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:
Midwesterners lived through the Dust Bowl. Why would climate change be any different?

When Canadian wildfire smoke descended on my hometown in Indiana this summer, I was distraught. I live in London now, but much of my family remains in the Midwest, and as an orange haze blanketed the landscape and the air quality plummeted, I worried about their health. “Smoke everywhere!” my dad texted, alongside a photo of the fields near my childhood home, shrouded in smog. “Guess I better stay inside when I get home.”
The effects of climate change will vary from region to region, but everyone’s life will be affected in some way, eventually. Even though I know this to be true, I had selfishly and naively hoped that the Midwest would be insulated from the worst of it. I fretted about my friends on the East Coast and my mom in California. But for my relatives in the middle of the country, I was never that worried.
And it seems I’m not alone. A recent Heatmap News poll found that, compared to people in the South, Northeast, and West, Midwesterners were consistently blasé about climate change. The poll tried presenting this question in different ways: Do you worry about what climate change means for you personally? Do you worry that extreme weather events will happen in your area more frequently? Do you worry about what climate change means for your kids? Over and over, Midwesterners registered the lowest level of alarm.
On the topics of wildfires, drought, flooding, and extreme heat, the Midwest has the highest share of respondents who say they are not concerned. Fifty-two percent of Midwesterners say climate change poses little or no risk to their region — no other region comes anywhere near that level of confidence in their own safety. In fact, all other parts of the country think the Midwest is at greater risk from a planet on fire than Midwesterners themselves do.
It would be easy to dismiss this phenomenon as politically fueled, but that would be too simple. It’s true that Pew surveys show the majority of voters in the Midwest lean conservative, and there’s no doubt Republicans are historically less likely to believe that climate change is a serious problem. But in Heatmap’s polling, at least, respondents in the Midwest largely identified as moderates and independents. Plus, the poll doesn’t show that Midwesterners doubt climate change is real. They just don’t think it affects them all that much.
And in some respects, they’re right. By virtue of its location, separated by hundreds or thousands of miles from the flood-prone coasts and the fire-prone regions to the south and west, the Midwest has so far been spared some of the scariest, most extreme weather events of recent years. No hurricanes decimating neighborhoods. No major wildfires scorching the landscape.
“We up to now haven’t suffered the loss and damage a lot of coastal or mountain areas have,” said Dr. Gabriel Filippelli, professor of Earth sciences at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and executive director of the Indiana University Environmental Resilience Institute. But climate change is happening here. It’s just happening more slowly.
Take flooding, for instance. While warming oceans and sea level rise are imminent threats to America’s coasts, climate change is gradually making extreme precipitation more likely in the Midwest. “Our 100-year floods are no longer 100-year floods,” said Filippelli. “Now they happen every 10 to 15 years.” Last year heavy rain brought devastating deluges to states including Illinois and Missouri; 2019 was the Midwest’s wettest calendar year since 1895, causing at least $6.2 billion in damage.
Dangerous heat and “flash droughts,” extremely dry periods that come on quickly and with little warning, are also creeping risks. Research from the nonprofit First Street Foundation shows the Midwest is part of a growing “extreme heat belt” that will, over the next 30 years, experience more days when the heat index – what the temperature feels like to the human body, factoring in humidity – hits 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Heat like that can kill not only humans, but also farm animals and crops. The Natural Resources Defense Council says extreme heat and drought could wilt crops across “America’s Breadbasket,” “potentially causing ripples to food supplies across the world.”
Why aren’t Midwestern farmers sounding the alarm, then? Because many “believe that this is a cycle that we’re going to get through,” said Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and 2023 recipient of the Climate Breakthrough Award for her work in blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline. “They’ve been through difficult times, whether it’s the Dust Bowl or the Depression or World Wars, and those generational lines are still threaded through families,” Kleeb said. “There’s a huge value in hard work in rural communities, and in the idea that as a community, we’re going to get through it together. I think that’s how they view climate change.”
In other words, Midwestern farming families are used to doing the Very American Thing of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and getting on with it. The federal government’s Crop Insurance program makes it easier to keep on believing in the power of pure gumption — the government pays if crops fail due to “ natural causes,” which means that rarely do farmers feel the full effect of climate change on their pocketbooks.
