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:
The airline is making an investment with an eye toward one day producing jet fuel from the captured carbon.

Like so many other businesses in the aviation sector, United Airlines is largely banking on sustainable aviation fuel to power its transition to net-zero emissions. Now the company’s VC arm, United Airlines Ventures, is taking a bet on direct air capture to help produce this fuel using carbon extracted straight from the atmosphere. Today, UAV’s Sustainable Flight Fund announced an equity investment in legacy DAC player Heirloom. This builds on Heirloom’s recent $150 million Series B funding round and will allow the fund to purchase up to 500,000 tons of CO2 removal from Heirloom, either to produce sustainable fuel or to sequester permanently underground. (The two companies didn’t disclose the size of the latest investment.)
Right now, producing green jet fuel — whether via biomass or captured carbon — is much more expensive than producing jet fuel the standard way, by refining crude oil. And making sustainable fuel using direct air capture, which usually costs upwards of $600 per ton of CO2 removed, would likely be the most costly method possible. DAC-based SAF might not make economic sense for a decade or more, which is why the fund is waiting to see where the carbon removal market goes in the coming years before finalizing its carbon removal purchase.
While there are well over 100 direct air capture companies at this point, UAV’s managing director, Andrew Chang, told me that United took a bet on Heirloom because the company has secured contracts with major buyers such as Microsoft and Frontier. It also has a flexible business model that allows it to either sequester carbon underground or use it as an input to make valuable end products such as SAF.
“They've demonstrated an early ability to go out and get some of these paying customers for that CO2 offtake,” Chang said. “They have a working pilot plant out in California that we visited, and they're planning to do their next scale-up facility in the Gulf Coast region, probably. So there's a lot of tangible points that the company has demonstrated.”
While the Heirloom investment represents United’s first foray into direct air capture, it isn’t the airline’s first rodeo when it comes to carbon removal. The Sustainable Flight Fund, which launched in 2023, has also invested in Svante, which makes filters and machines for carbon capture, and Banyu Carbon, which seeks to remove excess CO2 from the ocean. Altogether, the fund totals over $200 million in investments, about a third of which comes from United itself and the rest from its corporate partners, which include Air Canada, JetBlue Ventures, Google, and Bank of America. This means that Heirloom’s carbon removal credits wouldn’t accrue specifically to United, but rather to the fund itself.
“We're not smart enough to know what the silver bullet is,” Chang told me of the fund’s diversified approach to sustainable fuel investments. UAV has also backed hydrogen companies, an algae-based biofuel company, and companies making fuel using cooking oil, fats and grease. “I actually don't think there is a silver bullet. I think you need to run as hard as you can across all possible alternatives.”
Right now, only about 0.1% of United’s fuel is sustainably made. In order for the airline to reach its 2035 goal of decreasing carbon intensity by 50%, that number needs to ramp astronomically in the coming decade. And that also has to happen without raising the cost of flights for consumers, which Chang told me is simply not an option.
“You have higher prices, people are going to fly less, or we're going to go out of business,” Chang said. As he’s been told, United will not pay a premium for SAF. Thus, this fuel must be subsidized by other players, which can include large corporate customers eager to address emissions from their employees’ business travel or fuel companies that produce SAF simply as a byproduct.
“People are chasing higher value, higher volume products — gasoline, diesel, naphtha,” a petroleum-derived liquid used as a feedstock for fuels and petrochemicals — “what have you. No one optimizes for jet,” Chang explained. He doesn’t think producing SAF alone is a viable business model, which is why he views Heirloom’s multiple potential revenue streams as an attractive option for UAV’s portfolio. As he told me, “The best way for you to have a chance to execute on SAF commercialization and production is to not focus on that exclusively.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There is a heat wave in Europe, the world’s fastest warming continent. And so, as you may have heard, a perennial topic of online climate discourse has returned: Why don’t more Europeans have air conditioning?
I’m partially convinced this is psy op, or at least a figment of how social media organizes attention. I have a hypothesis that various “For You” page algorithms, especially that of the social network X, began to reward content that performed unusually well across national borders a few years ago. Since then, the amount of America vs. Europe content has surged. (Of course, writers have been comparing American and European lifestyles for much longer than that.)
Suffice it to say, though: It’s a fraught topic. I’ve assumed that as extreme heat gets worse as the climate changes, Europeans will simply get on with it and install AC, much as Americans in the Pacific Northwest have done. Yet there are cultural and regulatory obstacles to AC’s growth in Europe.
I’m sure I’ll write about it in the future, but for now I want to get a grip on the facts themselves. And so as a Friday special, I present to you — the facts about European AC, as I understand it:
Thanks so much for reading, and talk soon.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.