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:
Do you want a light tailwind or a full-on hurricane?
“The only thing better for the climate than buying an EV over a gasoline-powered car is buying no car at all,” the climate scientist
Rob Jackson has written. But for many Americans, not having a car at all is the stuff of logistical and cultural nightmares. The average person living in the U.S. covers more than 1,000 miles per month in their vehicle, and nearly 45% of people don’t even have the option of opting for public transportation. Ditching your car? You might as well ask people to give up their cell phones.
But across the country, transportation advocates and e-bike warriors are looking for solutions to go, if not entirely car-less, then at least car-light. Heatmap has put together a comprehensive guide to help you make a decision that best fits your lifestyle, whether that’s becoming a superpedestrian, a committed e-bike user, or just trying to replace a couple of short-haul drives a week.
Doug Gordon is the cohost of “The War on Cars,” a podcast about the fight against car culture. He is also a writer, TV producer, and safe streets advocate, and he advises nonprofits and mobility companies on communications strategies to promote better streets and public infrastructure through his Brooklyn Spoke Media consulting business.
Alexa Sledge is the director of communications at Transportation Alternatives, a nonprofit organization that has worked to promote non-polluting, safe, and quiet travel in New York City since 1973.
Bryan Deanis the sales manager at The eBike Store in Portland, Oregon, which opened in 2008 as the city’s first e-bike-only retailer. He’s spent over six years helping customers pick out their perfect bikes and is also the creator of the #eBikeAnywhere hashtag.
Kevin Lau is a product specialist at REI with more than 20 years of experience. He is based out of Marlton, New Jersey.
Only 8% of U.S. households currently get by without owning a car, and less than 1% of Americans commute to work by bike. The U.S. is so driving-centric that we’re home to one-fifth of all the cars on the planet despite having less than 5% of the global population.Eleven states have more registered vehicles than people.
But just because driving has always been your default doesn’t mean it makes the most sense for the kind of travel you do — even if you live somewhere without great public transportation. Over half of all trips Americans make in a car are for a distance of less than three miles — perfect to convert into a bike ride.
“I think of mobility like a Swiss army knife: You have to use the right tool for the job,” Gordon told me. “If I just need to pick up a carton of milk, does it make sense to do that in a 6,000-pound metal box on wheels that is powered by dinosaur juice? Not so much.”
On average, commuting by bike in the U.S. saves an estimated $2,500 per year, and it has been found to have massive benefits for one’s mental health, cardiovascular health, and even productivity at work. Yes, even e-bikes!
“If you go to places like Copenhagen or Amsterdam — places where there are huge numbers of cyclists — and you poll those people, concern for the environment barely cracks the top five reasons why they cycle,” Gordon said. “The reasons why people cycle in Denmark and the Netherlands are because it’s safe and convenient, and it’s often the fastest and cheapest way to get where they’re going.”
Transportation is the most significant contributor to climate change in the United States, with nearly 60% of the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from cars alone (another 23% comes from trucks). Replacing a quarter of your total driving with walking, biking, or e-biking could save 1.3 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, according to our friends at WattTime — about the same as forgoing burning 1,433 pounds of coal or three barrels of oil. If every American drove even a mere 10% less per year, it’d be like taking 28 coal-fired power plants offline.
You can still make a significant impact without ditching your car, in other words: You simply have to drive less. And the upsides are enormous. More Americans die of car pollution than in car accidents every year. Additionally, commuting by bike or by foot makes us healthier and happier.
It also helps us realize what our community priorities should be. “Individual action is not always what we need to focus on,” Gordon said. “We need to focus on institutional change. But my philosophy is that lots of individual action actually adds up to the political will to get the institutional change you need.”
A survey of studies from five countries (including the U.S.) found that the main barriers to cycling were low perceived safety, bad weather, lack of cycling infrastructure (including “shower facilities” at one’s destination), and distance and perceived effort.
