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 agenda may change, but ultimately, they’re all about who owes what to whom.
Before it even began, the 29th annual United Nations climate conference, or COP29, was deemed the “Finance COP.” While the name is fitting, it’s also a little absurd.
It’s called the Finance COP because the main item on the agenda at this year’s conference, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, is to set a new annual goal for the amount of money richer countries should deliver to poorer countries to help them fight climate change and respond to its effects. The typically jargon-y name for this task, which the Paris Agreement says must be completed by 2025, is a “New Collective Quantified Goal,” or NCQG for climate finance.
As of this writing, negotiators are still hashing out a final dollar figure, as well as ancillary details like how much of the money should come in the form of grants versus loans versus private investment. It wasn’t until Friday, as the conference was supposed to be wrapping up, that leadership even put a number on the table. That initial number was $250 billion, a fraction of the $1 trillion in public finance that many developing countries have called for. Their reactions were unsurprisingly weary.
“It is incomprehensible that year after year we bring our stories of climate impacts to these meetings and receive only sympathy and no real action from wealthy nations,” Tina Stege, the Marshall Islands Climate Envoy said in a statement. “We are not here to tell stories. We are here to save our communities.”
That “year after year” bit is why it’s somewhat misleading to call this the Finance COP — that is, because every COP is about finance. I don’t mean that in a vague, every-climate-negotiation-is-really-about-money, way. I mean literally, every year, the issue of how much money developed countries should cough up, as well as what the money should be used for and what form it should be in, is intrinsic to the negotiations.
Three years ago in Scotland, at issue was the developed world’s failure to meet an earlier climate finance goal — a promise to deliver $100 billion to developing countries by 2020. It was also that year that developing countries finally got their proposal to create a new “loss and damage” fund to help the most vulnerable countries redress the destruction climate change has already caused, onto the agenda. The next two COPs, in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, were largely focused on the mechanics of setting up this fund and getting more countries to contribute to it.
The annual gathering is like a carousel delegates clamber onto each November. They go round and round on the same handful of issues, rehashing the same arguments. Are countries’ current pledges ambitious enough? Can they up the ante? Can they get more financial assistance to do so? Can they get any closer to agreeing to stop using fossil fuels? Is there too much emphasis on stopping climate change, and not enough on adapting to it? Should China be held accountable to do more? Permeating all of these questions is the big one: What do countries like the U.S., which have done the most to cause climate change, owe the low-lying nations and emerging economies who have done almost nothing to contribute to the crisis but are most exposed to its effects?
Some years one or another issue is higher up on the agenda. By design, the conference follows a pattern of pledge and review. Countries make pledges one year, on finance or emission reductions or adaptation, review those pledges the following year, and then, ideally, get shamed into ratcheting them up the next year. In practice, this ends up playing out via meticulous fights over semantics, like whether countries “should” or “shall” do more. Though the climate plans have not yet been aggressive enough to cap warming below 2 degrees Celsius, let alone to 1.5 degrees, and the financial commitments have not yet risen to the true scale of the costs, each year the delegates do end up staggering off their horses in the final hour having made bigger, bolder promises.
I don’t point this out to detract from the importance of setting a new target for climate finance. While historically most countries have fallen short on even their inadequate promises, there will at least be a number on paper pushing them in an upward direction. But the idea that finance was more important at this conference than it has been at any other or will be next year is nothing more than a narrative device.
This year’s emphasis on finance is one of many weirdnesses that arise from the militantly procedural nature of these talks. Another example is the main event at last year’s conference, the “Global Stocktake,” a formal assessment of collective progress toward achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Did countries really need to perform this exercise to conclude they were lagging, when dozens of scientific reports are published each year on the topic? Was such a stocktake really necessary to get countries to agree that tackling climate change requires “transitioning away from fossil fuels,” a seemingly obvious conclusion the conference only formally acknowledged for the first time last year?
Perhaps. This year, a group of countries led by Saudi Arabia are trying to take back those essential five words, refusing to allow them to be reiterated in the conference’s final text. The outcome of each COP is always more a negotiation of political will than an honest, science-based compromise, and it may be useful for the conferences to cling to procedure and formality in an effort to rise above the ever-shifting geopolitical landscape.
