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:
He promised to protect almost a third of the U.S. So far he’s nowhere close.

Over the course of a presidential term, a mature ironwood tree will add only about four inches to its height. Unless you happen to see one during the 10 or 12 days in May that pale pink flowers cover its branches, it’s not a shrub you’re likely to call one of the Sonoran Desert’s most attractive flora — gnarled and hunched, the ironwood lacks both the alien charm of the Joshua tree and the iconic flamboyance of the Saguaro cactus. It makes up for this with its longevity: Some ironwoods growing in the hills east of the Coachella Valley have clung there 400 years longer than California has been a state. Adequately protected, those very same trees could plausibly still be standing for our successors to marvel at in the year 2724 — 175 presidential terms from now.
Who knows if they’ll still talk about President Joe Biden then — in 700 years, he’ll be as deep in the past as Edward II of England is now. But if those ironwood trees are still standing, it could be because of him. Biden has called the fight against climate change the defining cause of his presidency, and he views conservation and the preservation of biodiversity as part and parcel of that legacy. His 30x30 executive order — which aims to set aside 30% of America’s lands and waters for conservation by 2030 — was a week-one priority once he took office.
Among his best remaining opportunities to add to his tally would be the designation of Chuckwalla National Monument, a 660,000-acre stretch of desert south of Joshua Tree National Park that is home to one-fifth of the ironwood trees left in the world. The same goes for a sacred and culturally significant region in the southwest corner of California called Kw’tsán; about Sáttítla, a vulnerable volcanic landscape near Mt. Shasta; about the Owyhee, a million-acre Oregon watershed that sits in the crosshairs of mining and energy development; and about the homestead in Maine that belonged to Frances Perkins, the first woman to serve in the U.S. cabinet. The list goes on.
But with less than two months until Biden’s move-out day, environmental advocates are starting to wonder whether he’ll ever get around to fulfilling his promise.
“There are still several national monument campaigns that are ready to go and awaiting the president’s signature, and those are the sorts of things that could cement President Biden’s legacy as one of the great conservation presidents of all time — if he takes those steps here in the last few weeks,” Aaron Weiss, the deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities, a nonpartisan conservation advocacy group, told me.
When Biden took office in 2021, roughly 293 million acres of the United States fell under the protection of various federal laws, about 12% of his 30% goal. Since then, Biden has set aside another 1%, or 37 million acres, for protection, including about 1.6 million acres of new monuments under the Antiquities Act. So far, Biden has protected slightly less land than President Bill Clinton did in his first term, per the Center for Western Priorities’ accounting. And every day that passes matters; the Center for American Progress has found that the U.S. loses a football field’s worth of natural area every 30 seconds.
Still, conservationists have celebrated Biden’s moves to set aside the National Petroleum Reserve and the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and to expand Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument and San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in California. “When you look at it from a traditional land protection perspective, I think [the Biden administration has] a strong record,” Chris Wood, the president and chief executive officer of the conservation group Trout Unlimited, told me.
And Mustafa Santiago Ali, the executive vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, also told me not to discount Biden’s designation of the Springfield 1908 Race Riot National Monument in Illinois, the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument in Illinois and Mississippi, and Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni — Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona, even though they don’t add substantial acreage to his totals. “Folks may not pay attention to how important those monuments are — honoring folks who have sacrificed in the past,” Ali said. Weiss, likewise, commended Biden and Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland for “acknowledging that you need Indigenous stewardship to lead and be central to all public land management decisions.”
As the remaining weeks of Biden’s tenure quietly tick by, there is increasing anxiety about whether and when the president will reach for the Antiquities Act again. Kristen Brengel, the senior vice president of government affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association, told me she hopes Biden will announce at least two more national monuments between now and January 20.
Ultimately, though, when it comes to the question of how much land Biden will choose to set aside in the waning days of his administration, “the limiting factor is time,” Ryan Houston, the executive director of the Oregon Natural Desert Association, which has campaigned extensively for the designation of an Owyhee National Monument, told me. “If we don't take action before Inauguration Day in January, then we’re entering at least a two-, four-, or six-year period where there won’t be opportunities to follow through and protect the Owyhee,” Houston went on. “And that sets us back a long way.”
