You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:

Current conditions: Severe thunderstorms across the Great Plains are raising the risk late into Friday night of nocturnal tornadoes, which are nearly three times as deadly as daytime twisters • The Red and Mississippi rivers are poised swell as clouds dump up to 4 inches of rain on the region • Strong katabatic winds up to 65 miles per hour are blasting Antarctica with blizzard conditions.

Back in November, I told you that China’s emissions had stayed steady in the third quarter of last year, extending a flat or falling trend that began in March 2024. Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported that the country’s solar boom had balanced out an increase in planet-heating pollution from other sectors of the world’s second-largest economy. So Beijing’s announcement yesterday that it would slightly water down its climate goals for the rest of the decade came with only muted criticism. In its latest five-year plan published Thursday, the People’s Republic pledged to cut carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 17% between 2026 and 2030, down from the 18% set out in the document that covered the 2021 to 2025 period. Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst for the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told Climate Home News the target was “underwhelming.” Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, told the publication that China’s decarbonization efforts were stymied by the pandemic and slowing economic growth, noting that the new target “indicates a quiet recalibration, effectively acknowledging how difficult the goal has become.”
In the United States, meanwhile, scientists published a first-of-a-kind assessment of the health of American nature and wildlife on their own after the Trump administration pulled its support from the project commissioned by the Biden administration. The 868-page draft went live this week, seeking public comment and scientific review. The findings paint what The New York Times called a “grim” picture: “Freshwater ecosystems across the country are in crisis, ‘overdrawn, polluted, fragmented and invaded.’ Marine and terrestrial ecosystems are degraded, with reduced biodiversity. An estimated 34% of plant species and 40% of animal species are at risk of extinction.”
On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior ended the Trump administration’s first Alaskan oil and gas lease sale without a single bidder for more than a million acres of federal waters in the Cook Inlet. In a statement, the Sierra Club called the auction, which it opposed, “a big fat failure” and a repeat of the last offshore lease sale in Alaska in 2022, which brought in just one bid. At the time, the Biden administration tried to cancel the lease, citing a lack of interest from industry. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan accused Biden of “blatantly lying to the American people” and presenting a “fantasy” about industry demand as part of a broader attempt to “shun U.S. energy production.” In statements to the television outlet KTUU in Anchorage, both Republicans called this week’s results “disappointing.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Heatmap’s Jeva Lange had a big scoop yesterday: The embattled Federal Emergency Management Agency suspended all of its training and education programs for emergency managers across the country — except for those “directly supporting the 2026 FIFA World Cup.” Jeva got her hands on an internal communication from the agency’s leadership directing the National Training and Education Division to “cease course delivery operations” for the nearly 300 trainings it provides to local first responders and emergency managers. “In states like California, where all public employees are sworn in as disaster service workers, jurisdictions have been left without the resources to train their employees,” she wrote.
Outgoing Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the first cabinet chief fired since Trump returned to office, “all but killed” FEMA by shredding its budgets, as Grist put it. Long delays for FEMA assistance in disaster-struck states such as North Carolina spurred Republican fury at Noem, The New York Times reported. Whether her successor, Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin, represents a significant change from Noem’s worldview remains to be seen.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Amazon, Google, JPMorgan Chase and other corporate giants signed onto a $100 million effort to fund projects that cut climate superpollutants such as methane, black carbon, and refrigerant gases. The campaign, called the Superpollutant Action Initiative, is set to supply financing through 2030. For a taste of what it might mean, Axios reported that “Randy Spock, Google's carbon credits and removals lead, cited potential project areas like cutting landfill methane and stemming the release of refrigerant gases when HVAC systems are replaced.”
The announcement came a day after both Amazon and Google joined the White House’s “ratepayer protection pledge,” which Politico called the “build your own power plant pledge.” Aside from the obvious fact that it’s voluntary, the pact has limits. Namely, a lot of decisions about power plants are dictated by local regulations and regional electricity markets.