There are plenty of other effects of climate change the federal government won’t help with — a rise in tick- and mosquito-borne illnesses, for one. The federal government’s most recent National Climate Assessment projects that the Ohio Valley could see more than 200 cases of West Nile virus every year by 2050. Lyme disease is already endemic to the region.
There’s also the secondary risk of an influx of climate migrants seeking safety, which will affect not just rural and industrial communities but also population centers like Minneapolis and Kansas City. “It’s anecdotal at best,” said Filippelli, “but we have evidence there are people leaving the coasts because of fire danger as well as the water issues.” These people may come not just from the U.S., but also around the world.
And then there’s that wildfire smoke. The National Climate Assessment predicts that drifting haze will become a regular nuisance in the Midwest. Hoosiers were annoyed by the smoke this year, Filippelli said, but “they didn’t always link it to climate change.” That comes across in the polling: Sixty-three percent of Midwestern respondents said — in November of this year, a few months after their summer of smoke — that their areas have not been affected by climate change.
To Kleeb, bridging this disconnect is the project. Messaging matters, and climate advocates and policymakers would do well to know their audience. Extolling veganism or focusing on the environmental hazards of methane produced by cow burps probably isn’t going to land well with farmers and ranchers.
“Rural folks get very defensive because you’re essentially blaming their grandpa, their father, their husband or wife who is currently farming and, from their perspective, providing food not only for America, but for the world — and you’re saying they’re bad,” Kleeb said. “When people say they don’t believe in climate change, it’s because they feel they’re being blamed for something they’re not responsible for.”
Instead, Kleeb wants to see more emphasis put on how rural Midwesterners can be part of the solutions, from introducing regenerative farming to providing the land needed to build out renewable energy infrastructure. “If anything, they know the land,” Kleeb says. “They know every hill, every blade of grass. They know where it floods when they get heavy rains. So really acknowledging that local knowledge in asking them to be partners at the table is absolutely critical.”
One thing many don’t appreciate about the Midwest is how much sky there is — any weather that’s on its way you can see from miles out. The smoke hovered over my hometown for a few days. During that time, I hardly slept. I kept checking the weather obsessively, hoping for some sign of relief. I even sent my dad links to articles about how to build your own air purifier. Finally, on the third day, he texted me an update: A strong weather front was approaching Indiana from the west, expected to sweep away the wildfire smoke as it passed over the state.
“Rain!” the text read. “Beautiful rain!”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The state is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.
A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.
The New York legislature released the text of the deal it reached with Governor Kathy Hochul to reform the state’s climate law on Tuesday. The deal includes two consequential changes: delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 (it was already behind schedule) until 2028, and modifying how the state accounts for the powerful greenhouse gas methane in a way that will look like the state has accomplished deeper reductions than under the current method.
The governor has been signalling her intent to weaken the CLCPA for months, arguing that as written, it would have imposed untenable costs on New Yorkers. “Reality has been harsh,” she said during a press conference about the budget agreement in early May, before the text was released. “We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.”
Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a “major blow for New Yorkers and for the country” that would set “a dangerous precedent,” and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks “bad politics and bad policy.”
Some remained hopeful that the changes would not derail the state’s progress by much, however. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this is a setback,” Jackson Morris, the director of state power sector, climate and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “At the same time, I don’t think it’s a setback that we can’t recover from.”
The CLCPA set targets to cut economy-wide emissions 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also codified an earlier plan to source 70% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and power the state entirely with zero-emissions resources by 2040.
New York didn’t make up these targets. They’re based on reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which mapped out how the world could minimize the risks of climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. After Donald Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement when he first took office in 2017, a number of Democratic governors banded together to show that America was still “all in” to achieve the pact’s goals, leading to a flurry of state climate laws in the years that followed.
Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.
The CLCPA directed state agencies to promulgate rules and regulations by 2024 that would put New York on the path to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. In the years since the law passed, the state has been developing a cap-and-invest program that would tax carbon emissions progressively over time, and use the proceeds to fund clean energy programs throughout the state. This program was the crux of Hochul’s affordability concerns, as it would make energy more expensive for some New Yorkers in the near term.
The budget deal moves the deadline for the regulations to the end of 2028. Crucially, it also does not require that those regulations help the state achieve the 2030 emissions target. Instead, it specifies that the regulations be designed to achieve a new goal of reducing emissions 60% by 2040, in addition to the original net zero by 2050 target.
