You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
What the heck is “surficial mineralization”?

According to one of the world’s leading carbon removal buyers, the sector’s future lies in piles of industrial waste.
When Frontier, the Stripe-led coalition of carbon removal supporters, announced its latest $915 million funding commitment, it took the opportunity to lay out the five technologies it views as most promising. I was familiar with four of them — ocean alkalinity enhancement, biomass carbon removal and storage, enhanced rock weathering, and direct air capture. Heatmap has covered them all. But the name on the very top of the list stumped me: surficial mineralization.
It sounds technical, and like all methods of carbon removal, it is — sort of. The idea is to take advantage of the tailings ponds and slag heaps left behind by the mining and steelmaking industries. These piles of calcium- or magnesium-rich debris naturally capture and store carbon from the air — not enough to change the trajectory of our warming planet without any human intervention, but managed well, they could one day capture carbon at a significant scale.
How significant, exactly? While there’s been very little action in the space to date, Frontier says surficial mineralization has the potential to remove over 10 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere per year — as much or more than any other pathway — at an eventual cost of $80 to $120 per ton. That would put it among the cheapest approaches on Frontier’s list, in part because those heaps of industrial waste alone could absorb anywhere from a gigaton to 4 gigatons of carbon before there’s a need to mine rocks solely for carbon removal purposes.
“The beauty of surficial mineralization is twofold,” Hannah Bebbington Valori, who heads the Frontier coalition, told me. “One, we are working with an abundant source of highly reactive rock, and so there is a significant opportunity for carbon dioxide drawdown. And two, it is carbonating in place, and so sufficient mineralization technologies can be considered closed system approaches, and have generally more straightforward measurement reporting and verification infrastructure.”
At a chemical level, the process resembles other carbon removal pathways Frontier champions, such as enhanced rock weathering and ocean alkalinity enhancement. All three rely on alkaline minerals reacting with moisture and ambient carbon dioxide to form stable carbonate compounds that permanently lock away the gas. The difference is exactly where this reaction takes place: While surficial mineralization contains it to waste piles at industrial sites, the other approaches disperse the reaction across open, difficult-to-monitor systems such as farmland soils and the ocean.
That makes measurement, reporting, and verification — known as MRV — far more challenging and expensive for ocean- and soil-based systems, as scientists must track carbon uptake across ecologically complex environments where countless biological and chemical processes are unfolding simultaneously. These intersecting processes makes it difficult to demonstrate that human intervention was responsible for any given ton of carbon removed, as opposed to natural variability. MRV for these pathways thus relies heavily on modeling, which can never provide the same level of certainty as direct measurement.
Surficial mineralization, however, can be measured much more directly. On-site sensors continuously monitor CO2 concentrations above mine tailings or steel slag, providing a real-time signal of how quickly and to what degree the materials are drawing down carbon. Scientists can then validate these measurements in the lab by comparing physical samples of the material taken before and after the reaction, quantifying exactly how much solid carbonate formed as a result of various engineered interventions. The primary tool for this is X-ray diffraction — a well-established geological technique that identifies a sample’s mineral composition like a chemical fingerprint, making it possible to directly measure how much carbon the material locked away.
Don’t mistake the relative simplicity of the MRV framework for evidence that surficial mineralization is a proven carbon removal pathway — the reality is far from it. While mineralization may look simpler than, say, direct air capture, which typically uses giant fans and specialized sorbents to pull CO2 from the air, there are very few companies working in this space today. All are extremely early stage, and the time and capital required to secure feedstock partnerships, gain site access, and acquire necessary industrial equipment remain significant barriers to getting these projects off the ground.
Why is this heavy equipment needed in the first place? Because these waste piles won’t do much carbon capture work if they’re simply left untouched. That’s because the minerals at the pile’s surface will begin to slowly carbonate, eventually becoming fully saturated and acting as a seal that blocks carbon from reaching the reactive minerals below. As yet there’s no consensus on how to most quickly and cost-effectively break through this natural process to maximize carbon uptake — companies are testing a range of approaches, from crushing and spreading material to maximize air exposure (similar to enhanced rock weathering) to actively churning piles of waste to constantly reveal fresh reactive surfaces.
