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:
Seventy percent of Americans call it a serious problem.

Americans remain immensely concerned about climate change, with 70% calling it a serious problem and over one in three saying they are extremely concerned about the issue, Heatmap’s second Climate Poll has found, echoing results from its first survey last winter.
Conducted in mid-November by Benenson Strategy Group, the second poll explored both how Americans’ perceptions of climate change have shifted since Heatmap’s inaugural survey in February and also expanded to touch on questions about individuals’ personal experiences with climate change, their concerns about the future, their knowledge about climate issues and their attitudes on solutions, and how the issue is factoring into their 2024 presidential election decisions.
Encouragingly, the vast majority of Americans (68%) agree with the scientific consensus that climate change is a result of human activity, including almost half (48%) of Republicans and many (44%) former Trump voters.
However, most people do not think that things are moving in the right direction: 46% of respondents said they are “increasingly pessimistic” about climate change, while only a quarter said they think things are looking up.
While extreme heat, historic smoke, flooding, rapidly intensifying hurricanes, and the deadliest wildfire in modern history made headlines throughout 2023, Americans reported a slight decline from last winter in their feelings of being personally affected by climate change: 44% said they were “very” or “somewhat” affected, down 6 points since the Heatmap Climate Poll was last conducted 10 months ago. The highest numbers came from respondents in the West, about half (49%) of whom said they’d experienced climate change personally, and the lowest numbers were in the Midwest, with 37% who said they’d been affected.
However, that has not affected Americans’ sense of urgency or concern about future weather impacts on their communities. Of the extreme weather scenarios that Heatmap asked about — tornadoes, extreme thunderstorms, hurricanes, wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and blizzards — a majority of Americans said they had concerns about the climate impacting the place they live. The lowest level of reported anxiety was over hurricanes (57%), which makes sense given that the impacts are heavily (albeit, sometimes surprisingly) regional.
These concerns played into Americans’ thoughts about the future more generally as well. Nearly three-quarters of parents (72%) reported having high levels of concern about the climate, with
dads slightly more worried (77%) than moms (68%).
More than one in 10 Americans (12%) are worried that insurance companies are leaving their area. Almost one in five Americans (19%) say they’ve already seen their insurance rates increase due to weather extremes, and eight in 10 Americans say they want the government to require insurance companies to continue offering insurance in areas that are affected by climate change.
Most respondents said they are taking personal action on some level, whether it’s recycling (70%), carrying a reusable water bottle (62%), or driving or hoping to drive an EV in the future (46%). Even among people who voted in 2020 for Trump — no fan of electric vehicles — 30% said they drive or would like to drive an electric car in the future.
When it comes to solutions, though, Americans are more divided on the best approach. There’s uncertainty around the green energy transition, with 38% of respondents worried it will cost them money, 35% believing it will save them money, and 27% unsure. Proposals like providing tax incentives to make homes more energy efficient; making it easier to build new solar plants; investing in public transportation; and funding scientific studies to explore ways of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere are widely popular, though, with all receiving over 80% support by respondents.
However, Americans who currently drive, or are interested in buying, an EV largely said that fuel savings (73%) were a bigger incentive to them than the benefits for the climate (63%). Starkly, Americans are also not sold on the phase-out of fossil fuels: 62% said they support making it easier to drill and build new pipelines, including 51% of Democrats and 59% of Independents.
What does the picture painted by the Heatmap poll mean for the 2024 election? There is a clear bipartisan interest in climate change, with 68% of Americans saying a candidate’s position on climate change is important in determining their presidential vote, including 86% of Democrats, 53% of Republicans, and 62% of Independents. Additionally, nearly one in seven (69%) Americans said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate that led an initiative to plant millions of trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere — a popular, albeit dubious, Republican climate proposal that 80% of Democrats said they could get behind.
Heatmap will continue to offer further analysis of the survey’s results in the coming days, including closer looks at Americans’ understandings of climate lingo, how they are influenced by common land development arguments, and more.
The Heatmap Climate Poll of 1,000 American adults was conducted by Benenson Strategy Group via online panels from Nov. 6 to 13, 2023. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”