You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Follow along with us — we’ll be here all night.
Yes, the race for the White House is extremely important for the future of climate policy in the U.S. and, frankly, around the world. But it’s not the only race that matters.
Starting at 6 p.m. ET on Election Night, Heatmap will be tracking 36 of the most important climate elections in the country — from seats in the House and Senate down to local ballot measures and attorneys general. Though this is far from an exhaustive list of races that will touch the climate this year, we hope it’ll help you piece together how and where the renewables transition, energy prices, and environmental issues are resonating with voters around the country.
A few notes on how this list is organized:
Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans* vs. Democrat Missy Cotter Smasal
Status: Leans Republican
Democrats are looking for a pick-up opportunity in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District, which comprises all of Northampton County, Hampton Roads, and Virginia Beach and includes a diverse electorate of young voters, a robust LGBTQ community, and many military families. The district is represented by Kiggans, the vice chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus and a Trump ally, who backed the Default on America Act to repeal clean energy tax credits and has flip-flopped on her support of offshore wind. (Kiggans says she supports it, despite voting to slash IRA incentives for the project.) Her opponent, Cotter Smasal, has called climate change a crisis in need of “urgent action” and bipartisan solutions.
Governor
Republican Mark Robinson vs. Democrat Attorney General Josh Stein
Status: Likely Democrat
North Carolina suffered one of the costliest storms in U.S. history earlier this year due to the flooding from Hurricane Helene, which has drawn attention to the divide between the two candidates running for the state’s highest office. Republican Mark Robinson has called climate change “junk science” and said he’d attempt to block history and science from being taught in the first through fifth grades. He’s said not pursuing the development of fossil fuels is an affront to God, and that he’d attempt to keep the “climate change cabal” in “chains.” By contrast, North Carolina Attorney General Stein has proposed a path to reach carbon neutrality in the state by 2050 and has a history of taking on polluters and Big Oil price gougers in his state.
Commissioner of Insurance
Republican Mike Causey* vs. Democrat Natasha Marcus
Status: Toss-up
Insurance commissioner isn’t the sexiest race, even on the down-ballot. But Nationwide’s decision not to renew thousands of homeowner policies in eastern North Carolina in 2023 due to climate change, followed by the devastating flooding from Hurricane Helene, shows how high-value the elections can be. Climate Cabinet has backed state Senator Marcus, a Democrat who is taking on incumbent Republican Commissioner Causey on the grounds that her opponent has approved too many rate increases and is too cozy with the companies he’s in charge of regulating. She has also pushed for greater investment in home hardening and outraised Causey nearly twice-over.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown* vs. Republican Bernie Moreno
Status: Toss-up
Climate and energy have not played a significant role in the race between three-term Senator Brown and his MAGA challenger Moreno. However Brown, who once voiced support for a Green New Deal, has in recent months broken with his Democratic colleagues on the IRA’s tax credit for EVs (which he says does not do enough to crack down on imported materials from China and Indonesia), backed overturning the Environmental Protection Agency’s new power plant regulations and tailpipe rules (which are “unrealistic” and a strain on the grid, he said), and joined Democratic Senator Joe Manchin in criticizing the Biden administration’s clean hydrogen tax credit. Moreno, meanwhile, tried to out-MAGA JD Vance in the 2022 Senate primary and has stressed that “we need natural gas, we need oil” rather than “this move toward windmills, solar panels.”
Ohio’s 9th Congressional District
Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur* vs. Republican state Rep. Derek Merrin
Status: Leans Democrat
The race in Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, which includes Toledo and the shores of Lake Erie, is about many things, but it’s also about algae. Kaptur sits on the House Appropriations Committee, where she has supported clean energy-related spending, and she’s also the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development appropriations subcommittee, where she fought for a $1.5 million federal project to combat warming-induced algal blooms in the Great Lakes. Her opponent, Merrin, voted against that bill as a state representative and for laws that would label methane as green energy. She claimed Kaptur and other Democrats’ clean energy pursuits threaten affordability and reliability.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Sen. Bob Casey, Jr.* vs. Republican David McCormick
Status: Toss-up
Few Senate races this year have touched on climate and energy issues as much as the one in Pennsylvania, the country’s second-largest natural gas-producing state. McCormick has tried to paint Casey as an enemy of fracking by tying him to Kamala Harris’ prior opposition to the industry. Casey, however, has always supported what he calls “responsible fracking,” including the proposed hydrogen hubs in the state (one of which would use fracked gas). McCormick, whose wife sits on the board of Exxon, has said renewable energy is making the U.S. more reliant on materials from China and that we “need to get back to the energy policies under President Trump,” including by repealing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and gutting the Inflation Reduction Act.
Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District
Democrat Rep. Susan Wild* vs. Republican state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie
Status: Toss-up
Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District, which includes Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties, is considered a presidential bellwether. It’s also the site of a tight race that could help shape the outcome of the House, with Wild defending her seat against Mackenzie, who has slammed her repeatedly for voting for the “failed” IRA. As a state representative, Mackenzie has also voted against environmental and clean energy measures, including rooftop solar panels for schools.
Attorney General
Democrat Eugene DePasquale vs. Republican Dave Sunday
Status: Competitive
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania will have an opportunity to pursue climate liability litigation during their term, with Bucks County suing the fossil fuel industry for misleading the public about the dangers of burning oil and gas,E&E News reports. DePasquale has said he considers environmental justice a top priority and has proven willing to scrutinize the local shale industry as an auditor. Sunday, his opponent, has not spoken about climate-related issues and didn’t respond to a request for comment on the matter from The Philadelphia Citizen.
Referred Law 21
Opportunity: To take a stance on carbon pipelines
Status: Competitive
Last year, the South Dakota Legislature and Governor Kristi Norm passed a law touted as a “landowner bill of rights,” which imposed a number of regulations on potential CO2 pipelines, including a modest $1-per-foot surcharge and requirements about minimum depth. Opponents wary of the carbon capture technology quickly gathered enough signatures to force a November ballot measure on the law. According to these critics, Referred Law 21 is a giveaway to pipeline companies since it gives the state’s Public Utilities Commissioners the ability to override local ordinances and zoning laws meant to block the pipeline. If Referred Law 21 is rejected, it will have major implications for the $8 billion Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline, which would collect CO2 from regional ethanol plants and deliver it to an injection well in North Dakota as a means of dealing with planet-warming emissions. The uncertainty around whether or not Referred Law 21 will pass is part of why the project is one of Heatmap’s most at-risk energy transition proposals.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego vs. Republican Kari Lake
Status: Leans Democrat
Democrats will need a win in the Grand Canyon State if they have any chance of holding the Senate. While the pitch to undecided voters in Arizona has centered on reproductive and LGBTQ rights, Gallego helped to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in the House and has posited himself as a defender of Arizona’s public lands, water, and energy transition. Lake, a close ally of Trump’s, has boosted falsehoods about wind turbines killing an outsized number of birds and whales, and blamed the state’s heat deaths on drug overdoses. She has called climate change “fake science” and told voters that she’s “not going to be afraid of the weather.”
Arizona’s 1st Congressional District
Republican Rep. David Schweikert* vs. Democrat Amish Shah
Status: Toss-up
Arizona’s 1st congressional district, covering northeastern Phoenix and Scottsdale, was considered “reliably Republican” for Schweikert’s first seven terms, but he’s facing a formidable challenge from Shah, a former ER doctor, in the recently redrawn district. Schweikert has taken a more moderate position on the energy transition than other Republicans in the state, arguing that “the government must stop picking winners and losers in the industry” but “we also should continue to expand into renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, and geothermal.” Shah, who green groups like the Sierra Club endorse, has pushed for a “healthier Arizona” by standing up to polluters and protecting Arizona’s public lands. This race is one of several that could decide control of the U.S. House.
Arizona’s 6th Congressional District
Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani* vs. Democrat Kirsten Engel
Status: Toss-up
Another close race that could decide control of the House is in the Tucson suburbs. Ciscomani is a Trump-endorsed moderate who voted against the IRA but has been friendlier on issues like residential solar projects. Engel’s team has positioned itself as better on water issues than Ciscomani and willing to stand up to foreign mining companies interested in the state’s copper resources.
The Arizona Corporation Commission
Opportunity: Flip three seats from Republicans
Status: Competitive
The commission regulates utilities in the state, and in recent years it has actively dismantled clean energy policy and standards with particular aggression toward community solar. Arizona voters have an opportunity to elect representatives who will vote on rules for virtual power plants and can block the repeal of the state’s renewable energy and efficiency standards. There are three Democrats, two Green Party candidates, and three Republicans running for three of the commission’s five total seats.