Safety is a valid concern. Riding a bike is about 500 times more likely to be fatal than riding a bus, according to a 2007 study; even with the success of programs like New York’s Vision Zero, collisions with cars remain a real danger for people on bikes. The car-related pollution inhaled while cycling can also shorten a cyclist’s life by an estimated one to 40 days. But the benefits of cycling on average far outweigh the risks: Riding a bike adds an estimated three to 14 months to your life, even when the possibilities of collisions and air pollution are considered. The health benefits are so significant that a separate study by Swedish researchers found that cyclists had a 47% lower risk of early death and a 10% lower risk of hospitalization compared to car and train commuters.
What about concerns about shower availability and the “distance and perceived effort” of riding a bike? That’s where the advantages of an e-bike’s pedal assist come into play. “E-bikes are great at blasting through any concerns you have about sweat,” Gordon told me. Even in hot weather or on difficult terrain, pedal assist can keep you looking fresh when you arrive at the office.
The first step to driving less is thinking about when and where you can replace specific trips with walking, cycling, or public transportation instead. Lau told me his general rule of thumb is that if a trip is less than a mile and he can safely walk (i.e. if there are sidewalks or safe paths), then he’ll walk. “If it’s more than that, I’ll take the bike if I have a place to lock it or can bring it into my workplace or store,” he said. For trips where he might need some extra assistance — that are farther, longer, hillier, or will require carrying “more cargo without working as hard,” he’ll opt for an e-bike instead.
You can do a lot of this reconnaissance from your couch. Apple Maps and Google Maps can take a lot of the guesswork out of finding the best bike paths to and from your house and the other places you frequent, including informing you ahead of time if the route will require riding on major or minor roads or ones with protected bike lanes. Google and Apple Maps can also give you real-time information about public transportation options in your area (as well as allow you to plan for trips when service might be reduced, like late nights or weekends), and many transit systems now have their own apps to make tracking delays or alternative service simpler.
It’s funny how you don’t realize where the long, slow inclines are in your neighborhood until you’re huffing up them on a bike. Google Maps and Apple Maps can show you what elevation to expect on a walking or cycling route. If you live in a hillier area, an e-bike might be better than a traditional bike since it can take some of the ouch out of the ups.
“Something really, really important that people don’t always think about is gear,” Sledge told me. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive, but if you can only ride your bike when it’s 80 degrees and sunny, that’s not the best scenario.”
If you live somewhere where it gets hot, rainy, snowy, windy, or the weather can change unexpectedly, think ahead of time about the sort of gear you’d need to make cycling or walking more comfortable. (We have a checklist of ideas below.)
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, and Vermont all have statewide tax credits or rebates to encourage e-bike adoption.
Live somewhere that isn’t on that list? Here is a super handy tracker from the Transportation Research and Education Center at Portland State University of more than 100 counties, cities, and municipalities that offer e-bike incentive programs. Also, look for e-bike lending libraries that might be in your area.
If you’re having trouble learning about the programs available to you, head into a brick-and-mortar e-bike shop in your area or connect with your local transportation advocacy group — they’ll know what programs you can take advantage of and be happy to point you in the right direction.
Do you know what bike enthusiasts love more than anything? Creating new bike enthusiasts. If you’re still feeling intimidated by the idea of getting on a bike — or even if you’re not — “find a friend who’s already doing it,” Gordon suggested. Bike people are “an evangelical bunch, and if you tell a friend who you know is into biking or bike commutes regularly that ‘Hey, I’m thinking of doing it,’ I can guarantee that person will be more than happy to hold your hand and help you through your first ride.”
There are dozens of emissions-free or emissions-light transportation options, from using your own two feet to digging the old beater bicycle out of your garage to going full Steve Wozniak with a Segway. The most important thing is to something you’ll actually use.
That said — “What’s really going to be the best option for most Americans is an e-bike,” Sledge told me. “That’s a true car replacement when so often a [traditional] bike can’t be a true, true, true car replacement.” E-bikes are simply more practical and comfortable for longer rides or daily commutes, and if you need to haul things like groceries or children, they can’t be beaten.
I’ve looked at all my options and don’t think I can drive any less than I already do. What can I do instead?
There’s no way around it: E-bikes are pricy. “An e-bike is going to be a big purchase — nowhere near as much as a car, but still, it’s a major purchase,” Sledge said. Even with incentive programs (more on that below), you’re likely to spend more than $1,000 out of pocket.