Morris, of the NRDC, was quick to note that the deal does not get rid of the 2030 target. While there will be no state programs aimed at achieving it, it still provides a statutory foundation that agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation can point to as a reason to reject fossil fuel project permits, for example, he said. Meanwhile, Morris is optimistic that the new 2028 deadline and 2040 target can keep the state on track.
“We obviously prefer that none of this is happening,” he said. “But because it’s happening, I think that’s one aspect of this deal that we see as providing some ground to stand on.”
One of the aspects of the CLCPA that made it more ambitious than other state climate laws was the way it required New York to account for methane. The budget deal will eliminate this edge.
There were two key components to New York’s unique methane rules. The first was that they forced the state to take responsibility for methane emissions that occurred outside its borders that were nevertheless tied to its natural gas use. For instance, a major source of methane emissions is leakage from the infrastructure used to drill, process, and transport natural gas. New York banned fracking in 2014, and the state gets most of its natural gas via pipeline from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Under Hochul’s changes, the state can take these “imported” emissions off its books.
The second is a bit more convoluted and has to do with how methane behaves in the atmosphere. When governments or companies set emissions targets, they typically convert all greenhouse gases into “carbon dioxide equivalents” so that they can set one round number goal for all emissions, like New York’s 60% reduction by 2040. There’s no single way to do this, since unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down quickly. Over 20 years, one metric ton of methane has a similar effect to about 80 metric tons of carbon, but over 100 years, it’s more akin to 25 metric tons of carbon. New York uses the 20-year effect as its conversion factor, but under the budget deal, it will switch to the 100-year method. That will make its methane emissions suddenly appear much lower, and thus make the state look further along in fighting climate change without actually changing anything about its strategy.
This will ease the pressure on the state to electrify buildings, clean up landfills, and take other difficult steps to cut methane emissions. It will also, however, align New York’s methane math with that of most U.S. states and much of the rest of the world.
The national climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, which focuses on state policy, is less concerned about the changes to the climate law and more concerned about how they happened. Justin Balik, the nonprofit’s vice president for states, told me that Hochul never brought her concerns to environmental stakeholders or asked for policy proposals for how to accelerate clean energy while lowering costs.
“We need to see more urgency from the governor and the legislature to actually do the things that will result in emissions reductions and cutting costs for people,” Balik told me, “and less fretting about the targets that are written into law.”
Balik argued that the changes will do nothing to address the factors that are increasing energy rates. He cited the state’s dependence on natural gas as a key driver, as natural gas prices can fluctuate dramatically due to geopolitics and supply and demand. If anything, he said, delaying the cap-and-invest regulations will delay clean energy deployment and exacerbate affordability by deferring the revenue the state would have collected to and used to fund emissions-cutting programs and rate relief.
The budget deal attempts to make up for the shortfall with a $1 billion allocation to the state’s Sustainable Future Fund, which will support state programs to cut emissions from buildings and roads with heat pumps, thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and fast-charging stations.
Evergreen, NRDC, and other groups now have their sights set on the 2028 regulations.
“If we can move forward quickly with a robust process to stand up that cap-and-invest construct in New York State, and get it cutting pollution and generating billions of dollars in revenue for reinvestment in communities, that's going to be a huge breakthrough for the state of New York,” Morris said.
On a California chem leak, solar manufacturing, and BHP’s climate retreat
Current conditions: Unprecedented May heat is roasting Western Europe, with temperatures shattering records in at least 20 French towns and soaring to 95 degrees Fahrenheit in London • Bougainville, the autonomous and ethnically distinct region of Papua New Guinea that’s expected to vote for independence next year to become the world’s newest nation, is enduring a week of lightning storms and heavy rain • The Tajik city of Khorog, a provincial capital located in a canyon near the Afghan border, is bracing for snow.
The price per barrel of crude fell nearly 7% on Monday as Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for peace talks the same day two tankers carrying liquified natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The vessels shipping LNG from Qatar to China and Pakistan, respectively, successfully navigated the waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf on Monday. The signal of a loosening blockade comes two days after another tanker taking crude to China crossed the strait. While President Donald Trump said over the weekend that an agreement in principle to halt fighting with Tehran could come soon, The Wall Street Journal reported that it would take far longer to ease the bottlenecks created by the conflict. Despite reports of new U.S. strikes in Iran Monday night, prices fell another 4% in early trading Tuesday.