Colorado’s 8th Congressional District
Democratic Rep. Yadira Caraveo* vs. Republican Gabe Evans
Status: Toss-up
Though the race in Colorado’s 8th congressional district has focused on the fentanyl and border crises, it encompasses the northern suburbs of Denver, including parts of the oil-and-gas-rich Front Range, where the fossil fuel industry has degraded local air quality for decades. Caraveo’s challenger Evans has dismissed “climate alarmism” and has a 0% score from Conservation Colorado for his “no” votes on everything from regulating toxic “forever chemicals” to transportation infrastructure development to holding gas companies accountable for their environmental impacts. Caraveo, a former pediatrician, has cited air pollution's impact on her patients as one of her motivations for running for office.
Iowa’s 1st Congressional District
Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks* vs. Democrat Christina Bohannan
Status: Toss-up
Miller-Meeks, who represents the southeasternmost part of the state, also chairs the Conservative Climate Caucus and is a more moderate “all of the above” energy supporter. Democrats, however, see the race as an opportunity to flip a seat in the House via Bohannan and have out-raised the Republican renewable energy advocate by a 2-to-1 margin, E&E News reports. Bohannan has attacked Miller-Meeks for slow-walking action on addressing climate change through her soft hand with the oil and gas industry.
Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Zach Nunn* vs. Democrat Lanon Baccam
Status: Toss-up
The other potential pick-up opportunity for Democrats in Iowa comes in its swingy 3rd congressional district, which includes parts of Des Moines and the Missouri border. Nunn has made tax cuts a central component of his re-election bid. However, he’s also voted to repeal tax credits for clean energy three times and bashed the IRA as “telling Iowans you should spend less, you should tighten your belt, but we're gonna go ahead and print off more money and spend more your tax dollars on projects.”
The Outer Continental Shelf Revenues for Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment
Opportunity: Requiring that federal reserves received by the state for alternative and renewable energy production off its coast go toward protecting the state’s oceanfronts
Status: Unknown
Louisiana voters will decide whether or not to require that federal reserve revenue raised from renewable energy production in federal waters off its coast go into a fund that supports coastal restoration projects, including the construction of levees and protection of barrier islands. (Federal revenues received by oil and gas in the state already support this fund.) The Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund has been around since Hurricane Katrina and Rita in 2005, but most of its money came from damages paid after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those funds will be exhausted by the end of 2031. Proponents say the amendment is necessary to protect Louisiana’s coasts from worsening storms and rising sea levels; opponents say it’s more important to keep the funds flexible for any legislative priorities that may arise.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin* vs. Republican Mike Rogers
Status: Toss-up
Democrats must hold onto their Senate seat in Michigan if they want to control the chamber. But the Wolverine State’s Senate election has also become a referendum on the state’s electric vehicle manufacturing industry, where Rogers has alleged Slotskin and other Democrats support a (nonexistent) “EV mandate” that destroys jobs (it doesn’t). However, the arguments have put Slotkin on her back foot: She’s run ads telling voters she doesn’t own an electric car.
Michigan’s 8th Congressional District
Republican Paul Junge vs. Democrat state Sen.Kristen McDonald Rivet
Status: Toss-up
Green groups like the LCV Victory Fund and Climate Power have poured money and volunteer hours into picking up Michigan’s 8th Congressional District for the House Democrats. McDonald Rivet has an impressive climate record, which includes helping to pass Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s 100% renewable energy bill while serving as a state senator. She has also fought for flood reduction infrastructure and lead pipe replacement funding in a district that includes Flint. Meanwhile, Junge has dismissed solar and wind energy as not being “dependable,” talking up “clean coal” and expanding oil and gas leasing on public lands, resuming construction on the Keystone Pipeline, and maintaining the controversial Line 5 crude oil pipeline.
Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Don Bacon* vs. Democrat state Sen. Tony Vargas
Status: Toss-up
State Senator Tony Vargas is challenging the incumbent legislator in a district that includes Nebraska’s “blue dot” of Omaha. Though the race has centered mainly on issues like abortion, tax cuts, and immigration, Vargas is a former Earth sciences teacher who openly talks about combatting climate change and investing in clean energy (he even cosponsored a bill arguing the state Legislature has a “moral obligation” to do something about the issue). While in office, Bacon voted to repeal tax credits for wind and solar energy, and he’s chalked up extreme weather as having “cyclical impacts.”
