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:
Here’s a grim fact: The most destructive fires in recent American history swept over a state with the country’s strictest wildfire-specific building code, including in some of the neighborhoods that are now largely smoldering rubble.
California’s wildfire building code, Chapter 7A, went into effect in 2008, and it mandates fire-resistant siding, tempered glass, vegetation management, and vents for attics and crawlspaces designed to resist embers and flames. The code is the “most robust” in the nation, Lisa Dale, a lecturer at the Columbia Climate School and a former environmental policy advisor for the State of Colorado, told me. It applies to nearly any newly built structure in one of the zones mapped out by state and local officials as especially prone to fire hazard.
The adoption of 7A followed years of code development and mapping of hazardous areas, largely in response to devastating urban wildfires such as the Tunnel Fire, which claimed more than 3,000 structures and 25 lives in Oakland and Berkeley in 1991, and kicked off renewed efforts to harden Californian homes.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s report on the 1991 fire makes for familiar reading as the Palisades and Eaton fires still smolder. The wildland-urban interface, it says, was put at extreme risk by a combination of dry air, little rainfall, hot winds blowing east to west, built-up vegetation that was too close to homes, steep hills, and limited access to municipal water. The report also castigates the “unregulated use of wood shingles as roof and siding material.”
This was not the first time a destructive fire on the wildland-urban interface had been partially attributed to ignitable building materials. The 1961 Bel-Air fire, for instance, which claimed almost 200 homes, including that of Burt Lancaster, and the 1959 Laurel Canyon fire were both, FEMA said, evidence of “the wood roof and separation from natural fuels problems,” as were fires in 1970 and 1980 near where the Tunnel Fire eventually struck in 1970 and 1980.
But it was the sheer scale of the Tunnel Fire that prompted action by California lawmakers.
Throughout the 1990s, fire-resilient roofing requirements were ramped up, designating which materials were allowed in fire hazard areas and throughout the state. By all accounts, the building code works — but only when and where it’s in force. Dale told me that compliant homes were five times as likely to survive a wildfire. Research by economists Judson Boomhower and Patrick Baylis found that the code “reduced average structure loss risk during a wildfire by 16 percentage points, or about a 40% reduction.”
“The challenge from the perspective of wildfire vulnerability is that those codes are relatively recent, and the housing stock turns over really slowly, so we have this enormous stock of already built homes in dangerous places that are going to be out there for decades,” Boomhower told me.
The 7A building code applies only to new buildings, however. In long-settled areas of California like Pacific Palisades, which has little new housing construction or even existing home turnover due to high costs and permitting complications, especially in areas under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, many houses are not just failing to comply with Chapter 7A, but also with any housing code at all.
Looking at which homes had survived past fires, Steve Quarles, who helped advise the California State Fire Marshal on developing 7A, told me, “What really mattered was if it was built under any building code.” Many homes destroyed by the fires in Los Angeles likely were not. In Pacific Palisades, fire management is a frequent topic of concern and discussion. But as late as 2018, local media in Pacific Palisades noted that the area still had some homes with wood shingle roofs.
While a complete inventory of homes lost in the Palisades and Eaton fires has yet to be taken, the neighborhoods were full of older homes. According to CalFire incident reports, of the almost 47,000 structures in the zone of the Palisades Fire, more than 8,000 were built before 1939, and 44,560 were built before 2009. For the Eaton Fire area, of the around 41,000 structures, almost 14,000 were built before 1939, and only around 1,000 were built since 2010.
A Pacific Palisades home designed by architect Greg Chasen and built in 2024, however, survived the fire and went viral on X after he posted a photo of it still standing after the flames had moved through. The home embodied some of the best practices for fire-safe building, according to Bloomberg, including keeping vegetation away from the building, a metal roof, tempered glass, and fire-resistant siding.
