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:
Here’s how European fires differ from those in the American West.

With late-season fires on Portuguese Madeira and Spanish Tenerife recently brought under control, European nations can finally begin to relax after a historic and deadly wildfire season. The mainland continent experienced “far more fires and a larger burned area [in 2023] than in an average fire season,” The New York Times reports, including the single largest wildfire in the EU since record-keeping began in 2000, in Greece.
In the United States, we’re used to words like “historic” and “deadly” when it comes to our wildfires. American fire researchers often point to the U.S. Forest Service’s long history of wildfire suppression as a big reason why we have the cycle of megafires that we do today. Fire had long been a natural part of the ecosystem of the American West; if the land is prevented from burning, plants grow up thick in the underbrush, turning forests into explosive tinderboxes that, once ignited, burn out of control. This is part of why U.S. fire managers emphasize the importance of prescribed burns and teaming up with Indigenous fire practitioners, whose centuries of stewardship helped to keep the North American landscape healthy.
But what’s the deal with Europe, where there isn’t the same legacy of outlawing managed burns and wildfires still seem to be getting bigger and worse by the year?
The first thing to understand is the ways in which U.S. and European fires are the same. Both are being fanned by the same global conditions: “Climate change has led to numerous environmental changes that can increase the frequency and magnitude of dangerous fire weather — increased drought, high air temperatures, low relative humidity, dry lightning, and strong winds, resulting in hotter, drier, and longer fire seasons,” a 2022 United Nations report found. A 2021 study supported by NOAA in the U.S. likewise describes climate change as “the main driver of the increase in fire weather in the western United States.”
The second thing to understand is the ways in which the fires on the two continents are different.
In the U.S., the danger of wildfires to human life and property tends to be exacerbated by the way development has expanded further and further into the vast, unmaintained, “empty” wildlands that make up most of the land in the West. By contrast, fire problems that arise in Europe are largely because people have left the landscape.
Humans have been lighting fires on the European continent for a very, very long time. “The latest studies show that human-driven fires [were already affecting] landscape transformation in the Central European Lowlands 8,500 years ago,” researchers at the University of Latvia explain in a 2021 paper about European fire frequency. The main purpose of those human-started fires had been to clear land for agriculture and grazing, but the practice has gone on for so long that it “has left [regions of Europe] with a complex pattern of land-covers and fire occurrence that shows little if any resemblance of a natural fire regime,” a separate study in the Journal of Environmental Management explains.
Until fairly recently, this more or less worked out okay: People managed the land they lived on, set low-intensity fires to burn new pastures or fields, and sometimes put out fires if they happened to threaten property or life. The problems began when people started moving away from farms and into the cities during the 20th century. In a study by the Journal of Environmental Management researchers, which looked at Italy, there was a 20% drop in agricultural areas and a 74% increase in flammable forest cover between 1960 and 2000.
The abandonment of the countryside was particularly pronounced in Eastern Europe, where the collective farms of the Soviet Union were left to go fallow after the fall of the Iron Curtain — from “Poland through Slovakia to Ukraine, an estimated 16 percent of farmland has been abandoned since 1988,” Wired reports — but southern Europe has also seen a land-use shift due to aging farming populations and general rural decline. “In the past three decades,” Wired goes on, “Europe has seen a net loss of farmland larger than Switzerland.”
What that means in practice is that land that had once been managed by rural farmers has been left to return to its original and unmonitored state, whether that’s grasslands, shrublands, or, especially, forests. While it’s taken them a few decades to spring up, these new trees are especially prone to burning: The European Data Journalism Network (EDJNet) reports that in Spain, for instance, forests made up 27% of the overall acres burned by wildfires between 2000 and 2005, but jumped to 42% between 2017 and 2022. In the same time frame, forest fires went from making up a quarter of wildfire-affected lands in Finland to 40%. As EDJNet adds, “The current fire map of Europe is, in this sense, an illustration of the rural exodus and abandonment of the countryside.”
In trying to fight these new forest fires, Europe has fallen into the same “fire paradox” that we have in the United States: the better you are at putting out fires, the more chances you give to fire-prone vegetation between the trees to grow out of control, so when the next fire hits, it’s much worse. This is also where climate change comes back into play: By drying out dead grasses and other plants in these newly abandoned landscapes during the hot summers, the warming planet makes the forests especially vulnerable to flare-ups.
