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:
Permitting reform could be the big winner, but that’s just one item on the wish list.
When the American people elected Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month, a large portion of climate world went into a tailspin. In the groggy reckoning of Wednesday morning, MIT Technology Review deemed the outcome a “tragic loss for climate progress;” the next day, a Guardian columnist reminded readers that “Trump has pledged to wage war on planet Earth.” Arielle Samuelson, writing for Heated, reported that given the incoming administration’s history and intentions, the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels was “dead” (although to be fair, that has likely been the case for some time).
But to that segment of the population who approach issues of energy, the environment, and climate change from the right, the post-election mood ranged from cautiously optimistic to jubilant. “The biggest thing we’re excited about is the momentum around this next year and the next administration,” Stephen Perkins, a conservative strategist and the chief operating officer of the American Conservation Coalition, told me.
What Trump will or won’t do in office remains an open question (the picture is getting clearer by the day, however, and we’re tracking it closely here at Heatmap). But while Trump 1.0 rolled back more than a hundred environmental rules and regulations and Trump 2.0 could, by one estimate, add enough carbon dioxide equivalent to the atmosphere by 2030 that it would negate all the savings from clean energy over the past five years, many in the conservative climate sphere believe that regulations have hamstrung the clean energy economy and that an “all-of-the-above” approach could help to lower global emissions by transitioning coal-reliant countries to U.S.-produced liquified natural gas, which expels less greenhouse gas and other pollutants when it’s burned.
What is the first priority on the conservative climate wishlist for the Trump administration? Far and away, it’s clearing red tape. Perkins pointed out that one of Elon Musk’s first tweets when it became clear Republicans would take back the White House on election night was the promise that “soon, you will be free to build again.”
“I give it a 99% to 100% chance we’re going to see permitting reform,” Heather Reams, the president of the center-right group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, told me from her hotel room at COP29.
Nick Loris, the vice president of public policy at C3 Solutions, a nonpartisan public policy group that advocates for free-market solutions to climate, environment, and energy problems, echoed that prediction. “I’m most excited about a renewed and more aggressive push for permitting reform,” he told me, explaining that the election “affords the opportunity for Republicans in both the House and the Senate to come together with even more ambitious plans to reduce red tape in all forms of energy — and I really hope it is for all forms of energy, not just for selected technologies and resources that Republicans tend to like.”
There was also consensus on the value of clearing the path for the export of LNG, which marks one of the more significant ideological breaks of the climate right with the climate left. “I think there’s going to be an immediate push [by the Trump administration] to reduce the pause on liquified natural gas exports,” Loris predicted. (The pause ended in July and the Department of Energy resumed issuing export permits in September, but Trump is expected to expedite the process.) Reams said she expects that during his first 100 days in office, Trump will reverse Biden’s methane emissions fee, which “some considered punitive,” and that she was looking for him to prioritize “protecting fracking, interstate pipelines, [and] exports of crude oil and other petroleum products.” As she explained, “displacing coal or dirtier forms of natural gas with higher life cycle emissions in place of using the U.S. LNG that has lower life cycle emissions” will ultimately help global emissions “go down.” (Others have argued that LNG is far worse over its lifespan than coal.)
Other items on the conservative climate wishlist include reforming regulations governing the mining of critical minerals to ensure a more reliable, less risky schedule for opening new mines and creating a domestic supply chain for the clean energy build-out; accelerating geothermal development and taking the baton from the Biden administration on nuclear energy; and a general streamlining of government programs. “Part of the near-term goal is going to be having an understanding from within the Department of Energy of what’s not working and why isn’t the money flowing out the door in a faster, in a more efficient way?” said Loris of C3 Solutions, citing what he perceived to be the DOE’s lack of urgency on the commercial high-assay, low-enriched uranium program, a key part of establishing a domestic nuclear supply chain.