Still, some think the procedures are ripe for change. A group of prominent global leaders and climate researchers published an open letter last week calling for reforms to the conference, arguing that the current structure “simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity.” They suggested prohibiting countries that do not agree with the need to move away from fossil fuels from holding the COP presidency, shifting from annual negotiations with big proclamations to more regular meetings focused on concrete actions, and creating a formal scientific advisory body to “amplify the voice of authoritative science.”
As my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote last year, the annual conference is “a pseudo-event, a spectacle that exists partially to be covered in the press.” The Paris Agreement does not govern by fiat but by an iterative process of “naming and shaming,” which, as Meyer wrote, “implies a press to name and a public sphere where the shaming can happen.”
But the banal, Groundhog Day nature of the annual climate talks make it difficult to keep the devastating stakes, which are ever rising, in the foreground. It is the leaders representing those most at risk, such as Cedric Schuster, minister of the Alliance of Small Island States, who repeatedly, desperately, try to keep those stakes in sight.
“After this COP29 ends, we cannot just sail off into the sunset,” Schuster said in a statement on Saturday, as the negotiations became increasingly tense. “We are literally sinking. Understand this — I am not exaggerating when I say our islands are sinking! How can you expect us to go back to the women, men, and children of our countries with a poor deal which will surely plunge them into further peril?”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Reading between the lines of Governor Kathy Hochul’s big nuclear announcement.
With New York City temperatures reaching well into the 90s, the state grid running on almost two-thirds fossil fuels, and the man who was instrumental in shutting down one of the state’s largest sources of carbon-free power vying for a political comeback on Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced on Monday that she wants to bring new, public nuclear power back to the state.
Specifically, Hochul directed the New York Power Authority, the state power agency, to develop at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear capacity upstate. While the New York City region hasn’t had a nuclear power plant since then-Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down Indian Point in 2021, there are three nuclear power plants currently operating closer to the 49th Parallel: Ginna, FitzPatrick, and Nine Mile Point, which together have almost 3.5 gigawatts of capacity and provide about a fifth of the state’s electric power,according to the nuclear advocacy group Nuclear New York. All three are now owned and operated by Constellation Energy, though FitzPatrick was previously owned by NYPA.
Hochul’s announcement did not specify a design or even a location for the new plant, but there were some hints. The press release describes “at least one new nuclear energy facility with no less than one gigawatt of electricity.” While 1 gigawatt is the capacity of a Westinghouse AP1000, the large, light-water reactor built at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, the explanation seems to leave room for the possibility of multiple, smaller plants.
Then there was where Hochul chose to make the announcement, in front of the monumental Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant, which, when it was built in 1961, was the largest hydropower plant in the western hemisphere. The release includes an intriguing reference to the country just on the other side of the river, saying that the plan “will allow for future collaboration with other states and Ontario, building on regional momentum to strengthen nuclear supply chains, share best practices, and support the responsible deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.”
To me at least, all this points to the possibility that we could actually be talking about a small modular reactor, specifically GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, one of a handful of SMR designs vying for both regulatory approval and commercial viability in the U.S. Canada’s Ontario Power Generation recently approved a plan to build one, with the idea to eventually build three more for a total 1.2 gigawatts of generating capacity, i.e. roughly the amount Hochul’s targeting. The Tennessee Valley Authority, America’s largest public power provider, is also looking at building a BWRX-300. Whichever is completed first will become the first operating SMR in North America. (A NYPA spokesperson told me there has been “no determination on technology yet,” nor on location.)
There are a few policy conclusions we can draw from the announcement, as well, one being that Hochul has determined New York’s energy needs do not match up with its current, renewables-heavy energy roadmap set out more than five years ago. The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (signed by Cuomo) set out a goal for New York to supply 70% of its electricity with renewables by 2030; about a year ago, the Hochul administration said that it would likely not meet that target, which has only slipped farther from view under the Trump administration’s assault on the offshore wind industry, which was supposed to anchor the state’s renewables supply — especially near New York City, where land is scarce but shoreline is plentiful.