Organizers don’t get a tip-off ahead of time about where or what the Biden administration is considering. Chuckwalla, with its ironwood trees, rare reptiles, cultural sites, and Joshua Tree-adjacent wildlife corridors, seems likely — Haaland visited it this spring, a portentous sign according to advocates. Other would-be monuments like the Owyhee in Oregon are less certain and may attract executive attention only if Congress fails to roll it into a public lands omnibus bill expected by the end of the year.
The clock has already run out for other key components of Biden’s conservation legacy. “In the first month of his presidency, it seemed like it would be great,” Brendan Cummings, the conservation director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit focused on endangered species protections, told me. With the president’s 30x30 executive order and his pause on federal fossil fuel leasing, it’d “seemed like he was going to live up to his promises.”
Then came the Willow Project approval, new LNG export terminal sign-offs, and so many new oil and gas permits that Biden surpassed even Trump. “One of the few areas where Biden has actually been excellent is national monuments,” Cummings conceded. “But everything else is sort of this mix of muddled middle or profoundly disappointing.” He added, “Trump took us two steps back, and Biden took us one step forward — so we’re still behind at the end of the day.”
Though the other advocates I spoke with for this story weren’t as sour on Biden’s record as Cummings, many had a wishlist of items they’d hoped Biden would address. Brengel of the NPCA had hoped there’d be more climate resiliency funding for the National Parks, which have “been on the frontlines of dealing with some of the most dramatic effects of climate change.” Wood, at Trout Unlimited, was holding out for the creation of a federal fund to deal with the legacy of abandoned mines via a royalty on hard rock metals, the only commodity produced from public lands that doesn’t have a surcharge or tax. Weiss of Western Priorities wanted to see action on livestock grazing reforms.
It’s hard to feel too frustrated with the Biden administration, though. Much of 2021 and 2022 were spent addressing Trump administration policies and roll-backs, including restoring protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. Biden’s executive powers had their limits, too. While one of his administration’s conservation wins had been blocking the culturally significant lands around New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon from new oil and gas leasing, Trump will have a relatively straightforward path to reopening it to drilling if he so chooses. “I think with the cards that we had in our hands, Deb Haaland and Biden have done everything they could do to protect this area,” Paul F. Reed, a preservation archaeologist with Archaeology Southwest, which campaigned to protect Chaco Canyon, told me. But “short of congressional action, this area will continue to be a political football.” The same may again be true for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
There is better Trump-proofing elsewhere. Jenny Rowland-Shea, the director of public lands at the left-leaning advocacy group the Center for American Progress, told me that for Trump to unwind Biden’s protections in the Arctic, which were established via a lengthier rule-making process, the incoming president would have to prove that the science behind the ecology subsistence isn’t valid — a bigger lift. It’s part of why she feels comfortable calling Biden’s actions in the Arctic one of the more significant pieces of his conservation legacy.
Others pointed to the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, which put conservation on equal footing with other land uses like drilling this past spring, as the real gift that Biden leaves behind. Wood, of Trout Unlimited, told me that what he hopes will outlast the 46th president is Biden’s approach to looking at conservation as a part of natural resiliency, the effort to “make our lands more resistant to floods, fires, and drought.” Meanwhile, Ali of NWF told me his wish is that future presidents will use Biden’s accomplishments as a “north star” to measure themselves against and surpass.
But Cummings of the Center for Biological Diversity believes there is only one way for Biden to cement his legacy in the remaining weeks he has in office. “Almost everything the president does gets forgotten,” he said. “But the land that a president protects is forever.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new study suggests skeptical voters don’t respond to such urgent language — while climate-concerned voters find it depressing.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, a digest from our executive editor that comes out every weekday. Subscribe to this newsletter here.
We have a fascinating new project to share with you today. It gets to the heart of the question: Is there anything that can make Americans care about climate change right now?
Starting last year, Heatmap commissioned Embold Research to study what U.S. voters currently think about climate change — what messages are connecting with Americans today and which ones are falling flat.
It’s out now. I wasn’t directly involved in this research — other members of our team led it — but I think the results are interesting, useful, and worth your attention. (Embold Research is a frequent research partner of ours, too: They conduct our data center polling.)