Spending in the form of clean energy tax credits and incentives presents a thornier problem for the climate right to navigate. Reams told me that all the tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act will be “up for grabs” as the Trump administration readies its plan to preserve and extend its 2017 tax cuts, and that each must be defended on its merits. “The Trump tax credits expire at the end of 2025, so if you’re looking at one or the other, that’s really the value proposition: Do you want green tax credits, or do you want $2,000 more in your pocket each year per household?” Reams said. “It’s hard to say you want a tax credit for clean energy without understanding the benefits to your household.” Perkins of the ACC added that he doesn’t object to clean energy investments, per se — “red districts overwhelmingly stand to benefit” from such programs, he said — but rather the concern from the right relates “everything else that gets looped into those bills,” such as opposition to IRA provisions connected to prescription drug prices. No one made any promises against pruning.
On other issues, some Republican climate and energy groups break with the Trump administration entirely. “We are very much going to be pushing back on the extensive and aggressive use of tariffs that might come from this administration, which could not just run counter to the administration’s promise to reduce costs for families and businesses but also stymie the deployment of cleaner energy sources as well,” Loris told me of C3 Solution’s plans.
RepublicEN, an education- and communication-oriented group that positions itself as the “EcoRight” answer to the environmental Left, broke with the incoming administration more completely, publishing a series of tepid blog posts in the election’s aftermath. Bob Inglis, the group’s executive director and a former South Carolina Republican congressman, told me that he believes a “substantial percentage of Trump voters” support climate policies and might serve as a local-level bulwark against any climate-unfriendly policies — if “those constituents are visible and audible to their members of Congress.” He’s optimistic that the Republican Party has largely moved on from its “dark days” of climate denialism, and that the next four years might see more reaching across the aisle in pursuit of a common goal.
Is such a thing even possible in this day and age? Inglis hesitated. “I surely hope so,” he finally said. He believes Republicans can “breathe easier now” that they’ve had such resounding electoral wins. “The water’s coming up here in Charleston,” he added. “Let’s do something about it.”
If there was one hope I heard across the board from conservative proponents of climate action, however, it was this: that there should be more compromise between the parties on the issues they agree are important. “As much as some people in the climate space may view this as a challenging time for bipartisanship, we actually think it is the moment for bipartisanship,” Perkins told me. “We’re going to see some incredible things done over the next four years.”
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 cynical optimist’s take on the Inflation Reduction Act.
The optimistic case for the Inflation Reduction Act — even under a Trump presidency, even with a Republican trifecta in Washington — rests on a “public investment first” view of climate policy. Public investment in the clean energy economy is not merely a second-best policy option to carbon pricing or other punitive regulations, the argument goes, but instead the first-best option in the marathon of politically durable decarbonization.
I am an outspoken proponent of this view. Public investment provides and encourages investment to drive down the cost of clean energy technologies, make them more market-competitive, and thereby reduces emissions by permanently shifting demand away from fossil fuel-dependent ones. Public investment in clean energy technologies can also create the conditions for new constituencies to gain political clout and defend their role in the economy, and for further policy ambition in the future.
The first major sign that public investment under the IRA might prove durable came in August, when a group of 18 House Republicans wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson in support of the clean energy tax credits that are the cornerstone of the legislation, emphasizing the job creation benefits of the policy. Even the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce said back in May that they would support the IRA under a Trump presidency. Driving down costs? Check. New constituencies? Check.
It’s tempting to see this glimmer of change in favor of clean energy incentives as the consequence of groundswell political support, as voters see benefits arrive in their communities. Journalist Kate Aronoff calls this “pool party politics," named after the New Deal’s high-visibility spending on public pools which curried popular favor in the 1930s. The IRA’s benefits do tilt heavily toward red districts, so it would be nice to imagine that Republican elected officials are hearing bottom-up support and dutifully reflecting constituent interest — democracy in action.
Let’s call that the optimist’s view. My view, which one might call the “cynical optimist’s,” is that politicians — red or blue — are often more responsive to the concentrated interests and influence of lobbyists and donors than the electorate. The IRA may have gained popularity in Congress, including among Republicans, as financial and corporate interests — “capital” — started becoming IRA fans. Tim Sahay of the Net Zero Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins has called the IRA’s tax credits a “bottomless mimosa bar” for the financial market, and bankers are swanning up to get smashed on unlimited tax incentives for clean energy investment.