The new nuclear plan also has a distinctively upstate appeal, which is not surprising considering Hochul’s Buffalo roots. (She said during the announcement that she had visited the Niagara plant, which is just outside Buffalo, “so many times.”) The upstate power grid is less carbon intensive than the downstate grid and is due to receive much of the wind and solar development necessary to meet New York’s climate goals. But the northern reaches of the state are also more politically conservative and more rural, making it both an inviting target for renewables development and a potential wellspring of opposition.
“The fundamental challenge of wind, solar, and storage across upstate is that it’s subject to a lot of local opposition,” Ben Furnas, who served as director of the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Sustainability in New York City, told me. “Something that’s remarkable about nuclear power is that the land footprint is more modest.” (The NYPA spokesperson said that NYPA’s own plans for renewable development were not being altered.)
Nuclear power plants can also be economic lifelines — especially in rural areas — due to the permanent, high-paying jobs they support and direct economic benefits to the surrounding communities.
“There’s a lot of real win-win deals to be struck,” Furnas said. “It’s not an unknown, radical, alien notion. Plenty of people work in those plants and live near them. It’s a very different politics than what was happening in Hudson Valley around Indian Point,” where environmental groups like Riverkeeper (long associated with former Cuomo associate and current Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), had worked for years to shut down the plant.
Monday’s nuclear announcement included supportive quotes not just from the usual suspects of state energy and environmental officials and union leaders, but also from the chief executive of Micron, which is set to start working on a semiconductor fabrication facility in the central part of the state. “A critical factor in the success of the semiconductor ecosystem is access to affordable, reliable energy. We commend New York State for advancing an all-of-the-above energy strategy — including nuclear power,” Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said in a statement.
“To power this one facility, Micron is going to need so much power — so much incredible power — and there’s only one commercially viable option that can deliver that much clean, renewable, reliable power, and that’s what’s been operating in New York for decades: nuclear energy,” Hochul said Monday. “Harnessing the power of the atom is the best way to generate steady zero-emission electricity, and to help this transition.”
The mainstream environmental groups that supported the renewables-focused 2019 law (many of which either oppose nuclear power or are at best neutral towards it) were nowhere to be found during today’s announcement, however, and the plan has already drawn skepticism from some progressives.
Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who chairs the New York state senate’s finance committee, said in a statement that she had “significant concerns” about the nuclear plan, including its cost effectiveness, how to dispose of nuclear waste, the time required to site and build the project, whether other renewable options could fill the gap instead, and whether it has the “full informed consent from impacted communities.”
“I have yet to see any real-world examples of new nuclear development” that have met all these concerns, Krueger said. New York has a checkered history of nuclear development: Long Island ratepayers spent decadespaying for the completed but never operational Shoreham nuclear plant, whose costs ballooned by billions of dollars as construction dragged on from 1973 to 1984.
But the announcement comes at a time when the federal regulatory and tax balance is tipping toward nuclear regardless. The Trump administration issued a fleet of executive orders looking to speed up nuclear construction and regulatory approvals, and Senate Republicans’ version of the mega budget reconciliation bill includes far more generous treatment of nuclear development compared to wind and solar.
Public Power NY, an advocacy group that supports renewables development by NYPA, expressed skepticism about the nuclear plan in spite of these supportive signs.
“Hochul’s decision to step in based on promises from Donald Trump shows just how unserious she is about New Yorker’s energy bills and climate future. NYPA should be laser focused on rapidly scaling up their buildout of affordable solar and wind which is the only way to meet the state’s science-based climate goals and lower energy bills,” the group said in a statement.
For his part, Furnas was more pragmatic. “It’s really good that Governor Hochul is putting everything on the table when it comes to ensuring reliable generation for New York State and to meet clean air and carbon emission goals,” he said. “It would be foolish and unfortunate to not look at everything she can.”
Hochul herself appears determined to push through.
During the announcement, referring to the buzzing power plant behind her, Hochul said that “belief in sometimes impossible ideas” can bring people together. The power plant currently standing on that site was built in less than three years after an earlier plant on the Niagara collapsed. New nuclear power in New York may have seemed impossible, but it might still happen.
