that 36% are based in rural America. These rural Superusers on their own consume 12.5 billion gallons of gasoline, which is more than the total gasoline consumption in Canada.

For transportation emissions beyond light-duty vehicles, data is limited on which of these emissions are generated by rural people in rural places. Therefore, we estimate that only a population-based share of emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, trains, planes, and other transportation modes are tied to rural America (see Methodology for more details). Our estimates are conservative, and we know that other transportation emissions are associated with vehicles moving through rural areas. After all, 68% of national lane-miles are in rural areas. This is an imperfect approach, and more research is needed to better understand rural transportation emissions and the role that rural areas can play in reducing national transportation emissions. For example, the amount of heavy-duty vehicle use for farming is significant, but not easily disaggregated from total heavy-duty emissions data. 

While ethanol and other biofuels are frequently cited as a transportation climate solution, research indicates that, when accounting for land conversion, fertilizer use, and the production and transportation of biofuels, they are often more energy- and land-intensive.

Electric vehicles (EVs) are a key way to reduce rural transportation emissions and deliver fuel-cost savings to rural people. On average, Coltura found that rural drivers spend nearly 9% of their household income on gasoline, compared to about 5% for non-rural drivers. The costs on rural Superusers are even higher: on average, rural Superusers spend nearly 17% of their household income on gasoline. By switching to EVs, rural Superusers could save on average nearly $4,000 a year on fuel, and if all rural Superusers switched, it could help avoid 76 MMT CO₂e of annual emissions. This is roughly equivalent to nationwide emissions from all rail and boat transportation combined.

The OBBBA elimination of EV purchase credits in September 2025 is impacting EV adoption rates. However, even with the elimination of EV credits, RMI finds that drivers will still see net savings from switching to EVs, thanks to reduced upfront costs and fuel savings. 

More rural charging stations can help support a rural shift to EVs. Currently, rural Americans live farther from public EV charging stations than urban and suburban Americans; according to the Pew Research Center, just 17% of rural residents live within a mile of the nearest public charger, compared to 41% in suburbs and 60% in urban areas. 21-33% of rural drivers are “very or somewhat likely” to purchase an EV, and the likelihood is lowest among those living more than 2 miles from a public charging station. This compares to 32-47% and 42-51% of suburban and urban drivers, respectively. Rural electric cooperatives serve as valuable partners in expanding access to EV charging for rural people. For example, in Virginia, A&N Electric Cooperative and Rappahannock Electric Cooperative received federal funds to install chargers in rural communities. Charging stations can be a boon to rural economies, too: research shows that installing charging stations increases spending at nearby businesses.

Federal tax credits for EVs and alternative charging stations proved successful in rural areas during the 13 months following their implementation in January 2023. Rural areas saw a greater increase in the number of charging stations than urban areas (34% vs. 29% growth). 

Not all rural people can afford personal vehicles (EVs or otherwise), nor can all rural people drive themselves. EV ride-sharing offers another avenue for reducing rural light-duty transportation emissions when other solutions, such as expanded public transportation, are infeasible.

While more dispersed, rural America still includes many towns where transit-oriented development and compact land-use planning can reduce sprawl, support transportation mode shifts, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. This planning can also prevent associated land-use emissions by conserving valuable agricultural, forest, and other undeveloped land, which have climate benefits in their own right. 

Electric heavy-duty vehicles also have the potential to significantly reduce rural transportation emissions. According to RMI, electric trucks are rapidly approaching cost parity with diesel trucks as battery prices decline. Additionally, Energy Innovation has determined that, by 2030, the total operating costs for electric trucks will become competitive. Rural areas play a crucial role in facilitating the freight transition and will need to accommodate the necessary charging infrastructure.

Combined, the residential and commercial sectors account for 13% of total U.S. emissions. We estimate that at least 21% of combined annual residential and commercial emissions come from rural America, about 170 MMT CO₂e/yr.

Residential and commercial sector emissions are associated with fuel used for heating and cooling space, heating water, cooking, and other uses in homes and commercial buildings. Indirect emissions associated with electric power consumed in buildings are not counted towards these sectors and are included in the Electric Power sector. Emissions from landfills are also part of the commercial sectors, along with other, relatively minor sources.

Emissions from building energy use are driven by building design, climate, and weather (particularly temperature extremes), the fuel used for heating and cooling, and building and appliance energy efficiency. Emissions from buildings have remained relatively flat in recent years.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), rural homes tend to be larger than urban homes, and they consume more energy on a household basis. The 2020 EIA survey indicates that rural households spend 25% more on energy than non-rural households, about $452 more each year. Costs have risen significantly since 2020 and vary by fuel types, and while no public analysis is available to easily assess how costs may have increased for rural households in particular, we know costs have increased, further exacerbating cost inequalities for rural people. For example, EIA estimates that, on a per-household basis, rural households consume 17 times as much propane as non-rural households, and EIA also reports that residential propane prices have risen by 33% between November 2020 and November 2025.

Increasing building electrification and energy efficiency can reduce emissions and benefit rural Americans. Rural residents and business owners stand to gain through reduced energy costs, improved indoor air quality, and new job opportunities for local contractors. Cost savings are particularly important as rural communities often face high energy burdens. Rewiring America estimates that electrifying homes can save households between $1,050-$2,585 annually, and the EnergyStar program reports that just switching to more energy-efficient EnergyStar appliances can save households upwards of $450 annually. 

