https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=48wIQW_0vnsWhrG00 — As we look to the future, the question remains: who will lead the next phase of climate action, and what form will it take?

What’s the issue?

After the hottest 12 months on record, during which fossil fuel production and extreme weather surged, climate change will be a focal point of November’s election.While debates rage about the cause of or even the existence of climate change, most scientists agree it’s here and impacting everything—from the veggies in your garden and your children’s health to the economy and the future of communities nationwide.

The Democrats generally advocate for expanding renewable energy and sustainability, while Republicans typically favor maintaining or increasing fossil fuel production, citing its economic reliability.

Why does it matter? What’s at stake?

Climate change isn’t just a far-off burden for future generations to solve. Its effects are already visible:

Extreme weather events like hurricanes and wildfires are intensifying, stressing infrastructure and public health
Food and insurance costs are likely to increase
Some areas of the country may become less habitable due to rising temperatures or sea levels
Energy security concerns as fossil fuel resources dwindle while demand rises

While climate change affects everyone , its impacts are not distributed equally . Low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous populations often bear the brunt of climate-related disasters and health issues. These groups typically have fewer resources to adapt to changing conditions or recover from climate-related setbacks. Additionally, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions are particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change , such as increased air pollution and heat-related illnesses.

Moreover, U.S. climate policy influences global climate change efforts, setting precedents for other large polluting countries like India and China .

Current status

After Trump’s 2020 loss, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, signaling a renewed commitment to global climate action abroad.

However, at home, the reality is more complex.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) marks the country’s biggest climate investment ever to date, representing a landmark policy shift following Trump’s anti-environmental stance. However, its $369 billion allocation over ten years amounts to less than 5% of the U.S. defense budget for the same period.

Biden’s executive actions have made some progress, canceling pipelines and paused federal oil and gas leases . This shift has emboldened some states to enshrine green amendments in their constitutions, while America’s youth-led environmental cases have seen significant victories. Paradoxically, Biden’s administration has overseen record levels of oil and gas production , and his EPA has struggled to enforce an expanding list of regulations.

Even in red states like Texas, solar energy is booming , contributing to national emission reduction goals. However, these states often lead the resistance against stricter environmental regulations, frequently challenging them in court, where the Supreme Court has increasingly become a roadblock to climate progress in these legal battles.

As we look to the future, the question remains: who will lead the next phase of climate action, and what form will it take?

Where do the presidential candidates stand on this issue?

Kamala Harris (Democrat)

As Vice President, Kamala Harris has a muddled environmental record. She cast the tie-breaking vote for 2022′s IRA and promoted international climate cooperation . She has consistently advocated for environmental justice policies and supported the Green New Deal early.However, she’s also responsible for the increase in the administration’s fossil fuel production. As California’s attorney general, Harris prosecuted polluters and sued the Obama administration in 2016 over offshore fracking, pledging to ban it three years later. She has since reversed her position and has a more ambiguous climate stance to entice voters in swing states.

Gov. Tim Walz (Vice presidential candidate for Harris)

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has a strong climate record. In Feb. 2023, he signed a law forcing all state power plants to use 100% climate-friendly energy by 2040. He created a subcabinet focused on reducing emissions and accelerated the permitting process for renewable energy projects. His administration expanded training for clean energy workers and promoted electric vehicles.

Donald Trump (Republican)

First off, Donald Trump believes climate change is a hoax and has promised to dismantle as much of the Biden administration’s green agenda as possible if he wins the election. As President, Trump prioritized a deregulatory agenda that weakened environmental protections, marking a seismic shift from the Obama administration’s efforts to address climate change. Trump’s administration reversed over 125 regulations , including rolling back the Clean Power Plan , reducing fuel economy standards and gutting the EPA .Instead, he boosted fossil fuel production and lifted oil and gas exploration bans. He also removed emission rules on pollutants like mercury and methane.