It is tempting to look for a bargain. But Dean stressed that manufacturers and bulk retailers are “sacrificing a lot” in terms of quality and service to make a profit at lower price points. As a rule, “If you’re spending less than $1,000 on any bike, it’s landfill,” he said. “And that waste is toxic — odds are, it isn’t going to be recycled properly.”
Gordon suggested that if you’re concerned about how often you’ll use an e-bike, it makes sense to get “a cheap regular bike” initially. “Then you can figure out if this is something you want to do in the long term, and after a few weeks, or a month, or a year, you can go, ‘Okay, I’m ready for the $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 bicycle.’”
Perspective is important, too. Yes, e-bikes are expensive — if you compare them to regular bikes. “If you compare them to cars, they’re a bargain,” Gordon said. “E-bikes are a replacement tool; they’re not an upgrade from other bikes. So if you’re a family with two cars and are going down to one, getting a $2,500 or even $5,000 e-bike is a relative bargain.” Additionally, many retailers — including The eBike Store in Portland, Oregon, where Dean works — offer installment plans to help make the purchase more manageable.
Conversion kits are a popular way to convert an analog bike you already own into an e-bike by attaching a motor to the front hub, rear hub, or mid-drive. Many of these kits can be found cheaply on websites like Amazon, though The Washington Post warns that it is still a “very Wild West market” and to only buy batteries from reputable e-bike battery brands (low-quality batteries are more likely to start fires). While converting to an e-bike might be a good option for you if you want to dip a toe in the e-bike water, you’ll still need to spend several hundred dollars to get a kit that gives you the same oomph as an actual e-bike. That said, whatever option gets you on a bike is the best one, and if you’re converter-kit curious, here’s a good guide for learning where to start.
“Buying a bike at a brick-and-mortar store from competent, kind people who love their job — customers are going to have a fantastic experience,” Dean told me. “They’re going to get a great taste for the bike, which means they’ll be riding it a lot. We’re not in the business of selling bikes that sit and rot in someone’s garage.”
It is especially important to go to a store with e-bike specialists on staff (rather than a bulk retailer like Costco — or worse, anything online) because the mechanics will have checked the bike over and adjusted the safety points so it’s ready to go. “You’re going to get educated and get a strong appreciation of the beautiful tool that you are buying, and learn how to operate it and make it last,” Dean added.
Most importantly, though, ensure you take the bike for a test ride before handing over your credit card. Any retailer worth its salt will offer this as an option; the best retailers will take you on a guided test ride, where they’ll teach you how to use the e-bike you’re trying out. But the bottom line is, “Don’t buy a bike that you haven’t ridden,” Dean said. “Ride the bike before you buy it; that’s in all-caps with smiley faces and exclamation points. Don't buy the bike if you can’t ride it first.”
“Buy the bike that’s going to put the biggest, dumbest smile on your face.”
Dean said he points riders looking to log miles to the Specialized Como. “When you’re commuting long miles, you want something comfortable, something that’s reliable, something that has a strong enough motor that will get you where you’re going and a big-enough battery that you’re not going to sweat it,” he said. The Specialized Como is also an excellent choice for people who want to “show up to work not sweaty” but maybe get a little bit more of a workout on the way home.
If you prefer commuting on a traditional bike, Lau suggested REI’s ADV 1.1, a road touring bike, or the CTY 1.1 bike, a less-expensive hybrid built for logging longer distances and enduring the daily wear-and-tear of a commute. His e-bike pick for commuters is the CTY e2.2, a popular, well-reviewed, and accessible commuter bike specifically marketed to “replace car trips.”
Dean loves to recommend Tern bikes to people who want to make trips with their kids. “They’ve been doing this for a long time, they have tons of great accessories, and they use Bosch power systems,” he said — all points in the bike’s favor. That customizability and reliability make it a good fit for families who want to be able to tailor the bike to their needs and price point while also not having to worry about it breaking down in the middle of a toddler’s meltdown.
But there is one other primary reason why Dean points parents to Tern. “All of their bikes are rider first, cargo behind” — versus bucket bikes that put the cargo in front of the rider. While the latter design is also popular, it also means that if you’re trying to squeak out into traffic, you’re nosing your most precious cargo ahead of you, into potential harm’s way.