The report divvied the electorate into three buckets — registered voters who are already persuaded about climate change, those who are persuadable, and skeptics who are less likely to be convinced — and examines what they believe about politics, energy, and the environment.
In the study’s first phase, for instance, we asked more than 3,200 Americans to rank 11 different issues in their relative importance. Just over 50% of Americans think climate change is “very” or “extremely important” — and while that may sound encouraging, it actually means that climate change ranked last among the 11 issues we tested.
“The environment” ranks much higher among the three cohorts, with 70% of Americans considering it at least “very” important. The economy, jobs, inflation, and the cost of living dominate voter concerns.
What’s interesting, though, is that these questions of issue importance reverse among the group of “persuaded” Americans. This group believes climate change to be among the most dire problems facing the United States. They’re concerned about the economy too, to be clear — but they also rank healthcare costs, the environment, and threats to democracy more highly than other groups. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, this group identifies overwhelmingly as Democrats.)
My colleague Jeva Lange has more on another finding from the research: why voters don’t believe politicians when they say clean energy is the cheapest form of energy available. You should read her story — but before we go, I want to highlight one more finding from the study.
In the study’s second phase, Embold Research called back 15 of the respondents from the first poll and held in-depth interviews with them about their beliefs on climate, politics, and what messages they responded well to (and which ones turned them off). Then it surveyed a new sample of more than 2,100 Americans, using lessons from the interviews to inform their questions.
One lesson from those phases: Calling climate change a “crisis” or “catastrophe” fell flat among voters — but for different reasons among each cohort.
For voters who are already persuaded about climate change’s dangers, the framing is demotivating. Those people are already worried about climate change, and so hearing that more informed advocates are worried about a climate “crisis” or “catastrophe” just makes them more numb and depressed.
Skeptics, meanwhile, think the language is meant to manipulate them. And for voters who could be persuaded about climate change, talk of a “crisis” conflicts with their observation of gradual change and punctuated equilibrium.
That message sits at odds with how Democratic politicians and issue advocates talked about climate change in the first few years of this decade, obviously. And it points to another interesting finding: Even when American voters are skeptical of climate change as an issue area, they still generally care about the environment.
This new report is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how American voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
New polling by Heatmap and Embold Research shows where one of climate advocates’ favorite arguments for renewables is falling short.
It’s the million-dollar question of clean energy advocacy: How do you persuade climate change skeptics to love renewables?
For years, the clean energy industry has treated the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of new electricity as its messaging trump card. This argument has the advantage of being true. Yes, there is nuance, room for debate, and always the possibility that things could change dramatically in the future. But this summer, the investment bank Lazard reconfirmed what the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the International Renewable Energy Agency — and plenty of other independent analyses — had found before it: that wind and solar energy are, on the whole, cheaper than fossil fuels.
And yet according to new polling and focus group conversations conducted by Heatmap News and Embold Research, the affordability argument barely moves the needle for the segment of the American public that most needs convincing. More than two-thirds (78%) of voters who are “doubtful” or “dismissive” of climate change — a population segment described by the Yale Program on Climate Communications and that we have labeled as “skeptics” — told us they believe that advocates for wind and solar energy exaggerate how cheap the sources have become (a mere 17% disagreed).
Even for those in the middle who are “persuadable” on climate change (as opposed to the “persuadeds,” who describe themselves as “alarmed” about it), an affordability argument doesn’t land cleanly — 62% believed the claims are exaggerated compared to 24%. In fact, a majority of all voters — 55% — told us that wind and solar are only cost-competitive with oil and gas because of subsidies, even as 75% acknowledge that oil and gas companies get government help lowering costs, too.
Inflation Reduction Act postmortems have a tendency to hand-wring about the Biden administration and its proxies’ lack of success pitching the affordability angle to the American public. Our polling backed up some of this. The pervasive conviction seems to be that the economic upsides of renewable energy aren’t real: 57% of all voters (and 78% of the subset of climate change skeptics) said clean energy advocates exaggerate how cheap wind and solar have become.