Sen. J.D. Vance (Vice presidential candidate for Trump)

The junior U.S. Senator from Ohio also believes climate change is a hoax and has become a strong ally of the fossil fuel industry, contrasting with his views on climate change before the beginning of his fledgling political career. Since entering politics, Vance has supported fracking and said that green energy is a scam to send green energy jobs to China . He introduced legislation to protect fossil fuel interests , such as tax credits for gasoline and diesel vehicles. Despite his public opposition to climate legislation like the IRA , Vance recently held investments in green energy companies , revealing another layer to his inconsistent and hypocritical policy stances.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Independent)

Before running for president as an independent and then dropping out to support Trump legacy candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a leading environmental lawyer who once sued corporate polluters and founded the Waterkeeper Alliance , an environmental non-profit dedicated to protecting waterways. But in recent years, Kennedy’s climate stance has veered to the right and left. He has criticized Biden’s climate policies , such as his sizeable green energy subsidies. He flip-flopped on fracking , shifting from a ban to favoring a phase-out, all while calling for a natural gas export ban–positioning him to the left of Biden.His general rhetoric also includes right-wing talking points, like viewing climate action as a form of government overreach.

*Kennedy has since dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump, but he still may be on your ballot

Dr. Cornel West (Independent)

Dr. West, a public intellectual and political activist, left the Green Party in 2023 and later formed the Justice for All Party. His views on climate change have remained consistent. He continues to see the issue as fueled by “predatory capitalist processes” that disproportionately affect marginalized communities of color. He advocates for “Green Reconstruction,” which goes beyond the New Deal of the 1930s by including society’s most vulnerable people. His platform would disinvest from military projects and operations, funneling the money into renewable and regenerative jobs with a $27 minimum wage. As part of his broad and lifelong commitment to social justice , he supports a swift transition to renewable energy and the protection of all communities.

Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party)

Dr. Jill Stein, an experienced climate campaigner for the Green Party, continues to push for eco-socialism , aiming to achieve 100% clean energy, zero greenhouse gas emissions, and economic security for all within a decade. She wants to ban fracking , end fossil fuel subsidies, and prioritize environmental justice for communities hit hardest by climate change. Unlike mainstream parties, Stein’s approach calls for deep, systemic changes to the U.S. political system and the country’s fossil fuel economy.

Chase Oliver (Libertarian)

Chase Oliver acknowledges climate change.He opposes government intervention, favoring market and community-driven solutions, according to his election policy website. He argues that the United States federal government is one of the leading sources of environmental destruction on the planet and its “authoritarian government policies” cause more harm than good.Oliver’s platform is built on four guiding principles: ending wars and supporting Peace, tribal sovereignty and property rights, energy independence and resilience, and ecologically minded deregulation. He believes that cutting military spending will help beat climate change.He supports nuclear energy as a cleaner, safer option to replace fossil fuels, advocating for its role alongside solar and wind in the 21st-century energy transition.

Key bills to know

Arizona

Proposition 135: Restrictions on the Governor’s emergency powers.

The Republican-led proposition terminates the governor’s power during a state of emergency after 30 days unless extended by the Arizona legislature or in the case of war, flood, or fire. The current limit is 120 days.Emergency powers are used for various reasons, like public health emergencies, civil unrest, security threats, and economic emergencies. But they can also be used for extreme weather disasters, like heat and droughts . Current Gov. Katie Hobbs declared a state of emergency last August after several counties experienced 30 consecutive days of excessive heat warnings over 100 degrees. The declaration allowed her to immediately execute a comprehensive plan to save lives and deal with extreme heat in the future. Nearly 650 people died during that heatwave.

One of the reasons governors have emergency powers is to mobilize all state resources quickly without wading through political bureaucracy in the state legislature. But the limits mean the governor can’t exercise too much power.

The proposition was sponsored by Arizona Rep. Joseph Chaplik, who said that the two-year-long COVID state of emergency was “executive rule” and “should never happen again.” However, former Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill in May 2022 reducing his powers to 120 days, allowable in four 30-day increments. Some believe restricting the governor’s powers during a crisis doesn’t make sense . The Arizona Public Health Association says that the powers are crucial tools in responding to future health crises, and overturning the outcome of Proposition 135 would be very difficult in the future.

- Voting yes limits the governor’s emergency powers to 30 days unless extended by the legislature.
- Voting no keeps the current system, where emergency powers last up to 120 days.

California

Proposition 4: The Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act.

The state wants to borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change. The bond prioritizes lower-income communities and those most vulnerable to climate change.Approximately $3.8 billion would fund water projects: half for water quality improvements and half for flood, drought protection, and river restoration. The rest would go to wildfire and heat projects, natural lands, coastal protection, clean energy, and agriculture. Supporters say the state must act quickly in the face of extreme climate change, including wildfires, air and water pollution, and extreme heat. Opponents argue that bonds are the most expensive way to pay for things and could be spent on unproven technology. Analysts claim the bond could be paid back over 40 years at $400 million a year, costing the taxpayer $16 billion.