New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District
Democrat Rep. Gabe Vasquez* vs. Republican Yvette Herrell
Status: Toss-up
Serving the southern half of New Mexico (including parts of western Albuquerque), the state’s super swingy 2nd congressional district will see Vasquez attempting to fend off Herrell, whose seat he flipped two years ago. The district includes a large swath of the oil-rich Permian Basin, and Vasquez has walked the line between promoting wind and solar manufacturing as part of the IRA while also “looking out for those fossil fuel communities.” Herrell has said that renewable subsidies create “unfair” competition for oil and gas businesses, and she has a 0% lifetime score from LCV for such positions as voting in favor of rolling back access to public land.
New York’s 4th Congressional District
Republican Rep. Anthony D’Esposito* vs. Democrat Laura Gillen
Status: Toss-up
New York’s 4th Congressional District, representing the southern part of Nassau County, is the second-wealthiest in the state and pulled for Joe Biden by more than 14 points in 2020. But it’s currently being represented by Trump ally Anthony D’Esposito, who’s opposed local offshore wind projects as being “landscape-altering” while at the same time helping to expand offshore drilling. Gillen previously lost to D’Esposito in 2022, but this time, she’s played up her experience helping Hempstead recover from Hurricane Sandy and pushed for the protection of the district’s coastlines.
New York’s 17th Congressional District
Republican Rep. Mike Lawler* vs. Democrat Mondaire Jones
Status: Leans Republican
Located just north of the liberal bastion of New York City, New York’s 17th Congressional District was safely controlled by Democrats until 2020’s infamous redistricting. Though the map was again redrawn for the 2024 election, NY-17 went virtually untouched in a “win” for Lawler. The race is still competitive — Jones represented a former iteration of the district — enough so that Elon Musk’s PAC has dumped money into the race to help Lawler win. Besides being a critical race for House control, Lawler was also a co-sponsor of the Energy Choice Act, which aimed to protect natural gas. Jones supports congestion pricing (except for Lower Hudson Valley residents, of course) and the build-out of renewables. The candidates diverge on their opinion of the closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which Lawler called “foolish;” Jones, somewhat out of step with his party, opposes nuclear power.
Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden* vs. Democrat Rebecca Cooke
Status: Leans Republican
The Republican incumbent in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District — which covers the exurbs of the Twin Cities and much of the southwestern part of the state — has made gas and energy prices a staple of his campaign. In addition to promoting increased domestic energy production, Van Orden is a member of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus and has pushed for renewable ethanol and sustainable aviation fuel, while at the same time stressing that tax dollars should not go toward “subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles.” He was also present in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 to attend the Stop the Steal rally that turned into an assault on the U.S. Capitol. His opponent, Cooke, has said she’d prioritize investment in clean energy infrastructure and new high-speed rail in Wisconsin and addressing PFAS in water.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Sen. Jon Tester* vs. Republican Tim Sheehy
Status: Leans Republican
Control of the Senate and the future president’s legislative agenda will likely depend on whether or not Tester can hold onto his seat in Montana. But there are other stakes for the state, too: the LCV Victory Fund named Sheehy as one of its “dirty dozen” priority targets due to his advocacy for privatizing public lands and calling climate change the belief of a leftist cult. Tester has been described as a “hero” of green groups due to his support of renewable tax credits and stated dreams of owning an electric tractor.
Attorney General
Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen* vs. Democrat Ben Alke
Status: Likely Republican
Republican Attorney General Knudsen leads the state’s case against the 16 young plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, who are suing lawmakers for allegedly violating their right to a “clean and healthful environment” as enshrined in the state’s constitution. Alke, the Democratic challenger, has the support of Montana Conservation Voters for his prior work in environmental law, including attempts to make public lands less accessible. While Knudsen still has the upper hand in the red state’s election, a state panel recently recommended that he be suspended from practicing law for 90 days due to ethics violations, E&E News reports, potentially making this race more competitive than it’d otherwise be.
The Montana Public Service Commission
Opportunity: Electing Independent Elena Evans to the commission
Status: Competitive
There are three open seats on Montana’s PSC, but unlike in Arizona, most attention is on flipping incumbent Republican Jennifer Fielder’s seat for Elena Evans, a geologist and political Independent. The race focuses on energy affordability, especially after the Republican commission okayed a 28% rate increase for Northwestern Energy, the biggest utility in the state, last year. Evans has said she’d look closer at building climate resiliency into the state’s grid; Fielder has said it isn’t her place to weigh in on climate as a utility regulator.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Jacky Rosen vs. Republican Sam Brown
Status: Leans Democrat
Nevada’s junior senator, Jacky Rosen, is a clean energy enthusiast who helped pass the IRA and attempted to expand solar and geothermal energy within the Silver State. Brown has said he would not have supported the IRA and stood disagrees within the way of solar development in the state as a TK IN WHAT ROLE DID HE DO THIS?, while calling for expanding investment in fossil fuels. Brown also said he wants to cut the Department of Energy and any “environmental departments and agencies.”