“Understanding exactly what is the best system to use to maximize your carbon removal efficiency and minimize your cost — this is what we need real-world deployment to do, and to understand,” Bebbington Valori told me.
One of the seed-stage startups Frontier has supported with a small pre-purchase agreement, Arca, spun out of the University of British Columbia to commercialize its approach to carbon removal from mine tailings. The company’s focus is ultramafic waste — magnesium- and iron-rich rock that locks away carbon dioxide as stable magnesium carbonate. “My pathway for interest on that was knowing that there was already about 2 billion tons of ultramafic mine waste sitting on the surface of the Earth in Canada alone,” Greg Dipple, Arca’s co-founder and head of science, told me.
Arca proposes to increase the surface area available for carbon capture in two ways. The first is by using customized robots to continuously till and churn tailings piles, constantly exposing fresh feedstock to the air to maximize carbon uptake before the next layer of tailings is deposited on top. That strategy, Dipple told me, “can give us a five- to 10-fold increase in the rate of CO2 capture” at active mine sites.
It successfully demonstrated this approach in an 18-month pilot project with Australian mining giant BHP at an active mine in the country's Northern Goldfields region where Arca says it increased the tailings’ mineralization rate by an order of magnitude. But the startup plans to push the efficacy of its tech further through what it calls “mineral activation.” This technique uses industrial-scale microwaves to heat the minerals rapidly enough to drive off the water that’s chemically bound within their crystal structure. This essentially blows apart the minerals from the inside out, exposing fresh magnesium-rich surfaces primed to react with carbon dioxide. The expected result is faster mineralization and more carbon captured per ton of mine tailings — but the startup has yet to test it in the field.
“Essentially we’re making microwave popcorn out of silicate minerals,” Dipple explained. “The microwaves cause the release of that water in the same way that when you make popcorn, you’re essentially boiling the water out of the center of the kernel, and that’s what blows the kernel up and creates this high surface area.” The idea is to eventually integrate this step into the mine’s tailings processing stream, with minerals moving through the giant microwave before they’re deposited at the storage facility.
Dipple told me that mineral activation will be a core part of Arca’s future projects, including those intended to fulfill the company’s 10-year carbon removal offtake agreement with Microsoft. Signed last October, the deal calls for Arca to deliver nearly 300,000 metric tons of carbon removal to the software giant.
While no other startup in the space has landed an offtake agreement of that scale, several have secured early backing from Frontier through pre-purchase agreements. One of them, Karbonetiq, is working to capture carbon from steel slag, the calcium-rich byproduct of steel production that accumulates in large piles at processing sites. Like the magnesium-rich minerals in mine tailings, calcium compounds in steel slag naturally react with moisture and carbon dioxide to form a stable calcium carbonate — a.k.a. limestone — permanently locking up the CO2.
Unlike mine tailings however, slag doesn’t begin as a fine powder. Instead, the molten byproducts poured off from high-temperature steel furnaces cool into chunks the size of large rocks, leaving only their outer surfaces exposed to the air and able to react with CO2. Karbonetiq’s strategy is essentially to crush and disperse those rocks to increase their reactive surface area. As the company’s commercial vice president, Luke Rondel, explained, “We crush [the slag] down so you get smaller particle sizes. We then spread that out in a field of material, and we till that material with a tractor and plow, which is just turning over new surfaces.”
Each pathway has its advantages — while Arca’s magnesium-rich mine tailings are the most abundant feedstock, Rondel told me that the calcium-based reactions in slag happen significantly faster. For its part, Frontier hopes to test and evaluate a range of approaches at its new Surficial Mineralization Hub in Quebec, which it announced at the end of April. Located at a former asbestos mine, the hub will give participating startups access to “10,000 tons of serpentinite tailings and space for pilot scale testing,” Bebbington Valori told me, as well as local labs with specialized equipment.
This should eliminate some of the hurdles facing the nascent sector, chief among them being access to the right kinds of reactive rocks. Small startups “really need to either partner with large academic labs or with large mining companies to get access to that feedstock,” Bebbington Valori told me — a difficult and expensive proposition for a company that’s just getting off the ground.
