WASHINGTON – The political battle on climate change is shifting from the nation's capital to ballot boxes thousands of miles away.

Tuesday, voters in nine states – all in the South and West – will determine the fate of potentially far-reaching environmental measures, including whether to curb greenhouse gas emissions (Washington), increase the use of renewable fuels (Arizona, Nevada) or ban offshore oil drilling (Florida).

There are ballot initiatives to increase spending on land preservation (Georgia, California), protect wildlife habitats (Alaska), limit fracking (Colorado) and restrict mining (Montana).

President Donald Trump's aggressive effort to roll back the broad environmental program pursued by President Barack Obama has activists looking outside the Beltway for solutions to global warming, increased pollution and habitat erosion, said Megan Mullin, an associate professor of Environmental Politics at Duke University.

More:Colorado election: What to know about Proposition 112, proposed oil and gas setbacks

More:Bans on offshore oil drilling and vaping at work in same amendment

More:Clean-energy ballot measure Prop. 127 trailing, Arizona Republic poll finds

"As states take up the slack in environmental policymaking, it makes sense that environmental groups would pay more attention to what happens in state elections," she said. "We see it (not only) in the climate change space in the absence of federal policy action but in other environmental areas as well."

Trying to slow down Trump's deregulatory efforts, environmental groups led by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) contributed millions to Democratic congressional candidates around the country in hopes of capturing enough seats to wrest the House of Representatives from Republican control.

In the short term, the most fruitful gains for environmentalists could come by electing governors and other candidates for state office pushing green agendas and winning ballot fights at the state level. To that end, LCV and its local partners have spent nearly $40 million on state candidates and ballot initiatives around the country this election cycle.

"It’s an opportunity to actually move forward on policies that cut carbon pollution, increase renewable energy, promote and protect clean water and clean air," said Pete Maysmith, lead strategist for the LCV Victory Fund.

As a result of Washington's inaction, billionaire climate change activists, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Trump impeachment advocate Tom Steyer, helped finance state ballot initiatives around the country.

Both Gates and Bloomberg contributed $1 million, joining LCV and the Nature Conservancy to boost passage of a first-of-its-kind ballot measure in Washington state that would cut climate-damaging carbon emissions significantly over the next 30 years.

Opponents have spent even more, led by several large petroleum companies and the Koch Industries who warned of increased energy prices for consumers, according to state campaign finance records.

Steyer, through his NextGen America organization, has been active in helping ballot measures in Arizona and Nevada that would force utilities to decrease dependence of fossil fuels for cleaner renewable energy sources.

In May, Michigan's two major utilities committed to increase the power they produce from renewable sources to 25 percent by 2030 after Steyer agreed to end a similar ballot drive.

"When Trump pulled out of the Paris Treaty (on climate change), the thought was there's nothing we can do to save the planet," NextGen spokesman Kevin Mack said. "And Tom just said, 'Look someone's got to step up and take this thing on, and I'll do it.' "

Here are some of the most ambitious environmental proposals appearing on state ballots Tuesday:

Washington

Initiative 1631 would impose a fee on sources of greenhouse gas emissions and "use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate impacts, under oversight of a public board."

The state is trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 – and half of 1990 levels by 2050 – by raising the cost of fossil fuels sold or used within the state and electricity generated within or imported into the state.

Proponents said that would have the double benefit of encouraging consumers to use cleaner fuel while raising money for efforts to develop alternative energy.

Opponents said small businesses and consumers would shoulder the bulk of the added costs ($2.3 billion during the first five years) while several of the state's largest polluters would be exempt.

Arizona

Arizona's Proposition 127 would require 50 percent of the retail energy sales of these utilities to come from certain types of renewable energy by 2030.

The plan calls for increasing the use of renewable energy from 8 percent this year to 15 percent in 2025, and it's not written into the state Constitution, so regulators have flexibility in offering waivers should any utility need one.

Proposition 127 is widely opposed by utilities such as Arizona Public Service and a variety of groups – including a number of rural officials – concerned it would raise electric bills. APS' parent company, Pinnacle West Capital, poured millions into the campaign to counteract the millions NextGen America spent on the race.

"Experts predict the typical Arizona family will pay an extra $1,000 per year in utility bills under Prop 127," according to Pinnacle-backed Arizonans for Affordable Electricity. "Small businesses will pay thousands more. Seniors, low-income families and other vulnerable Arizonans will be hardest hit."

Colorado

Proposition 112 on Colorado's ballot would drastically limit the available areas for oil and gas exploration by redefining where it's permitted.

Such activity can occur as close as 500 feet to an occupied building and "vulnerable area," such as a playground, a reservoir, a public park or a river. This ballot proposal would impose a 2,500-foot buffer.

Supporters of the proposal said it would protect Colorado's natural resources as well as the health and safety of residents who sometimes feel overlooked by the industry and its regulators. Opponents said the setback increase would devastate the future of the oil and gas industry, resulting in big tax revenue and job losses.

Polls indicate the proposition has a good chance of passing despite millions spent by the oil and gas industry, which said it would cost as many as 150,000 jobs.

Nevada

Similar to Arizona's renewable energy proposal, Nevada's Question 6 would require state electric producers to buy or generate 50 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2030 – up from about 20 percent.

The effort, like Arizona's, is funded by Steyer. If voters pass it Tuesday, the proposed state constitutional amendment still will have to go back before voters in 2020.

Supporters – including the Sierra Club, the Nevada Conservation League and Western Resource Advocates – said the initiative would mean cleaner air, more jobs and cheaper energy.

Opponents said a constitutional mandate dictating energy policy is unnecessary and risky, pointing out Nevada’s renewable energy portfolio is already set to increase to 25 percent by 2025. They used the example of their western neighbor to argue their case.

"Funny fact: California pays Nevada to accept excess solar energy from their grid glut," opponents wrote in the online information booklet issued by Nevada's secretary of state. "Do we want to become California, paying exorbitant energy bills caused by poor policy?"

Florida

Florida voters will decide whether to ban offshore drilling in state waters. They'll also determine whether to ban the use of vapor e-cigarettes in the workplace.

The two proposals are bundled together as part of Question 9, one of several proposals on the ballot by the state Constitutional Revision Commission. Under state law, the commission has the flexibility to link different issues to a single measure.

If the measure is approved, it would make permanent the legislative ban on drilling beneath “state waters” – 9 miles off the western and southern coastlines and at least 3 miles off Florida's east coast. The ban would not apply to federal waters.

The amendment will need 60 percent of the vote to pass.

Georgia

Voters will be asked to decide on an amendment to the state constitution that authorizes the state Legislature to divert up to 80 percent of state sales tax collected by sporting goods for "protecting and preserving conservation land."

For years, advocates have pushed for the proposal known as the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Amendment because it would raise about $200 million over the next decade to buy and improve parks and trails, without raising taxes.

"Georgia’s economy and quality of life are directly tied to both the health of our rivers, lakes and streams and the availability and beauty of our outdoor spaces, wildlife habitats and parks," according to the Nature Conservancy.

More:Midterms: Mike Pence, casting himself as the 'Walmart' politician, is a 'secret weapon' for many 2018 candidates

More:Think millennials are woke? Only a third plan to definitely vote in the midterms, poll says

More:Midterms: These Senate races will decide control in President Trump's Washington

Contributing: Ryan Randazzo, The Arizona Republic; Jacy Marmaduke, Fort Collins Coloradoan; and James DeHaven, Reno Gazette Journal