Portland City Council
Opportunity: Portland voters are electing an entirely new city council and have the chance to choose representatives who will support the Portland Clean Energy Fund
Status: Likely wins for at least some green candidates
Portland has a new voting system for all new city council districts, meaning voters in Oregon’s biggest city will elect an entirely new set of representatives this fall. Lead Locally is backing five candidates in the race, including the executive director of an environmental justice group (Candace Avalos) and an energy economist for Bonneville Power Administration (Mitch Green). The next city council will make decisions about the fate of the Portland Clean Energy Fund, which allocates money for clean energy projects, and will weigh whether or not to transition away from fossil fuel infrastructure — namely, the Zenith Energy crude oil shipment facility and rail line in northwest Portland, which is an earthquake risk and contributes to the area’s poor air quality.
At stake is the continued progress of the Portland Clean Energy Fund, which allocates money for clean energy projects, as well as the potential closure of the Zenith Energy crude oil shipment facility in northwest Portland.
Measure 6-219 (Coos County) and Measure 8-116 (Curry County)
Opportunity: To directly express community support for offshore wind
Status: Unknown
Voters in two counties on the southern Oregon Coast will have a chance to let their commissioners know how they feel about offshore wind development in their region. The November ballots in Coos and Curry counties include a non-binding question intended to take the community’s temperature on potential offshore wind projects.
Proposition 4
Opportunity: Authorizes $10 billion in bonds for water quality, coastal resilience projects, wildfire prevention, and climate-risk protections
Status: Likely to pass
Californians are voting on whether or not to issue $10 billion in bonds, which will largely go toward infrastructure projects aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change, with at least 40% of the funds earmarked for disadvantaged communities. The bill is backed by organizations like CALFIRE and the National Wildlife Federation and opposed by Republicans for being unfocused and adding to the state deficit.
Measure GG (Berkeley)
Opportunity: Adopting a tax on natural gas use in most buildings over 15,000 square feet
Status: Competitive
Berkeley became the first city in the country to prohibit gas hookups in new buildings in 2019 — an ordinance struck down by a federal appeals court last spring. In the interim, a group of climate and labor activists raised the signatures necessary to put a revised version of the measure on the ballot. Supporters of Measure GG had raised almost $72,000 by the end of September, and its backers include labor and green groups. The no campaign, which had raised $131,000 at the end of September, is supported by real estate groups that say the tax is prohibitively expensive for small businesses, nonprofits, schools, and grocery stores.
Initiative 2117
Opportunity: To vote against repealing the state’s cap and invest program
Status: Likely no vote
A wealthy hedge fund manager gathered enough signatures this year to put an initiative to repeal Washington state’s new cap and invest program on the ballot. Both the “no” and “yes” campaigns have poured money into their respective sides, making the issue the most expensive ballot measure campaign of this election cycle. If I-2117 passes, it will leave a gaping hole in the state’s revenue for transit projects, decarbonization initiatives, and clean air and water programs, hamstringing Olympia’s ability to reduce statewide emissions.
Initiative 2066
Opportunity: To support Washington’s transition away from natural gas
Status: Competitive
Washingtonians will also vote on I-2066, which would prevent the state from incentivizing a transition from natural gas. The initiative would also jeopardize opportunities to promote thermal energy networks as a gas alternative and bar cities and towns, as well as Washington’s energy code, from “prohibiting, penalizing, or discouraging” gas appliances in buildings, imperiling programs like Seattle’s 2050 net-zero emissions target.
U.S. House Alaska At-Large District
Democrat Rep. Mary Peltola* vs. Republican Nick Begich III
Status: Toss-up
Peltola has played nice with the fossil fuel industry — defending the Biden administration’s reversal on the Willow Project and supporting the construction of a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline — but she also boasts an 88% score from the League of Conservation Voters due to her otherwise environmentally friendly voting record, has advocated for more tribal involvement in the environmental review process, and she sits on the influential House Natural Resource Committee. Begich has pitched himself to voters as the better candidate for Alaska’s oil and gas industry, which he claims is besieged by Democrats like Peltola. This race is one of several that could decide control of the U.S. House.