Lau offered three options for e-bikes that won’t make you miss the trunk of your car, starting with the Cannondale Cargowagen, which can lug up to 440 pounds — that is a lot of Chili & Lime Flavored Rolled Corn Tortilla Chips. Its range isn’t quite as good as some other bikes on the market — the battery is 545 watt-hours — so it’s probably a better fit for people who live in higher-density areas or near their preferred market. (You can always buy a second battery if you want a little more range.) The Cargowagen is also a class 3 bike, meaning you won’t have to worry about the ice cream melting before you can get home.
Like Dean, Lau loves to recommend Tern bikes for handling heavy loads, especially the Tern GSD S00, which conveniently folds up so it can even be stored in an apartment or transported in an elevator while still being compatible with Tern’s line of cargo-carrying products — but at almost $6,000 before add-ons, it’ll likely be out of many first-time e-bikers’ budgets. Tern’s Vektron S10 is a less expensive option and still has the power to handle hilly roads with six Trader Joe’s bags in tow. (Note that both Terns are class 1 bikes, meaning the pedal assist tops out at 20 miles per hour.)
“Lightweight e-bikes are out there,” Dean said, and can be had — for the right amount of money. “They’re usually going to start around $3,500 to $4,000 and then go up from there,” he told me, pointing to Specialized as one of his favorite lightweight brands.
Keep in mind that you may not need a lightweight e-bike. “No one has ever come in and said, ‘I want a heavy bike,’” Dean pointed out. Electric motors are, by necessity, heavy, so getting a lighter bike can mean sacrificing half the motor and battery. There are workarounds: “If you have stairs to go up, almost all of these bikes have a walk assist mode,” which gently turns the tires so you’re not fighting gravity on your own, Dean told me. Likewise, if you’re trying to load your bike onto a car rack, “you don’t have to Hulk it up there; you can be a little smarter about your efforts by picking up the front wheel and putting it in the rack behind your car. Then pick up the back wheel.” If you’re really struggling with your bike, you can always pop off the battery — one of the heavier components — and carry it separately.
The best new commuter bike you can get away with is the CTY 1.1, the analog bike Lau recommended above, but for an e-bike option, he points customers to the Co-op CTY e2.1, an easy, accessible, no-frills class 1 bike that won’t run you more than $2,000. It might be a little light on features for a serious urban commuter, though.
Dean told me that the Gazelle Medeo and some of the bikes from Electra Country will have price points that could be more acceptable to customers on a budget. Gazelle uses the reliable Bosch power system, and the Medeo is “really good” and comes in “multiple versions.” (I found one for less than $2,000). Electra Country is a subsidiary of Trek and is a “one-size-fits-all, beach cruiser-looking bike” that comes in super fun colors.
Congratulations! You’re the proud owner of a bike or an e-bike (or skateboard or e-scooter or a really good pair of walking shoes). What happens now?
While the benefits of riding a bike (or any other form of active transportation) still outweigh the risks, cars are getting bigger, their blindspots are getting larger, and pedestrian and cyclist deaths nationwide are at a 40-year high. Even electric vehicles might be a small part of the problem since they’re so much heavier than regular cars — and that much more dangerous if you get hit.
I asked Sledge how newly carless commuters could become better pedestrians, and she quickly corrected me. “There is no such thing as being a good pedestrian,” she said. “So often, in the United States, when we have groups of people that are consistently harmed by other groups of people, we’re like, ‘How can the victims be better?’ And the real answer is, ‘How can we create systems and designs that protect those people?’”
We’ll get into that. But the bottom line is: be safe when you’re out on the road. Learn how to navigate intersections safely, and don’t take unnecessary risks. Especially if you’re on an e-bike, “You’re traveling faster than most cars are expecting you to,” Dean said. “To remember that, imagine you are not only invisible, but they’re all trying to kill you.”
“Riding a bike is a really good entry for a lot of people into larger political conversations about climate, the design of their cities or towns, and a host of other issues,” Gordon told me. It might only be a short amount of time before you start to wonder why there aren’t more protected bike lanes in your town or city, or why mass transit isn’t reaching your neighborhood or destination, or why lousy road design is making your commute more dangerous than it should be.