I favor the cynical optimist’s view because I believe it to be a more accurate picture of why the IRA is good politics. The “cynical” part recognizes that capital exerts disproportionate influence over the political process; the “optimist” part celebrates that the IRA is a powerful vehicle to appeal to their economic values. Bottomless mimosa bars aren’t just booze giveaways — they work by bringing in new customers who then stay and pay for their meals. Reformulating the interests of capital through public investment is a pragmatic and necessary antidote to the inertia of the incumbent fossil fuel industry.
A great example of the IRA gaining new types of fans is its program of expanded, transferable clean energy tax credits. Not only do these tax credits redirect tax revenue toward clean energy investment, making more projects economically justifiable, they may also develop their own market momentum. I advise Basis Climate, a platform for clean energy tax credit transfers, and when I asked co-founder Erik Underwood to tell me who is actually buying these tax credits, he told me it has mostly been savvy business people focused on minimizing their tax payments. Many of these buyers have never or only marginally participated in renewable energy deployment previously.
The tax credit transfer market has grown to $20 billion to 25 billion in a mere 20 months. By comparison, voluntary carbon markets have for decades attempted to enable green projects by creating a market for tradeable credits, yet the market is expected to reach just $2 billionglobally in 2024.
In other words, the market for clean energy tax buyers has vastly expanded the base of corporates benefiting from and supporting clean energy projects, led by transactional people who want to avoid paying taxes. Now, there are tax-hating business types of all political colors, but one can already see that the politics of the IRA are shaping up differently than, say, a pollution tax that steadily gets harsher over time.
All that said, it is important not to overstate the case in favor of the IRA’s durability. Those 18 House Republicans are down to no more than 14 post-election, and the remainder may find that falling in line with the President politically safer were he to mount a full-scale attack on the IRA. They and corporate America may also love clean energy tax credits in the abstract but happily give them up to pay for a juicy tax cut for the wealthy.
Still, the most clearly durable part of the IRA are the $78 billion in public spending and whopping $493 billion in business and consumer energy investment that it has already catalyzed as of June 2024, an estimated 71% increase in private investment from the two years before the IRA. That investment won’t be undone with policy change, and it will radically change the economics of many clean energy technologies. It also lays the foundation for later policymaking, as distant as that possibility may now feel. By creating an expanded tent of clean economy interests, the “carrot” of public investment may also help future politicians and their constituencies find “stick” policies more feasible. Penalties on high-carbon products — from gas cars to steel — become much more palatable if they are merely driving substitution to other technologies that compete on price and quality, than if they’re just making the only serviceable option more expensive.
This more nuanced telling of the politics, though, means you don’t need a star-eyed, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington view of the American political process to see how the IRA is delivering political dividends. Whatever the fate of the IRA come January, the longer the benefits flow — to communities and to capitalists — the more difficult it will be to roll back the tide.
On COP’s woes, Trump’s energy secretary, and the world’s worst air quality
Current conditions: Super Typhoon Man-yi made two landfalls across the Philippines over the weekend, becoming the country’s fourth typhoon in 10 days • Parts of Europe are bracing for a cold snap • The Jennings Creek Wildfire along the New York-New Jersey border is 90% contained.
Over the weekend, President-elect Donald Trump tapped Chris Wright, CEO of the oilfield services firm Liberty Energy and a major Republican donor, to lead the Department of Energy. Wright had been endorsed by several figures from the fossil fuel industry in the days leading up to Trump’s official announcement, including Oklahoma oil and gas billionaire Harold Hamm, a major Trump donor and informal advisor. While under current Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, the DOE has become a locus of climate change and green energy policy. The sprawling department oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, its national laboratories, and its energy efficiency standards, in addition to a variety of energy programs. Wright is a deep s keptic of the idea that there’s a climate crisis or energy transition happening at all. To wit: “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition,” Wright said in a video posted to LinkedIn last year. He also wrote that “climate crisis, energy transition, carbon pollution, clean energy, and dirty energy,” were “Five commonly used words around Energy and Climate that are both deceptive and destructive.” Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin said one of Wright’s first priorities will likely be to unblock the federal permitting process for new liquefied natural gas export terminals.