When Michael Wara, the director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program, spoke with firefighters and insurance industry officials in the process of drafting a 2021 report for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment on strategies for mitigating wildfire risk, they told him that, from their perspective, wildfires are often a matter of “home ignition,” meaning that while building near forested areas puts any home at risk, the risk of a home itself igniting varies based on how it’s built and the vegetation clearance around it. “Existing homes in high fire threat areas” built before the implementation of California’s wildfire building codes, Wara wrote, “are a massive problem.” At the time he published the paper, there were somewhere between 700,000 and 1.3 million pre-building code homes still standing in “high or very high threat areas.”
The flipside of focusing on “home ignition” and the building code is that the building code works better over time, as more and more homes comply with it thanks to normal turnover, people extensively renovating, or even tearing down old homes — or rebuilding after fires. Homes that are close to homes that don’t ignite in a fire are more likely to survive.
One study that looked at the 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed more than 18,000 structures and claimed more than 80 lives in the Northern California town of Paradise, sampled homes built before 1997, between 1997 and 2018, and from 2018 onwards, and found that only 11.5% of pre-1997 homes survived, compared to 38.5% from 1997 and after. The researchers also found that building survivability had a kind of magnifying effect, with distance from the nearest destroyed structure and the number structures destroyed in the immediate area among “the strongest predictors of survival.”
“The more homes that comply, the less chance you get those structural ignitions and the less chance you get those huge disasters like this,” Doug Green, who manages Headwaters Economics’ Community Assistance for Wildfire Program, told me. “It takes people doing the right thing to their own home — dealing with vegetation, making sure roofs are clean, having right roofing. It’s really a community-wide strategy to stop fires that happen like this.”
But just as any home hardening — or just building to code — is more effective the more the homes around you do it as well, it’s just as true in reverse. “If your next door neighbors don’t do that work, the effectiveness of your efforts will be less,” Dale said. “Building codes ultimately work best when we get an entire landscape or neighborhood to adopt them.”
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 Data for Progress poll provided exclusively to Heatmap shows steep declines in support for the CEO and his business.
Nearly half of likely U.S. voters say that Elon Musk’s behavior has made them less likely to buy or lease a Tesla, a much higher figure than similar polls have found in the past, according to a new Data for Progress poll provided exclusively to Heatmap.
The new poll, which surveyed a national sample of voters over the President’s Day weekend, shows a deteriorating public relations situation for Musk, who has become one of the most powerful individuals in President Donald Trump’s new administration.
Exactly half of likely voters now hold an unfavorable view of Musk, a significant increase since Trump’s election. Democrats and independents are particularly sour on the Tesla CEO, with 81% of Democrats and 51% of independents reporting unfavorable views.
By comparison, 42% of likely voters — and 71% of Republicans — report a favorable opinion of Musk. The billionaire is now eight points underwater with Americans, with 39% of likely voters reporting “very” unfavorable views. Musk is much more unpopular than President Donald Trump, who is only about 1.5 points underwater in FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average.
Perhaps more ominous for Musk is that many Americans seem to be turning away from Tesla, the EV manufacturer he leads. About 45% of likely U.S. voters say that they are less likely to buy or lease a Tesla because of Musk, according to the new poll.
That rejection is concentrated among Democrats and independents, who make up an overwhelming share of EV buyers in America. Two-thirds of Democrats now say that Musk has made them less likely to buy a Tesla, with the vast majority of that group saying they are “much less likely” to do so. Half of independents report that Musk has turned them off Teslas. Some 21% of Democrats and 38% of independents say that Musk hasn’t affected their Tesla buying decision one way or the other.
Republicans, who account for a much smaller share of the EV market, do not seem to be rushing in to fill the gap. More than half of Republicans, or 55%, say that Musk has had no impact on their decision to buy or lease a Tesla. While 23% of Republicans say that Musk has made them more likely to buy a Tesla, roughly the same share — 22% — say that he has made them less likely.
Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, worth more than the next dozen or so largest automakers combined. Musk’s stake in the company makes up more than a third of his wealth, according to Bloomberg.
Thanks in part to its aging vehicle line-up, Tesla’s total sales fell last year for the first time ever, although it reported record deliveries in the fourth quarter. The United States was Tesla’s largest market by revenue in 2024.