There’s some good news, though: There has never been a better time to become a transit advocate. “It could be as small as your block, or your neighborhood, or your city, but there are tons of groups all over the country that focus on working to make them safer and better for the people in them,” Sledge said.
One of the best places to start is by making your voice and your values heard. As Sledge reminded me, car companies already have — and continue to spend money and time lobbying policies that are better for drivers (and their bottom lines) than others on the road. But where to begin? “First, I would look for any kind of organization in your community, your neighborhood, or your city that focuses on safe streets or fighting climate change, and see if you can get involved with them,” Sledge said. “And if you don’t have that kind of organization, start to go to your city council meetings, making your voice heard with your local representatives — those kinds of things really make a difference.”
Another great resource is Transportation for America’s Transit Advocate Guide, which takes you step-by-step through building a movement in your community. Transportation Alternatives also hosts occasional activist trainings to help you learn how to organize successful campaigns in your neighborhood.
Maybe you bought an e-bike or a monthly metro pass … but you’ve been unable to quit your car the way you thought you would. That’s okay! This is not an all-or-nothing activity. “Don’t feel guilty if you’re still driving,” Gordon stressed. Remember that “you’re operating within a system that is built for you to drive, so starting small is really good.” Every fit and start of progress helps.
Remember also that better, low- and zero-emissions-friendly infrastructure and a pedestrian-first culture aren’t going to be built overnight. Even the most hard-core among us still need to use cars occasionally. Just “reimagining how we’re going to truly allocate our public resources — our public dollars, our public services — to serve everyone, and radically rethinking how to do that, is so important,” Sledge said.
I will leave you with one last instruction for ditching your car. When you discover the bike that lets you “follow your joy, follow your bliss,” and puts a “smile on your face” — as Dean likes to say — don’t keep it to yourself.
Someone else in your community is beginning to think about ditching their car, too. It’s your turn now. Go forth. Become someone else’s enthusiastic bike geek.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The administration can’t have it both ways on the Clean Air Act.
The Trump administration filed lawsuits this week against four states that are pursuing compensation from oil and gas companies for climate change-related damages. But Trump’s separate aim to revoke the government’s “endangerment finding,” the conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and should therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act, could directly undercut the legal basis for the suits.
In each of the cases, the Trump administration is arguing that the Clean Air Act preempts the states’ actions. But if the Environmental Protection Agency rules that the Clean Air Act does not, in fact, require the federal regulation of greenhouse gases, that argument could fall apart.
Two of the lawsuits target Vermont and New York for their new “climate superfund” laws that require the companies responsible for the greatest amount of emissions over the last three decades to pay into a fund supporting adaptation and disaster response. The Department of Justice is also suing Hawaii and Michigan to block them from suing fossil fuel companies for damages for climate change-related harms. Neither state had actually filed such a lawsuit yet, although both had expressed interest in doing so. (Hawaii went ahead and filed its suit on Thursday night.)
“I just want to start by saying that these lawsuits by the government are totally unprecedented,” Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of Law at Michigan State University, told me when we hopped on the phone. To her knowledge, never before has the federal government tried to preemptively stop a state from filing a liability case against companies.
In an executive order in early April, Trump had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement” of state climate laws and actions that “may be unconstitutional” or “preempted by federal law.” The order singled out lawsuits against oil companies as well as climate superfund laws, calling both a form of “extortion” and a “threat to economic and national security.”
Nevermind that climate change is a major threat to economic and national security, and states have filed these lawsuits and created these laws because they are scrambling to find ways to pay to address the unprecedented damages brought by the increasing severity of wildfires and floods.
Even before Trump took office, Rothschild said, the federal government had warned states that they were going to need to take more responsibility for preparing for and responding to increasing natural disasters. “[States] do not have the resources alone to address this problem,” said Rothschild. “These companies have engaged in an activity that causes external harms that they’ve not taken into account as part of their business practices, they’'re imposing all the costs of those harms on states and citizens, and they should be liable to help us deal with the resulting problems. That’s a very normal activity for tort suits.”