Rural electric cooperatives are particularly well positioned to roll out expanded energy efficiency and electrification measures for their rural member-owners. Through rebates and on-bill financing, utilities can help diffuse upfront costs and benefit from long-term gains from electrification and efficiency measures.

While the benefits of electrification and energy efficiency are evident, there are specific challenges in rural areas that further investments can help overcome. Providing support for workforce training can increase the number and expertise of rural contractors available to do retrofits and installations. Federal and state financing can facilitate infrastructure improvements to rural electric grids. Additionally, local organizing can move rural electric cooperatives and other utilities to offer more rebates and on-bill financing options to help their rural customers electrify, weatherize, and adopt energy-efficient practices.

The Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector is a net carbon sink that offsets 15% of gross U.S. climate emissions annually. We estimate that 88% of LULUCF net sequestration occurs in rural areas, about -825 MMT of CO₂e annually. This includes rural LULUCF emissions, which we estimate to be about 53 MMT CO₂e annually. 

The LULUCF sector includes carbon flux and other emissions from the management of forests, croplands, grasslands, wetlands, and developed areas, as well as the emissions associated with land use change among those categories. 

Regarding LULUCF emissions, land conversion to development is the largest source of emissions (70 MMT CO₂e/yr in rural areas), followed by methane emissions from wetlands (40 MMT CO₂e/yr in rural areas) and land conversion to cropland (31 MMT CO₂e/yr in rural areas). Converting existing forests and grasslands to farmland, residential areas, commercial buildings, industrial sites, and other uses creates emissions. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found that, in the Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada alone, we are losing nearly 2 million acres of grassland each year as it is converted to farmland. Developing existing farmland for other uses, like residential and commercial buildings, also creates emissions. The American Farmland Trust found that the equivalent of 2,000 acres of farmland are developed every day in the U.S. If this trend continues, 18.4 million acres of farmland (an area the size of South Carolina) will be lost to development between 2016 and 2040. 

Net LULUCF sequestration is down 8.8% since the EPA Inventory began in 1990, largely due to aging forests, increased emissions from wildfires, forest disturbances, and increased emissions from land converted to development. These trends are not constant year-to-year and vary regionally. Looking ahead, forest carbon accumulation is expected to continue to decline due to current management systems in place and climate change impacts. This is projected to lead to significantly reduced net sequestration past mid-century without major policy or industry shifts to stem the loss.

Wildfires produce significant emissions. In 2023, wildfires emitted 147 MMT CO₂e, nearly equivalent to the combined residential and commercial emissions that we estimate come from rural America (170 MMT CO₂e/yr). In the last twenty years, over 175 million acres of U.S. land have burned, about the size of Texas (172 million acres). While wildfires vary year to year, there has been an overall increase in wildfire frequency, size, and severity, underscoring the need for improved forest management, particularly in rural areas.

The LULUCF sector is already a source of carbon sequestration in rural America and can become a greater source in the future. Using data from the Reforestation Hub and Naturebase, we estimate that 548 MMT CO₂/yr of additional carbon sequestration potential exists in rural areas through improved ecosystem management and restoration.

The greatest rural carbon sequestration potential lies in reforesting historically forested lands (468 MMT CO₂/yr). We estimate that reforesting current rural pasturelands could sequester an additional 186 MMT CO₂/yr, reforesting current rural shrublands could sequester an additional 77 MMT CO₂/yr, and reforesting developed rural spaces (in towns, along roadways, etc.) could sequester 58 MMT CO₂/yr. In addition to reforestation, we estimate that restoring current grasslands in rural America could sequester an additional 68 MMT CO₂/yr. Realizing this potential requires place-based work with rural farmers, ranchers, landowners, and local governing bodies that make zoning decisions.

As with agriculture, the actual potential for carbon sequestration in rural areas via LULUCF pathways is likely higher than our current estimate. As detailed in the Methodology section, our estimates are derived by applying the percentage of county land classified as rural by HRSA to the total carbon sequestration potential estimated by Reforestation Hub and Naturebase in that county. In addition, the LULUCF pathways include those that would occur on lands currently used for other purposes and do not account for the likelihood or viability of pursuing them. More precise estimates require further in-depth analysis and spatial work. 

Ecosystem conservation and restoration create economic benefits and employment for rural communities. Ecological restoration of streams and wetlands alone supports more than 53,000 jobs nationally, according to a UNC study. Beyond direct conservation jobs, the outdoor recreation industry contributes significantly to the economic vitality of rural communities and depends on the health of rural landscapes. The USDA estimates that the outdoor recreation industry contributes 6.1 million direct jobs and generates $646 billion in consumer spending nationwide. These benefits primarily accrue to rural areas. Strategic land use, management, and restoration of natural areas also contribute to rural communities’ climate resilience, reducing wildfire and flood risks and improving water quality and security. 

There are synergies between LULUCF climate solutions and those in other sectors. Strategic land conservation can help concentrate residential and commercial growth in already developed areas, reducing vehicle miles traveled while preserving natural and working lands. Thoughtful renewable energy siting, informed by community input, can preserve vital natural lands while making room for new solar and wind projects.