With the midterms approaching, the climate crisis doesn’t seem to be top of mind for most voters. In a recent poll, voters told Gallup that, among 11 issues, the economy, health care, and the war in Iran are the top of their concerns when it comes to this election season. 

That doesn’t mean climate isn’t on the ballot. The midterms come as the U.S. has faced a slew of climate rollbacks under the first two years of the Trump Administration, including withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, rolling back the landmark endangerment finding, and leasing public lands for oil and gas drilling. With Democrats being significantly more likely to view climate action as a priority, many in the climate movement are hopeful that if the Democrats take back some leadership in Congress, as it could prove essential in helping to prevent further rollbacks.

“A new government could stop the bleeding,” says Malcolm Araos, assistant professor at the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University, whose work focuses on the politics of climate policy. “A new Congress, or new Senate can't reverse [many of the climate rollbacks], but they could investigate why [they were] repealed, and they could stop things like that from happening in the future.”

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be determined on Tuesday, Nov. 3, while 35 Senate seats are up for election. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take control of the Senate.

Why local elections matter these midterms

With a low likelihood of federal climate policy under Trump, regardless of the outcome of the midterms, state races are where most environmental advocates are looking. That’s because state-level elections still leave open the potential for local climate action—especially if Democrats can manage a “trifecta” and win the governor’s mansion and a majority in both chambers, says Geoffrey Henderson, assistant professor of environmental policy and planning at the University of Michigan. “We've seen in recent history that when we have Democratic trifectas at the state level, that lends itself to an opportunity to pass pretty transformative climate policies,” he says. “It's often underrated how important state level races are, because there are states like Michigan that are not currently Democratic trifectas, but that could shift back in that direction…and that can really unlock major policy change.”

Since President Trump took office, several states, including California, Virginia, and Colorado have pushed forward climate policies despite federal rollbacks. 

Climate ballot measures to watch in the midterm elections 

A number of climate measures are also on the ballot in several states. In Colorado, Amendment 82 will have voters deciding on the constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas—a measure that critics say, if passed, could challenge climate policies in the state by promoting fossil fuel reliance.

On the other hand, in Michigan, a ballot measure hopes to limit utilities from influencing political campaigns. (Michigan utility companies have previously lobbied against community solar expansion.) Voters in Eugene, Ore., meanwhile, will be asked to decide whether to tax large corporate retailers to fund climate resilience projects. (The measure is modeled after a similar program passed in neighboring Portland in 2018.) 

These all serve as bellwether cases, says Henderson. “These ballot measures are in some ways testing theories of how each side is going to approach state level climate policy.” 

How could the Iran war and data center concerns in the midterms impact climate policy?

Two issues of concern for voters—the war in Iran and data center construction—could also prove an opportunity for climate-friendly policies like renewable energy investments. “These moments of crisis when energy is really really expensive [can] lead to these switches to renewable energy,” says Araos. As the war laid bare the precarity of fossil fuels, many communities around the world began turning to renewable energy for greater energy security. 

Voters in 10 states, including California, Kansas, and Ohio, will decide whether to curb data center development in local communities, a fight that’s been resonating with climate advocates. “Data centers have drawn a grassroots bipartisan opposition, and climate groups are very much aligned with that opposition because data centers are major energy users, and in many cases they're major water users,” says Henderson. “I think it is really a climate issue as well as local land use issue, an issue of costs and water availability, and there's an opportunity here for climate advocates to to be a part of a broader coalition.” 

The ultrawealthy are responsible for more carbon pollution than more than half of humanity, according to a new report published Monday by Oxfam, a global organization fighting against inequality. 

“​​We are seeing the ways that the ultra rich in the U.S. and around the world contribute disproportionately to creating the climate crisis,” says Rachel Carle, senior advisor on climate justice at Oxfam America. “They are also insulated from the impacts of the climate crisis, and are profiting off of the disasters that they have created.”

Billionaires and the ultra-rich are burning more carbon than than most of the world. The world’s richest 1%—just 8 million people who make, on average, $442,000 a year—produce far more emissions than the poorest 3.5 billion, states the report. Someone in the richest 0.1% emits 48 times more CO2 than the average person in the U.S. over the course of a year. 

Oxfam used climate attribution models and a consumption-based emissions dataset developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute to calculate emissions by income group. Keeping emissions in check is a key part of addressing the climate crisis. This month, the United Nations warned that, in order to keep warming below 2°C, urgent action must be taken to drastically reduce global emissions by 18% by 2030.

