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:
That’s according to a new Heatmap poll — but it is still possible to win their support.
Attending a public hearing is the most important civic duty that nobody actually does. (Well, not nobody — we’ll get into that.) But despite attendance at public hearings being one of the most effective ways to directly shape one’s community, the average American probably isn’t going. And heaven forbid you ask them to speak.
Heatmap’s latest poll looked into, among other things, the actions someone would take if they had concerns about a hypothetical clean energy project in their area. What we learned is that Americans are more willing to join a lawsuit (41%) than they are to talk at a public hearing (30%). But there is a demographic that is bolder than the rest of us glossophobes — people who owned 50 or more acres of land were nearly one-and-a-half times as likely (43%) to speak up in such a scenario. Overall, these large landowners were also more likely to say they’d attend a public hearing about a clean energy project (71%) than the general population (60%).
Community opposition is one of the leading causes of delays and cancellations of renewable projects, with about one-third of wind and solar siting applications in the last five years killed by local pushback. It’s also true that Republicans are more likely to live in rural areas with renewable energy development, meaning “conservatives’ opposition could prove more decisive to the future of wind and solar than liberals’ support,” The Washington Postwrote last year. (Heatmap’s polling backs that up: 70% of the large landowners we surveyed said they plan to vote for Donald Trump, compared to 17% who said they intend to vote for Kamala Harris.)
Clean-energy advocates who work with rural partners, including large landowners, told me they weren’t surprised to hear of the group’s high levels of in-person engagement. “Obviously, it takes land to build wind and solar, and a lot of that land is in rural America,” Jane Kleeb, the founder and director of Bold Alliance, an environmental advocacy organization based out of Nebraska that helps landowners navigate new infrastructure projects, told me.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest concern Heatmap encountered among large landowners was that potential clean-energy projects could “take up farmland” (70%), followed by worries that they’d “harm wildlife or local nature/environmental sites” (58%; this is also the highest concern among the general population, cited by 54% of all respondents).
Kleeb said she often encounters these anxieties when working with partners in rural states. “When we’re talking with a community that for decades has supported land being used to grow ethanol, which is also an energy source — solar will take much less land and not use water, which is a depleting resource in the Midwest and all across the country,” she pointed out. (To be clear, Bold Alliance does support ethanol.) As for environmental concerns, “wind and solar have way less impact than fossil fuels on wildlife, period,” Kleeb said. “There’s no comparison. It’s not even a close call.”
Another worry large landowners had that stood out from the general population was that nearby land might be developed “by non-local companies” (57% of large landowners vs. 37% of the general population). “What’s not been happening well is that some clean-energy companies will come into a community, and they won’t disclose where the projects are going,” Kleeb said, adding that “community after community that we’re engaging with wants to know that from the beginning, and they want to be engaged in the discussions about where a project may or may not be better suited to be placed.”
While Heatmap specifically looked at who would be the most likely to speak out at a public hearing if they had concerns about a clean-energy project in their area, Kyle Unruh, the Idaho and Montana policy manager for Renewable Northwest, which works with regional partners to create a cleaner grid, said he’s seen that landowners will also “advocate for development on either their own land — as a means of making feasible the continued ownership of a small farm — or on behalf of a fellow landowner who should be entitled to their own property rights and decisions about what happens on their private land.”
At the same time, Unruh has seen landowners testify that they believe development on a nearby property could hurt their property values — a concern raised by 45% of the large landowners who responded to Heatmap’s survey — though he stressed that the claim that renewable energy development decreases nearby property values “is not borne out by the research.” He cited this worry as another reason large landowners evidently show up and speak out at public hearings more than their suburban and urban neighbors. “Landowners tend to have an elevated personal interest in whether energy development takes place, given this development has the real potential to increase the value of their land or the perceived effect of reducing the value or desirability of their land,” he told me.
On the flip side, when Heatmap presented landowners with reasons why they might allow renewable projects to be developed on their land, people living on six or more acres were more likely to pick “none of the above” (44%) in Heatmap’s polling than tax benefits (29%), diversifying their income (28%), or starting an agrivoltaics venture with solar generation and agriculture co-located on the same property (20%), among other options. Of potential upsides“having a long-term source of income” (35%) had the plurality, and “environmental benefits” (31%) also held high appeal.
