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:
“Climate change is a huge public health concern”

When Gaurab Basu saw the news about wildfire smoke from Canada hitting the U.S. earlier this month, one of the first things he did was check his patient chart.
“I was scanning my chart for pregnant patients and thinking about whether we could reschedule or maybe do a televisit and have them stay at home instead of taking a bus to come in,” said Basu, a physician in Boston and health equity fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
It was a prescient concern: One of Basu’s patients who already suffered from asthma had to be hospitalized for an aggressive cough and low oxygen levels, which Basu suspects were related to the air quality. A few hundred miles south in New York City, which saw even worse pollution from the wildfires, there were more than 1,000 asthma-related emergency department visits over the weekend after the smoke event. “It’s been a hard few months for my patients with asthma. I had more conversations about air quality with my patients and colleagues than ever before,” Basu told me.
These conversations are becoming more and more common. Across the country, healthcare providers are watching in real time as climate change affects their patients’ health, from wildfire smoke to particularly bad allergy seasons, extreme heat, and vector-borne diseases like Lyme and dengue fever. In response, clinicians of all stripes are increasingly talking about climate change in their practice — and in effect becoming climate educators.
“Climate change is a huge public health concern, and part of my role as a physician is to highlight awareness,” said Neelu Tummala, an otolaryngologist (an ear, nose, and throat specialist, or what’s colloquially known as an ENT) and co-director of the Climate and Health Institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “It’s not to scare people and say that global warming is going to be the end-all of society, but to make them conscientious of it and maybe inspire them to act on it.”
Healthcare providers occupy a rarefied space in American society. Nurses consistently rank as the most trusted profession in the country in an annual Gallup poll, followed closely by doctors and pharmacists (high school teachers were fourth in the 2023 poll; journalists are distrusted by a plurality of Americans). Patients tend to listen to what their clinicians have to say. That makes them uniquely placed to talk about climate change.
“We make it human,” Basu told me. “There’s a lot of translational work we can do, because emissions and pollutants are confusing and abstract and kind of invisible.”
As climate change increasingly moves from concept to lived reality, bringing it up in the doctor’s office is just a natural progression of the conversation a healthcare provider has with their patient. Take Tummala, whom I first met as a patient myself: I have a history of allergy-induced asthma, and before being taught how to calm my body down I would sneeze and wheeze my way through allergy season. So when I went to Tummala for a consultation this spring, it made sense that she mentioned, as our visit was wrapping up, that climate change was making allergy season worse.
Education has always been part of the job for healthcare providers; they routinely discuss medical science with their patients, whether when discussing individual diagnoses like diabetes or broader public health concerns like, say, COVID-19 or Mpox. But all of the clinicians I spoke with told me that for many patients, their conversation was the first time someone had drawn a connection between climate change and health, and in some instances the first time they’d heard of climate change at all.
The main difference between educating their patients about climate change and other public health concerns, Tummala pointed out, is that the solution to climate change lies not in medical research but in policy. There is no vaccine for climate change; the most a healthcare provider can do to address the problem within the confines of their clinic is give their patients tips for living with the impact of a global issue far beyond their control.
That also means this is new territory for clinicians, some of whom may not even know much about climate change themselves. As Karen Pennar wrote for STAT News in April, there’s a growing, student-led movement to incorporate climate change at medical schools across the country, and some programs, like those at George Washington University and Harvard Medical School, have begun adding climate change to their curricula. But there are already millions of clinicians at work across the country, and reaching them is just as important as training the next generation.
“It’s great to say we’re going to train the next generation of healthcare professionals, but the reality is climate impacts are here,” said Cecilia Sorensen, director of the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education at Columbia University. “We can’t wait ten years for kids to grow up and start doing their own jobs. We have to train the existing health workforce.”
That means training not just doctors but also nurses and other clinicians who often spend more time with patients than doctors do. Academic initiatives like the Global Consortium are developing workshops, webinars, and other training programs to close the gap, and clinicians are also coming together on the local level: Tummala is on the steering committee for a group called Virginia Clinicians for Climate Action, or VCCA, which organizes educational events for clinicians at hospitals and clinics across the state of Virginia.
“Many of us in practice are figuring this out together and learning together,” said Samantha Ahdoot, a pediatrician and founder of VCCA. “It’s really a whole new field of medicine that’s developing quite quickly.”
As the name would suggest, VCCA goes beyond education. Its members directly advocate for climate policy at the state level, from an annual lobby day in Richmond to testifying on the health impacts of climate change at public hearings. This kind of political organizing is a tricky line to walk: Doctors are pressed for time and energy already, and their involvement in advocacy of any sort is sometimes frowned upon — as illustrated by the recent case of Indiana doctor Caitlin Bernard, who was reprimanded after speaking publicly about an abortion she provided for a 10-year-old girl.