Even as Iran retaliated against U.S. airstrikes, prices have stayed calm.
Oil prices have stayed stable so far following the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend, and President Donald Trump wants to keep it that way.
In two consecutive posts on Truth Social Monday morning, the president wrote “To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!” and “EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”
While Iran, of course, does not yet have an actual nuclear weapon, it does have a kind of “nuclear option” to retaliate: closing off the Strait of Hormuz, which separates the oil-rich countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq (and Iran’s own largest ports) from the Indian Ocean, and by extension all of global shipping. Iran’s parliament approved closing off the strait, but any real effort to do so would have to come from Iran’s most senior leadership, which has not so far seemed inclined to torpedo its own economy.
Markets, at least so far, do not see much more risk today than they did before the U.S. airstrikes. West Texas Intermediate oil price benchmark sat at just over $74 a barrel Monday morning, up substantially from its low of just over $57 in early May, but up only mildly from its $68 a barrel level on June 12, the day before Israel began bombing Iran. Prices are basically flat since Friday, even after Iran said it had launched a strike on an American base in Qatar.
“Multiple oil tankers crossing the Strait of Hormuz this morning, both in and outbound,” Bloomberg’s Javier Blas wrote on X Monday morning. “No[t] even a hint of disruption. Oil loading across multiple ports in the Persian Gulf appears normal. If anything, export rates over the last week are higher than earlier in June.”
As Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me, “The Hormuz risk is generally overstated. The Iranian threats are mostly rhetoric and meant for domestic political consumption. Hardliners in particular will use threats to close the strait as a means of letting off steam following the U.S. bombing of Fordow.”
“In reality,” he went on, “Iran faces a massive disparity in forces in the Gulf. A move to close Hormuz would be near suicidal as it would expand the scope of the war, drag in the Gulf states as well as the U.S., and imperil Iran’'s own energy exports at a time when the regime will need every financial and economic lifeline it can get.”
Inasmuch as oil prices have moved in the past few weeks, it’s been in response to the perceived increased risk of some kind of cataclysm to the world oil trade — even if the actual chances of the strait being entirely closed to tanker traffic remains low.
“Prices remain elevated on account of the regional risk, and are likely to remain in the $70s or low $80s until we see a pathway toward broader de-escalation,” Brew said.
For the American oil industry, however, a more nervous market might be a more profitable one.
Aniket Shah, an analyst at Jefferies, wrote a note to clients over the weekend attributing the increase since May to “rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which channels ~20% of global oil shipments.”
“While the US imports less Middle Eastern oil than in past decades, global price shocks still drive up domestic fuel and transport costs,” he wrote.
In the months running up to the recent oil price increase, American drillers were facing an unpleasant combination of tariffs, increased production overseas (encouraged by Trump), and low prices at home, which wrecked their capital planning. Some domestic oil and gas drillers like Matador in April and Diamondback in May told their investors they planned to decrease their planned capital expenditures; over the past two months, drillers have been slowly but steadily taking rigs offline, according to the widely watched Baker Hughes rig count.
Conflict in the Middle East could therefore provide some relief (at least for the oil and gas industry) at home. “U.S. producers are among the winners here,” Brew told me. “A few months of higher prices will offer a nice hedge for shale drillers and ease their plans to reduce expenditure and output for the year.”
But higher profits for oil drillers will not necessarily translate into increased production, as Trump has commanded. “Since this is all based on risk premium and does not reflect a change in fundamentals, shale drillers are likely to deliver the gains to shareholders rather than pumping the money back into production,” Brew explained. “An overall drop in U.S. onshore output in 2025 is probably still in the cards.”
In that scenario, oil company profits would rise while production would fall year-over-year. And that would likely mean an even more infuriated Trump, who has also recently reignited his campaign to push Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates, citing several months of low inflation.
“Elevated oil prices risk stalling recent disinflation trends and complicates the Fed’s path to rate cuts,” Shah wrote.
Even if the strait remains open, if oil prices don’t fall, expect more Truths.