Though the U.S. and Europe have, in a sense, largely had opposite land-use problems — in the American West, people are moving too deep into the countryside, while in Europe, people are typically moving out — the solutions might actually be the same. Fire managers on both continents are encouraging local communities and governments to revitalize farmland as a means of combating worsening fire seasons. In the U.S., this might work by surrounding urban areas with a “buffer” of farms, in order to separate human development from a naturally fire-prone landscape. In Europe, it might take the form of agroforestry, or mixed-use forest-and-farmland, to help break up otherwise homogeneous and flammable swaths of forest or fields.
It might be easier said than done: the number of farmers and size of farmland has been on the decline in both the U.S. and Western Europe for decades, and it will take enormous socioeconomic shifts to reverse that trend. But while American and European fires might be different beasts with their own histories, their overlap also poses an opportunity. The U.S. European Command has helped fight fires in Greece; Portugal is one of the international wildfire partners of the U.S. Department of the Interior. And while fire season might be largely over on both sides of the Atlantic this year between now and the first flare-up of spring, there will be so much to learn — from each other.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Everything is getting more expensive — except for government debt.
Across the developed world, yields on government debt are rising, driving up the cost of borrowing with potentially particularly dire effects for renewable and clean energy.
“Nearly every issue of government bonds at every maturity for all G7 countries is trading at a higher rate today than it was in February, pushing up the amount that governments must pay to sell new debt,” the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
These government bonds — especially U.S. government bonds — serve as benchmarks for lending across the economy. The 10-year Treasury is currently trading at a yield of 4.8%, up from 4% in February before the war in Iran began.
The rising yields are due in part to the ongoing war being waged by the United States and Israel, which has driven up the prices of core commodities and touched off inflation across the globe. A number of wealthy countries, including the United States, are also running large budget deficits, which means there’s lots of government debt floating around. Inflation erodes the value of that debt, however, driving up the returns investors demand for government bonds and driving down what they’re willing to pay.
I have written extensively about how high borrowing costs exact an especially steep toll from renewable energy development. That’s because the bulk of spending on a renewable project — say a solar farm — comes up front as capital expenditure that often has to be financed through borrowing. For a gas-fired power plant, on the other hand, the spending is split more evenly between upfront costs and operational costs (namely fuel), which can be paid for out of cash flow from operating the plant. Where the cost of operating a gas plant is at the mercy of natural gas prices, for a renewables project, interest rates can dominate the economics.
Sure enough, that inflationary pressure showed up in the second-quarter results of America’s renewables companies. Solar installer Sunrun, for instance, has seen declining sales growth. In an August earnings call, Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the company’s results were “reflecting a higher capital cost as interest rates have inched up.” Wind developer Orsted, meanwhile, told investors that it had incurred a nearly $200 million loss on its U.S. offshore wind business “as a result of an increase in the long-dated U.S. interest rates.”
But macroeconomic indicators like deficits, inflation, and interest rates show just one side of the picture. After all, it’s not just governments that borrow, and it’s not just money that’s necessary for any sort of big project, including renewable and clean energy.
At the same time governments are borrowing more, bond market investors are also being offered hundreds of billions of dollars of debt from hyperscalers and other technology companies looking to build out data centers to power artificial intelligence. Bond markets will have to ingest over $500 billion of AI-related debt issuance this year, according to Morgan Stanley, and they’ll be called upon again to help fund an estimated $1.2 trillion in capital expenditures in 2027. Across the economy as a whole, “more than half of the capex growth this year can likely be ascribed to the buildout related to AI,” Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh said in a speech last week.
That boom is driving economic activity — and high prices — throughout a number of sectors, including materials and labor.
Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack told CNBC in June that inflation was “too high,” citing “insatiable” demand from data center developers for inputs such as electric switchgears. (Hammack was a dissenting voice at the July meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee, voting for a higher interest rate against the Fed majority who decided to keep rates unchanged.)
And it’s not just software engineers who are seeing high salaries as a result of the AI boom. The technology buildout has also raised the wages of laborers and tradespeople essential to both data center and energy projects, especially for specialized trades like electricians.
“Skilled workers were difficult to find in a range of fields, notably technicians and tradespeople,” the Federal Reserve reported in its July report on economic conditions.
While this is great news for electricians and their families, it’s also the type of thing that can make central bankers nervous.
The “AI investment surge could trigger nonlinear price increases,” Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan said in July. “The risk is that the pressures broaden as AI demand touches construction, power generation, and other sectors.”
That’s the silver lining for renewable energy — and all energy developers. While the costs of capital, materials, and labor are going up, electricity itself has never been in greater demand.