- Voting yes approves borrowing $10 billion for climate-related projects.
- Voting no rejects the bond.
Proposition 5: Lower Supermajority Requirement for Local Special Taxes to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure

Local governments need a two-thirds majority of those voting if they want to borrow money. Proposition 5 lowers that to 55% for lending to fund affordable housing, down payment assistance, and various public infrastructure projects, including water management, hospitals, police stations, broadband, and parks. The change would apply to future bonds and those on November’s ballot.If Proposition 5 passes, it would lower the threshold for the $10 billion bond, meaning localized environmental projects could go ahead. Supporters say the new proposal is more democratic, taking the power away from one-third of voters and allowing local officials to meet their communities’ needs better. Opponents say it’s always easy to support taking on more debt if you don’t have to pay it back. They believe the taxes to repay loans will come from property taxes.

- Voting yes lowers the voting threshold from two-thirds to 55% to pass bonds for local housing and infrastructure projects.
- Voting no keeps the two-thirds requirement.

Colorado

Proposition 127: Prohibit Trophy Hunting

The proposition proposes banning the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx in the state. The measure is part of broader efforts to prohibit what supporters call “trophy hunting.”

They argue that a ban protects the species from cruelty and promotes ethical wildlife management. Opponents believe the ban could increase conflicts between humans and wildlife, harm livestock, and reduce funding for conservation efforts that rely on regulated hunting programs. They also say the term “trophy hunting” is being used to demonize wildlife management.

- Voting yes bans trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx.
- Voting no allows trophy hunting to continue under regulated conditions.
Proposition JJ: Retain Sports Betting Tax Revenue for Water Projects

The proposal allows the state to retain tax revenue from sports betting above $29 million per year and appropriate the funds to the newly established Water Plan Implementation Cash Fund. Tax revenues above $29 million are currently refunded to casinos and sports betting operators.

The water cash fund projects include conservation, drought mitigation, and water infrastructure improvements. Funding water projects in Colorado is crucial due to the state’s ongoing water scarcity challenges, driven by prolonged drought, population growth, and climate change . Water is essential for agriculture, drinking supplies, and the environment, and well-funded projects help manage and conserve this limited resource. Investments in water infrastructure, conservation, and drought mitigation ensure that Colorado can maintain a sustainable water supply, support its economy, protect natural ecosystems, and safeguard against the impacts of future water shortages. Supporters argue that these funds are crucial for addressing Colorado’s water challenges, while opponents say the proposition circumvents state tax laws, will increase taxes on sports betting and reneges on the tax refund system.

- Voting yes allows the state to use excess sports betting revenue for water conservation projects.
- Voting no caps the use of sports betting revenue at $29 million.

Florida

Amendment 2: Right to Fish and Hunt

The amendment seeks to add the right to hunt and fish to the state constitution. Proponents argue it safeguards traditional practices and supports Florida’s outdoor heritage and economy. They believe it will protect hunting and fishing from future bans seen in other states.

Opponents warn the amendment could weaken existing wildlife protections, disrupt property rights, and prioritize hunting over more sustainable conservation methods. They argue it may lead to increased environmental and regulatory challenges in managing Florida’s natural resources.

- Voting yes adds hunting and fishing rights to the state constitution.
- Voting no keeps hunting and fishing regulated under current laws.

Louisiana

Louisiana Outer Continental Shelf Revenues for Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment

This amendment clarifies that federal revenues from renewable energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), like wind and solar, will be included in Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund. Oil and gas revenues have been the overwhelming source of funding so far.

Renewable energy royalties would be split between the state’s Mineral and Energy Operations Fund (25%) and the General Fund (75%) if the change isn’t made. The coastal protection purse is primarily funded by the $8.5 billion in fines and settlements related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon settlement, which will expire in 2032.

The amendment would ensure Louisiana has new sources of revenue to fund coastal restoration projects, which are significant for climate adaptation, mitigating coastal erosion and storm impacts. The revenues will likely be significantly lower than current levels, projected to be nearly $2 billion over the next decade, according to the offshore industry’s trade association president. A series of bipartisan federal bills are also in the works to ensure the plan can proceed.

Supporters argue it diversifies funding for essential coastal protection. Opponents say funneling the money to the coast is unfair to inland parishes and want to see the revenues shared evenly.

- Voting yes directs renewable energy revenues to the state’s coastal protection fund.
- Voting no keeps the funds going to other state operations.