While Frontier has yet to announce the cohort of participating startups, both Arca and Karbonetiq told me they hope to test their technology there, with the latter planning what would be one of its first mine tailings pilots through the program. Ultimately the goal is to generate the proof points needed to give both the startups and Frontier a clearer roadmap for which approaches can realistically scale — and what kind of support they’ll need to get there.
It certainly won’t be a straightforward process — bringing new technology into old-school industries never is — and the economics will only start to pencil if their operations reach meaningful scale. In theory, mining companies could benefit from hosting surficial mineralization projects, whether through site access fees, outsourcing elements of waste management, or even critical minerals recovery. Miners could even develop and scale the technology themselves, if they so desire. But the sector has historically been reluctant to adopt new tech. “The classic quote is, in mining you always want to be No. 2, you don’t want to be the first one,” Dipple told me. “You don’t want to put up a $2 billion plant that doesn’t work.”
So like nearly everything in the carbon removal space, early execution is falling to the startups that aren’t afraid of a little risk. “They’re watching for sure,” Dipple said of the mining industry at large. “But they want to be No. 2. We’re going to have to be No. 1.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Heatmap News is looking for an ambitious, energetic senior editor to join our growing newsroom.
The senior editor will report to the deputy editor of the website and will be tasked with assisting in running all aspects of our coverage. This individual will be the primary editor on many of the site’s stories, including breaking news, features, and long-term projects, on topics ranging from permitting reform to decarbonized fuels to greenhouse gas accounting to the electric vehicle market. This person will also play a role in overseeing and furthering our cross-platform efforts such as newsletters, events, and podcasts. Additional duties will include managing and maintaining the site’s social media presence and digital production on stories, newsletters, and podcasts.
Candidates should be intellectually curious news junkies with a deep interest in climate change and the energy transition. They should have a proven ability to work in a fast-paced digital newsroom, spot great angles, line edit stories, and change hats quickly as needed. They should also be responsible, reliable, and a good colleague.
Candidates should have 5+ years experience editing for a digital publication. A background in climate or energy coverage is an obvious plus, but compelling candidates from other verticals, particularly politics and business, will also be considered. Heatmap is a fully remote workplace, so candidates from all U.S. locales are encouraged to apply.
Above all, candidates should be passionate about Heatmap’s mission and absolutely thrilled about building something from the ground up.
The salary minimum is $100,000 and the maximum is $120,000. Competitive benefits, unlimited paid time off, and a generous equity plan, which gives employees a real stake in the company, are also offered. This position is remote.
Interested candidates should send a brief cover letter and resume to editors@heatmap.news with the subject line ‘Senior Editor Application.’
Heatmap News is a new media platform with a team of alums from The Week, The Atlantic, Vox, Grid, and Grist focused on the biggest story of our time: climate change.
Heatmap News is an Equal Opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, national origin, disability, protected Veteran status, age, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law.
To sample Heatmap’s work, poke around the site and sign up for our newsletter:
Current conditions: Japan is bracing for two major storms as Typhoon Nolo and the newly formed Typhoon Koguma barrel toward the country • A brief heat wave in Chicago is driving temperatures up past 85 degrees Fahrenheit today • It’s a sunny day in San Salvador Island, where the Genoan explorer Christopher Columbus first set foot in the Americas exactly 534 years ago today, when the indigenous Lucayan people called the smallest inhabited part of the Bahamas “Guanahani.”
In the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Isaias plunged thousands along the Alabama and Florida coastlines into darkness and left at least four dead. In the Pacific off Southern California, Tropical Storm Rachel stirred a surf that badly battered Long Beach’s iconic boardwalk. Further south in the eastern Pacific, Hurricane Simon pounded Mexico’s west coast as a Category 4 storm with sustained winds topping 150 miles per hour. Isaias, the only one of the tempête a trois in the Atlantic, forced nearly two-thirds of U.S. oil and gas production in the Gulf offline, as I told you last week.