The energy developer and utility NextEra told investors on its July earnings call that it’s been able to sign new contracts on existing assets at a $20 per megawatt-hour premium over recent prices, a process known as “recontracting,” indicating solid demand for power.
Overall, NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said, “Hyperscalers and other large load customers are increasingly focused on speed, certainty, and scalability. That plays directly to our strengths.”
Chirag Lala, vice president of research at the Center for Public Enterprise, explained to me that it’s this demand that’s balancing out the higher financial and material costs renewable developers face. “That’s why we are still getting solar and battery builds. There’s demand on the system,” he told me.
The industry is in a kind of tug of war between financial and structural factors pulling it back, and demand factors pushing it forward. “That buildout could absolutely be faster and bigger if a variety of structural and financial variables were mitigated,” Lala said.
The Supreme Court will decide once and for all.
Good evening from New York, where a district court judge struck down a law the state passed in 2024 to extract $75 billion from fossil fuel companies to fund its response to climate change. The ruling is a sign that so-called “superfund”-style laws may not be the winning strategy many climate advocates had hoped.
You may know the New York law as the Climate Change Superfund Act, and it mirrors similarly-named legislation passed in Vermont and introduced in about a dozen other states. The law’s backers — environmental groups, consumer advocates — pitched it as a new approach after earlier attempts to sue energy companies directly for damages had either failed or were stuck in procedural arguments over whether the cases belonged in state or federal court.
Get Heatmap Daily in your inbox
Unlike those lawsuits, the climate superfund laws don’t accuse the companies of doing anything wrong. They are modeled on the federal Superfund program, which allows the Environmental Protection Agency to request funding from companies to clean up industrial waste years after the contamination occurred, and despite the fact that the pollution was lawful at the time. The theory was that this federal precedent might give the states a leg up when energy companies inevitably fought the policy.
That comparison does not seem to have meant much to Judge Brenda Sannes. Instead, her decision focused on the similarities between the climate superfund law and a lawsuit New York City brought against Chevron and other oil companies that federal courts dismissed several years ago. Sannes concluded that just like the city’s lawsuit, the superfund law would in effect regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions, which is a federal responsibility under the Clean Air Act.
Notably, Sannes also disregarded the Trump administration decision to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, which underpinned the federal government’s responsibility to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, writing that it had “no impact” on her analysis.
To me, the idea that these climate lawsuits and superfund laws are akin to emissions regulation has been one of the more confounding aspects of covering these court fights. None of the suits concern greenhouse gas regulations in any traditional sense — they are about oil companies’ deception and responsibility for climate change-related damages. Still, several courts have agreed with oil companies that the financial penalty levied on them amounts to a form of oversight of emissions.
Climate advocates are not giving up just yet, and are urging New York Attorney General Letitia James to appeal. A press release from the group Fossil Free Media argued the ruling was “based on a deeply flawed analysis” and was “an early, appealable decision in a developing legal fight.” James has not yet issued a response.
Regardless, the superfund concept will get another test in the federal court for the district of Vermont, where the same groups challenging New York’s law — the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, Republican states, and the Trump administration — are also challenging Vermont’s version.
Much more rides on an upcoming Supreme Court case, however. The high court has agreed to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by Boulder County, Colorado against Exxon and a Canadian oil sands company, Suncor. The county originally filed the case in 2018, and it’s one of the ones that’s been held up for years in procedural arguments. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court decided it could finally advance toward a trial, leading the oil companies to appeal to the federal Supreme Court. They are asking the justices to decide once and for all whether federal law preempts states from seeking relief for climate damages.
Oral arguments begin on October 5.
On Palisades’ progress, Taliban minerals, and New York’s climate superfund
Current conditions: Tropical Depression Five is barreling northwest from the Caribbean to Houston • In the Pacific, Hurricane Karina has strengthened into a Category 4 storm, but it’s unlikely to make landfall anywhere • The surface temperature of the Yellow Sea is nearly 85 degrees Fahrenheit, fueling storms across South Korea.
