In a nation where climate change has been dismissed as a 'hoax' by a former president, and federal policies seem stacked against environmental progress, it’s easy to feel like the fight for a sustainable future is lost. But here’s the surprising truth: some of the most impactful battles for climate action aren’t happening in Washington, D.C.—they’re unfolding in local towns, cities, and states across America. And this is where organizations like Climate Cabinet are quietly but powerfully shifting the tide.
While federal inaction might dominate headlines, analysts estimate that a staggering 75% of the U.S. commitments made in the Paris climate agreement—which the Trump administration abandoned—can still be achieved without federal support. This isn’t just a silver lining; it’s a call to action. Enter Climate Cabinet, a data-driven organization dedicated to identifying and supporting pro-climate candidates in often-overlooked local and state races. By leveraging data science, they sift through over 500,000 public offices up for election each cycle, pinpointing candidates who can drive meaningful climate progress. These candidates then receive financial backing and policy support to turn their visions into reality.
Founded by Caroline Spears, a former analyst for a major solar company, Climate Cabinet was born out of a simple yet profound realization. Spears noticed that while her company could build dozens of solar projects in Massachusetts, they struggled to launch even one in the sunnier state of Arizona. And this is the part most people miss: the difference wasn’t federal policy—it was state and local regulations. This insight convinced Spears that local governance holds the key to accelerating climate action, even when federal leadership falls short.
Since its founding in 2020, Climate Cabinet has supported over 500 candidates across races as diverse as public school board elections in Virginia and state house campaigns in Minnesota. Their success rate? A remarkable 75%, with some years reaching even higher. In 2025, for instance, their candidates won 42 out of 45 endorsed races. Today, Climate Cabinet-backed officials have governing power over the emissions of more than 813 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually—a testament to the impact of local leadership.
But here’s where it gets controversial: While Climate Cabinet’s approach has proven effective, it’s not without its critics. Some argue that focusing on local races distracts from the need for sweeping federal action. Others question whether small-scale wins can truly move the needle on a global crisis. Yet, as Spears points out, these local victories are often the building blocks for larger change. When chambers flip in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Virginia, they’ve gone on to pass 100% clean energy policies—proof that local action can catalyze broader transformation.
Take Naperville, Illinois, for example. This Chicago suburb is one of nine public power authorities jointly owning the Prairie State Energy Campus, a major coal power plant. Locked into a contract that ties them to coal until at least 2035, Naperville faced a critical decision in 2025: renew the contract early, extending their reliance on coal until 2055, or fight for cleaner alternatives. Enter Ian Holzhauer, a city council member backed by Climate Cabinet, who saw this as a chance to break free from coal’s grip. Despite facing fierce opposition—including personal attack ads funded by conservative billionaire Richard Uihlein—Holzhauer and three other Climate Cabinet-backed candidates won re-election. While Naperville’s initial contract remains in place until 2035, the new council is now pushing for concessions toward clean energy, refusing to sign a 20-year extension without significant changes.
And this is the part most people miss: Local races like Naperville’s often fly under the radar, yet they wield enormous power. As Holzhauer notes, the nine members of Naperville’s city council have a direct impact on one of the nation’s top 10 greenhouse gas emitters. Their decisions—often decided by fewer than 60 votes—can shape the environmental future of millions.
Climate Cabinet’s strategy extends beyond city councils. They’ve backed candidates in school committee elections, mayoral races, and even positions like the New Mexico land commissioner, which oversees 9 million acres of state trust land and 13 million acres of subsurface mineral rights. Here, candidate Juan de Jesus Sanchez is campaigning to balance conservation with revenue generation, aiming to expand renewable energy while holding fossil fuel operators to higher standards. His race, like many others, highlights how local leadership can drive systemic change—even when federal progress stalls.
But here’s where it gets controversial: While Climate Cabinet overwhelmingly supports Democrats, they’ve also endorsed a handful of Republicans with strong climate voting records. This pragmatic approach has sparked debate, with some arguing it undermines the need for partisan unity on climate issues. Yet, as Spears explains, their focus is on ‘votes, not vibes,’ prioritizing candidates who will deliver results regardless of party affiliation.
So, is local action enough? Not on its own. But as Holzhauer puts it, local government serves as a ‘lab’ for innovative policies that can later scale up. From assault weapon bans to clean energy initiatives, local wins often pave the way for statewide—and even national—change. In a gridlocked federal landscape, these victories offer hope and a roadmap for progress.
Thought-provoking question for you: Do you believe local climate action can truly compensate for federal inaction, or is a top-down approach essential? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that could shape the future of our planet.
