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:
Hurricane researcher Andra Garner on what happened in Acapulco.
Last week, I spoke with researcher Andra Garner about how hurricanes are increasingly sneaking up on us. She had recently published a new study in Scientific Reports, which found that Atlantic hurricanes are “more than twice as likely to strengthen from a weak Category 1 hurricane to a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane in a 24-hour period than they were between 1970 and 1990.”
In her comments to me, Garner had stressed that “when storms intensify quickly, they can become more difficult to forecast and to plan for in terms of emergency action plans for coastal residents.” Less than a week later, her warning has seemingly come true in the form of Hurricane Otis, which made landfall near Acapulco, Mexico, on Wednesday morning as a record-breaking Category 5 storm. It had intensified from a tropical storm in a mere 12 hours and taken meteorologists almost completely by surprise.
On Wednesday, I checked back in with Garner about how Hurricane Otis factors into her research. Our correspondence via email has been lightly edited and condensed, below.
Would you expect similar results to your Atlantic hurricane intensification findings if you were to look at the northern East Pacific, where Otis formed? Or are there different trends to account for in the region?
While my work did focus on the Atlantic, rather than the Pacific, there are certain physical factors that are very favorable for hurricane formation, regardless of where you are in the world. Warm ocean waters are one of those factors, and Hurricane Otis certainly had plenty of warm ocean water.
Typically, the minimum ocean water temperature that can support hurricane formation and strengthening is 26 degrees Celsius (about 79 degrees Fahrenheit); last night, as Otis moved towards land, the storm was traveling over a patch of water that was near 31 degrees Celsius (about 88 degrees Fahrenheit) — substantially warmer than necessary, and plenty warm enough to support quick strengthening. Considering those kinds of factors, I think what we saw with Hurricane Otis lines up pretty well with what my research suggests that we should expect in a warmer climate.
You mentioned to me last week that future projections were outside the scope of this research, but if single-day intensification is more than twice as likely now as it was between 1970 and 1990, is there any reason to think it won’t be twice as likely again by, say, 2070?
This is a great question. I think that what my work shows is that, if we don’t change anything about our behavior, it is reasonable to expect that we might expect this trend to continue and to possibly worsen. In my research, across the time periods 1971-1990 and 2001-2020, the speed and degree of hurricane intensification were significantly different.While more research would be needed to really discern all the potential factors causing that strengthening to occur, I think that, to the extent that warmer ocean waters are involved, we could expect more of the same if we don’t limit our emissions moving forward.
I was pretty shocked to see in Acapulco exactly what you’d warned about in your email to me last week: that there is an “increased risk of hazards for our coastal communities” because of the difficulty of preparing for a storm that jumps from a tropical storm to a Category 5 in less than 24 hours. You spoke a little about this before, but would there be anything you’d want to add now that we’ve seen what you warned about actually unfold?
I’d just say that, as you mentioned, it is surprising to see this happen so soon after publishing research that really tells us this is what we might expect. I think knowing that something is expected because of a warming climate, and actually seeing it play out before your eyes, are two different things. Even though I have the data and the analyses to tell me that this is what we should expect, it’s still a little mind-boggling to see a storm like Otis transform from a Tropical Storm into a Category 5 hurricane in about 12 hours.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Biden’s big announcement, Montana’s climate case, and the murder hornet
Current conditions: Temperatures across western states are between 10 and 20 degrees Fahrenheit above seasonal averages • A temple in Thailand collapsed after unrelenting heavy rain • It’s hot and humid on the remote Caribbean island of Sombrero, where a lizard that was facing extinction six years ago has made a remarkable comeback thanks to conservation efforts.
In one of his last major environmental moves before leaving office, President Biden today announced a new climate plan for the United States that includes tougher emissions targets.
All countries under the Paris Agreement are required to submit updated climate plans – or nationally determined contributions (NDC) – by February of next year. While the new goal is an improvement, it is “at the lower bound of what the science demands and yet it is close to the upper bound of what is realistic if nearly every available policy lever were pulled,” said Debbie Weyle, U.S. acting director of the World Resources Institute. “Assertive action by states and cities will be essential to achieving this goal.” The Climate Action Tracker project calculates that the U.S. must cut total emissions by at least 62% below 2005 levels by 2030 to be compatible with a goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. President-elect Trump is expected to take the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement once again.
The Montana Supreme Court yesterday handed a win to a group of 16 youth climate activists, upholding a lower court’s ruling in the landmark Held V. Montana case that the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting fossil fuel projects without considering the climate consequences. The state had argued that its greenhouse gases were a drop in the bucket compared to global emissions, with negligible effects on the climate, but in a 6-1 ruling, the justices disagreed and affirmed the lower court’s decision. “Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system,” chief justice Mike McGrath wrote.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Environmental Protection Agency this week gave the green light for California to enforce its ban on sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035. About a dozen other states, plus some major automakers, adhere to California’s strict vehicle emission standards, so the decision could have broad implications. But it also is likely to be revoked by the incoming Trump administration, and a long court battle could ensue.