BYD just revealed a new battery that InsideEVs said “makes Western EV tech look ancient.” The second generation of its Blade battery can charge from 10% to 70% in just five minutes and 10% to 97% in 10 minutes. The release comes as sales at the world’s largest electric automaker decline amid mounting competition in the Chinese market.
The global asset manager Galvanize has raised $370 million for a new subsidiary focused on helping “undercapitalized” commercial buildings slash energy bills. The Galvanize Real Estate Fund will target buildings “in supply-constrained, high growth U.S. markets that represent attractive opportunities to drive net operating income growth.” The company will then come into the buildings with “decarbonization and resilience interventions — which include a combination of on-site renewable energy generation, energy efficiency retrofits, and electrification — aim to protect against rising costs and reduce building emissions.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Why local governments are getting an earful about “infrasound”
As the data center boom pressures counties, cities, and towns into fights over noise, the trickiest tone local officials are starting to hear complaints about is one they can’t even hear – a low-frequency rumble known as infrasound.
Infrasound is a phenomenon best described as sounds so low, they’re inaudible. These are the sorts of vibrations and pressure at the heart of earthquakes and volcanic activity. Infrasound can be anything from the waves shot out from a sonic boom or an explosion to very minute changes in air pressure around HVAC systems or refrigerators.
Knowing some of these facilities also have the capacity to produce significant audible noise, growing segments of the population’s more tech-skeptical and health-anxious corners are fretting some data centers could be making a lot of infrasound, too. The whizzing of so many large computational machines combined with cooling fans and other large devices creating so many new columns of air flow. Add onto that any rotational onsite power generation – think natural gas turbines, for example – and you get quite a lot of movement that could potentially produce what they say is infrasound.
Some of the virality of this chatter about infrasound and data centers comes from a video about infrasound created by audio engineer and researcher Benn Jordan. Currently sitting at more than 1 million views, this short YouTube film documents claims that some data centers are operating like “acoustic weapons” through infrasound and harming people. Andy Masley, an “effective altruist” writer, has become the chief critic of the Jordan video, getting into a back-and-forth that’s raised the issue to Internet discourse territory.
The Jordan-Masley infrasound debate is honestly a bit of a mess. So I want to be clear: I’m not going to get into the science of whether or not infrasound poses any kind of public health risk in this article. We can get to that later. It’s worth saying that this subject may need more study and that work is ongoing. Also, talking about infrasound at all can make you honestly sound a little wacky (see: this study blaming people seeing ghosts on infrasound). It might also remind you of another panic in the Electric Age: electromagnetic fields, also known as EMFs. Developers of transmission lines and solar projects have long had to deal with people worried about transmission lines and large electrical equipment potentially glowing with invisible, unhealthy radiation.
In late 2024, I wrote about how an RFK Jr. supporter worried about this form of electrical emission was helping lead the fight against a transmission line in New Jersey for offshore wind. Maybe that’s why it didn’t surprise me one bit when the Health and Human Services secretary himself told a U.S. Senate Committee last week that he was asking the Surgeon General’s office to “do either meta reviews” or “base studies” on noise pollution and EMF radiation from data centers “so we can better inform the American public.”
“There’s a range of injuries that are very, very well documented. They’re neurological – very, very grave neurological injuries, cancer risk,” Kennedy Jr. told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on April 22 in response to a request from Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri to study the issue. “The risks, to me, are tremendous.”
There’s also the unfortunate reality that infrasound impacts have previously been a cudgel to slow down renewable energy deployment. Wind turbines create infrasound because of the subharmonic frequencies created when one turbine rotates at a slightly different pace than another, producing a slightly dissonant low frequency noise. Groups like the Heartland Institute proudly list this infrasound as one of the reasons wind energy “menaces man and nature.”
But regardless of merit, this concern is already impacting local government decisions around data center projects, much like how one Michigan county sought to restrict solar energy on the same basis.
