The political world is understandably focused on the presidential race, which is tighter than ever as Vice President Kamala Harris gains ground on former President Donald J. Trump.
And while whoever occupies the White House for the next four years will have a big impact on the nation’s climate policy, a topic that we explored in June, many of the down-ballot races will also be consequential in determining how fast the United States transitions away from fossil fuels. Take, for example, Arizona and Montana, where elections to commissions that regulate utilities will help determine just how fast those states embrace renewable energy.
“Whoever is in the White House matters,” said Laurel Javors, associate director for state and local politics at the Sierra Club. “But a lot of climate work also comes down to local elections.”
Congress
Of paramount importance, climate activists say, is who controls Congress. The president can only do so much to bend the emissions curve without a House and a Senate that can champion climate policy like the Inflation Reduction Act, which is unleashing billions of dollars in clean energy investment.
With the Senate controlled by Democrats and the House controlled by Republicans, both by narrow margins, congressional elections in November will go a long ways to shaping the next four years of climate action in the U.S.
And in some of the most closely watched races in the country climate is a campaign issue.
In Pennsylvania, Dave McCormick, a former hedge fund executive running as a Republican and challenging Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat, has made fracking a central issue of the campaign. Casey has been an outspoken champion of clean energy, while Mr. McCormick, who has been endorsed by Trump, has pledged to support fracking.
In Montana, Republican Tim Sheehy, a former member of the Navy SEALs who founded an aerial firefighting company, is currently leading the polls in his challenge against Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat. While Tester was among the few Democrats who opposed a 2022 proposal by the Securities and Exchange Commission to require more climate disclosures, he has also been a proponent of the transition to renewable power. Sheehy, meanwhile, has attacked what he calls the “climate cult” and warned that climate action would destroy jobs.
And in the House, there are dozens of competitive races. “The House is on a razor’s edge,” Javors said. A flip of just a few seats, Javors said, and the House is “back to having pro-climate leadership.”
If Democrats manage to maintain control of the Senate, which is no easy task, and win a handful of those House seats, they could control both chambers of Congress. Should Harris win as well, they could pursue ambitious climate policy at the federal level.
State Legislatures
One measure of the importance of local action is the number of Americans living in states with a commitment to achieving 100 percent clean energy. That figure was just 1 percent of the country’s population in 2017; today it is 40 percent, a change that was driven by state legislatures and governors, not the White House. There are now 24 states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with 100 percent clean energy goals.
“That is driving investment, it’s driving research and development and it’s getting results,” said Pete Maysmith, senior vice president of campaigns for the League of Conservation Voters. “It’s taking dirty, polluting fossil fuels off the grid and putting clean, renewable energy on the grid.”
Among the most recent states to make such a commitment: Minnesota, where the law was signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz, who is now running for vice president alongside Harris.
Control of the legislatures of several swing states — including Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania — is up for grabs in November.
Governors
In many states, climate action is largely driven by the legislatures. But in some states, governors can use executive authority to advance their priorities. One such state is North Carolina, where Gov. Roy Cooper has gone around a Republican Legislature to try to promote the development of offshore wind, direct state agencies to work together to combat climate change and encourage the adoption of electric vehicles
Cooper, who will be interviewed at our live Climate Forward event on Sep. 25, is term-limited and can’t seek re-election. But the two men running in a close race to replace him provide a stark contrast with their views on climate issues.
The Republican, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, has called climate change a hoax and pledged to double down on fossil fuels. The Democrat, Attorney General Josh Stein, has sued polluters and suggested he would continue Cooper’s strategy of using executive action to address climate issues.
Ten other states will elect their governors in November, but none of the races are as close as the one in North Carolina.
Commissions
Then there are the local entities that regulate energy production. In at least two pivotal states, control of those commissions is up for grabs.
The Arizona Corporation Commission, which sets clean energy minimums for utilities, is currently controlled by Republicans who have not made efforts to expand solar in the state and have pushed back renewable standards, despite abundant sunlight. But six candidates are vying for three open seats, and if Democrats gain control of the commission, it could lead to a significant shift in the state’s energy policy.
In Montana, an almost identical dynamic is playing out in the race for seats on the Public Service Commission, which regulates the state’s utilities.
With Democrats surging in the polls, Javors of the Sierra Club believes the momentum of the Harris-Walz campaign could have knock-on benefits for climate issues in other races.
“The top of the ticket always drives turnout,” Javors said. “We anticipate seeing a lot of momentum toward climate issues.”
Extreme heat is closing schools, threatening global education progress
The continued burning of fossil fuels is closing schools around the world for days, sometimes weeks at a time, and threatening to undermine one of the greatest global gains of recent decades: children’s education.
Consider the scale of some recent school closures.
Pakistan closed schools for half its students, that’s 26 million children, for a full week in May, when temperatures were projected to soar to more than 40 degrees Celsius, or about 104 Fahrenheit. Bangladesh shuttered schools for half its students during an April heat wave, affecting 33 million children. So, too, South Sudan in April. The Philippines ordered school closures for two days, when heat reached what the country’s meteorological department called “danger” levels.
And in the United States, heat days prompted school closures or early dismissal in districts from Massachusetts to Colorado during the last school year. — Somini Sengupta. Read more.