We’re now entering the second week of COP29. Negotiations so far have not yielded much in the way of a new collective goal for climate finance, but this could change as climate ministers finally join the summit. Meanwhile, leaders at the G20 summit in Brazil seem to be taking matters into their own hands after U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell penned a letter over the weekend asking them to take action on climate finance. On Sunday, G20 negotiators reportedly agreed on a text that mentions developing countries’ (voluntary) climate finance contributions. This line could help address a key sticking point for rich countries, who want some of the richer developing nations – China, for example – to contribute to a new climate finance goal. The G20 breakthrough “could unlock bigger numbers for the [New Collective Quantified Goal], as developed countries say this expanding of the contributor base is a condition of them raising their climate finance promise above $100 billion,” wroteClimate Home News.
On his way to the G20 summit, President Biden made a pit stop in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to visit the natural wonder. He was given a tour by helicopter, met with Indigenous leaders, and signed a U.S. proclamation designating November 17 as International Conservation Day. “The world’s forest trees breathe carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and yet each minute, the world is chopping down the equivalent (of) 10 soccer fields worth of forest,” Biden said during the visit. “The fight to protect our planet is literally a fight for humanity.” He said climate change has been a pillar of his presidency, and declared that nobody could reverse the energy transition that is underway.
X/POTUS
President Biden plans to finalize a clean fuel tax credit rule before his term ends, a White House official toldReuters. The program would provide tax credits for producers of sustainable aviation fuel and other low-emissions transportation fuels. He’s also reportedly thinking of pushing for an agreement among the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) aimed at reducing financing for foreign fossil fuel projects. Such a deal couldn’t be dismantled by his successor. “If the U.S. moves forward, this would be more meaningful than anything they will do at COP and more Trump-proof,” Kate DeAngelis, international finance program manager for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, toldBloomberg. “It will shift billions of dollars away from fossil fuels.”
Northern India’s smog emergency continues to worsen, with air quality in New Delhi reaching levels that are 60 times the World Health Organization’s recommended limits. The city’s IQAir measurement climbed above 1,600. For context, readings over 301 are considered dangerous. Schools are closed, a medical emergency has been declared, and people are being urged to stay indoors. Much of the smog is coming from fires set by farmers, which is made worse by colder temperatures that trap pollutants.
New MethaneSAT data just dropped. The latest snapshots from the methane-spotting satellite support the theory that smaller emissions, scattered across wide areas, are responsible for a large share of total methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Here are some images from the Permian basin in the U.S., and a basin in Turkmenistan:
MethaneSAT
MethaneSAT
Meet Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright.
Donald Trump has selected another stalwart of the fossil fuel industry to lead the Department of Energy. On Saturday, the president-elect put forward Chris Wright, CEO of the oilfield services firm Liberty Energy and a major Republican donor, for the job.
Wright “has worked in Nuclear, Solar, Geothermal and Oil and Gas. Most significantly, Chris was one of the pioneers who helped launch the American Shale Revolution that fueled American Energy Independence, and transformed the Global Energy Market and Geopolitics,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday. In a post on X, Wright said that he was “honored and grateful” for the opportunity.
Wright had been endorsed by several figures from the fossil fuel industry in the days leading up to Trump’s official announcement,including Oklahoma oil and gas billionaire Harold Hamm, a major Trump donor and informal advisor.
Trump’s first Secretary of Energy, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, reportedly thought the Department dealt more with, well, energy than it does in reality. While under current Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm it has become a locus of climate change and green energy policy, the sprawling department oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, its national laboratories, and its energy efficiency standards, in addition to a variety of energy programs. The Biden administration has super-sized the Department’s Loan Program Office, which has gone on to offer billions in funding to renewable and non-emitting energy infrastructure projects across the country.