Climate change is just as embroiled in the culture war as COVID-19 and abortion are, and the clinicians I spoke with told me they’re careful to separate any advocacy work they do from their conversations with their patients. Instead, they focus on the patient’s experience of the changing world, as Tummala did with me. That grounds those conversations in the health impacts and makes clear she’s speaking from a perspective of transparent, science-driven healthcare rather than advocacy.
“We have the ability to depoliticize this. We can talk about this as a health issue, not a political issue,” Tummala told me. “You have to meet people where they’re at. If you, for example, try talking to a patient about losing weight, they may think you’re judging them. But if you bring it up in a way that shows it could help their sleep apnea or heart disease, they may be more willing to listen. I think it’s the same with climate change.”
In Cheryl Holder’s experience, those health realities are harder to deny than the high-level concept of climate change. “I get pushback from folks who are not experiencing it like my patients experience it,” said Holder, founder of Florida Clinicians for Climate Action (FCCA) and a physician who primarily treated members of lower-income communities until she retired last December. As part of her advocacy mission with FCCA, she started using Instagram and TikTok to talk about the connection between climate change and health — and she would inevitably see comments from climate deniers.
Her conversations with patients, however, were a different story. Most of them worked outdoors, where they could tell things were changing. “If you work outdoors and you feel the heat, see the grass growing faster and the trees flowering earlier, you know something is happening,” Holder told me. “When I tell them it’s because of pollution from humans, they accept it.”
But just as a patient may decide not to follow a doctor’s advice for treating a medical condition, Basu accepts that sometimes the climate conversation just won’t land. That doesn’t make him any less likely to bring it up, however.
“Hopefully, the patient can trust in a pattern of me making good decisions about their care enough that they believe in [the climate connection],” Basu told me. “I think that’s a critical moment to bring people into the conversation, and to do it with care.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Any version of the future — even one under Trump — includes bits of the Inflation Reduction Act.
We passed a major milestone over the weekend: the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That piece of legislation — which curtailed the wind and solar tax credits, ended incentives for electric vehicle buyers, and terminated a lot of green industrial policy — was signed into law on July 4, 2025. It also formally ended the era of decarbonization and climate policy experimentation that began when the United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act roughly three years earlier.
Now we’re far enough out to begin assessing the Trump law’s impact. And a fascinating new report, published today by the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, argues that the damage … is not as bad as one might fear — at least in the electricity sector.
The power sector has retained most of the quantifiable benefits associated with Biden’s climate law and Environmental Protection Agency rules, the new report asserts, and about two-thirds of the reductions in heat-trapping pollution expected under Biden’s policies will still happen under Trump’s. The report is called “Glass Half Full,” but its author, Lily Bermel, told me that her own conclusions went even further: “It’s not barely half full,” she said. “It’s like three-quarters full.”
We had the exclusive on the new report at Heatmap — check out our full story for more coverage, including interviews with critics of the analysis. Bermel also joined me on our Shift Key podcast to discuss her findings and what they suggest for the future of climate policy.
But in this more discursive space, I want to address head-on a question I think Bermel’s report raises: Was the Inflation Reduction Act worth it? If two-thirds of the emissions cuts expected under President Biden's policies are going to happen anyway (at least from the power sector), what was the point of those policies?
I posed this question directly to Bermel. She pointed me to a different source of MIT data: the Clean Investment Monitor, which tracks clean energy and industry investment in the United States across a range of sectors. That data shows that wind, solar, and storage investment did increase in the United States after the IRA passed, she said. “What the IRA did for wind and solar was good and impactful, but ultimately no longer necessary and worth the bang for buck,” she told me. (She added that the law’s other policies — such as its incentives for “clean firm” power plants such as geothermal that can run all day — did not go far enough.)
Ben King, a director at the Rhodium Group (which collaborates with MIT on the Clean Investment Monitor data), made another point when we chatted about the MIT report over the weekend. The new report compares visions of what the energy system will look like after Trump’s policies and Biden’s policies. But both of those scenarios contain a lot of the IRA’s policies, he said, because the solar and wind tax credits remain available in some form until the end of this decade. There simply is no version of the future that doesn’t have a lot of the IRA in it.
And that should, perhaps, reframe how we compare the emissions trajectories under Trump’s and Biden’s policies. It might sound like good news that 67% of the emissions cuts expected under Biden’s policies could still materialize under Trump’s. But it might also invite a certain nihilism — if most of the cuts were going to happen anyway, why did we have a big political fight over climate policy in the first place?
So it’s worth stating clearly that any fight over emissions or climate policy is partly about the emissions cuts that have not happened yet. Had the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits — or the EPA’s climate rules — been preserved, then emissions cuts might have gone even deeper than we once anticipated. In this way, there is always something proleptic about discussing emissions policy — really, you are trying to secure additional emissions reductions.