The storm threatened to put further pressure on the fuel market as refineries went on pause. But in a post on his Truth Social platform Friday, President Donald Trump announced a surprise deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to lift Moscow’s restrictions on diesel exports and release nearly 2 million tons of the fuel onto the market. “This is a very big and important announcement,” he wrote. On Sunday, the U.S. president posted another update that, “effectively immediate, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE” in the war between Russia and Ukraine, insisting “both parties have agreed.” Whether that holds longer than the last so-called energy ceasefire Trump claimed to have brokered between the two sides remains to be seen. Either way, it didn’t stop the Houthis from twice striking the main airport in Riyadh over the weekend, killing at least a dozen and injuring hundreds amid an oil industry summit in the Saudi capital, the Saudi Arabia-based Arab News reported.
Representative Jared Huffman, a progressive climate hawk from California, wants you to know that he sees your breathless defenses of the bipartisan permitting reform bill and considers them a red flag. “It’s going to be very interesting for everyone to take stock after this election and think about what it means,” he told my colleague Jael Holzman in an interview we published this morning. “I was immediately attacked by right-wing Twitter and some of the boosters of this deal for simply saying, let’s see how this election goes. To me, that’s common sense! And no one is going to vote on this until after the election, anyway! The hypersensitivity tells you something.”
When Jael asked what, exactly, it tells him, he responded: “There’s this choreographed attempt to preemptively flood the zone and prevent any kind of serious scrutiny about this. I think it should be a red flag for my colleagues and serious policymakers to have an attempt to shut down serious scrutiny and debate, or pretend there’ll never be another deal and this one can never be improved, and that it’s now or never or nothing. That’s just fishy and not intellectually honest.”
After construction, automakers buy the most steel of any industry. That makes car companies key factors in how eagerly steelmakers decarbonize. In January, research by the climate advocacy group Mighty Earth concluded that roughly 60% of primary steel made in the U.S. went to automakers who had promised to support greener steel but remained top customers for the metal made from coal-fired blast furnaces. Now the group is out with a new analysis on the European Union, shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, that traced purchases of coal from blast furnaces in France, Spain, Germany, and Italy to vehicles made by Ford, General Motors, Honda, Stellantis, Tata Motors, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
“We always talk about how Europe is leading the charge on green steel, which is true,” Matthew Groch, the senior director of decarbonization at Mighty Earth, told me. “But when you are looking at where these auto companies are being ranked, Europe is still falling behind.” The report proved more challenging than the U.S.-based research given that, in the EU, “it’s a little tougher because, with the common market, they don’t track the actual shipments like we were able to do with anything coming into the U.S.” Still, he said, the team was able to track the commercial relationships through things such as awards given out for “supplier of the year.” What the report ultimately suggests is that advocates of greener steel should seek to pressure shareholders in major automakers on both sides of the Atlantic to clean up their supply chains to spur more demand for lower-carbon materials.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Long one of the world’s top producers of uranium, Kazakhstan faced a choice with major geopolitical implications earlier this year when the Central Asian giant selected bids to build its first nuclear power station. Astana split the difference between its two powerful neighbors, inking a deal for a Chinese nuclear plant in February and another for a Russian atomic power station in March. The shareholders of the state-owned Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan’s state nuclear and uranium company, are proving less diplomatic. The firm’s stockholders voted by nearly 89% to approve a deal to supply uranium to China’s State Nuclear Uranium Resource Development Company, according to an official tally on Kazatomprom’s website. At the same general meeting, which NucNet called “extraordinary,” a deal to supply Russia’s Uranium One died with roughly 88% abstaining.
Kazakhstan has drawn unprecedented distance between itself and Moscow since the start of the Ukraine war, which Astana refused to back even though the Kremlin had helped quell domestic unrest in its Central Asian neighbor just weeks before the 2022 invasion. Beyond increased investment from China, Kazakhstan has attracted more interest from the United States, as critical mineral prospectors such as Cove Capital look to expand across the region.