But as clean energy advocates look ahead to what to try the next time, our polling offers a cautionary note: The messenger, not just the message, needs a tweak. Independent scientists and researchers were the only group trusted by a majority of voters (63%), and even then, skeptics remained difficult to break through with, as less than a third putting their trust in any messenger at all.
If there’s a bright spot in our polling, it’s that attacks on clean energy have also apparently failed to gain traction. When we asked voters in a separate poll what they think is driving their bills higher, clean energy was among the least identified factors. Just 31% of voters blamed the renewable energy industry, compared with 58% who picked out new data center construction, 55% for the oil and gas industry, 52% for the aging electrical grid, and 48% for rising electricity demand. Our polling appears to describe, then, an electorate that doesn’t blame clean energy for raising electricity bills, but also doesn’t buy the messaging that it could help bring them down.
Breaking through with skeptics and persuadables is obviously the key for turning public opinion in favor of clean energy. In pursuit of that goal, Embold conducted interviews with voters to better understand where the potential openings might be for clean energy messaging to break through — and to identify the kind of language that might hamper that goal. But even after synthesizing the findings and crafting a political message designed to appeal to skeptics’ concerns — one that highlighted the falling cost of renewable electricity alongside arguments about energy security and job creation — a mere 7% of skeptics found it “extremely believable.” “Without my tax dollars, [renewables are] too expensive,” one Trump voter told us. “It will all be in a landfill in 20 years!” (Note that “skeptics” isn’t a political designation, although 89% of them told us they voted for President Trump in the last election.)
Heatmap’s polling offered a more pessimistic view of the electorate compared to comparable polling by other groups, which have found that messages about bringing down electricity bills via increasing clean energy resonate across the broad political spectrum. “We obviously do a fair amount of phone polling, and we’ve been surprised how positive people have been on clean energy and how much they see it as a central part of the solution to the energy affordability crisis that everybody is feeling,” Jesse Lee, a senior advisor at the advocacy and communications organization Climate Power, told me. (Climate Power’s poll notably looks at the whole electorate — skeptics, persuadables, and persuadeds alike — rather than segmenting their findings for more specific messaging purposes.) “But,” he agreed, “certainly there are holdouts.”
Just 20% of the skeptics Embold surveyed, for instance, told us that seeing a comparison of what families saved on their electricity bills after installing rooftop solar would improve their opinion of the technology’s affordability — and 54% said nothing could convince them that solar was affordable. A full 75% of skeptics also agreed with the statement that clean energy technologies such as rooftop solar, electric heat pumps, and electric vehicles have a high enough upfront cost that the savings over time wouldn’t be “worth it.” When asked about utility-scale generation, skeptics viewed nuclear, coal, and natural gas as the least expensive options, with wind being the most expensive, followed by solar.
I asked Lee at Climate Power if he thinks it’s worth trying to reach these entrenched climate skeptics, who make up 22% of the electorate according to our polling. “To the extent that there are limited resources, that’s probably not where you spend all your time,” he said. “You shoot for people that are at least a little bit open to it — but who might be the neighbors of [the skeptics],” he said.
“If that neighbor gets solar panels on their roof, and suddenly they’re walking around the neighborhood telling people their electricity bill was $0 last month, that’s going to have a lot more effect on a person who’s entrenched than hearing a political message from a political group,” Lee went on.
Among people who said they don’t have or can’t afford solar, just 28% told us that “seeing data showing how much money families save on their electricity bills” with solar would help convince them on its affordability. That beat out tax credits (24%), lower upfront costs (23%), financing options (19%) — and yes, “hearing about a neighbor or friend who saved money after getting solar,” which only 12% of people said might change their minds. And though only 20% of skeptics said being shown bill data would change their opinion, bill data was also the only messaging approach that ranked at or near the top of all groups alike.
Unsurprisingly, the “persuadables” group turned out to be more responsive on the question of whether clean energy is affordable. More than a quarter (27%) were receptive to bill savings data, and 60% said they trusted scientists as messengers. But crafting that message is still an uphill battle with the demographic: When Embold tailored a statement intended to move the group, fewer than three in 10 actually found it convincing.