To put this another way, Bermel’s model suggests that the United States will build the same amount of offshore wind under Trump’s policies as it would under Biden’s (about 6 gigawatts). That happens, she said, because offshore wind is driven by state policy as much if not more than federal policy — and the state policy environment was souring even before Trump took office. But had Kamala Harris won in 2024, then Trump’s war on wind would never have happened, and states may have worked harder to salvage their offshore wind investments — or gone on to build even more.
There is no world, in other words, where Biden’s policies would have stood alone. Their success was always provisional, and their potential victory was always an invitation to further gains.
On energy inefficiency, global green H2, and New Hampshire’s guerrilla solar
Current conditions: Super Typhoon Bavi is slamming into Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands as the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane, with sustained wind speeds topping 178 miles per hour • The record-shattering heat dome over the central and eastern United States is easing and shifting westward until mid July • In Europe, however, the heat is continuing, with temperatures hitting 108 degrees Fahrenheit in southern Spain over the weekend.
America’s next nuclear reactor is coming to life via resurrection. For the past two years, Holtec International has been working to bring the single reactor at the decommissioned Palisades nuclear plant in western Michigan back into service. It would be the first time in U.S. history that a permanently shuttered nuclear plant came back online. If successful, a growing list of projects are lining up to follow in Palisades’ footsteps. On Friday, Holtec announced that the Palisades crew had completed “the last of the major projects,” marking a “watershed moment” in the restoration effort. “We’re now focused on safely executing the remaining testing, verification, and operational readiness activities required before startup,” Michael Schultheis, Holtec’s vice president of the plant, said in a statement. “The plant is coming back together, and the professionalism and dedication demonstrated by our workforce continue to move the project forward.”
The news came just days after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed a lawsuit challenging the procedure by which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Palisades’ restart. Started under the Biden administration, the revival project was one of the first the Trump administration allowed to move forward after taking office, part of a broader effort by the Department of Energy to spur a resurgence of reactor construction in the U.S.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked a challenge to California’s rules on emissions from industrial boilers, the latest legal victory for local regulations on planet-heating pollution from buildings. In 2024, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the air pollution agency in charge of broad swaths of Southern California, set new restrictions on smog-causing nitrogen oxide from industrial boilers, appliances that either burn a fossil fuel such as gas or oil or use electricity to heat up water. The policy — which would slash the equivalent of half the nitrogen oxide produced by every car in Los Angeles combined — is part of the state’s long-standing effort to curb pollution. It’s not the only win for the fight to curb emissions from buildings. Since 2024, federal courts have repeatedly upheld local and state authority to regulate pollution from buildings in New York, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
On Thursday, meanwhile, the Trump administration proposed a new rule to gut money-saving standards for appliances nationwide. “While the agency portrayed the move as bringing an end to appliance standards writ large, that is not, in fact, what it is doing,” Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote last week. “The proposal would update the DOE’s so-called ‘Process Rule,’ which governs how the agency develops standards, adding onerous requirements that will make it much more difficult to make any changes at all.” When I spoke to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy about the changes, the advocacy group told me the proposal would set minimum savings thresholds below which the new rule wouldn’t find federal support. It would also add a mandatory 180-day waiting period between before proposing new appliance standards based on novel testing procedures, require the Energy Department to show deference to industry-established standards, and force regulators to carry out extra analyses and rulemaking processes before enacting new rules.
Senator Angus King, the independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject the proposed utility megamerger between NextEra Energy and Dominion Energy. In a letter last week to the agency, King said the combination of the two giants risked putting too much power in the hands of one company. “The combination would create the largest electric utility in the United States, concentrating an unprecedented mix of merchant generation, rate-based generation, and transmission assets in the hands of a single company with a documented record of using its market position and political resources to suppress competition that threatens its merchant revenues,” King said in the letter, according to Utility Dive. Specifically, he cited NextEra’s lobbying to derail the New England Clean Energy Connect project in 2021, a transmission line to connect the Northeast’s grid to the almost entirely renewable hydroelectric system in Quebec.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency put out new regulatory guidance on the president’s “freedom to fix” agenda, reminding automakers of their “long-standing legal obligation to release the service information, training information, and tools necessary to diagnose and repair vehicles,” even if the driver could use what they learn to tamper with the emissions controls. Meanwhile, on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that he’d pardoned six people “who were persecuted by the Biden administration” and were either in prison or headed there for violating Clean Air Act prohibitions against rigging the vehicles’ emissions control systems. “While I know this sounds ridiculous, it is nevertheless a fact, and part of the Weaponization and Stupidity that our Country had to endure during four long years of Sleepy Joe Biden,” he wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “I AM SETTING THEM ALL FREE, RIGHT NOW!”