Clean-energy developers should be making a concerted effort to reach out to large landowners from the start, but not just because they’re one of the more vocal contingents at the local town hall. More often than not, the energy transition will take place in literal backyards, and many opportunities for collaboration or partnership are lost when misinformation, conspiracies, or sneaky development tactics lead instead.
“The climate movement, in general over the past decade, has missed the boat here,” Kleeb of Bold Alliance told me. “There’s a major opportunity to engage with the rural folks who will be shouldering the responsibility of making sure that wind and solar are being built.”
The Heatmap poll of 5,202 American adults was conducted by Embold Research via online responses from August 3 to 16, 2024. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.4 percentage points.
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 next Trump administration is ramping up, and we are beginning to get a sense of what it might look like.
But before we get any further from the election, I want to note the one thing we absolutely know about the Trump administration’s policy: It constantly contradicts itself. In order to win, Trump has made an overlapping and contradictory set of promises to his stakeholders and supporters.
In the world of energy policy, nuclear energy is the most glaring example. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who Trump has said will have a major role in overseeing the nation’s public health, is a lifelong opponent of nuclear power. Before his current Trumpist turn, his environmental career’s crowning achievement was helping to shut down Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant that generated enough zero-carbon electricity to meet a quarter of New York City’s power needs. That closure — which was celebrated by some environmental groups — substantially increased New York’s natural gas consumption, raising the state’s emissions of climate pollution.
Vice President-elect JD Vance, meanwhile, has spoken much more favorably about nuclear energy. He sometimes frames nuclear energy as the one climate solution Democrats won’t pursue without fully conceding that climate change is a problem requiring solutions. As he told the podcast host Joe Rogan earlier this year, “If you think that carbon is the most significant thing — [that] the sole focus of American civilization should be to reduce the carbon footprint of the world — then you would be investing in nuclear in a big way.” (In reality, as I wrote last month, Democrats at the national level became startlingly pro-nuclear during this election cycle.)
Musk, for his part, is so pro-nuclear that while interviewing Trump and Kennedy in the past year, he interjected to express support for nuclear. “I do want to voice my opinion that, in my opinion, actually nuclear is very safe,” he told RFK last year. “If you look at the actual deaths from nuclear power, they’re miniscule compared to certainly any fossil fuel power generation.” (He is totally correct about that.) “I would actually — although this does go against a lot of people’s views — I’m actually a believer in nuclear fission,” Musk added.
Trump, meanwhile, has swung around on the question. The first Trump administration passed a number of pro-nuclear policies and sought to elevate the small modular reactor industry. As recently as August, Trump said that nuclear energy was “very good, very safe.” But that month he also equivocated about its safety. “They talk about climate change, but they never talk about nuclear warming,” he told Musk. He also pondered whether nuclear energy has a branding problem because it shares a name with nuclear weapons. (I am indebted to HuffPo’s Alex Kauffman, who indispensably tracked Trump’s shifts of mood on this issue.)
Finally, the officials Trump is likely to bring in to oversee energy policy — people like Doug Burgum, the North Dakota governor who could become energy czar — hold a more traditionally Republican pro-nuclear view.
Some of this incoherence might be intentional. Kennedy seems to have struck a deal with Trump over some aspects of energy policy. During his victory speech on Tuesday, Trump even told RFK, “Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold” — implying a transaction where RFK gets control of health policy while leaving energy untouched. But does that extend to other parts of the energy agenda?
I point to this because it illustrates what’s coming — the messy mix of interpersonal rivalries, shoot-from-the-hip reversals, and traditional Republicanism that will actually determine the output of Trump’s policy process. And nuclear is not even the most glaring question about the Trump administration’s energy and economic policy. Trump says he wants to bring back U.S. manufacturing, and Vance has said that the U.S. should solve climate change by investing in domestic manufacturing: “If we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers and the American people,” he said at the VP debate.