Dozens of states have filed similar lawsuits seeking damages from oil companies. (A Justice Department press release did not say why it was singling out states that had not taken any legal action yet rather than targeting those that had.) Many of these lawsuits have been stuck in a holding pattern for years, though. “Climate superfund” laws are a new legal strategy, modeled on the federal superfund program, that some states are testing to get oil companies to pay up.
The DOJ’s lawsuits claim that states cannot fine oil companies for their emissions because that authority lies with the federal government under the Clean Air Act. That argument is underpinned by the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, which stems from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act, and therefore the EPA must determine whether these emissions pose a threat to public health. The court said that if the agency finds there is enough scientific evidence to say greenhouse gases are harmful, it must develop regulations to rein them in. EPA officially made this finding in 2009.
This was a big headache for Trump during his first term. He wasn’t allowed to simply repeal Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas rules — by law, he had to replace them. If he’s able to reverse the endangerment finding, however, he could undo climate protection rules and that would be that.
At the same time, he’d make oil companies much more vulnerable. “There is great concern that reversing the finding would open the door to a lot more nuisance lawsuits against all types of energy companies,” Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell, a lobbying firm, told E&E News. “It would eliminate one of the best arguments that oil companies have used to get lawsuits against them dismissed,” he added.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin will face an uphill battle in reversing the finding, as there is a mountain of scientific evidence that greenhouse gases cause dangerous climate change. But Zeldin may instead try to argue that the EPA did not consider the cost of addressing these emissions when it made the initial finding — and that the costs of reining them in outweigh the costs of emitting freely.
Legal experts are skeptical this argument will go anywhere, either. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA’s endangerment finding should be based on science, not economics. Cost-benefit analyses and other policy considerations are relevant if the EPA finds that greenhouse gases do, in fact, pose a threat, but they “do not inform the ‘scientific judgment’” that the law requires the EPA to make, the judge ruled. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn “Chevron deference,” a decades-long precedent that gave agencies broad authority to interpret their statutory mandates, could also hurt Zeldin’s case.
Rothschild, for her part, is confident that states’ superfund laws and tort suits are defensible regardless of what happens to the endangerment finding. These actions have nothing to do with the Clean Air Act, she argued, because they are not an attempt to regulate emissions. “They're trying to impose liability for local, environmental, and public health harms from past activities,” she said.
One thing is for certain: Between states’ lawsuits suing oil companies, oil companies’ countersuits, the DOJ’s new lawsuits against states, and probably future suits against any actions the Trump administration takes on endangerment, there’s going to be a whole lot of new case law about greenhouse gases over the next four years.
The fundamentals are the same — it’s the tone that’s changed.
At some point in the past month, the hydrogen fuel cell developer Plug Power updated its website. Beneath a carousel explaining the hydrogen ecosystem and solutions for transporting fuel, the company’s home page now contains a section titled “Hydrogen at Work.”
“Hydrogen is key to energy independence, providing clean, reliable power while reducing reliance on imported fuels,” the text in this new box reads. “Plug’s hydrogen and fuel cell solutions strengthen the energy grid and enhance national security, positioning the U.S. as a leader in the global energy transition.”
It is fairly ordinary website copy, but to a keen reader, the text jumps out as an obvious Trump 2.0 tell. Plug Power — like many green economy companies — has pivoted to meet the political and economic moment, where “energy independence” and “energy dominance” are in and “climate” and “sustainability” are out.
“I am actually shocked every time I look at the website of a climate tech company that still uses the language from 12 months ago, from four months ago — that doesn’t do them any good,” Peter Atanasoff, the managing director and vice president of Scratch Media and Marketing, which helps B2B technology companies and climate tech businesses achieve growth and recognition, told me.
The shift in language is more significant than just brands chasing the latest buzzwords.
The first Trump administration saw broad-based pushback from the business community against Trump’s more inflammatory positions, especially by consumer-facing brands that played to the pussy hat-wearing, brunch-and-protest attitudes of the time. The CEOs of Facebook (now Meta), Nike, and Google issued statements of disappointment when the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk even dropped out of the president’s business council over the decision. It was, needless to say, a very different time.