In non-emitting vehicle news, Rivian is eyeing a better sales year than expected. While the electric automaker previously said it would ship between 62,000 and 67,000 vehicles this year, it told investors on Thursday that it now expects to deliver between 65,000 and 70,000 vehicles, in what TechCrunch called “a small but potentially meaningful bump.” The announcement came the same week BYD crushed Tesla’s deliveries yet again, as I told you in my last newsletter.

Back in March, I told you that Chile’s most right-wing president since the fall of dictator Augusto Pinochet could take the country’s budding green hydrogen business in a different direction. Now President José Antonio Kast is doing just that. Last week, Chile’s state-owned Production Development Corporation, known by its Spanish acronym CORFO, announced plans to refocus the country’s strategy for green hydrogen on domestic use rather than exports, Hydrogen Insight reported.
China, as I have reported for you many times before, is going hard on green hydrogen, especially since the Iran War forced Beijing to ramp up efforts to find alternatives to imported fossil fuels. Here’s yet another data point: China just laid out plans to build the world’s largest green hydrogen plant using solid-oxide electrolyzers, which operate at higher temperatures. The facility will also produce, methanol, which uses hydrogen as a key ingredient. At peak capacity, the facility in rural Gansu province will produce 100,000 metric tons of renewable methanol per year for use in international shipping. Meanwhile, Spain is investing nearly $21 million into grants for hydrogen projects as the country seeks to make use of its booming solar industry. As I wrote last week, the surge in solar panels is creating problems for Spain, since its grid can’t handle all that power during peak daytime hours. Funneling that electricity into electrolyzers to make molecules that can be cleanly burned later may offer a solution.
Last month, I told you about a catchier term for the very small-scale solar panels being legalized to go on windowsills and balconies, opening the door to more apartment dwellers generating a small share of electricity themselves. That term, which I first read in Inside Climate News, is “guerilla solar.” Well, that solar rebel mindset is coming to the “Live Free or Die” state. On Thursday, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, put out a list of 74 bills she signed into law before Fourth of July weekend. Among them was SB-540, legalizing plug-in solar panels. The law will take effect on July 27, according to PluginSolarUS, an advocacy group.
Rob talks with Columbia’s Lily Bermel about where climate policy should go next.
Wait, is the climate policy landscape … in better shape than it looks?
Just over a year ago, President Trump passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It repealed many of the Biden administration’s most aggressive climate policies, including tax credits for solar and wind energy.
Although those policies are gone, the emissions cuts they achieved remain largely intact — at least in the power sector, according to a new study that we’re covering exclusively at Heatmap. Lily Bermel, the report’s author and a visiting fellow at the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, argues that at least where energy generation is concerned, the glass is more than “half full.”
On this episode of Shift Key, Lily joins Rob to discuss what we learned from Biden’s big climate law, why it likely never would have achieved its projected emissions declines (at least not without a tremendous transmission buildout), and how studying its legacy changed her mind about policy going forward.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Given that the IRA, in retrospect, in the power sector, kind of resolved any economic issue you would have making a project pencil out and revealed all these non-economic issues that actually constrain development, we are now looking at a political environment where we’re switching from mourning the IRA to saying, okay, what should happen next? And my colleague Emily Pontecorvo recently wrote a story about this question. But I think one of the big questions going forward, especially if Democrats take Congress at the end of this year is, well, should they fight to restore the tax credits? I can even see a world where restoring the tax credits becomes something people insist on to get permitting reform or something.
After writing this report, did you come to the conclusion that Democrats should restore the wind and solar tax credits? Is that the most urgent priority for climate policy?
Lily Bermel: In writing this report, I became quite confident that I don’t think it’s worth the bang for buck in restoring those wind and solar tax credits, and instead that the supply side constraints are the real issue that we need to focus on. I did this lag analysis where if you take a given year, say 2031, and you see that the IRA trajectory would have deployed like more than 300 gigawatts of solar, how many years later would the [OBBBA] scenario do that? There’s only a two and a half-year lag, or gap. And so in restoring the clean energy tax credits, you are only buying back two and a half years’ worth of deployment, which, at least for me, was a lot smaller than I had thought.
Meanwhile, both scenarios have a literal cap in them about how much they can build and how fast they can build it. So even if you buy back that little two and a half-year average annual lag, you’re going to run up to the exact same ceiling. So restoring the tax credits brings you closer to that ceiling, while permitting reform will completely lift the ceiling and be a rising tide that lifts all boats.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
The “Glass Half Full” report
More from Rob on Lily’s findings
From Heatmap: The Wind and Solar Tax Credits Are About to Expire. Will They Come Back?
Heatmap’s cheat sheet on how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed America’s clean energy law
Previously on Shift Key: What Has All This Back-and-Forth Climate Legislating Bought Us?
Jesse Jenkins’ paper on transmission’s role in achieving the IRA’s goals
Brendan Duke’s policy affordability framework
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.