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:
Wind and solar are out. Clean, firm power is in.
Especially with carbon capture tax incentives on the verge of disappearing, perhaps At One Ventures founder Tom Chi is onto something.
The House budget bill may have kept the 45Q tax credit, but nixing transferability makes it decidedly less useful.
Direct air capture isn’t doing everything its advocates promised — yet. That doesn’t make it a scam.
Congratulations to Mati Carbon, an enhanced rock weathering startup that works with farmers in India.
The culture wars are threatening one of the few bipartisan areas of climate policy.
On environmental justice grants, melting glaciers, and Amazon’s carbon credits
Current conditions: Severe thunderstorms are expected across the Mississippi Valley this weekend • Storm Martinho pushed Portugal’s wind power generation to “historic maximums” • It’s 62 degrees Fahrenheit, cloudy, and very quiet at Heathrow Airport outside London, where a large fire at an electricity substation forced the international travel hub to close.
President Trump invoked emergency powers Thursday to expand production of critical minerals and reduce the nation’s reliance on other countries. The executive order relies on the Defense Production Act, which “grants the president powers to ensure the nation’s defense by expanding and expediting the supply of materials and services from the domestic industrial base.”
Former President Biden invoked the act several times during his term, once to accelerate domestic clean energy production, and another time to boost mining and critical minerals for the nation’s large-capacity battery supply chain. Trump’s order calls for identifying “priority projects” for which permits can be expedited, and directs the Department of the Interior to prioritize mineral production and mining as the “primary land uses” of federal lands that are known to contain minerals.
Critical minerals are used in all kinds of clean tech, including solar panels, EV batteries, and wind turbines. Trump’s executive order doesn’t mention these technologies, but says “transportation, infrastructure, defense capabilities, and the next generation of technology rely upon a secure, predictable, and affordable supply of minerals.”
Anonymous current and former staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency have penned an open letter to the American people, slamming the Trump administration’s attacks on climate grants awarded to nonprofits under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The letter, published in Environmental Health News, focuses mostly on the grants that were supposed to go toward environmental justice programs, but have since been frozen under the current administration. For example, Climate United was awarded nearly $7 billion to finance clean energy projects in rural, Tribal, and low-income communities.
“It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for the U.S. government to cancel its agreements with grantees and contractors,” the letter states. “It is fraud for the U.S. government to delay payments for services already received. And it is an abuse of power for the Trump administration to block the IRA laws that were mandated by Congress.”
The lives of 2 billion people, or about a quarter of the human population, are threatened by melting glaciers due to climate change. That’s according to UNESCO’s new World Water Development Report, released to correspond with the UN’s first World Day for Glaciers. “As the world warms, glaciers are melting faster than ever, making the water cycle more unpredictable and extreme,” the report says. “And because of glacial retreat, floods, droughts, landslides, and sea-level rise are intensifying, with devastating consequences for people and nature.” Some key stats about the state of the world’s glaciers:
In case you missed it: Amazon has started selling “high-integrity science-based carbon credits” to its suppliers and business customers, as well as companies that have committed to being net-zero by 2040 in line with Amazon’s Climate Pledge, to help them offset their greenhouse gas emissions.
“The voluntary carbon market has been challenged with issues of transparency, credibility, and the availability of high-quality carbon credits, which has led to skepticism about nature and technological carbon removal as an effective tool to combat climate change,” said Kara Hurst, chief sustainability officer at Amazon. “However, the science is clear: We must halt and reverse deforestation and restore millions of miles of forests to slow the worst effects of climate change. We’re using our size and high vetting standards to help promote additional investments in nature, and we are excited to share this new opportunity with companies who are also committed to the difficult work of decarbonizing their operations.”
The Bureau of Land Management is close to approving the environmental review for a transmission line that would connect to BluEarth Renewables’ Lucky Star wind project, Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reports in The Fight. “This is a huge deal,” she says. “For the last two months it has seemed like nothing wind-related could be approved by the Trump administration. But that may be about to change.”
BLM sent local officials an email March 6 with a draft environmental assessment for the transmission line, which is required for the federal government to approve its right-of-way under the National Environmental Policy Act. According to the draft, the entirety of the wind project is sited on private property and “no longer will require access to BLM-administered land.”
The email suggests this draft environmental assessment may soon be available for public comment. BLM’s web page for the transmission line now states an approval granting right-of-way may come as soon as May. BLM last week did something similar with a transmission line that would go to a solar project proposed entirely on private lands. Holzman wonders: “Could private lands become the workaround du jour under Trump?”
Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer, this week launched a pilot direct air capture unit capable of removing 12 tons of carbon dioxide per year. In 2023 alone, the company’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions totalled 72.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The Science Based Targets initiative released long-awaited guidance that doesn’t exactly clarify matters.
The carbon removal industry is in a rut.
Last year, companies with climate targets purchased about 8 million tons of future carbon removal — an impressive 78% increase from the year prior, according to the sales tracking site CDR.fyi. And yet 80% of those purchases were made by the same three entities — Microsoft, Google, and Frontier — that have been more or less singlehandedly supporting the industry since its inception. The number of new buyers entering the market declined by 18%.