China ramped up investments in hydrogen and its derivative products, such as green methanol and ammonia, late last year when the central government opened its budget for the first time to directly subsidizing an industry hitherto left to the provinces. The timing proved prescient as the Iran War put the squeeze on China’s crude imports and further accelerated the shift toward more domestic electricity-based resources. Two stories over the weekend show just how swiftly progress is underway. On Friday, Hydrogen Insight reported that the world’s first green ammonia-powered dry bulk vessel had set sail on its maiden voyage from a shipyard in China to Australia. Then, on Sunday, China Hydrogen Bulletin, a newsletter written by analyst Jian Wu, highlighted that China’s first long-distance pipeline dedicated to green hydrogen was approaching its first trial run.

In markets with a lot of wind and solar, there tends to be a lot of gas to serve as backup and keep the lights on when the weather can’t. But batteries are rapidly getting cheaper. Four-hour battery storage is now less expensive than open-cycle gas turbines in all 43 markets where both technologies were modeled, according to a new Wood Mackenzie analysis published last week. “This economic shift is decisive and widening,” Ahmed Jameel Abdullah, principal analyst at Wood Mackenzie, said in a statement. “Gas turbine shortages and rising fuel volatility are driving up peaking costs, while expanding battery manufacturing continues to push storage costs down.” A word of caution: The report is comparing levelized cost of energy, a metric that — while popular — has some real problems, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote last year.
The California Democrat and current ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee is suspicious of all the “now or never.”
The most important voice in Congress criticizing the Senate’s bipartisan energy permitting deal is Representative Jared Huffman.
A California Democrat who previously worked in environmental legal advocacy, Huffman has long been among the most impassioned lawmakers on climate issues. Under the first Trump administration, his voice was often the loudest calling for oversight and accountability on energy and climate policy. Under the second Trump administration, he has been a spirited defender of offshore wind.
Should Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the coming midterm elections, as expected, then Huffman is first in line to become chair of the lower chamber’s Natural Resources Committee. This makes him one of the few people able to armchair quarterback permitting talks in Congress right now.
The proposed legislation currently on the table, known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, would fundamentally reshape how federal project permitting happens. It would constrain National Environmental Policy Act reviews. It would radically alter transmission approvals. It would let companies sue the government for damages if they can show that an agency was unduly discriminating against them based on fuel type. It would limit state and tribal authority to object against projects under the Clean Water Act. And it would make this whole process more transparent by instituting digital reporting requirements.
Huffman thinks it also gives too much benefit to oil and gas interests, and is an unnecessary capitulation to fossil-friendly Republicans who will likely lose power in this November’s midterm elections, anyway. He wants Democratic lawmakers to wait until after election day to consider what they do with the bill.
I reported on Congress for years and often spoke with Huffman in the Capitol hallways; he knew me on a first-name basis. So last week, when a friend pointed me to a tweet of his criticizing the Senate bill by quoting my writing, I took note. His issue concerned the discrimination provision in the bill, which sets a rolling five-year average for approvals as a baseline for what constitutes normal regulatory behavior. Successful lawsuits under this provision would be paid out of the Judgment Fund, a Justice Department account Trump has used for his offshore wind developer buyouts.
This part of the bill, Huffman wrote, “might pay some clean energy developers money from the judgment fund when they are screwed, but nothing to actually approve their projects. This is potentially a replay of the fake settlements that have bought out offshore wind projects,” he added.
I reached out to Huffman’s team and asked to talk about what he meant by that. What followed was a 20-plus-minute back-and-forth about the future of permitting reform in the U.S. and what may happen after a midterm election defined by public anger over a rush to build another type of large-scale infrastructure: data centers.
The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
So let’s start with your tweet. You quoted a portion of our story about BAAJA that I had written about the “permitting certainty” provisions in the bill, and specifically the fact that developers could be awarded damages under the bill for discriminatory treatment. Could you elaborate on your point?
I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds, but this is the big thing being offered as an end to the war on clean energy, which was always the threshold matter before you get to a bipartisan permitting deal.
It is built on this framework, basically, of cutting checks from the judgment fund. And I believe that requires some close scrutiny and consideration because we have seen this gamed already to the tune of $4 billion to buy out offshore wind developers.