During Trump’s second term, he promised “retribution.” Many of the more moderate voices from his first administration are long gone, and there’s a palpable fear among nonprofits and businesses of drawing the wrong kind of attention from Washington, losing grant funding for saying the wrong thing. “The real trigger” for resulting differences in branding between the first and second Trump administrations has been “the change of tone and change of economic policy,” Atanasoff told me. “It is explicit opposition to any of these technologies."
The administration has launched an all-out assault not just on climate policy, but also on the very language of the energy transition. In a February memo obtained by E&E News, the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed 34 words to be erased from official documentation, including “global warming,” “carbon footprint,” “net zero,” and even “green.” As I’ve covered for Heatmap, farmers applying for Department of Agriculture grants have been encouraged to resubmit proposals with climate-focused language removed and “refocus … on expanding American energy production.” And at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, scientists have quickly learned to pivot to talking about “air pollution” rather than emissions, contending with a banned-words list of their own.
Lobbyists and clean energy companies that want to be in the administration’s good graces have adapted, as well. That has changed the tenor of green business at large. Alexander Bryden, who runs the Washington, D.C. office of Browning Environmental Communications, told me over email that tweaking brand language is “typical after any change of administration, particularly when there are significant shifts in policy.” But especially for organizations in the public eye, “it’s more important than ever to highlight the historic and potential economic benefits of environmental solutions — and show how they are supported by, and benefit, people across the political spectrum.”
The actual fundamentals of green business haven’t changed, though. On the contrary, in the first quarter of 2025, venture capitalists and private equity firms invested more than $5 billion in climate tech startups in the U.S., a 65% increase from the same period a year earlier, according to PitchBook data. While there are certainly obstacles like supply chain uncertainty and tariffs to contend with, especially for clean energy manufacturing, on the whole “it’s still a great time to start a climate startup,” Tommy Leep, the founder of the software-focused venture firm Jetstream, told my colleague Katie Brigham last November. His caveat? “Just don’t call it a climate startup.”
Roger Ballentine, the president of the management consulting service Green Strategies and the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton, explained this thinking to me. “It’s what I refer to as climate capitalism, which is the realization that by incorporating climate change and its risks and opportunities into your business strategy, you’re actually going to be a more successful, more profitable, and more competitive company,” he said. Even with the recent economic turbulence, “That hasn’t changed. That’s not going to change.”
Where you do see adjustments, however, is “around the edges,” per Ballentine. Companies are attempting to match the frequency of the administration and, in turn, the broader policy ecosystem — a frequency that tends to be aggressive, assertive, and heavy on words like “dominance” and “security.” It might also take the form of decreasing the volume at which companies had previously shouted their climate bona fides.
Anya Nelson, the senior vice president of public relations at Scratch M+M, said her team has also advised touting “American-made production” in brand messaging, and reframing copy to focus on “the positive impacts and immediate business benefits” of the companies, rather than more idealistic messaging about climate goals that may have had stronger resonance during the Biden administration.
At this point, you may have noticed that I haven’t quoted any corporate brand officers. That’s not because I didn’t try to talk to any. (Even Plug Power, my example at the beginning of this story, didn’t respond to a request for comment on the change in their messaging.) Though the sudden prevalence of terms like “energy dominance” becomes conspicuous once you start to look for them, no one wants to draw the wrong kind of attention from the administration. It’s part of a greater trend of clamming up that my colleagues and I have experienced across sectors in our reporting, and at a time when even the word “green” can give you a black mark, I can’t say I don’t understand.
Ballentine, the Green Strategies president, dismissed reading too much into how language itself changes under President Trump. “If yesterday a new technology company was touting itself as a climate solution, and now it’s touting itself as a way to achieve energy dominance — I don’t care,” he said.
His thinking was more pragmatic. “Good business remains good business,” Ballentine went on. “Around the edges, will things change? Yes. General belt tightening? Yes. Fundamental change of direction? No.”
It might sound like branding agencies are encouraging companies to “play along” with the administration, but Nelson of Scratch M+M stressed that wasn’t what she was trying to say. At the end of the day, “your end goal is to be a viable company, right?” she said. “To be a thriving company that is going to change the world, first and foremost, you need to make sure you don’t go out of business.” The message might be more accurately summarized as “read the room.”
