You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The authors are taking some big swings. What makes it to the final draft will be anyone’s guess.

By the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, you’d think we’d have done it all before — but if you did, you’d be wrong. This year, for the first time, negotiators at the conference will produce what’s called a global stocktake report, summarizing the past five years of climate progress and setting the agenda for the next five years and beyond.
The stocktake goes all the way back to the Paris Agreement; if countries have to report on their progress toward meeting their climate goals, the thinking goes, they’ll take the agreement more seriously. This is the closest thing the Paris Agreement has to an enforcement mechanism — naming and shaming — and we’re about to see how well it works.
The stocktake report is more than 18 months in the making, although the first time most of the world may have become aware of it was in September, when the UN released a technical report on how things are going. TL;DR: They’re not going great, an impression further bolstered by another report released just before the start of COP28 in Dubai, which showed that the world is nowhere near meeting its Paris goals.
All that is to say that the authors of the final stocktake report, due at the conclusion of the conference, have a high bar to clear. Drafts of the report that have come out so far offer a window into their thinking — and a sense of how hard their job is. Keeping in mind that none of this language is final and that the report could still change radically between now and its official adoption, here are a few features to highlight:
The most helpful part: If you want a quick summary of the latest climate science, check out the draft’s opening sections, which lean heavily on UN scientific publications from the past two years, including the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report.
The most controversial part: Given the headlines that have come out of COP28 thus far, the future of fossil fuels is likely to draw the most attention in the final text. On that front, the draft lists three options for negotiators — one recommending “an orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels,” one calling for “accelerating efforts towards phasing out unabated fossil fuels,” and one … saying nothing at all.
The most on-theme part: The same section of the report also has optional language around tripling renewables capacity, phasing out coal, and getting rid of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies. A couple paragraphs later, there’s an optional section calling for parties to the Paris Agreement to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 and 40% by 2035. Again, whether any of this winds up in the final agreement is a big unknown. But if those methane targets make it into the final version, it’ll mark a substantial expansion of the Global Methane Pledge first launched at COP26.
The most David-and-Goliath part: The adaptation section of the draft seems like it’s been heavily influenced by the Bridgetown Initiative crew.
To take a step back for a second: The Bridgetown Initiative is named after the capital city of Barbados, is championed by the island’s prime minister, Mia Mottley, and calls for rich countries to throw far more support to the most vulnerable nations using various forms of international financing, from World Bank programs to mobilizing private investment.
A lot of those ideas made their way into this draft. For instance, it has an optional paragraph that proposes a doubling of international adaptation financing and a variety of options calling for more grants and other financing mechanisms that won’t add to developing countries’ already groaning debt burdens. On the subtler side of things, one revision from an earlier draft throws the word “highly” in front of verbiage calling current climate finance efforts “insufficient to respond to worsening climate change impacts” in developing countries.
The trendiest part: COP28 has thrown its arms around AI. One section of the latest draft bids welcome to what’s called the Technology Mechanism on Artificial Intelligence for Climate Action, “which explores the role of artificial intelligence as potentially powerful tools for advancing and scaling up transformative adaptation and mitigation actions,” with a focus on developing countries.
What’s not in this draft: much of anything about carbon pricing. The notion of monetary penalties for climate-polluting appears just a few times in the draft’s 24 pages, and all in optional sections. The word “offset” doesn’t appear at all.
Read more about COP28:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Wildfires in France and Spain — and a dire El Niño forecast — point to another era of public attention on disaster.
Wildfires and the Return of Climate Politics
Enormous wildfires are still burning in France and Spain. “We're facing a completely unprecedented fire,” French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday, comparing the situation to World War II. The main fire in Gironde, a southwestern department along the Atlantic coast, have consumed more than 100,000 acres and forced roughly 200,000 people to evacuate.
There’s little sign the fires are under control in either country. In France, the blazes created a pyrocumulonimbus cloud — a towering, thundering “fire storm” that sometimes forms in the western United States but is not often observed in western Europe. Some fires have come within several miles of Bordeaux, the country’s sixth-largest metropolitan area and a longtime center of the wine industry. In Spain, enormous wildfires near Madrid, Ávila, and Toledo have killed one and displaced roughly another 79,000 people.
Firefighters are working fast, in part because a heatwave is forecast for the continent later this week. But of course it is hot — it is high summer in the Northern Hemisphere, and we are having a particularly hot year. 2026 now looks likely to be the world’s second-warmest year ever, and it has a better than one-third chance of being the warmest.