Question 1 (Honolulu)
Opportunity: Would designate 0.5% of property taxes to a Climate Resiliency Fund
Status: Competitive
Honolulu residents are being asked whether they want to create a Climate Resiliency Fund with money raised by half a percent of the city’s property taxes. Advocates argue that the waterfront city needs to prioritize climate the same way it prioritizes affordable housing and the environment, both of which also have funds that receive a half percent of property taxes. Opponents say the creation of an exclusive climate fund will make the revenue less flexible in the case of an unforeseen crisis like rising homelessness or COVID-19, while others worry any shortfalls in the city budget caused by the creation of the fund will result in a rise in property taxes.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the correct site of the injection well for the Summit carbon pipeline.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Trump vs. Harris, Spain’s rain, and a wooden satellite
Current conditions: Typhoon Yinxing is expected to bring heavy rain to the Philippines this week • India is considering cloud seeding to trigger artificial rain to combat dangerous air pollution • It will be 59 degrees Fahrenheit and cloudy in Washington, D.C., where security fences have been put in place ahead of potential Election Day unrest.
Voters head to the polls today to decide whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. As Heatmap’s Jeva Lange writes, Americans will either elect a leader who continues the build-out of renewable energy and prioritizes a healthy, clean environment, or a leader who embraces the fossil fuel industry. In some places, climate will be on the ballot directly. In South Dakota, for example, the debate over carbon capture and CO2 pipelines is being put in the hands of voters; in Berkeley, California, voters will decide if they want to incentivize the decarbonization of large buildings with a natural gas tax; and Washingtonians will have two different climate-related policies to defend, with repeal initiatives on the ballot thanks to a determined Republican millionaire.
Harris and Trump made their final pitches yesterday in separate Pennsylvania rallies. In Pittsburg, Trump made the odd confession that he’s a big fan of Green Party candidate Jill Stein. “I love the Green Party,” he said. “Jill Stein just may be one of my ... I've never met her but she may be one of my favorite politicians.” Third party candidates like Stein could influence the election outcome by siphoning votes from Trump or Harris. “The vote right now is so close that a small amount of tipping in one direction or another could swing it,” Bernard Tamas, a professor of political science at Valdosta State University, toldThe Guardian.
The Spanish city of Barcelona was inundated with extreme rainfall yesterday, just days after devastating floods killed more than 200 people in Valencia. Rescue crews are still searching for survivors and angry residents are beginning to point fingers at authorities for not sounding the alarm about the floodwaters early enough. The Valencian government is asking for a €31.4 billion ($34.2 billion) rescue package to rebuild. The flooding was one of the worst natural disasters in Spain’s modern history, wrote the Financial Times editorial board. It’s “a particular reminder to politicians in Europe that climate preparedness is a pressing issue on the continent … not just in hotter areas closer to the equator.”
Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images
Canada yesterday unveiled a proposal for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the high-polluting oil and gas sector. The plan would cap emissions at 35% below 2019 levels by 2030, with producers required to report emissions starting in 2026. Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson toldReuters that most of the emissions cuts would likely come from curbing methane, as well as from carbon capture projects. The oil and gas industry opposes the proposal. Canada is the fourth largest oil producer in the world.
Recent data from automotive marketing research firm AutoPacific suggests political affiliation is becoming a smaller factor in Americans’ decision making process around whether to buy an electric vehicle. So far, most EV adopters lean Democratic. But as EVs become more common, AutoPacific’s survey suggests the political gap is shrinking. Among people who identify as “future EV acceptors” – those who say they’ll consider buying an EV in the future – 46% are Democrat, 28% are Republican, and 24% are independent or third party. That’s a narrower gap than exists among current EV owners (54% of whom are Democrats and 30% are Republicans). “When it comes to EV rejection, politics do play a small role, albeit a declining one,” said Deborah Grieb, AutoPacific’s director of marketing and consumer insights. “But rejection of EVs is much more likely to be due to charging and cost concerns.”
The world’s first wooden satellite was launched into space today. Japanese scientists created the satellite – called LingoSat – to prove that wood can be a space-grade material, and a sustainable one at that. Existing satellites are made mostly out of aluminum. When they reach the end of their lives, they burn up in the atmosphere, leaving behind particles that can damage the Earth’s protective ozone layer. Wooden satellites, though, wouldn’t do this. And wood could be surprisingly suitable for space flight: Without exposure to oxygen, wood isn’t vulnerable to things like rot or fire. The LingoSat will be monitored throughout its time in orbit for signs of strain and to help researchers better understand how wooden satellites might perform in space.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s plans to build a nuclear-powered AI data center have reportedly been canceled after a rare bee species was discovered near the proposed build site.