A new report from a group of leading climate tech and microgrid development firms examined the feasibility of using off-grid solar and storage to provide clean power for AI data centers. It found solar microgrids would cost nearly the same as using off-grid natural gas turbines, could be built on a shorter timeline as opposed to rolling out new grid connections, and are “enormously scalable.” “We found that there is enough available land in the southwest U.S. alone that is close to roads and gas pipelines to build 1,200 gigawatts of offgrid solar microgrid data center capacity, far more than will be needed for the foreseeable future,” said Zeke Hausfather, lead climate researcher at Stripe. Here’s a look at the varying “time to operation” estimates from the report:
And speaking of data centers, Oklo, a nuclear startup chaired by Open AI’s Sam Altman, has secured a 20-year agreement to supply power to data center operator Switch Inc. Under the deal, Oklo will build small modular reactors that can supply up to 12 gigawatts of electricity and come online by 2030. Caveat: The Financial Timesnoted that the deal “is non-binding and the company’s technology is years from production.”
President-elect Trump’s advisers are telling him to let federally funded critical minerals projects go ahead without environmental reviews, Reutersreported. Nixing the review process currently required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could speed up mining projects and help cut U.S. dependence on China for critical minerals used in clean tech like electric vehicles, but it could also allow developers to ignore climate change and environmental justice considerations.
The invasive “murder hornet” has been eradicated from the U.S.
Karen Ducey/Getty Images
In 2025, it’s time for stern resolve and bold maneuvers.
This year has reshaped the political landscape of climate action in ways few could have predicted. From the European Parliament to the US presidency, elections have upended the alliances and leadership structures that have traditionally driven climate progress. A world that as recently as 12 months ago thought it could rely on Europe as the steady hand of global leadership now finds the continent politically fracturing. Across the Atlantic, the United States is once again charting an unpredictable course, although one that will certainly take it further from sensible climate policy, while China continues to lead through industrial dominance rather than diplomatic consensus. It is, to put it mildly, a less-than-ideal setting for tackling the most pressing issue of our time.
Europe’s political shifts may be the most concerning. On the surface it appears the continent’s commitment to climate has held, but underneath tensions are boiling. Once a bastion of ambitious climate policy, the European Union is now grappling with internal instability that risks derailing its leadership.
The EU Commission president’s centrist party remains in power after parliamentary elections, despite rising pressure from the far right and with its commitment to the Green Deal agenda intact. However populist forces — recently represented by farmer backlash to environmental policy — leaves them focused on defending Europe’s existing commitments, rather than driving its next iteration.
In the member states things look more challenging. Italy’s ruling government is openly challenging Europe’s commitment to electric vehicles. In France the spectre of a broad anti climate agenda headlined by once unthinkable notions like a power sector “Frexit” pushed by the country’s right wing was held at bay after parliamentary elections this summer that avoided a far right shift. But a recent no confidence vote on the coalition government’s short-lived prime minister Michel Barnier means that an anti climate agenda from one of the largest and most influential member states is a very real possibility.
And in Germany, the industrial heart of the European Union and its most influential member state, a populist backlash fueled by a stagnating economy included anger over heat pump mandates and has forced the ruling coalition to dissolve and bring elections forward to February. Most observers now believe it’s not a question of whether far-right climate-denying parties will increase in influence, but by how much.
These developments signal that Europe is at a crossroads, and while it may still have a seat on the climate train, it is no longer guaranteed to be in the conductor’s seat.
As Europe falters, attention inevitably shifts to China. The country’s transformation into a clean energy superpower is undeniable — it already dominates solar and battery manufacturing, and has now turned its focus to electric vehicles. Yet China is unlikely to fill Europe’s diplomatic void. Its approach to climate leadership is less about setting global standards and more about demonstrating what’s possible. This isn’t a case of "do as I say" but rather "do as I do.” While this may lead to trade wars and industrial rivalries, it could also send a powerful signal to the rest of the world: Clean energy isn’t just the future — it’s worth fighting for.
Ultimately, the geopolitical shifts of 2024 are a wake-up call for the climate community. What appeared to be lasting policy breakthroughs decades in the making now feel more tenuous. Populist backlash opens hard questions about how climate action can find a broader, more durable base of support. More existentially, the community is left wondering how we build those conditions on a vanishingly short time frame amidst the uncertainty political changes are unleashing.