In February Adrian Shelley, the Texas director for environmental group Public Citizen, implored the city of Red Rock to study changing their noise ordinance to take into account infrasound. “It has effects on sleep patterns, on stress, on cardiovascular health, and it is potentially a very serious concern,” Shelley said at a February 11 city council discussion on data center rules. “It will not be covered by the city’s noise ordinance, which only deals with audible sound.”
Earlier this month in Calvert County, Maryland, a volunteer for their environmental commission recently told the county government that infrasound needs to be factored into their future data center planning. “It will have significant impacts on our region and the Chesapeake and the Patuxent because infrasound isn’t stopped by walls,” commission member Janette Wysocki, a proud land conservationist, said at an April 15 hearing. “It will keep going, it will move through anything. It’s a very long wavelength. So we need to protect our ecosystem.” Wysocki implored the county to consider whether to adjust its noise regulations.
Around the same time, similar concerns were raised in Lebanon, a small city in east-central Pennsylvania. “It permeates through concrete walls, it permeates through the ground,” Thomas Dompier, an associate professor at Lebanon Valley College, said at an April 16 Lebanon County commission hearing on data centers.
Lastly, last week I explained how Loudon County wants to rethink its noise ordinance to deal with low-frequency “hums” from data centers – a concern echoing those who fret infrasound.
Ethan Bourdeau, executive director of standards at Quiet Parks Intentional and a career acoustician and building standards writer, told me that what makes data centers unique is the “constant drone” of noise that could potentially carry subharmonic frequencies. Bourdeau said cities or counties could possibly factor concerns about infrasound into noise ordinances to address those who are most concerned. One way they could do it is by changing how decibels are weighted in the government’s measurements. A-weighting decibel meters are a common form of sound measurement geared toward perceptible noise. Using different systems, like C-weighting or G-weighting, would avoid ways that A-weighting can filter out sub-hearing frequencies.
“These are reporting and weighting systems where a sound level meter taking background noise receives all the unweighted sound and then you apply all these filters afterwards, like an EQ curve,” Bourdeau said.
So I guess if those most concerned about infrasound have their way, a lot of country commissioners and local elected leaders will be heading to the mixing booth.
And more on the week’s top fights around project development.
1. King County, Washington – The Moss Landing battery backlash is alive and well more than a year after the fiery disaster, fomenting an opposition stampede that threatens to delay a massive energy storage project two dozen miles east of Seattle.
2. Prince Williams County, Virginia – It was a big week for data center troubles. Let’s start with Data Center Alley, which started to show cracks this week as data center developer Compass announced it was pulling out of the controversial Digital Gateway mega-project.
3. Washtenaw County, Michigan – Turning to Michigan, real estate firm Sansone abandoned plans to purchase land owned by Toyota to build a hyperscale data center campus after the local township instituted a 6-month moratoria.
4. Okeechobee County, Florida – The backlash to data centers is killing projects in deep-red Florida too, as this county’s commission decides to kill a 205-acre prospective data center campus led by a state college.
.
A conversation with Holly Jean Buck, author of a buzzy story about Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a national data center moratorium.
This week’s conversation is with Holly Jean Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and former official in the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Buck got into the thicket of the data center siting debate this past week after authoring a polemic epistemology of sorts in Jacobin arguing against a national data center ban. In the piece, she called a moratorium on AI data centers “a massive strategic blunder for the left, and we should think through the global justice implications and follow-on effects.” It argued that environmental and climate activists would be better suited not courting a left-right coalition that doesn’t seem to have shared goals in the long term.
Her article was praised by more Abundance-leaning thinkers like Matthew Yglesias and pilloried by some of the more influential people in the anti-data center organizing space, such as Ben Inskeep of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana. So I wanted to chat with her about the discourse around her piece. She humbly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So my first question is kind of a broad one and perhaps a suitable polemic to open with: are data center moratoria (bans) “slopulism”?