A report from Heatmap’s San Francisco Climate Week event with Tom Steyer.
Last Thursday at San Francisco Climate Week, Heatmap hosted an event with a lineup of industry leaders and experts to discuss the most promising up-and-coming climate tech innovations amidst a backdrop of tariff and tax credit uncertainty.
Guests at Heatmap's event, Climate Tech's Next Winners.Sean Vranizan
First up, Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer sat down with Tom Steyer, the billionaire investor and co-founder of Galvanize Climate Solutions, to explore the most promising climate technologies to scale. “No one's going to adopt new technologies to be nice,” Steyer noted. “They're gonna adopt new technologies because they're better, because they're a better deal, because they're cheaper or in some ways solve a pain point for the customer.” Steyer went on to emphasize that there is at least one “transformational and disruptive” idea for every six verticals in the climate industry — for example, measuring carbon sequestration in nature with machine learning andAI, a concept that was “literally unimaginable 5 years ago.”
Tom Steyer and Robinson Meyer.Sean Vranizan
As for the Trump-sized elephant in the room, Steyer encouraged climate tech startups to focus on “good leadership” as well as the willingness to adapt in this uncertain moment. “You’re gonna have hard times, and the world is going to change, and you’re going to have to figure out what to do,“ he said. Steyer also noted that all Americans, not only those working in climate tech, should understand the energy transition as a background condition of their careers. “If you want to be a screenwriter (...) be a screenwriter. But it’s really important that you put [the energy transition] into your screenwriting. If you‘re a banker (...) be a banker with an awareness of this issue. Bank the good stuff, not the bad stuff,” Steyer explained. He finished up the discussion with a remembrance of the late Pope Francis, a “tremendous human being for the planet.”
Sam D'Amico and Nico Lauricella.Sean Vranizan
Also on Thursday was a lightning talk between Nico Lauricella, Heatmap’s CEO and editor in chief, and Sam D’Amico, the founder and CEO of Impulse Labs, which sponsored the event. D'Amico explained that in addition to being an induction stove, Impulse’s Cooktop is “a way to get battery storage into people's homes” — a “concept car” for using batteries in appliances to create a more decentralized grid. Lauricella and D’Amico also discussed the impacts of Trump’s tariffs on clean tech companies like Impulse, with D’Amico advising other founders in the room to build prototypes based on the supply chain and to make sure they have options in terms of where their products are manufactured so they can keep up with changing trade policies.
Impulse's high-power Cooktop on display at the event.Sean Vranizan
Lastly, Heatmap News staff writer Katie Brigham hosted a panel with Gabriel Kra, managing director and co-founder at Prelude Ventures, Clea Kolster, partner and head of science at Lowercarbon Capital, and Rajesh Swaminathan, partner at Khosla Ventures. The group spoke about the unique circumstances facing investors in the climate technology space, what their firms are looking for when investing in the newest climate innovations, and how AI fits into the picture.
Katie Brigham, Clea Kolster, Gabriel Kra, and Rajesh Swaminathan.Sean Vranizan
All three panelists acknowledged that it’s a delicate time for clean tech investors and companies alike. “Volatility and uncertainty are the enemies of running and planning a business,” warned Kra. The true cost of the tariffs is therefore extremely high, Kra explained. Kolster agreed that things are generally gloomy in the investment space, but also highlighted the technologies that are currently thriving. Carbon removal, she pointed out, “is going better than ever. Contracts are being inked right now, in the past few weeks.” The companies and technologies she’s excited about, Kolster added, are building “cheaper, better, faster,” as Steyer pointed out earlier in the evening.
Swaminathan added that there will always be a certain element of risk when it comes to investing in emerging technologies. “Clean tech companies have so many single points of failure,” he said. “And you have to prop up each part with the right leadership team. You have to have strong pillars so that [your company] doesn’t break.”
Guests following the discussion.Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Guests at SFCW
Sean Vranizan
Thank you to our presenting sponsor, Impulse, as well as our supporting sponsor, V2 Communications, and our event host, IndieBio.