U.S. producers, meanwhile, are stepping up to fill the gap in oil and gas supply. On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that companies such as Diamondback, America’s third-largest producer in the Permian Basin, and shale driller Continental Resources were expanding drilling by more than 40% as a result of the war. U.S. companies have added at least 18 rigs since the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign. Increased production isn’t just happening at home, either. Exxon Mobil just began drilling a new offshore well near its new operations in Guyana, according to Upstream. Over at the British oil giant BP, however, this morning brought upheaval as the board of directors ousted its chairman after just six months.

California officials ordered as many as 50,000 Orange County residents to evacuate Sunday after a crack formed in a tank at an industrial facility holding 7,000 gallons of a highly flammable toxic chemical. The accident at the suburban Los Angeles plant owned by the British fighter jet supplier GKN Aerospace began on Thursday, when firefighters in Garden Grove, California, found that a tank containing methyl methacrylate, a feedstock used to make plastic, had started bulging with pressure and releasing gas as it overheated. By Saturday, a fissure had formed in the tank — one of three on site containing the chemical — in what NPR called “good news,” since the opening eased pressure, making an explosion less likely. So far, no one has been injured. “Safety at our facilities is paramount,” a GKN spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times. “We follow all standard safety protocols and processes and are regularly audited by numerous state and federal agencies.” But authorities as far east as Arizona were bracing for the possibility of an explosion. In an update posted on X Monday morning, Orange County’s interim fire chief announced that the threat of what’s called a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion,” or BLEVE (pronounced blevvy), “is now off the table,” adding that “that threat has been eliminated.”
While the accident will no doubt draw scrutiny to GKN’s record at the facility, known for producing parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, the episode is unlikely to draw the same fervid response as the fire at California’s Moss Landing battery plant last January. That incident set off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman pegged as nationwide backlash to batteries. So far, thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed in resisting the urge to demand a shutdown of all production of aircraft components as a result of an accident.
The Trump administration’s yet-undefined rules for determining a key factor in solar projects’ eligibility for outgoing federal tax credits are bifurcating the U.S. market. The administration has yet to spell out in detail how companies should determine what percentage of their project inputs come from a so-called foreign entity of concern. While the list of FEOCs includes Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the main sticking point for developers is China, which dominates the global renewables supply chain. On one side are developers willing to roll the dice on imported equipment. On the other are companies avoiding the risk by buying panels either made in America, or in allied countries. To make navigating the process easier, the SEMA Coalition — an industry group representing U.S. solar manufacturers that support restrictions on cheap Chinese imports — put out a new report that includes a check list to determine whether a panel producer is likely to qualify for federal tax incentives or not. The paper, which was shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, was “informed by tax opinions, legal counsel who advise the SEMA Coalition’s members, as well as public documents.” The findings show that “some of these rules are ambiguous, while others are clear but challenging to comply with in practice.”
As I told you last week, American solar manufacturing is finally seeing something of a boom. Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories began production last year, providing more than enough capacity to meet U.S. demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Amid a sweltering London heat wave in 2019, BHP laid out plans for the “biggest global mobilization since World War II” in the name of cutting back on fossil fuel use and fighting a climate that threat that “could be existential,” the world’s largest mining company’s then-CEO Andrew Mackenzie said at the time. Today, however, the giant is reversing course, quietly shelving billions of dollars in projects designed to cut emissions from its mining operations. An internal memo from last year leaked to Australia’s ABC News and The Guardian shows that the need for renewables at BHP’s iron-ore facility in Pilbara had “diminished,” and that a plan to hit net-zero by 2050 had a “low probability of success.”