Well I know this can get quite technical, but the underlying point you were making was, this may not be as helpful as people think. I guess I was just wondering if you can you walk me through —
It depends what you want.
If you’re a clean energy developer and you’re worried about your shareholders and your balance sheet, this gives you at least some money when you get screwed. And it may come with some strings attached, like you have to turn around and invest it in [liquified natural gas]. That’s been the playbook from the Trump administration.
If you’re a clean energy CEO — some of them, at least — that helps you mitigate risk. That’s probably better than nothing and will be attractive to some people. But if you care about climate policy [and] whether this is a meaningful assurance of permitting certainty to renewables, I think there’s a lot more to question here.
You also said in your tweet that there’s nothing in the bill to get projects approved. Can you speak to that? Because those who negotiated it clearly say otherwise.
Well, there are shot clocks and all sorts of other things that are designed to speed things up. There’s also broad categories of exemptions — categorical exemptions and other things like that, most of which will benefit fossil fuel projects.
I have no doubt there’s going to be permitting acceleration and certainty for fossil fuel projects. You also have this five-year baseline mechanism being codified here that will further cement a high level of fossil fuel projects for many years to come, and will really operate as a ceiling.
Help me understand what you mean by that, because I’m interested in understanding your concern there.
People are going to want to look at this much more closely and think about how it’ll operate in practice, not just some model. Because in practice, Trump is going to keep doing exactly what he’s done for the last two years. He’s going to find ways not to permit renewables, even if some of them go through this new gauntlet of legal theories and challenges and at the end of the day get a check written to them from the judgment fund.
You make this point about models versus reality. I spent last week trying to understand the implications of the bill for the nation’s buildout of AI data centers and associated energy infrastructure. How do you see that data center conversation weighing on your evaluation of the bill?
It’s part of the context, for sure. It’s driving a lot of this — we have to be honest about that. This is about data centers and pipelines and grid improvements necessary to meet all this surging demand that’s mostly coming from data centers.
That’s not to say we don’t need a more functional and robust grid. We do. Whatever you think about AI and data centers, we do need that. I’m not going to hold up a chance to improve our grid just because I have big concerns about data centers. I am concerned about how all this huge demand for energy in the next few years is going to be met. If we are stacking the deck for fossil fuel to meet a lot of this demand, that is deeply non-responsive to the climate crisis.
In terms of “stacking the deck,” passing the bill or not passing the bill — which reality is a cleaner grid and cleaner buildout of these data centers?
I mean, I would love to give you an absolute answer to that, but it depends. It depends how you assume this is going to play out in practice.
Looking at the conversations around the bill and considerations about federal permitting, as well as the politics, I’m struck by this timeline we’ve found ourselves in. Over the next month, voters will be hearing about data centers, which is something they don’t want in their communities, per polling. They also will be hearing about energy prices, which people want to bring down. Faced with those two different signals, I’m wondering how any kind of lame duck conversation about permitting happens after those two signals land in the ballot box.
It’s going to be very interesting for everyone to take stock after this election and think about what it means.
I was immediately attacked by right-wing Twitter and some of the boosters of this deal for simply saying, let’s see how this election goes. To me, that’s common sense! And no one is going to vote on this until after the election, anyway! The hypersensitivity tells you something.
What does it tell you?
There’s this choreographed attempt to preemptively flood the zone and prevent any kind of serious scrutiny about this.
I think it should be a red flag for my colleagues and serious policymakers to have an attempt to shut down serious scrutiny and debate, or pretend there’ll never be another deal and this one can never be improved, and that it’s now or never or nothing. That’s just fishy and not intellectually honest.
I’m not on the Hill as much anymore, which means I don’t see you as often. But in my many years covering Congress, I can’t tell you how many times I’d ask your late colleague from Arizona, former House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva, about his conversations with former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin.
I’m not going to sit here and expect you to read the minds of senators any more than I would expect senators to read the minds of House members. But can you, someone known as a climate champion, speak to how things are going with Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich, two people also respected in the climate community, when it comes to your reservations about this legislation?