Winning on messaging about clean energy affordability, then, is far more complicated than simply laying out facts and comparisons of renewables in a speech or advertisement. Being asked the question in a poll is not the same as a real-world test case, of course, but, but the wrong messenger risks alienating the people who most need to be convinced, our research shows. Proof needs to be local and tailored — perhaps an impossible ask of a national or even state-level general campaign.
Cost, as a message, is still a winner, in other words. But the window for communicating on it is far narrower than many advocates likely realize. As one 2024 third-party voter told us after reading Embold’s three tailored messages on clean energy, “I don’t really like any of them. They all seem to just be telling me the ‘truth,’ but I don’t know the truth without evidence.”
This is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how U.S. voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
On solar manufacturing, New England gas, and Pacific Northwest geothermal
Current conditions: The Pacific just can’t catch a break this hurricane season as forecasters warn that a new tropical development called Invest 96E could form in the next two days off Baja California, right behind Hurricane Lowell • In Indonesia, the wildfires blazing through the peatlands and forests of Borneo and Sumatra are now emitting by far the most carbon dioxide of any blazes in the world • A late-summer heat wave is sending temperatures along the California coastline beyond 100 degrees Fahrenheit this week.
When Alphabet inked its first nuclear deal in 2024, the Google parent company opted to back a next-generation, fluoride salt-cooled reactor startup called Kairos Power. Six months later, the tech behemoth contracted Elementl Power, a nuclear project developer that works with all kinds of reactors, to scout locations for deploying novel atomic technologies. Last October, Google broadened its approach to focus on large-scale reactors that either already existed or were under development. The company eyed financing the construction of the abandoned Westinghouse AP1000s planned for the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina before the project went under nearly a decade ago. Then Google and NextEra began laying the groundwork to restart the Duane Arnold nuclear station, Iowa’s only such plant, which shut down in 2020. As I told you on Tuesday, that latter deal took a major step forward when the Department of Energy pledged $1.9 billion toward bringing the single 615-megawatt reactor back online.
Now Google is exporting its strategy to Europe. On Wednesday, the giant announced a 22-year power purchase agreement with the Finnish utility Fortum Oyj to extend the life of the Loviisa nuclear station by buying as much as 50% of its electricity from 2030 to 2049. The contract — the first of its kind in Europe to provide for direct power purchases between a specific power plant and a hyperscaler — starts in 2028.
The deal is part of a broader $15.1 billion investment into artificial intelligence infrastructure throughout Finland over the next two years, and will direct roughly $1.1 billion toward the plant’s relicensing. “Long-term partnerships like the one between Fortum and Google are essential to making that happen, especially in today’s uncertain market environment characterized by low visibility and highly volatile electricity prices,” Fortum CEO Markus Rauramo said in a statement. In a text message last night, Emmet Penney, the director of energy and infrastructure at the Foundation for American Innovation, told me it was once “fashionable to say that nuclear was dead in the West, that we could only look on as nuclear slouched toward its demise and irrelevance.” Now, however, “Google is doing the world a favor by showing why and how that view was wrong” by demonstrating willingness to put its money where its mouth is to expand the power supply, he said. “Some things are fads, but nuclear is never out of season.”
Global investments in manufacturing clean technology fell 14% in the first quarter of 2026 and another 7% in the second three-month window, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor released Thursday of the first half of this year. For the first time, China’s share of green manufacturing investments dipped below a third, marking a significant decline from its peak of over 71% in 2023. A major drop in the expansion of solar panel factories accounted for much of the slowdown. Investments in new factories fell by 83% in the second quarter of 2026 compared to the peak in the last three months of 2023. China accounted for 94% of the decline. But China’s contraction came with expansion elsewhere. India, for example, saw solar factory investments accelerate from 5% to 48%, making it the largest net contributor for the past four quarters. Solar manufacturing is expanding in the U.S., and the Department of Commerce’s new import duties on the polysilicon needed to make most panel components should help that continue. But the overall picture for clean energy investment, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo described in the spring, is mixed.