When Joe Biden was still running for reelection to the presidency, he often repeated the line that voters should keep him in the White House to “finish the job.” Though she would be loath to describe her mission that way, that is more or less what Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, has proposed since she took on the nomination — or perhaps more precisely, that she will keep doing the job, though the job may never be finished.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, wants to quit the job, burn down the workplace, and steamroll the rubble. At least, that’s how it can appear on some issues, climate change perhaps more than any other. There are few policy areas where this election presents such a stark difference in which path the candidates propose to take.
Let’s begin by considering Harris — a fairly ordinary Democrat when it comes to climate, in that she has committed herself to strong climate action but has not put it at the top of her policy agenda. Her truncated presidential campaign reflected that emphasis, which might have given climate activists some reason to be disappointed if what they were looking for was someone who would place their issue at the center of her campaign. Unlike abortion and economics, climate was absent from Harris’ TV ads and usually mentioned only in passing on the stump.
But by now, most advocates are savvy enough to understand that campaigning and governing are not the same thing. The commitments a president makes during the campaign matter, but structural factors matter more as the policymaking process unfolds. Where is the center of gravity in their party on the issue, and what demands will the party’s coalition make? Who are the personnel staffing key agencies, and what are their priorities? How do existing laws and programs position the administration if there is no new legislation? What other forces are trying to move climate policy in either direction?
Taking all those factors into consideration, the most likely outcome of a Harris presidency is that her administration would maintain the trajectory Joe Biden established (even if there is plenty of room for her to expand on Biden’s climate accomplishments). Subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will keep flowing. More loans will bolster innovative green tech. Many of the Biden administration appointees who currently work on energy and climate will probably stay in their jobs, or at the very least be replaced by officials with a similar outlook.
In other words, while Biden has been the most aggressive president in history on climate change, Harris would come in a close second if she does little more than continue Biden’s policies. And she hasn’t promised much more than that — during the campaign, Harris proposed no new large-scale climate initiatives.
If nothing else, that was realistic, since the prospects for a sweeping new climate bill on the scale of the IRA getting through Congress would be slight. That’s especially true if one or both houses are controlled by Republicans, a distinct possibility no matter who becomes president.
If that president is Donald Trump, on the other hand, and Republicans control Congress, the IRA and other laws that fund climate programs would be under threat. Even if the GOP does have full control, however, it doesn’t mean the entire IRA is headed for repeal. Much of the money from recent climate legislation has gone to districts represented by Republicans, who will resist a wholesale dismantling of the law, and even oil companies support some provisions from a simple desire to minimize regulatory uncertainty.
Nevertheless, a Congress determined to roll back Biden-era climate legislation will have plenty of targets to aim at, and it’s a near certainty that at least some of the provisions in the bills Biden signed would be undone. Trump would almost certainly withdraw again from the Paris climate agreement (Biden recommitted to it after Trump rejected it in his first term), move to increase fossil fuel production on federal land, stymie enforcement of environmental laws, and be a loud and consistent voice for rejecting climate science and increasing emissions.
On the campaign trail, Trump continues to promise that he will “terminate the Green New Scam” and claims that global warming is a myth “because we’re actually cooling.” Increasing domestic fossil fuel production is so important to him that he proclaimed it reason enough, along with border security, for him to become “a dictator” for a day upon taking office. On that first day, he has said, “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
But it’s more than the quantity of drilling, especially since America is already producing more oil and gas than any country ever has. Earlier this year, Trump told oil executives they should raise $1 billion for him, which, given the tax and regulatory benefits he plans to bestow on them, would be a bargain. While fossil fuel industry contributions haven’t reached that billion-dollar line, the industry’s help for Trump has been substantial.
In a Trump administration, most of the action would be in federal agencies. As Bloombergrecently reported, climate deniers with ties to Trump are “laying the groundwork to bring back coal-fired power plants, gut science at the Environmental Protection Agency and neuter the modeling used in the federal government’s national climate assessment and other reports” should he win. Though Trump has sought to distance himself from Project 2025, it provides the most detailed elaboration of current Republican thinking on climate policy; among other things, it suggests rolling back green subsidies, shuttering the Department of Energy office distributing loans for clean technology, scaling back regulations meant to limit emissions, and weakening enforcement of environmental laws.