Maine

Question 2: Bond Issue for Research and Development

This initiative allows Maine to issue up to $25 million in bonds to support the Marine Technology Institute’s research on environmental and renewable energy technologies. It’s crucial for advancing sustainable practices and technological innovation in addressing climate change. Proponents believe green technology will drive economic growth, while opponents may argue against increased state debt.

- Voting yes allows the state to issue $25 million in bonds to support marine technology and renewable energy research.
- Voting no rejects the bond.
Question 4: Bond for Trail Development

This initiative authorizes $30 million in bonds over four years to design, develop, and maintain trails across Maine. The question posed to voters comes after a review of state trails noted frequent rain and extreme storms had severely damaged them. This investment enhances outdoor recreation and promotes environmental conservation by creating green spaces and protecting natural habitats. Supporters see it as a boost for tourism, conservation and the state economy. While the bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, a 2019 poll noted that around 26% of 600 registered voters said they would not favor a bond to maintain and develop trails.

Voting yes authorizes $30 million in bonds to maintain and develop outdoor trails.
Voting no rejects the bond.

Minnesota

Amendment 1: Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund Renewal

This initiative renews the transfer of lottery proceeds to Minnesota’s Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, supporting water, wildlife, air quality, and parks through 2050. The Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund has directed $700 million to 1,700 projects since it was created in 1991.It ’s vital for state environmental conservation efforts. Supporters highlight the importance of continued funding for environmental protection .

Voting yes renews the use of lottery proceeds to fund environmental and natural resource projects through 2050.
Voting no stops this funding.

North Dakota

Constitutional Measure 3 : Change requirements for transfers from the state legacy fund, a fund that receives 30% of tax revenue from oil and gas production

This measure alters how funds from state oil and gas revenues are used. The state’s legacy Potentially impacting environmental and conservation efforts tied to the Legacy Fund. Proponents argue it improves fiscal management; critics worry about reduced funding for environmental projects.

Voting yes decreases the amount of oil and gas revenue funds used.
Voting no maintains current use of oil and gas revenues.

Rhode Island

Question 4: Environmental and Recreational Infrastructure Bond

This measure authorizes $53 million in bonds for environmental infrastructure and recreation, supporting conservation and enhancing public spaces. It’s crucial for preserving natural resources and improving public access to green areas. Supporters believe it strengthens environmental protection, while opponents may oppose the financial impact of new bonds.

- Voting yes approves $53 million in bonds for environmental infrastructure and recreational projects.
- Voting no ejects the bond.

South Dakota

Referred Law 21: Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

This initiative asks voters whether they want to uphold or repeal a carbon dioxide pipeline regulation law that affects environmental and safety standards. It’s relevant to climate change discussions due to CO2 management and general pipeline safety. Proponents support the stricter regulations; opponents say it’s a hurdle for energy projects.

Voting yes supports stricter regulations for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Voting no means no regulation.

Washington

Initiative 2066: Natural Gas Access Requirement

This initiative mandates gas access and prohibits restrictions on natural gas use by state and local governments. It matters for climate policy as it could counter efforts to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Supporters advocate for energy choice, while critics argue it hinders clean energy transitions.

- Voting yes ensures access to natural gas by preventing local and state restrictions on its use.
- Voting no allows local governments to restrict or phase out natural gas use.
Initiative 2177: Prohibit Carbon Tax Credit Trading

This initiative seeks to repeal the state’s carbon cap-and-invest program, blocking carbon credit trading. It’s significant for state climate action plans. Proponents argue against market-based carbon pricing; opponents see it as a critical tool for reducing emissions.

- Voting yes repeals the state’s carbon credit trading program.
- Voting no keeps the carbon credit trading program.

Key points for voters

Even if you don’t believe in climate change at all, it’s undisputed that burning fossil fuels produces pollution and is bad for our health and the environment.

Since 2012, over 80% of all oil and gas industry campaign funds have gone to Republicans—totaling more than $300 million.

In the first three years of the Biden administration, the big five oil companies made a profit of $410 billion.

Crude oil production hit record highs under Biden, while onshore drilling permits barely slowed from Trump’s administration.

Resources and Further Reading

What is climate change? A really simple guide , BBC
Understanding pro-climate voters , Yale
The pros and cons of fossil fuels , MET Group
The dark side of renewable energy , New School
Why fossil fuels will kill us , Clean Technica
Renewable energy: a safer future , UN