Musk hasn’t always been such a potential drag on Tesla’s reach. In February 2023, soon after Musk’s purchase of Twitter, Heatmap asked U.S. adults whether the billionaire had made them more or less likely to buy or lease a Tesla. Only about 29% of Americans reported that Musk had made them less likely, while 26% said that he made them more likely.
When Heatmap asked the question again in November 2023, the results did not change. The same 29% of U.S. adults said that Musk had made them less likely to buy a Tesla.
By comparison, 45% of likely U.S. voters now say that Musk makes them less likely to get a Tesla, and only 17% say that he has made them more likely to do so. (Note that this new result isn’t perfectly comparable with the old surveys, because while the new poll surveyed likely voters , the 2023 surveys asked all U.S. adults.)
Musk’s popularity has also tumbled in that time. As recently as September, Musk was eight points above water in Data for Progress’ polling of likely U.S. voters.
Since then, Musk has become a power player in Republican politics and been made de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency. He has overseen thousands of layoffs and sought to win access to computer networks at many federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Social Security Administration, and the IRS, leading some longtime officials to resign in protest.
Today, he is eight points underwater — a 16-point drop in five months.
“We definitely have seen a decline, which I think has mirrored other pollsters out there who have been asking this question, especially post-election,” Data for Progress spokesperson Abby Springs, told me .
The new Data for Progress poll surveyed more than 1,200 likely voters around the country on Friday, February 14, and Saturday, February 15. Its results were weighted by demographics, geography, and recalled presidential vote. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.
On Washington walk-outs, Climeworks, and HSBC’s net-zero goals
Current conditions: Severe storms in South Africa spawned a tornado that damaged hundreds of homes • Snow is falling on parts of Kentucky and Tennessee still recovering from recent deadly floods • It is minus 39 degrees Fahrenheit today in Bismarck, North Dakota, which breaks a daily record set back in 1910.
Denise Cheung, Washington’s top federal prosecutor, resigned yesterday after refusing the Trump administratin’s instructions to open a grand jury investigation of climate grants issued by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Biden administration. Last week EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would be seeking to revoke $20 billion worth of grants issued to nonprofits through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives, suggesting that the distribution of this money was rushed and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. In her resignation letter, Cheung said she didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support grand jury subpoenas.
Failed battery maker Northvolt will sell its industrial battery unit to Scania, a Swedish truckmaker. The company launched in 2016 and became Europe’s biggest and best-funded battery startup. But mismanagement, production delays, overreliance on Chinese equipment, and other issues led to its collapse. It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November and its CEO resigned. As Reutersreported, Northvolt’s industrial battery business was “one of its few profitable units,” and Scania was a customer. A spokesperson said the acquisition “will provide access to a highly skilled and experienced team and a strong portfolio of battery systems … for industrial segments, such as construction and mining, complementing Scania's current customer offering.”
TikTok is partnering with Climeworks to remove 5,100 tons of carbon dioxide from the air through 2030, the companies announced today. The short-video platform’s head of sustainability, Ian Gill, said the company had considered several carbon removal providers, but that “Climeworks provided a solution that meets our highest standards and aligns perfectly with our sustainability strategy as we work toward carbon neutrality by 2030.” The swiss carbon capture startup will rely on direct air capture technology, biochar, and reforestation for the removal. In a statement, Climeworks also announced a smaller partnership with a UK-based distillery, and said the deals “highlight the growing demand for carbon removal solutions across different industries.”
HSBC, Europe’s biggest bank, is abandoning its 2030 net-zero goal and pushing it back by 20 years. The 2030 target was for the bank’s own operations, travel, and supply chain, which, as The Guardiannoted, is “arguably a much easier goal than cutting the emissions of its loan portfolio and client base.” But in its annual report, HSBC said it’s been harder than expected to decarbonize supply chains, forcing it to reconsider. Back in October the bank removed its chief sustainability officer role from the executive board, which sparked concerns that it would walk back on its climate commitments. It’s also reviewing emissions targets linked to loans, and considering weakening the environmental goals in its CEO’s pay package.