In the near term, expect more climate-addled disasters. The Pacific Ocean has slipped into its El Niño phase, which will likely spin off more extreme storms, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires. Recent modeling suggests it could be the most intense El Niño ever measured. Writing for his newsletter “The Climate Brink,” the climate researcher (and Heatmap contributor) Zeke Hausfather recently warned: “It looks like this year’s El Niño is not only very likely to be the strongest event since reliable records began — it may end up the strongest by a truly mind-blowing margin.”
How do we know this next El Niño will be bad? The most intense El Niño on record occurred from late 2015 to 2016, when sea surface temperatures in a benchmark region of the Pacific Ocean were 2.75 degrees Celsius warmer than normal. (That’s nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit.) Those searing sea temperatures released huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere and eventually made 2016 the warmest year ever recorded. Today, a decade later, 2016 remains the fourth warmest year on record, coming in only under 2024, 2023, and 2025, per NOAA data.
But as Zeke writes, the middle 80% of modeled outcomes for this year’s El Niño are already projected to match or exceed that 2016 anomaly. The median forecast for this year’s event, in other words, would shatter the previous record. “The models are forecasting something outside the envelope of anything we have ever observed,” he writes. The National Weather Service agrees that there is an 81% chance of an event forming “that would rank among the largest El Niño events in the historical record going back to 1950,” and it says odds are better than 97% that the anomaly will stick around through spring 2027.
Scientists and activists once hoped that when global warming’s effects became unignorable, the public would take action. But disasters haven’t produced durable climate concern, and public attention has dissipated with every news cycle — and become ever more pessimistic. There are moments, however, when successive extremes can keep climate change more prominently in the public conversation. The years that followed the last mega-El Niño in 2016 made up one such period. If we are headed for another now, then experts should be ready with ideas not only for slowing and reversing the growth of heat-trapping emissions, but also for adapting our societies and infrastructure for our warming world. It’s clear we are going to need them.
This will be a big week for understanding the U.S. energy economy’s most important trend. A handful of tech companies driving the artificial intelligence boom — namely, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon — will report their quarterly earnings on Wednesday and Thursday. These companies are behind some of the country’s largest AI data center projects and therefore some of its most sizable planned power plants — clean and otherwise.
Last week, when Alphabet boosted its capital expenditure for this year by another $15 billion, the market rebelled and sent its shares tumbling. If investors’ interest in financing mega-scale data center projects is waning, then it could affect the electricity economy for years to come. In any case, we’ll know more soon. Rivian will also report its earnings this week.
Can AI help emergency managers make faster decisions when every second counts?
Meteorologists had nothing polite to say about Tropical Storm Bertha. The “weak, disorganized, and lopsided” system made initial landfall in Louisiana last week as a “hot, sheared mess,” one that forecasters doubted would reach Texas with much oomph at all. Still, the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District — the local flood mitigation and drainage management entity for the state’s most flood-prone county — had stood at the ready, posting updates on the storm’s progress to its Facebook feed in the lead-up.
There had been action behind the scenes, too. Since this spring, the county has relied on a new “AI-powered flood warning solution” pilot program to help local administrators identify the gaps in their understanding of the county’s flood risk and monitor rising water levels in real time. In a crisis, a chatbot could even advise them on when to issue an evacuation order.
“Imagine you’re an operator and you have to tell people to leave their homes because of floods coming in,” Todd Barr, the CEO of Axonis Decision Intelligence, which has partnered with the smart water-level sensor company Simplicity Integration in Texas’ Galveston County, told me. Axonis provides AI-assisted decision-making tools to clients in a number of time-sensitive industries, and in every case, “You want a paper trail of the data you used to make the decision — the reasoning and the model you used — and our platform does all of that,” Barr went on.
Issuing evacuation notices is a famously thorny business, and one that has resulted in high-profile and high-casualty failures, including in the Paradise, California, and Maui wildfires. Particularly noteworthy were the 2025 Kerr County floods that killed more than 100 people in Texas’ Hill Country after local officials took 90 minutes to send phone alerts once they became aware of the rising river.
In many cases, particularly in more rural counties, the teams making the evacuation decisions are small and lack sufficient training not only on when to make such a call, but even on how to word it. “The people who are put in the position of issuing the messages are doing 20 other things at the same time,” Jeannette Sutton, a researcher at the University at Albany’s Emergency and Risk Communication Message Testing Lab, told me when I reported on evacuation notices after the Los Angeles fires.
As for Galveston, “100%” of the buildings on the densely populated island are at flood risk, with modeling suggesting a worst-case-scenario hurricane could produce 26 feet of storm surge. Much of the city’s stormwater infrastructure additionally predates modern climate-change-intensified rainfall probabilities, with the district in the midst of a $54 million drainage project aimed at mitigating future flooding by building a pump station and enlarging sewer lines.