There are green shoots, however. While the amount of capital spent on construction of new manufacturing and industrial plants slowed, the value of such investments rose 10% in the first quarter of this year and held steady in the second quarter, breaking a 10-quarter streak of declines in announced investments. The bulk of the deals were in critical minerals, wind, sustainable aviation fuel, batteries, and — yes — solar. But there’s also more coal. On Thursday morning, the International Energy Agency forecast global coal demand to reach a record high of nearly 9 billion metric tons this year.
The U.S. has enough solar panels in operation today to power more than 50 million American homes, representing over a third of households. That’s according to the latest market analysis conducted by the consultancy Wood Mackenzie on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association and released early this morning. Solar developers added 11.4 gigawatts of generating capacity in the second quarter of 2026, a 45% increase from the same period last year and 43% increase from the first three months of this year. Most of that new capacity came from utility-scale projects, which added 9.6 gigawatts — a 61% year-over-year leap. “Solar and storage have grown to a scale most Americans have yet to fully realize and we simply can’t meet America’s growing energy needs without these technologies,” Tim Pawlenty, the chief executive of the solar industry’s leading trade group, said in a statement.
It’s a milestone for solar’s expansion, and highlights the competitiveness of the technology despite the Trump administration’s crackdown on renewables it criticizes as too weather dependent. But it’s only a description of capacity. It’s virtually impossible for all the solar panels in the country to produce power at the same time, and the swings in electricity production are ultimately what draw criticism from those who instead push for generating stations that can pump out power at all times of day. That, in my view, makes the most important signal in the report the speed of the growth, demonstrating how quickly solar can come online and serve surging demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Yesterday I told you that a federal court overturned the water permits New Jersey issued for construction of a pipeline to carry more natural gas into the Northeast, delivering a blow to the pipeline push the region is gearing up for as winter energy demands increasingly become what my colleague Matthew Zeitlin described bluntly last year as “a problem.” But there’s some good news, via the latest analysis from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Enough cheap gas is flowing into New England at a moment when consumption is relatively low to push down prices. Natural gas prices at Algonquin Citygate, a trading and pricing hub in Boston that averages out what New England is paying for the fuel, are now trading at a discount compared to the main U.S. benchmark, the Henry Hub. Prices at Algonquin Citygate averaged 43 cents per million British thermal units less than Henry Hub from April through July. Part of the price drop came from a drop in demand as home heating fell off during the summer and solar generation increased during longer sunny days. Increased supply from Appalachia was another factor, as was a spike in imports from Canada.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and agriculture are widely recognized as the primary drivers behind rising global temperatures. But scientists have long warned that, as the planet grows hotter, natural feedback loops will begin to pump more emissions into the atmosphere, from methane seeping out from decaying ancient material in thawing permafrost or carbon dioxide spewing from infernos like those scorching Indonesia’s biggest islands. A new study suggests that those warming-induced greenhouse gases from natural sources could amplify global warming by 20% to 30% this century, adding as much 0.4 degrees Celsius to the global temperature average. The authors of the study, published early Thursday morning in the journal Environmental Research Letters, billed it as the largest effort to date to quantify the combined impact of carbon dioxide and methane from permafrost thaw, wildfires, wetlands, and inland waterways. Permafrost thaw, however, comprises roughly half the projected emissions. The authors came from Stanford University, Woodwell Climate Research Center, research nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions, and the advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund. Even if emissions from human activities reached net zero, greenhouse gases could create feedback loops that raise global temperatures by at least 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. A higher emissions scenario could be twice that much warming.
“The results are a wake-up call, and it’s imperative that they be included in the next generation of climate policies,” Robert Jackson, the Stanford University professor and chair of the Global Carbon Project who co-authored the paper, said in a statement.
The Pacific Northwest is poised for a big geothermal push. Hexagon Energy, an independent energy developer, and timber and wood giant Weyerhaeuser Company just inked a strategic partnership that will clear the way for geothermal projects across the latter company’s vast property portfolio in Oregon and Washington. “Geothermal energy represents an emerging opportunity to provide clean and reliable, around-the-clock power, and our ownership presents a unique platform to evaluate that potential in the Pacific Northwest,” Kendall Fountain, Weyerhaeuser’s vice president of energy and natural resources, said in a statement. Once built, the projects are expected to generate up to 3 gigawatts of power.