Haha, oh no. I don’t know if I have a working definition of that term.
“Slopulism” is colloquially known as low-effort or performative populism slop that is focused on emotional gratification and elite resentment instead of substantive policy.
I think, sometimes? Moratoria have been proposed at a lot of different levels in a lot of different forms. With the national moratorium, as written in the AI Data Center Moratorium Act [proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], I thought from a rhetorical and textual standpoint it was a pretty amazing document. I just don’t think it’s a great policy proposal, so maybe that’s a little bit closer, but I don’t think people working on that theory of change would see it as slopulism. They’re thinking of this as a negotiating tactic and thinking, how do we leverage this moment and make it clear to the tech industry they don’t have social license?
I wouldn’t personally call it slopulism. I just don’t think it’ll work. I don’t think it's effective but I'm not big on labels.
Personally, I come down sort of where you’re at on the yes-and-no kind of tack. There’s definitely some vibes based stuff going on, which you address in your piece, but historically there’s a pretty long legacy of advocacy campaigns for, well, let’s ban this until we’ve finished regulating it.
You write part of why a moratoria push can be a dead end is that the right and left coalitions pushing to stop data centers have different interests on other issues and that it may not follow that stopping data centers will result in a clean energy buildout, or the social policies to address job displacement.
When you talk about the left-right coalition, help me understand what’s driving the opposition and why you think it’s happening the way it is?
I think there’s a lot of layers here. It’s pretty complex. It’s well established there are left-right coalitions. I don’t think we have a great body of social science research but I think that is a solid working assumption. So I think the people who are a part of this, it’s easy for them to come together and stop a thing that’s happening near them. But I don’t think they’re going to agree on how we build a decarbonized, resilient grid. The people in that coalition are going to have vastly different perspectives on whether we want to decarbonize, what measures are feasible and worth paying for to get there. Same thing when it comes to the thornier questions about AI governance. The solution set is just not something the members of that coalition are going to agree on.
So it feels maybe on the ground like this really cool moment about rising up against these big forces. It’s cool. I get it. I was actually very much on board with that a while ago. And my views on that have shifted. I don’t think it’s going to be productive unless it’s coupled with a lot of very real coalition building work I don’t see happening.
I’ve had conversations with environmental activists about that issue. I did a Q&A with someone from Public Citizen about this particular issue right after the national data center moratoria was introduced with Senator Sanders. I asked, do you have any concerns about pushing for a moratoria on new tech infrastructure when this tool is also used by those trying to stop solar, wind and batteries? Is there any concern that in some communities it’ll go from data centers to renewables?
I wondered reading your piece if this is part of what you’re getting at here, that this backlash doesn’t necessarily seem to be rooted as much in a transition away from fossil fuels or building lots of new renewable energy.
I think in the absence of systematic research, it’s one of these things where people can see it the way they want, through their own lens.
I’ve been following this in a few different places in the country, especially through online Facebook groups, and there is a noticeable overlap between some of those Facebook groups and the content and many of the anti-renewable groups I follow. Some of the themes remind me of this piece I wrote about para-environmentalism. There’s a lot of places where it dips into conspiracy and fears about new technology, electro-magnetic radiation, sorts of places where a data center is mundane but can take on creepy, supernatural overtones in some of these groups. Before I was studying para-environmentalism more generally I was thinking we really need this left-right coalition to rise up against these companies. Now I’m much more cautious about where it’ll lead.
I know Twitter isn’t real life, but the discourse around your work – those who have criticized it – are saying, why can’t we do both? Why can’t we go after the data center sector without potentially heading towards that form of politics you’re afraid of?
I don’t think it's the moratoria necessarily but the left-right blocking approach.
There’s a couple things I want to make discernments about. I want to make a discernment between people who want to stop a data center and a moratorium that’s more of a blanket, larger regional or national thing. I do think there are data centers being sited in really bad places, under really bad agreements. They shouldn’t move forward.