The most critical goal of the project, which Trump embraces wholeheartedly, is to turn thousands of civil servants into political appointees so they can be fired at will and replaced with more loyal cronies. Those who work on climate-related issues, whether scientists or administrators or weather forecasters, would probably be high on the list.
And we can’t ignore a factor that will help shape climate policy no matter who wins: the Supreme Court. When it has been discussed during this campaign, the subject has usually been the 2022 Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. But the court’s recent decisions on the legal architecture of government regulation could have an effect just as momentous for climate policy as Dobbs has had on abortion.
In the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, the court ended “Chevron deference,” essentially seizing for itself the responsibility to guide implementation of laws that had previously rested with federal agencies. The effect on future climate policy will likely be enormous. We are at the front end of a wave of lawsuits by fossil fuel companies and polluters of all kinds looking to the court’s conservative majority to neuter environmental regulations. There’s no telling just how far the conservative majority will go, but there isn’t much reason for optimism in the short run. And the court’s direction could be determined by who gets to make the next couple of appointments; everything from a new liberal majority to a 7-2 or 8-1 conservative supermajority is possible in the coming years.
While neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump put climate change at the center of their campaigns, the climate kept intruding, whether in the form of wildfires or heatwaves or hurricanes. Just as those disasters are likely to worsen, the policy fights over climate in the next four years will intensify. When we look back, 2024 may or may not turn out to have been the most important election of our lifetimes. But either way it turns out, the consequences will be profound.
Elections inspire hyperbole. Every two years, we have “the most important election of our lifetime,” America’s future constantly “hangs in the balance,” and the stakes perennially “couldn’t be higher.”
But this year, some breathlessness does seem appropriate. 2024 marks the first presidential election since the January 6, 2021 insurrection attempt, which historians and constitutional scholars have described as the gravest threat to the peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War. No less existentially, tomorrow’s election will also have global consequences. Americans will either elect a leader who continues the build-out of renewable energy and prioritizes a healthy, clean environment, or they will elect a leader whose retrograde embrace of the fossil fuel industry would, in the space of one presidential term, “negate — twice over — all the savings from deploying wind, solar, and other clean technologies around the world over the past five years,” as Carbon Brief writes.
Make no mistake: Picking the next president of the United States is the single most important race of this election. However control of the U.S. House and Senate, which voters will also decide on Tuesday, will either help or hinder the next president’s agenda, whichever candidate takes the office. It’s not a coincidence that a number of those critical races involve candidates whose names will be familiar to the climate and energy world: Senator Jon Tester, a moderate Democrat in Montana who proved crucial in passing the Inflation Reduction Act, dreams of owning an electric tractor, and stands to lose to a Republican who’s vowed to fight the “climate cult”; outgoing Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who helped shape the IRA but will either leave her seat to a Republican who claims not to “be afraid of the weather” or a Democrat who voted for the law that’s brought 18,000 new clean energy jobs to the state; Congressperson Yvette Herrell of New Mexico, who voted against the IRA while at the same time being one of the top recipients in the House of donations from the oil and gas industry. The list goes on and on.
Smaller local elections will be crucial, too. Democrats need a pickup in New York’s 4th Congressional District, just to the north of deep blue New York City, where Republican Representative Anthony D’Esposito is defending his seat with the help of Elon Musk’s super PAC; former Earth sciences teacher Tony Vargas, who believes Nebraska has a “moral obligation” to fight climate change, is attempting to unseat Republican Representative Don Bacon, a climate skeptic; and Montanans will elect their next attorney general, picking between the incumbent who leads the state’s case against the 16 young plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, and Democrat Ben Alke, who has extensive experience in environmental law. As Heatmap has covered, there are also several public utilities commission races, the results of which will have “an outsized influence on the country’s energy mix.”
In many places, climate will be on the ballot even more directly. In South Dakota, the debate over carbon capture and CO2 pipelines is being put in the hands of voters; in Berkeley, California, voters will decide if they want to incentivize the decarbonization of large buildings with a natural gas tax; and Washingtonians will have two different climate-related policies to defend, with repeal initiatives on the ballot thanks to a determined Republican millionaire.
Starting on Tuesday at 6 p.m., Heatmap will update a list of our most anticipated climate-related races — 36 in all — with live results as states and municipalities count the votes. For all the models, polls, and punditry, it’s still impossible to know what will happen on Tuesday; however, it’s no exaggeration to say we can be sure we’ll be living in a different country come January 20, 2025. We can endlessly speculate about how different it will be and what the climate and energy transition will look like in the years ahead. But only tomorrow knows.