Granholm and the Biden White House put a distinctive stamp on the Department of Energy, letting the charter for a coal advisory group expire expire and renaming the Office of Fossil Energy to the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, reflecting the administration’s major investments in carbon capture technology and infrastructure over the past four years.
Wright, on the other hand, is a deep skeptic of the idea that there’s a climate crisis or energy transition happening at all. To wit: “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition,” Wright said in a video posted to LinkedIn last year. He also wrote that “climate crisis, energy transition, carbon pollution, clean energy, and dirty energy,” were “Five commonly used words around Energy and Climate that are both deceptive and destructive.”
“Carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infrared radiation, contributing to warming,” Wright said. “But calling carbon dioxide ‘pollution’ is like calling out water and oxygen, the other two irreplaceable molecules for life on earth.”
For Republican administrations, the Department of the Interior is considered to be the plum job for energy policy, as the office controls leasing of public lands for energy exploration and extraction. Last week, Trump nominated North Dakota governor Doug Burgum to lead that department, as well as head the new White House Council of National Energy, which “will consist of all Departments and Agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, of ALL forms of American Energy,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Wright will also be a member of the Council, Trump said.
“This team will drive U.S. Energy Dominance, which will drive down Inflation, win the A.I. arms race with China (and others), and expand American Diplomatic Power to end Wars all across the World,” Trump wrote.
To the extent an energy policy can be inferred from Trump’s post, it’s likely to be a version of “all of the above,” with barriers lifted for fossil fuel production, along with (perhaps) some support for certain forms of renewable or non-carbon-emitting energy, or at least regulatory relief.
Geothermal, for instance, has long had bipartisan support in Congress, and could be a relative winner among non-carbon-emitting power sources under a Republican trifecta. The industry draws on technology and people from the oil and gas sector, and the location of high-quality geothermal resources in western states controlled by Republicans gives lawmakers reason to support the growing industry. Liberty Energy is also an investor in Fervo Energy, one of the leading enhanced geothermal startups.
“I cannot imagine a nominee with more technical and commercial understanding of EGS and the need to deploy geothermal for clean, firm power. Congrats, @ChrisAWright, looking forward to working with your team,” Ben Serrurier, the head of government affairs and policy at Fervo, wrote on X.
But fossils will no doubt come first. One of Wright’s first priorities will likely be to unblock the federal permitting process for new liquefied natural gas export terminals. The Biden administration formally paused approvals of new LNG export facilities earlier this year to study the effect of such exports on global greenhouse gas emissions. The move set off a cascade of recriminations and opprobrium that culminated in the pause being overturned in court.
Granholm told reporters at the annual United Nations climate conference on Friday that the department’s research on the impacts of LNG exports should be released by the end of the year, which “could set the stage for the fossil fuel-friendly Trump administration’s LNG policy being hamstrung by a Biden-era report,” Bloomberg reported. A group of Republican members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a letter to Granholm on Friday saying that they were “particularly troubled” by this notion.
Wright may also end up tangling with environmental activists over energy efficiency, as did Perry’s successor and Granholm’s predecessor Dan Brouillette. Climate groups sued Brouillette for not updating standards as set out by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Trump has long mocked such efficiency standards, especially those for water efficiency.
Wright quickly won plaudits from conservative environmental and energy groups, however. “From nuclear to solar to geothermal to oil & gas, Chris Wright has been a pioneer of American energy,” Christopher Barnard, the president of the American Conservation Coalition, wrote on X. “Chris Wright + Doug Burgum is literally the dream team.”
Notably, there’s no specific mention of coal in the Wright announcement, other than a reference to “ALL forms of American Energy.” During his tenure as Secretary of Energy, Perry proposed to help reverse the mass shutdown of coal plants that had begun during the Obama administration and continued throughout the Trump years, but his plan was in turn shut down by the Republican-majority Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Also notably absent from the announcement was any mention of Trump’s least favorite form of renewable energy: wind.