Do green projects inevitably result in electoral backlash? Under what circumstances can politicians mitigate these costs or even transform them into electoral rewards? As an urgent response to the climate crisis, green energy projects are essential for reducing dependence on polluting resources. However, these projects are often seen as disruptive and evoke NIMBY reactions. Unlike public goods, which typically provide localized benefits while spreading costs broadly through taxation, green infrastructure imposes concentrated local costs while offering widely diffused environmental benefits. This paper takes a step back and reassess this narrative by exploring the contexts in which they generate benefits or grievances for residents, highlighting how these dynamics mediate electoral consequences. While their psychological costs may spark place-based resentment, particularly in rural areas where identity and autonomy feel threatened, local economic and political conditions can reshape perceptions. Direct economic benefits in declining areas may offset grievances. Simultaneously, forward-looking local politicians can leverage increased budgets from these projects to implement compensatory policies, mitigating discontent. These effects shape how citizens perceive green projects and their support for incumbents. Using a novel dataset on wind and solar park construction in Spain (2000–2024) and census-track electoral results, this paper examines whether incumbents face electoral losses in affected areas but gain support elsewhere, with differential responses between deprived and economically vibrant areas. By employing causal inference methods, the study stresses the importance of understanding how green projects interact with socio-economic and political contexts, offering critical insights into the electoral dynamics of sustainability transitions.