Research has long shown that wealthier countries drive a disproportionate share of global emissions. But emissions disparities exist within countries as well. The U.S., for example, is the second largest carbon emitter behind China—but not everyone is responsible for the same share of emissions. The report finds that, in just under four months (118.3 days), someone in the richest 0.1% living in the U.S., those making an average of $1.98 million a year, emits more CO2 than what someone in the poorest half of the country (those making an average of $25,600 a year), has emitted over the last 30 years. 

One of the biggest sources of emissions? Private jets—which, in 2025, were responsible for 16 million metric tons of CO2, the emissions equivalent of the annual energy use of over 2 million homes. The U.S. has the highest concentration of private jet use—with the majority of all private jets (68%) taking off from the U.S. Combined, all of the world’s private jets emit more in 2 seconds than someone in the world’s poorest 50%, those annually making an average of $1,500, would emit in a year. According to the report, last year private jets spent more than 6.5 million hours in the air. 

“We see that the ultrarich consume differently than everyday people,” says Carle, who adds that the ultrarich are also far more likely to invest in polluting companies. A list of 217 companies that “profit from either creating climate disasters, preparing for them, or recovering from them,” analyzed in the report shows they made $1.8 billion on average in 2025, and paid out more than $1 billion to shareholders.

This has a direct impact on the climate, the report finds. The researchers constructed emissions pathway models to attribute the emissions of different income groups, and found that the richest 1% are responsible for 20% of global warming since 1990—20 times more than their share of the world’s population. Someone from the richest 1% contributed 34 times more than the average person to extreme heat events, the report states, and one year's worth of emissions from the richest 1% will cause an estimated 1.9 million excess heat deaths. 

Yet, the ultrawealthy are less likely to face the impacts of their emissions. Those with lower incomes are significantly more likely to suffer from the impacts of climate disasters and extreme weather events—and often lack the funds to recover from disasters. Wealthy individuals, on the other hand, are more likely to live in safer locations or have the funds to ride out a disaster—purchasing private resources, like firefighters and generators, or paying a premium for emergency shelter. 

The authors suggest taxing the emissions of the super-rich. This could be done through taxes on high-emitting luxury items and activities, like private jet use, to disincentivize their use, suggests the report, or via windfall taxes on profits from fossil fuel companies. The report envisions that these taxes could be used to help level the playing field when it comes to climate adaptation, like increasing climate financing in the Global South, or investing in adaptation measures around the world.

“We hope that people take away that there are  a lot of opportunities to  address inequality in ways that protect the planet and protect communities,” says Carle. “Polluters need to pay for the harm that they’ve caused.” 

The goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is largely out of reach. That’s according to the United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP) 2026 Emissions Gap report released on Wednesday, considered the definitive assessment of global climate action. 

“We’ve spent decades postponing cuts to emissions and now we’re facing the consequences,” Anne Olhoff, director of the UNEP-Copenhagen Climate Centre, and one of the report’s authors, said after the report’s publication. “The world can still attain the goals of the Paris Agreement but we must work hard to not only meet but surpass our most ambitious climate targets. The longer we wait, the larger the risk that we jeopardize the temperature goal.” 

While the report’s warning is stark, that doesn’t mean that all hope is lost. Coordinated efforts to reduce emissions can still have a meaningful impact on climate change, it says—but action must be taken quickly. 

Here are the biggest takeaways from the Emissions Gap report. 

The 1.5°C target is mostly out of reach 

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world agreed to halt planetary warming at 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures and to pursue efforts to limit warming by 1.5°C. Doing so would provide a greater chance at avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. The window to avoid overshooting the 1.5°C goal, however, is now closed, the report finds. 

But that doesn’t mean that there’s no hope for climate action. It is still possible to limit the overshoot and bring temperatures back below 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. Every fraction of a degree of warming above 1.5°C increases climate impacts, making the goal to limit as much warming beyond 1.5°C all the more important.  

The world is on track to reach 2.8°C of warming by 2100

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, countries must submit updated climate pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline specific goals to reduce national emissions. Based on the policies currently in place under the NDCs submitted by over 150 nations, the planet is on track to reach 2.8°C of warming by the end of the century. 

Based on this, today’s report concludes that global climate pledges are falling short. If countries meet their new NDCs, which set upgraded targets for 2035 and were due last year, global warming is still projected to reach 2.6°C by the end of the century. 