There’s bad data centers and there’s okay data centers and we need to be discerning between them. There’s also normal processes in this country for siting large facilities, whether they’re county level zoning commissions and something else.
But to your question of why can’t we do both, we could have a viable left-right anti-tech organizing that makes real demand for how we go about the lithium and AI age if people were investing in the social infrastructure necessary to make that happen. We’re very far from it because the framing of stopping a thing… We need people who are convening real conversations about what to do. I think they’re focused on stopping a thing.
I don’t know if they’re focused on whether we need universal basic income, a public wealth fund or something else, in a way that’s across the aisle. That would be a whole movement building infrastructure and it’s one we need if we’re going to decarbonize.
But that’s not what I am seeing – I’m seeing NGOs funded by wealthy and non-transparent donor-advised funds focused on some parts of the country and not others. We’re not getting to having those conversations happening or even having a shared media reality.
Can you go a bit deeper on how a situation where there is a national moratoria results in equity concerns? How are those less fortunate hurt by that?
There are three things I am concerned about. The first thing is that people who are better organized because they have more resources say we need a national moratoria which pushes development to regions with weaker organizing. Maybe they have weaker environmental and social regulations. I’m concerned about that because there’s a huge history of that happening across different regions and industries.
The second thing I am concerned about is driving up the cost of computation in ways that would make AI less affordable and accessible for people who may be able to use it for a variety of things. I realize that’s controversial for the segment of the population who thinks AI is useless but I think it’s tremendously valuable and I want a world where everybody has access to these capabilities and I think it’s made less likely by making computation less expensive.
The third thing, which I didn’t have room in my piece to address, is to what extent this moment is about the data centers. This is a new focus for the climate movement, which is understandable because there’s been a sideshift away from climate and the Trump administration has put everything in such a dire place that they need wins to hold on to. I’m worried about whether that displaces energy and funding away from other environmental issues. Are we taking space away from other priority areas? I’m not saying we know about those things but these are concerns we need to focus on. And if they’re not concerns, that’s good news. But we should think of them.
On that note, on the bigger question, do you believe artificial intelligence and these data centers are a net positive or a net negative for the effort to solve for climate change?
I think it’s too soon to say what the net effect will be and that net effect will be indirect. We can count the carbon emissions from these and say, great we have a whole new industrial sector to contend with among all these other industries we’re trying to decarbonize. And it’s bad from that point of view.
Then you have efficiencies that AI might discover. I have no clue about the extent of that.
Then you have AI impacting the information ecosystem, what they want to believe and what they want to do. Maybe the greatest impacts of AI will be it causes people to take climate more seriously. Or ways through social media that convince people it is a hoax.
It’s hard to measure all these factors and speculations against each other. So I have no idea what the net effect will be on climate and I don’t believe anyone who says they know what it’ll be at this point.
But the data centers – from your perspective, is this boom helping or hurting?
I think it’s definitely a setback. But if I look at the whole picture of climate change I think this is more tractable than some of the challenges we have with decarbonization. Number one, we know how to decarbonize data centers. It’s a lot harder than something like cement where we don’t know how to stop the emissions themselves. I think agriculture is really challenging to decarbonize – it’s mixed up in what people eat and land use. Data centers is a problem. But it seems tractable because of that.
We also have all these people working on this. All of these climate professionals who’ve pivoted to framing their work into being about AI. I think we have the knowledge and the personnel to do it. If I compare data centers to other parts of decarbonization, it’s not on the top of my list of things I’m worried about. But it is tough – we knew we had this many tonnes to deal with and now we’re adding things. It’s a challenge but I want to have perspective about the challenge.
Can I close on a fun question?
Sure.
What’s the last song you listened to?
Oh, gee. It was some terrible ‘80s song because my kind is really into that kind of music right now. The one that sticks out is “Sunglasses At Night,” which is always playing in the Buffalo airport.