I mean, it pains me to have a different view of some of this than these two friends of mine I respect enormously. But this may be one of those deals where reasonable minds can differ about tactics, details. That’s what this is coming down to.
I am sure negotiating with the hand they had over the past few months that they did pretty good work. Period. But I am sure with a better hand they and the rest of us could probably get a better deal.
A better deal the president will sign?
Yeah, that’s how it works. Let’s just take the logic of that argument you’re posing, which I hope is a devil’s advocate. Let’s say the president said he’ll agree to this and therefore we have to take the deal. By that reasoning, you should just always do what Trump demands. Always. And I find that absurd.
Any time I hear that kind of reductive reasoning … Has no one been watching Trump his entire life? He’s a bluffer. He’s a threatener. And he changes his mind all of the time.
Yeah I mean, to that effect, we asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright on stage at Climate Week if Trump would publicly post that he will sign off on approving more wind projects, and Wright said we shouldn’t count on that.
I’m very suspicious of the whole thing. There’s so much posturing and choreography going down right now.
They’re going to make it look like they won’t release any hostages, and then they will. It’ll be a very partial release of hostages. It’ll be maybe a dozen or so onshore wind projects that already have all their other approvals and [are] just waiting for the Department of Defense national security hold that is specious to be lifted, even though it’s never going to be held up in court. That’ll be shown as this big breakthrough that lets all this move through at lightspeed.
That’s the charade we’re being walked through right now.
To your point, I checked the court filings this morning, and the Justice Department did just tell the federal court hearing the challenge to the Defense Department that they’re now processing about that number of projects.
But if I can ask you, to that point, I’ve known you almost as long as I’ve been a reporter — almost a decade. I also knew your colleague, the late Raul Grijalva, quite well. I don’t remember a single time when Grijalva was chair of the Natural Resources Committee that he ever supported a bipartisan permitting deal. I remember his opposition to the Barrasso-Manchin bill quite vividly, and a lot of other times that was the case —
Well that might be a difference. I was ready to negotiate improvements in Barrasso-Manchin and try to get to something I could support, in part because I was worried what a Republican Congress and a Trump administration would do if we didn’t try in good faith to get to a deal at that time.
I think we missed an opportunity there. But that was largely because the opportunity was shut down by Republicans. I can’t say what Grijalva would’ve done, but I can say what I would’ve done. I would’ve rolled up my sleeves and tried to get a deal.
Well, I just pulled up a quote from you about that bill, in which you said, “We need to find a way to kill the zombie one more time.”
There was also an opportunity to fix the problematic parts of it.
I guess what I’m asking is, what would you say to people who claim there’s no bipartisan deal in the offing like this bill that you would support? Because any deal like that would obviously have to provide some things to industries like fossil fuels that you don’t want to sign off on.
That’s the problem. If the “deal” has to always get worse, then yeah, that’s a zombie deal we’ve seen time and again, where it’s just the wishlist of the fossil fuel industry or nothing. That is the downward race to the bottom we’ve been on when we talk about permitting reform. But if you want grid improvements, if you want some of the other good provisions in this package — look at the fact I cosponsor Sean Casten and Mike Levin’s bill, [the Energy Bills Relief Act,] to do a lot of these things.
Would you rather that bill is the starting point in the new Congress?
Of course I would. That’s a good transmission bill that doesn’t come with all the other baggage. I’m pointing that out to say I’m not just against things but I’m for things, and you can see that from a longstanding record.
My last question — and I want to ask it because people are raising it — if this bill doesn’t get passed, there are going to be at least some people who point fingers after it fails at the people who stopped it. Those people will say those who stopped it don’t want anything. I know you’re pointing at Levin-Casten and —
No, I know your question, Jael, and I have to run here in just a minute.
If we get to that point and you hear all this whining and recrimination, you know what I will say to those people? Shut up and get in the room and let’s work on a deal. [laughs] I mean honestly it’s just so absurd. If you want permitting reform, you’ve got to be willing to work in a more thoughtful way instead of all these absolutes. This or nothing. Now or never.
I mean, you’ll see. What I can tell you is that you’ll see if we get to that scenario.