Both scenarios would have devastating consequences—dramatically transforming sea levels and ecosystems, and triggering compounding climate extremes such as higher temperatures and drought, increasing the likelihood of wildfires. 

We need to cut carbon emissions by 18% in the next four years

The report notes that it is still possible to peak warming at 1.7°C or 1.8°C. Doing so would require major changes. We would need to cut emissions by 18% by 2030, 45% by 2035, and 69% by 2040, relative to 2025 levels. This would require sustained emissions cuts along with carbon dioxide removal. 

“Every additional fraction of a degree and additional year of warming above 1.5°C increases climate impacts and risks, such as the deadly floods, heat waves, and wildfires that have plagued many nations this year,” said UNEP executive director Inger Andersen. “So, we must pull out all the stops to minimize peak warming and return to 1.5°C by the end of the century.”

The U.S. is a major outlier for emissions

While emissions growth has slowed down in most G20 countries, emissions in the United States “far exceeded that of all other countries," the report says. That’s due to the increased electricity demand, in part due to data centers, and new policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels like coal over clean energy sources. 

The report includes a statement from the State Department, noting that the U.S. "does not endorse or agree with its analysis or conclusions, and has not provided comments to this report."

The Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement also worsened the climate projections, as estimates no longer include climate action that would have been taken under the United States’s NDC targets.

The U.S. is the second largest emitter of climate-warming greenhouse gases, behind China, which has quickly become a world leader in renewable energy (while also ramping up coal production.)

Climate policies are reducing emissions

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement just over a decade ago, global renewable electricity capacity has grown three times faster than anticipated, while solar PV build-out has increased seven times faster. If these trends were to continue, and coupled with more policies to support clean energy, the world would be on track to reach its renewable energy goals.

The report examined more than 200 climate policies and found that they target emission reductions across a wide range of sectors and countries. That’s an encouraging sign the report notes. All that’s left is for these solutions to be scaled faster. 

“We have a wealth of success stories showing that emissions can be cut quickly,” said Andersen. “It is now up to nations to urgently put in place policies that spark fast, deep and sustained emissions reductions, and put the world on track for a more stable climate and more stable economies and societies.”

Southern California towns are on high alert as the first Santa Ana winds of the season have arrived, igniting multiple blazes across the region. 

The red flag warning put out by the National Weather Service (NWS) Wednesday evening followed a relatively quiet wildfire season so far in California. Only 300,000 acres had burned since Jan. 1, compared to the over one million acres that fires have usually burned by mid-October.

Why are Santa Ana winds so dangerous?

Santa Ana winds blow in from the desert, typically between the months of September and May. The winds bring warmer temperatures and drier air to Southern California. They also greatly increase the risk of wildfires—warm winds coupled with summer drought can often make for a dangerous combination. The January 2025 fires that tore through the Pacific Palisades and Altadena were fueled by Santa Ana wind gusts that reached 100 m.p.h. 

This week’s winds will not be as strong, according to NWS predictions. But that doesn’t mean the area is in the clear. The NWS warned that, if any fires ignite, “conditions are favorable for extreme fire behavior.”

What areas of Southern California are impacted by wildfires? 

The largest fire, named the Henderson fire, erupted Thursday afternoon around Camp Pendleton, a San Diego Marine Corps training base, and had burned through 1,404 acres by Friday morning. Two other fires have burned through 200 acres and 43 acres in Los Angeles county. 

The NWS issued a red flag warning on Oct. 15 for the Los Angeles County San Gabriel Valley forecast zone that will stay in effect until Saturday evening. The most extreme conditions are expected in the Ventura and Los Angeles County valleys and mountains, particularly Santa Clarita, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley.

As of Thursday night, Southern California Edison shut off power to tens of thousands of customers. Nearly 90,000 PG&E customers were also left without power. Shutting down power helps stop downed power lines or aging infrastructure from sparking fires. 

If you live in an impacted area, sign up for local emergency alerts, plan for power outages, and avoid any outdoor activities that might ignite sparks like BBQs, campfires, or discarded cigarette butts. 

One Southern California town is even encouraging residents to secure hallowed decorations—the giant skeleton and inflatable pumpkins haunting front lawns. High winds can turn Halloween decorations into hazards,” the city of Pasadena said in a Facebook post. “Secure them before winds pick up.”