The West Coast’s continental shelf drops off far more steeply into the Pacific than America’s East Coast slides into the Atlantic, making siting offshore wind turbines tricky off California’s shores. Nevertheless, a developer was trying to build the first floating offshore turbines in the U.S. — at least until the Trump administration struck a dubious deal to pay the company to quit. That agreement is drawing blowback from California regulators, as I told you earlier this month. But the Golden State isn’t abandoning its goals. On Monday, offshoreWIND.biz reported that the California Energy Commission had reaffirmed its target of 25 gigawatts of offshore turbine capacity by 2045. “At a time of global energy volatility, offshore wind is not just a climate strategy. It is part of a national security strategy,” Noel Hacegaba, chief executive at the Port of Long Beach, said in a statement. “The grid we built for the last century cannot carry us through the next. This is renewable energy’s moment.”
The market for offshore wind looks even brighter outside the U.S. Last week, the Danish Energy Agency received bids for two different offshore development areas totaling a combined 1.8 gigawatts of turbines, according to Renewables Now. In an interview with Wind Power Monthly, the chief executive of the automaker Volvo lauded Sweden’s offshore wind farms for giving manufacturers like his a “competitive edge.”
Canadians can now cruise around the 10,000-year-old Columbia Icefield in a vehicle whose pollution isn’t adding to polar melting. On Monday, InsideEVs reported that the truck maker Pursuit had retrofitted one of its old diesel ice explorers to go electric with a huge, 528-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s big enough for about 30 trips up and down the Rocky Mountain icefield. The renovation involved keeping the old cabin but replacing the chassis and driveline with battery-propelled equipment. It is the world’s first all-electric ice explorer.
Rob sits down with the Josh Parker, head of sustainability at America’s world-leading chip designer.
America’s tech companies are transforming the electricity system — building entirely new fleets of new solar panels, batteries, and gas turbines — in order to power what are essentially warehouses filled with cutting-edge chips.
Almost all of those chips are made by Nvidia. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Josh Parker, Nvidia’s head of sustainability. They discuss the climate and electricity impacts of artificial intelligence, why Josh is incredibly bullish on AI’s ability to cut carbon emissions and whether it has done so so far, and the company's work with clean energy and fossil fuel companies.
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: So Heatmap has been tracking what, to us, has been a very sudden and shocking rise of local pushback against AI data centers. And of course, this has become a larger meme over the past few months, as it’s gotten more attention. For instance, we think about 50 AI data centers or data centers broadly were canceled last year after facing local pushback. And we think more than 50 have already been canceled this year.
Are you seeing that at all at Nvidia? I mean, it doesn’t look — your quarterly results came out yesterday and they were, they absolutely blew out expectations. And so evidently it’s not affecting demand yet. But do you hear it from customers? Is this affecting Nvidia’s business at all? And how do you think about it as a risk going forward?
Josh Parker: So I’m aware of the sentiment, the paranoia around AI, mostly on a personal level because I see it on social media like other people do, as well. I’m not aware of any direct impact on our sales, so I can’t comment on that. But what I will say is, I do think it’s particularly tragic, because this technology has the potential to be the most beneficial, both for environmental goals and for social goals — so things like education and health care, and kind of across-the-board social issues benefit from AI, as well. And the concerns about AI, a lot of them are based on either erroneous data or old data. And I worry that some people don’t fully understand the net impacts, the positive as well as the negative of AI.
Plus, we have the uphill battle of, it’s really hard if the data center is being built a few miles down the road, to tie that data center — which, they don’t always look beautiful and things like that — to the benefits that the whole world is going to get from AI. So if — obviously not promising this — but AI could unlock cancer cures or cures to other diseases, and we’re seeing trends in the direction of cures and treatments and drug discovery and so forth. But it’s really hard for us as humans to draw a line between the infrastructure that we see down the street, and especially the speculative, the moonshot benefits. But even the more fundamental ones, like the benefits and productivity that we’re seeing in potential for wage growth and education and so forth, even though it’s hard for us to draw the line between the infrastructure.
So it’s understandable, but I do think it’s tragic. And I think it’s our responsibility in the tech industry to help people see the bigger picture and to address people’s concerns head on about environmental impacts and social impacts. Because the data really does demonstrate that, by and large, these data centers are pro-sustainability. They don’t have the impacts that most people are concerned about, and they’re manageable. And most data center operators are trying to operate them in a sustainable way.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Previously on Shift Key: Data Centers Are Creating a New Kind of Battery Monster
Previously on Shift Key: A Skeptic’s Take on AI and Energy Growth
From Heatmap: Exclusive: Local Opposition to Data Centers Explodes in 2026
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.