A group of 27 research teams has been given £81 million (about $102 million) to look for signs of two key climate change tipping points and create an “early warning system” for the world. The tipping points in focus are the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, and the collapse of north Atlantic ocean currents. The program, funded by the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency, will last for five years. Researchers will use a variety of monitoring and measuring methods, from seismic instruments to artificial intelligence. “The fantastic range of teams tackling this challenge from different angles, yet working together in a coordinated fashion, makes this program a unique opportunity,” said Dr. Reinhard Schiemann, a climate scientist at the University of Reading.
In 2024, China alone invested almost as much in clean energy technologies as the entire world did in fossil fuels.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of the person serving as EPA administrator.
Rob and Jesse get real on energy prices with PowerLines’ Charles Hua.
The most important energy regulators in the United States aren’t all in the federal government. Each state has its own public utility commission, a set of elected or appointed officials who regulate local power companies. This set of 200 individuals wield an enormous amount of power — they oversee 1% of U.S. GDP — but they’re often outmatched by local utility lobbyists and overlooked in discussions from climate advocates.
Charles Hua wants to change that. He is the founder and executive director of PowerLines, a new nonprofit engaging with America’s public utility commissions about how to deliver economic growth while keeping electricity rates — and greenhouse gas emissions — low. Charles previously advised the U.S. Department of Energy on developing its grid modernization strategy and analyzed energy policy for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Charles about why PUCs matter, why they might be a rare spot for progress over the next four years, and why (and how) normal people should talk to their local public utility commissioner. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: I want to pivot a bit and ask something that I think Jesse and I have talked about, something that you and I have talked about, Charles, is that the PUCs are going to be very important during the second Trump administration, and there’s a lot of possibilities, or there’s some possibilities for progress during the Trump administration, but there’s also some risks. So let’s start here: As you survey the state utility landscape, what are you worried about over the next four years or so? What should people be paying attention to at the PUC level?
Charle Hua: I think everything that we’re hearing around AI data centers, load growth, those are decisions that ultimately state public utility commissioners are going to make. And that’s because utilities are significantly revising their load forecasts.
Just take Georgia Power — which I know you talked about last episode at the end — which, in 2022, just two years ago, their projected load forecast for the end of the decade was about 400 megawatts. And then a year later, they increased that to 6,600 megawatts. So that’s a near 17x increase. And if you look at what happens with the 2023 Georgia Power IRP, I think the regulators were caught flat footed about just how much load would actually materialize from the data centers and what the impact on customer bills would be.
Meyer:And what’s an IRP? Can you just give us ...
Hua: Yes, sorry. So, integrated resource plan. So that’s the process by which utilities spell out how they’re proposing to make investments over a long term planning horizon, generally anywhere from 15 to 30 years. And if we look at, again, last year’s integrated resource plan in Georgia, there was significant proposed new fossil fuel infrastructure that was ultimately fully approved by the public service commission.
And there’s real questions about how consumer interests are or aren’t protected with decisions like that — in part because, if we look at what’s actually driving things like rising utility bills, which is a huge problem. I mean, one in three Americans can’t pay their utility bills, which have increased 20% over the last two years, two to three years. One of the biggest drivers of that is volatile gas prices that are exposed to international markets. And there’s real concern that if states are doubling down on gas investments and customers shoulder 100% of the risk of that gas price volatility that customers’ bills will only continue to grow.
And I think what’s going on in Georgia, for instance, is a harbinger of what’s to come nationally. In many ways, it’s the epitome of the U.S. clean energy transition, where there’s both a lot of clean energy investment that’s happening with all of the new growth in manufacturing facilities in Georgia, but if you actually peel beneath the layers and you see what’s going on internal to the state as it relates to its electricity mix, there’s a lot to be concerned about.
And the question is, are we going to have public utility commissions and regulatory bodies that can adequately protect the public interest in making these decisions going forward? And I think that’s the million dollar question.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Download Heatmap Labs and Hydrostor’s free report to discover the crucial role of long duration energy storage in ensuring a reliable, clean future and stable grid. Learn more about Hydrostor here.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.