Although climate change has largely taken a backseat this election, global warming and natural disasters could decide its outcome. In an already closely contested race to the White House, every vote counts.
In a survey of five key swing states, 40% of young voters said climate change is a top issue — a “deal breaker.” The non-profit Environmental Voter Project, who conducted the August poll, focuses on low-propensity climate voters, or those who did not vote in the last presidential election.
The millions of ballots cast on Nov. 5 — across California and the U.S. — will answer critical questions regarding the country’s transition to clean energy, ability to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and invest in low-income Black and Brown communities most vulnerable to global warming’s effects.
The vast majority (97%) of actively publishing climate scientists agree: human activities exacerbate climate change, which leads to more frequent and intense extreme weather events. In the wake of hurricanes Helene and Milton, along with rising sea levels and accelerating wildfire rates in California, voters must decide on action, or inaction this election.
So, what’s at stake in the nation, state and maybe in your own backyard?
Nationwide: The rollback on U.S. participation in international climate treaties, federal clean energy investments and protections for endangered species. Government services and agencies shifting from public to private oversight, endangering Americans prone to natural disasters intensified by climate change.
Statewide: California’s $10 billion climate bond, or Proposition 4 authorizes the state to borrow money to increase access to safe drinking water, improve wildfire preparedness, protect coastlines from sea level rise and mitigate the effects of other extreme weather events. Over 40% of the funds must go to disadvantaged communities, or where the median household income is below 80% of the regional average, across California.
Local: The prioritization of clean air and water projects in District 57, which includes South Central Los Angeles and the University of Southern California.
Nationwide:
During the first and only debate between the 2024 presidential nominees, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump presented two starkly different visions for the country’s future greenhouse gas emissions: transition and denial.
Harris, who said climate change is an “existential threat” during her 2020 primary bid, highlighted clean energy investments by the Biden administration, like the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the bill, which the director of USC Annenberg’s Center for Climate Journalism and Communication, Allison Agsten, called “one of the most powerful pieces of climate legislation” in the world.
The close to $370 billion law offers production tax credits for renewable energy projects, including solar, wind and electric vehicles. Under President Joe Biden, manufacturing employment rose by nearly 765,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in July 2024.
Trump, on the other hand, has repeatedly said climate change is a “hoax.”
While the former president has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, a conservative policy framework led by the Heritage Foundation, most of the co-authors worked in or with the Trump administration. The 900-page document refers to the Biden administration’s climate initiatives as “fanaticism” that requires a “whole-of-government unwinding.”
The Project 2025 agenda not only advocates to repeal the IRA, but to reduce the scope and scale of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): weaken the Clean Air Act’s ability to set health-based air quality standards and curb emissions; dismantle wildlife protections for endangered species, particularly the grizzly bear and gray wolf; curtail climate change research that informs policy decisions, like calculating the “social cost of carbon,” or the projected damages of each ton of carbon released into the atmosphere.
These measures would hinder the U.S.’s ability to meet its climate commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement and lead the global transition to a clean energy economy.
The Project 2025 document also calls for the removal and realignment of several federal agencies from public to private control, such as the National Weather Service (NWS). Eliminating national public weather data could jeopardize access to reliable forecasts, threatening the safety of Americans vulnerable to natural disasters like hurricanes.
Other policy proposals include getting rid of the National Flood Insurance Program, which insures flood-prone homes across the country, and moving the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), which coordinates the federal response to disasters, out of the Department of Homeland Security’s jurisdiction. States would be forced to bear the brunt and cost of extreme weather events.
Under the Project 2025 mandate, the president “must be committed to unleashing all of America’s energy resources” by prioritizing domestic oil and gas production.
“If [Harris] won the election, the day after that election, they’ll go back to destroying our country and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead,” said Trump in the Sept. 10 debate.
Statewide:
California’s Proposition 4 approves $10 billion in debt to finance climate mitigation and adaptation projects across the state, which includes protection against floods, wildfires, sea level rise and habitat loss. The largest share ($3.8 billion) is directed towards water infrastructure improvements, like access to safe drinking water, recycling and storage.
The bond would be paid back with interest and mandates annual audits. At least 40% of the money must be spent on low-income and disadvantaged communities most susceptible to climate change, according to the bill text.
Supporters, including dozens of conservation groups, activists and labor unions, claim the measure will result in long-term savings, while opponents like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association insist that California should fund these projects without incurring additional debt. A legislative analysis said the bond will cost California taxpayers $400 million a year for the next 40 years, or $16 billion total.
The “kitchen-sink” nature of the funding might be hard to grasp for the average voter, according to Agsten. Apart from water projects, including drought and flood control, the bond allocates $1.5 billion to wildfire prevention, $1.2 billion to coastline protection from rising sea levels and $1.2 billion to habitat restoration.
The rest of the money will go towards clean energy initiatives, sustainable agriculture, park expansion, extreme heat events and air pollution.
“This proposition is not nearly focused enough, but frankly, neither is climate change,” said Agsten. “This is the best we have right now.”
Local:
The winner of California’s Assembly District 57 race will shape the environmental future of South Central Los Angeles. For the first time in over a decade, the district encompassing USC and its surrounding area has an open seat.
As Democratic Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer’s term comes to an end, two Democrats look to replace him: Sade Elhawary, a community organizer and educator who advocates for climate justice, and Efren Martinez, a small-business owner and Marine veteran who prioritizes economic development.
Elhawary said she supports Proposition 4 and wants to focus on “clean air and clean water projects in low-income communities that bear the heaviest burden of climate change” in an election questionnaire by the Los Angeles Daily News. Her platform promotes the transition to renewable energy sources and electric vehicles, which includes the phase-out of oil drilling.
Martinez, backed by the oil and gas industries, is not as outspoken on climate change. Instead, his campaign focuses on economic growth, more job opportunities and higher wages for the district.
With Election Day less than a week away, each vote holds the power to influence climate and environmental legislation at the local, state and national level.