“Demand is the greatest existential threat for the carbon removal industry,” Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance, an industry group, told me. “These companies are developing technologies that don’t really have a natural customer. There are corporates who are purchasing carbon removal as part of their sustainability strategies, but buyers at scale are few and far between.”
That was all set to change when the Science Based Targets initiative, a nonprofit authority on best practices for corporate sustainability, released its revised Net Zero Standard — or at least that was the hope. The influential group had not previously given companies any direction as to whether they should be buying carbon removal in the near-term, and was widely expected to get more explicit about the need to do so. But while SBTi’s new draft standard, which was finally released on Tuesday, takes a step in that direction, it may not go far enough to make a difference.
As the name implied, SBTi’s previous Net Zero Standard assumed that companies would have to purchase carbon removal eventually — “net-zero emissions” means pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to offset emissions that can’t be eliminated at the source. The standard was designed to align companies with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible, and it expected companies to hit net-zero by 2050. But it didn’t say anything about what companies should do with regards to carbon removal between now and then.
As a result, many companies have interpreted that as “they shouldn’t or don’t have to buy carbon removal credits until 2049,” Lukas May, the chief commercial officer and head of policy at Isometric, a carbon removal registry, told me. “And potentially it’s even a bad thing if they did it before then because it might be considered a distraction from their decarbonization. And they certainly don’t get any credit for it from SBTi.”
The problem is that it may not be possible to remove the required amount of carbon from the atmosphere in 2049 if more companies don’t start paying for it now. Startups need demand to finance first-of-a-kind projects, learn from their mistakes, discover efficiencies, and scale. While the U.S. government has some funding available, it’s not enough.
Amador said she’s had conversations with potential carbon removal buyers who have been waiting on the sidelines, in part to see what SBTi would say. They are deterred by the cost, but they also want to make sure that if they do jump in, their investment will be viewed by this third-party authority as meaningful so that they avoid accusations of greenwashing. “I think there are a lot of companies who need to know that this is a core component of what counts as their net zero strategy, and they’re holding off on buying until they have greater clarity,” Amador told me.
But SBTi is in a precarious position. Some companies are starting to back away from their climate plans. Big tech, which once led the pack on climate, is now focused on developing AI and building data centers at the expense of increased emissions. Environmental, social, and governance strategies, or ESG, are now often viewed as more of a liability by investors than a selling point — not to mention a political risk in the U.S. under the Trump administration. Top corporate supporters of the American Is All In coalition, a group committed to upholding the Paris Agreement, recently refused to sign a letter reiterating that commitment. If SBTi’s new Net Zero Standard is viewed as too onerous or expensive to comply with, it’s easy to imagine companies deciding to walk away from it altogether.
In the proposal published Tuesday, SBTi proceeded with caution. In the section on carbon removal, it described several potential approaches of varying ambition. The first was to require that companies begin procuring carbon removal in 2030, starting with enough to offset just 5% of what they expect their residual emissions will be in 2050, and ramping up over time. The second was for companies to set their own voluntary near-term carbon removal targets and receive extra “recognition” from SBTi for doing so. The third approach would give companies more flexibility either to purchase carbon removal beginning in 2030, or to get ahead of schedule on their emission reductions, or to do some combination of the two.
It’s normal in draft proposals to see options with varying levels of ambition. But in this case, it’s not clear that even the first option is an ambitious goal. That’s because it would only apply to companies’ “Scope 1” emissions, the emissions a company has direct control over. Most of the companies that have sought out SBTi’s stamp of approval in the past have very small Scope 1 emissions. Take Apple, for example: Less than 1% of its emissions are Scope 1. The vast majority of its carbon footprint comes from the third parties that produce and ship its products and customers using the products — also known as “Scope 3” emissions.
Robert Hoglund, a carbon removal advisor who co-founded CDR.fyi, published a newsletter on Tuesday, in which he argued that the companies with significant Scope 1 emissions, such as those in aviation, shipping, heavy industry, and mining, have mostly ignored SBTi so far, and regardless, are less able to pay for carbon removal than companies further downstream. By his analysis, among the top 200 companies in the world, the 25 biggest Scope 1 emitters made annual average profits of $85 for every ton of carbon they released across all Scopes. The remaining companies made an average of $32,000.
“The downstream companies, especially in high-profit, low-emission sectors like finance, insurance, and tech, are needed to fund CDR efforts,” he wrote. “If only Scope 1 emissions are required to set interim targets for, then the durable CDR sector will likely fail to scale fast enough in the coming decade. This would risk giving us a lost decade ahead, jeopardising our ability to reach net zero.”
SBTi proposed several other important updates to the Net Zero Standard. Companies buying carbon removal may have to use a “like for like” approach, for instance, purchasing removal services that are as durable as the specific greenhouse gas they release in the atmosphere. In other words, carbon emissions would have to be offset with removals that last a thousand years, while nitrous oxide emissions could be offset with shorter-term removals. The group also recommended a deadline of 2040 for companies to move to low-carbon electricity.
Feedback on the draft is due by June 1, after which the group’s technical department and expert working groups will refine it. There may be another round of public consultation before a final draft goes to SBTi’s board for approval, the group said. It expects companies to begin using the new standard to refine their targets in 2027.