President Donald Trump is among the few politicians in America willing to stand 10-toes-down in defense of the need to build out more data centers. In a post Monday on Truth Social, the president admonished communities that reject data centers as misguided and foolish. “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign.” Still, he said “plenty of other places” want them. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame,” he wrote. “China could not be happier with this anti data center movement.” It’s not a popular stance. Heatmap Pro’s latest polling shows that three-quarters of Americans now oppose data centers built in their backyards.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down the state’s Climate Change Superfund Act on Monday, ruling that the 2024 law is invalid under the federal Clean Air Act. The law set up a cost recovery scheme whereby fossil fuel companies would pay into a fund used to finance climate change adaptation-related infrastructure projects. The state’s argument rested in part on the Trump administration’s decision earlier this year to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, which gave the agency authority to regulate climate pollution. That move “cannot be reconciled” with the administration’s argument that the CAA preempts New York’s law, the state said. Judge Brenda K. Sannes dismissed that reasoning in her decision, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Electric Power v. Connecticut from 2011, which, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo put it, “established companies’ protection from federal public nuisance claims over greenhouse gas emissions. That decision sprang from the Court’s earlier 2007 decision that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gas emissions — which the EPA is now contesting.”
The case was one of at least four the Trump administration has pursued against states attempting to make fossil fuel companies cover the costs of adapting to climate change. Judges have already ruled against its attempts to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies, however a case against a similar superfund law in Vermont is still pending. “New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law,” Adam Gustafson, principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division and the administration’s lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”
A sign of how much an industry is really booming is whether startups begin popping up to provide ancillary services. Here’s a prime example of the artificial intelligence buildout’s energy boom: The AI energy software provider Verse told Heatmap exclusively for this newsletter that it now has 30 gigawatts of power under its platform’s management. The company’s flagship product, Aria, is an intelligence platform for data center companies that brings utility bills, contracts, power purchase agreements, and live power usage data under one dashboard. The company also helps manage on-site assets such as batteries. “You can't solve for speed, cost, risk, and carbon while your supply contracts, your load, and your flexible assets sit in separate silos,” Seyed Madaeni, Verse’s chief executive and co-founder, said in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
When Holtec International starts the Palisades nuclear plant back up, the facility in western Michigan will be the first in the nation to return to life after a permanent shutdown. Once complete, the Palisades restart will set off a series of other projects, including some to repower defunct nuclear plants in Pennsylvania and Iowa. That makes each milestone in the Palisades project notable — but the one it reached Monday is particularly promising. Holtec started loading fuel into the reactor, setting the stage for it to return to service potentially before the end of the year, months before the official March 2027 start date. “Loading fuel into the Palisades reactor is an important milestone and a reflection of the tremendous effort of the men and women who have brought this plant to this point,” Fadi Diya, Holtec’s chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. Palisades’ completion won’t just kick off more restarts. Holtec also plans to build its first two 300-megawatt small modular reactors at the site. Based on the industry’s standard pressurized water technology, the company has received hundreds of millions from the Department of Energy to support its construction.

Commerce can, at times, be the ultimate salve. Raw materials flowed from the U.S. to British factories even after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Japanese and German automobiles dominate American roads decades after those nations’ defeats in World War II. As memories of war fade, Americans buy nearly $200 billion in Vietnamese goods each year, helping to transform the Southeast Asian country into a top manufacturing hub. Now the Taliban is making its pitch to Washington’s wallet. The Islamist group now leading Afghanistan said it would “absolutely” welcome U.S. investments in the rural, mountainous, and underdeveloped Central Asian country’s mining, infrastructure, or agriculture industries. “Relations between Afghanistan and the United States should not be assessed through the lens of the past 20 years of war, but rather on the basis of future co-operation,” Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi told the Financial Times at his office in Kabul. “Our economic policy is open.”
Meanwhile, from China to the U.S., lithium producers are posting what Bloomberg called “bumper profits.” Demand for energy storage is soaring, especially as countries seek to insulate themselves from the effects of the Iran War energy shock. As a result, Chinese companies such as Tianqi Lithium and Ganfeng Lithium Group reported their strongest net income in three years during the first six months of 2026. North Carolina-based Albemarle said global lithium demand had grown 45% compared to a year earlier. Australia’s PLS Group, meanwhile, “swung a $377 million profit in the 12 months to June 30 from a loss the year before,” the newswire reported.
You don’t need to be an expert in emerging markets to recognize the potential for solar. Countries that haven’t yet extended grid networks into rural areas can electrify villages using panels that are increasingly cheap and flooding into places such as sub-Saharan Africa, as I told you last week. You won’t need deep connections in those countries to start investing in that renewable energy potential, either. The startup Odyssey Energy Solutions, as my colleague Katie Brigham put it, “acts as a middleman between local installers and global capital providers that want exposure to developing markets but typically wouldn’t take the risk of financing small companies in unfamiliar environments.” This morning, the company told Katie exclusively, it’s announcing that it has raised another $74 million to fund its buildout.