What is clear is that the playbook that worked in the past will not suffice in this fractured, volatile world. Climate policy simply must become more resilient to political swings by broadening its base of support across the political spectrum in Europe and beyond. That not only makes policy more durable, it also isolates climate denial to the political fringe, and focuses debates on how — not if — we take action.
There is reason to hope such steps are possible. Recent U.S. examples, such as the 18 members of Congress who called for preserving certain investment provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, demonstrate that climate action can find firmer ground even in a hostile environment. That support was driven by economic opportunity that can defy the gravity of political polarization. There are now millions of people across the political spectrum who own a piece of the clean energy transition, be it a solar home system, an electric vehicle, or a job in a clean energy company. Organize that constituency across party lines, and the politics will follow.
At the same time, the clean energy industry must step up. For all its economic success, it remains politically underpowered. Researchers Robert Brulle and Christian Downie found that from 2008 to 2018, trade associations opposed to climate action outspent climate-positive industry groups by a ratio of 27 to 1. This is neither serious nor sustainable. If clean energy is to cement its place as the backbone of the global economy, it must take greater responsibility for its political future. Industries that shape policy don’t wait for others to speak on their behalf — they do it themselves.
And then there’s the culture. As much as policy matters, culture shapes what policies are possible. To win back the narrative, the climate movement must move beyond technical white papers and elite op-eds focused on rational persuasion to cultural elites. Instead, it needs to create stories that resonate deeply with people’s values and aspirations. Whether that’s through TikTok videos, podcasts, or new forms of media, the goal must be to inspire and connect, not just to educate.
Regardless of the strategic pivots we make, the hard truth is that climate politics may get worse before they get better. Feedback loops — both environmental and political — can drive crises in unexpected ways. Populist backlashes and extreme weather could force governments to retreat into short-termism with key elections looming, making it more difficult to focus on the long view. Or they could combine to give the climate conversation a political salience it has never before had to exploit.
The climate movement has faced existential challenges before and emerged stronger. But no outcome is inevitable, making the strategic choices before us now truly pivotal when the stakes couldn’t be higher. Now is the time to make some bold ones, because our future depends on it.
The central bank cut rates again, but that’s not the headline news.
The Federal Reserve cut interest rates at its third straight meeting — but don’t expect as many cuts next year.
The Fed indicated that it expects only two quarter-point reductions in 2025,down from the four it had forecast in September, when it began its rate-cutting cycle. The news will likely overshadow any relief over lower rates for renewables developers, who have been counting on future cuts to ensure the profitability of their projects.
Since renewables like wind and solar have essentially no “fuel” costs compared to fossil fuel projects like gas-fired power plants, a higher portion of their overall costs must come from borrowed money, not from revenues the project itself produces. This makes the projects much more sensitive to borrowing costs.
The Energy Information Administration has projected that solar capacity will grow by 19.5% in 2025 and that wind capacity will increase by 6%. Wind projects, especially offshore wind projects, could be imperiled by higher interest rates and higher borrowing costs. The energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie has estimated that a 2 percentage point increase in interest rates causes the price of energy produced by renewables to go up 20%.
Further pressure from inflation could also increase the cost of building out renewables. Several major offshore wind projects — such as New Jersey’s Ocean Wind 1 and 2, which were cancelled last year — have had to have their contracts renegotiated or even thrown out due to unexpected cost increases.
And despite the Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in the last quarter of the year, market interest rates have actually been drifting up in the past few months. Trump’s victory supercharged the stock market with promises of deregulation and general euphoria around tech stocks like Nvidia and Tesla (and crypto) and raised the possibility of higher inflation, with a potential combination of tax cuts, some spending increases, and tariffs.
Some analysts thought that even the Fed’s new rate-cutting forecast was too loose considering the economic data that has been arriving in recent months. “We have a hard time squaring them up against the economic forecasts, which show higher near-term growth, higher near-term inflation, and lower near-term unemployment,” Jefferies analyst Thomas Simons wrote in a note to clients Wednesday.
The new rate-cutting forecasts “amount to a message that the FOMC will tolerate above-target inflation for even longer than they previously indicated,” Simons wrote.
But what the market is focused on is that there may be fewer rate cuts than expected, not that there maybe should have been zero.
Over the past three months, the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond, an often-used benchmark for borrowing costs, has risen from around 3.7% to 4.5%, including a substantial jump following the Fed’s Wednesday announcement. Longer-term interest rates have risen “quite a bit since September,” Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell said in a press conference Wednesday.
The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF, which tracks a basket of clean energy stocks, fell immediately following the Fed’s rate cut announcement; it fell around 3% today and is down 26% on the year, while broader stock market indices also fell, with the S&P 500 declining just under 3% today
Powell said that both the cut and the new, more restrictive forecast indicate that the Fed is “in a new phase in the process,” and that “from this point forward, it’s appropriate to move cautiously and look for progress on inflation.”