As part of the region’s ongoing resiliency work, the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District installed seven of Simplicity’s water-level sensors —the county’s first — at locations on the mainland. (There are no sensors currently on Galveston Island proper.) Simplicity’s Axonis-powered system, SI-Ai, also pulls in data from NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Houston’s Harris County to present residents of the entire region with a live flood-risk dashboard, complete with intuitive green-yellow-red indicators to evaluate their neighborhood hazard level in real time. Operators also have their own proprietary dashboard where they can monitor sensors and are prompted to ask questions to interpret readings and open “investigations” if something appears amiss.

“If I’m the municipality, I can say, ‘Okay, here’s what the forecast is looking like and what is potentially going to happen,” Alison Reese, the COO and co-founder of Simplicity, explained to me. “Then I could ask a question like, ‘Hey, what other locations in this watershed are at high risk for flash flooding?’”
That’s where Axonis, the artificial intelligence company, comes in. “Today you would have to be like, ‘Alright! Get the weather report, quick! What’s happening? What are the sensors saying? Okay Bill, now what’s the upstream sensor saying?’” Barr said, acting out the frantic scenario of trying to source data from multiple streams at once. “All of that is what we’re automating.” (Galveston’s Office of Emergency Management is “not the POC for the flood sensor operations,” a representative told me; the drainage district oversees the Axonis-Simplicity partnership, and did not return a request for an interview. The mayor of League City, a city 35-minutes north of Galveston that is also managed by the district, has publicly criticized the SI-Ai program as a separate sensor network that duplicates the work of the Harris County Flood Control District.)
Working from the assumption that emergency managers have to parse reams of data in short periods of time — flash floods can rise as much as 10 feet in an hour — Axonis provides what is essentially a chatbot for authorities to query potential decisions ranging from road closures to evacuation notices, based on feedback from the sensors. It stops short, however, of having a dialogue box that pops up to tell operators, EVACUATE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NOW.
When Barr demoed the program to me, he had the tool configured to create a credit risk review memo for a would-be banking client. (Axonis also has customers in the banking and defense sectors.) The dashboard essentially functioned the same as it would for Galveston County, though, and his investigation returned the kind of simplified, emoji-studded one-sheet that users of large language model-powered AI interfaces would immediately recognize. In this case, the tool identified a “🔴Risk Alert CANDIDATE” — Barr said that would be a particular sensor, in the case of Galveston — and followed it with a summary and bullet-pointed sections breaking down “⚠️Credit Risk Indicators” and “💧Liquidity Position.” (In a screenshot of an example flood report for Simplicity, shared with me, those sections were replaced by “📍Site Location” and “💧Water Level — Last 72 Hours.” I wondered what else was possible: “🌊Historic hydraulic risk”? “💀Vulnerable Populations”? )

The system then takes operators through a four-step decision-making model based on the OODA Loop, a common workflow in military contexts that involves justifying actions through evidence-based observations. “We always keep a human in the loop on these things, at least today in 2026 — though who knows in two or three years,” Barr said. He clarified in a later conversation with me, though, that “Axonis and [AI] tools should never tell you to evacuate now. It should tell you the information you need to make that decision.”
That was a point Barr stressed numerous times during our conversation: That Axonis’ chatbot is intended as a brainstorming tool or sounding board, and one that keeps a careful paper trail, “cryptographically sealing” any eventual decisions for review and attestation later. I likened it to a police body camera, and Barr didn’t dispute the similarities. “It’s an accountability tool,” he told me.
Of course, that means the burden of decision-making still falls on potentially fallible humans. I worried in particular that by sharing the responsibility with AI, human operators might get lazy or fail to properly question a decision the program might be leading them toward, particularly in an instance of hallucinated data. To the latter point, Barr told me that this is part of what Axonis is designed to address. “You can’t just take the sensor data and throw it into Claude and be like, ‘Alright, go make a decision for me.’ You need to set guard rails,” he said.
As to the former point, Barr told me the chat includes a disclaimer reminding its users that AI can make mistakes, and that the company trains its customers on how LLM technology works. “At the end of the day, it’s a tool, not a decider,” he said, although he allowed that it might be used to automatically trigger warning lights, sirens, or barriers, such as closing a flooded roadway.
I also posed the concern about complacency to Ali Mostafavi, a professor who supervises the UrbanResilience.AL Lab at Texas A&M, which researches, among other things, how artificial intelligence might be utilized in emergency contexts. Mostafavi agreed that there is always a risk in cognitive outsourcing, but that there is a “counter-argument that is also valid — that without these technologies, we have seen what can happen. We had the catastrophic floods last year in Kerr County, and if a similar technology had existed back then, an automated system could have identified the flash flood, and many young children would be alive today.”