On record-breaking temperatures, oil prices, and Tesla Robotaxis
Current conditions: Wildfires are raging on the Greek island of Chios • Forecasters are monitoring a low-pressure system in the Atlantic that could become a tropical storm sometime today • Residents in eastern North Dakota are cleaning up after tornadoes ripped through the area over the weekend, killing at least three people.
A dangerous heat wave moves from the Midwest toward the East Coast this week, and is expected to challenge long-standing heat records. In many places, temperatures could hit 100 degrees Fahrenheit and feel even warmer when humidity is factored in. “High overnight temperatures will create a lack of overnight cooling, significantly increasing the danger,” according to the National Weather Service. Extreme heat warnings and advisories are in effect from Maine through the Carolinas, across the Ohio Valley and down into southern states like Mississippi and Louisiana. “It’s basically everywhere east of the Rockies,” National Weather Service meteorologist Mark Gehring told The Associated Press. “That is unusual, to have this massive area of high dew points and heat.”
AccuWeather
Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection, which covers 13 states, issued an energy emergency alert for today. The alert urges power transmission and generation owners to delay any planned maintenance so that no grid sources are out of commission as temperatures soar. A heat wave of this nature is rare this early in the summer. The last time temperatures hit 100 degrees in June in New York City, for example, was in 1995, according to AccuWeather. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and more intense as the climate warms. Here’s a look at how these events have changed over the past 60 years or so:
Oil markets are jittery this morning after Iran’s parliament endorsed a measure to block the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. About 20% of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas shipments travel through the shipping route, and as The Wall Street Journalexplains, the supplies “dictate prices paid by U.S. drivers and air travelers.” Oil prices rose to five-month highs this morning on the news. Tehran has long threatened to close the strait, but such a move is seen as unlikely because it would disrupt Iran’s own energy exports, which are its “sole global energy revenue stream,” one analyst told the Journal.
A handful of climate-related provisions in the GOP’s reconciliation bill are in limbo after the Senate parliamentarian advised that the policies violated the “Byrd Rule,” i.e. were deemed extraneous to budgetary matters, and thus were subject to a 60-vote threshold instead of the simple majority allowed for reconciliation. The provisions include:
The Senate Finance Committee is set to meet with the parliamentarian today.
In case you missed it: The Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light for fuel producers to challenge a Clean Air Act waiver issued by the EPA that lets California set tougher vehicle emissions standards than those at the federal level. A lower court rejected the lawsuit from Diamond Alternative Energy and other challengers last year, but as Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, California’s ambitious Zero-Emission Vehicle Program is hurting fuel producers, so they have standing to sue. The vote was 7 to 2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has explained, if the EPA waiver is eliminated, Tesla could take a big financial hit. That’s because the zero-emissions vehicle program lets automakers earn credits based on the number and type of ZEVs they produce, and since Tesla is a pure-play EV company, it has always generated more credits than it needs. “The sale of all regulatory credits combined earned the company a total of $595 million in the first quarter [of 2025] on a net income of just $409 million,” Brigham reported. “That is, they represented its entire margin of profitability. On the whole, credits represented 38% of Tesla’s net income last year.”
Tesla launched its Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, over the weekend. A small number of rides were doled out to hand-picked influencers and retail investors, and a Tesla employee sat in the front passenger seat of each autonomous Model Y to monitor safety. The rollout was “uncharacteristically low-key,” Bloombergreported, but CEO Elon Musk said the company is being “super paranoid about safety.” San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Antonio are rumored to be the next cities slated for Robotaxi service. “Tesla is still behind Waymo, by several years,” wrote Jameson Dow at Electrek. “But Waymo has also not been scaling particularly quickly, and certainly both are slower than a lot of techno-optimists would have liked. So we’ll have to see which tortoise wins this race.” The stakes are pretty high: Investment management firm ARK Invest projected that Robotaxis could bring in $951 billion for Tesla by 2029 and make up 90% of the company’s earnings.
A new report from energy think tank Ember concludes that in the world’s sunniest cities, it’s now possible (and economically viable) to get at least 90% of the way to constant solar electricity output for every hour of the day, 365 days a year.