Still, Barr told me he isn’t aware of Axonis advising in an actual evacuation order yet. While it is operational, the predictive model remains untested against its highest-stakes use case: the extremes of a climate-changed world, where formerly unthinkable outcomes may be one storm away.
“The more we can stress-test these technologies in real operational settings and use that feedback loop to improve the technologies, the better,” Mostafavi said. “But that’s easier said than done, because to have a technology implemented in an operational setting it should already be stress-tested, right?”
Bertha, though, was not that reckoning; the gusty squalls blew through Galveston last week without even disturbing the dinner reservations at the marina. But although it was already back to 90 and sunny by Monday morning on the Texas Gulf, the drainage in Galveston County, as in many places around the country, remains outdated and easily overwhelmed. One day, inevitably, the water will come. Hopefully when it does, someone or something will be watching.
The large renewables developer changes tack “in response to federal energy objectives.”
Trump’s solar freeze is now so tough that at least one renewable energy developer has asked his administration to turn their permitting application into a data center and gas-fired power plant instead.
Renew Development HoldCo – an LLC created by Clearway Energy Group – wrote the Bureau of Land Management in April asking if they could amend their 2021 application to build the Amber solar project, a 500-megawatt solar project in the Nevada desert that would require building on federal land. Their requested change? “[T]o formally remove the proposed solar facility and replace it with the development of a proposed data center and natural gas facility,” according to a copy of the letter I obtained.
“This amendment is the result of a shift in our internal development priorities and an updated assessment of project timing, in order to better align with the goals of our Administration,” reads the letter, which is dated April 3 and signed by Clearway’s chief development officer John Woody. “The data center concept is in exploratory early stages and as such has a longer and more flexible development horizon, and we believe its schedule will better align with the Bureau’s current workload and staffing plans.”
Now, this swap is somewhat shocking but shouldn’t exactly be a surprise. Companies with federal energy leases are struggling to get their renewable projects permitted by a hostile Trump administration. We’ve already seen some offshore wind developers ditch their leases in favor of payouts and commitments to build more fossil infrastructure. Clearway Energy Group is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners and TotalEnergies, the latter of which struck such a deal in March.
But this does appear to represent an aberration for Clearway, one of the nation’s largest operators of renewable energy projects and whose marketing materials primarily focus on “clean energy.” Nearly all of the company’s portfolio is carbon-free power or energy storage generation sans a handful of “flexible generation” energy projects in California, according to an online map of their project pipeline. The company did not disclose in the documents I reviewed if the gas plant itself would power the data center, provide power to the wider grid, or both.
Candidly, I’ve been watching like a hawk to see if Trump’s chokehold on solar and wind permits would lead to more gas infrastructure and data centers on federal property instead. And companies are getting data center permits when they ask to swap out their solar farm for AI infrastructure. On Friday, I reported that a joint venture involving renewables developer Arevon and energy trader Bill Perkins got permission from BLM to switch an environmental permit tied to a solar farm for one allowing a new data center. Environmentalists plan to legally challenge BLM’s determination as they say it’s a test case for the future of federal land policy.
It’s unclear if Clearway would be the one to build and construct this hypothetical data center and power plant. I for one can’t find any evidence of Clearway developing data centers before. My best guess is that if they do move forward with this, it would look like the joint venture I covered on Friday, where Arevon distanced itself from the actual day-to-day operations of the development and a new firm specializing in data centers came in. But that’s just a hunch and there’s a saying about assumptions.
Nevertheless, Clearway is clearly handling the permitting side. Attached to the Clearway letter was an application also sent to BLM for constructing utility and telecommunications facilities on federal lands, a document technically known as an SF299. The application states Clearway considered using solar energy for the data center as well as using private land, but their alternative designs weren’t selected because they had “higher environmental and stakeholder conflicts.”
Also, in a section of the document requesting Clearway provide a “statement of need for the project,” the developer said it was submitting this proposal “in response to federal energy objectives” and specifically cited Trump’s Day 1 executive order which the company said “encourage[d] development of reliable energy projects on federal lands.”
I reached out to Clearway asking for more information on the letter and application. In response, the company claimed the solar project wasn’t being killed – it simply was moved to private land. They also declined to comment on the data center and gas project. Instead, I was provided a statement attributable to an unnamed spokesperson that “while we do not comment on any individual application while it moves through federal approval processes, we are pleased to be advancing more than 4 GW of solar and battery resources in Nevada on private and public lands and expect those projects to deliver tremendous economic benefits to the communities where they’re built.”
“Clearway values its strong working partnership with the BLM, its Southern Nevada office, and also with state and local interests in Nevada. Across all of these relationships, we continuously assess how best to develop and deliver infrastructure that meets needs and aligns with local and national policies and goals.”