This is more or less the exact goal of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, which incentivizes companies to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles domestically. This law has helped underwrite dozens of new EV and batteries factories in Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan,Texas, and Arizona — the battlegrounds of modern American politics. Yet the Trump administration has committed to repealing or freezing the IRA.
Likewise, Musk has promised to slash “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget. But that seems virtually impossible without cutting defense, Social Security, and Medicare — programs that Republicans or Trump have promised to leave intact. (Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, the incoming Senate armed service committee chair, wants to massively increase defense spending.) Will it accept the local economic pain, the dozens of canceled investments, that will follow that repeal?
The unignorable fact of the Trump administration is that its plans, at least as viewed today, do not really hang together. Trump has been swept into power promising low prices and an end to inflation, but his centerpiece economic policies are likely to reduce the low-end labor supply (through mass deportations) while increasing the cost of goods (through economy-wide tariffs). Perhaps these policies will not affect the economy as economists expect — I remember enough of the first Trump administration to know that catastrophic expert predictions do not always come true.
But perhaps they will. When asked what the hardest thing was about being prime minister, the British politician Harold Macmillan is said to have replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” With Trump, we can be certain that some of those coalition-splitting events will spring from his own messily managed coalition.
I won’t sugar coat this: The election of Donald Trump to a second term with a likely governing trifecta has dealt a devastating blow to U.S. efforts to cut climate-warming pollution.
I’ve spent the past four years analyzing the progress made under the Biden-Harris Administration as leader of the REPEAT Project, which uses energy systems models to rapidly assess the impact of federal energy and climate policies. In that time, the passage of landmark legislation — the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — and finalization of key federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas supply chains put the U.S. on track to more than double its pace of decarbonization and avoid about 6 billion tons of cumulative emissions through 2035. Though even that progress was not enough: Recent policies would do only about half the work required to bend U.S. emissions onto a net-zero pathway by 2035.
A President Harris would have fought to protect and build on the efforts of the past four years. Now that opportunity is lost. One notable climate scientist even declared a second Trump term “game over for the climate.”
With Trump once again ascendant and seemingly committed to dismantling the historic climate progress made by the United States over the past four years, one can be forgiven for feeling anguish about the opportunities we’ve lost, rage about the very real suffering that will result from further delay, or deep despair about the darker days ahead.
But only for a moment. Because the fight to defend that progress begins today, and there is no time to lose.
In 1992, the nations of the world established the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and pledged to "prevent dangerous human induced interference with the climate system." As the parties to the UNFCCC gather once again in Azerbaijan this December, one thing should be clear to all: We have failed in that task. This year is virtually certain to be the warmest on record and the first to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Wildfires and droughts, hurricanes and floods now seem to strike with alarming frequency and terrible ferocity.
Yet the best science tells us that climate change is not like an asteroid hurtling towards earth, an all-or-nothing battle for survival. Rather, scientists tell us that every billion tons of CO2 and every 10th of a degree of warming we prevent will save lives, prevent suffering, and avoid countless damage.
The fight cannot be surrendered, and the project of building a world where the lives and aspirations of 8-going-on-10 billion people can be powered by clean, abundant energy remains essential.
Indeed, I have been in this fight long enough to have experienced several gutting defeats before — and to have witnessed real, transformative progress.
When I began my career nearly two decades ago, a good onshore wind project cost $100 to $200 per megawatt-hour, two to five times the average cost of fossil power. Germany had just launched a subsidy program paying a lavish €400 to €500 per megawatt-hour for solar photovoltaics. And it would be several years still before the first Tesla Roadster would even hit the streets.
Today, either solar or wind power is the cheapest way to generate new electricity almost everywhere in the world, and the International Energy Agency expects solar to overtake nuclear, wind, hydro, gas, and, finally, coal, to become the largest source of electricity in the world by 2033. Here in the U.S., clean electricity and battery storage constitute virtually all of the more than 2.5 terawatts of projects requesting interconnection to our grids. Likewise, electric vehicles (whether two-, three-, or four-wheeled) are now the cheapest and fastest growing mobility solution for those in emerging economies and the rich world alike. One in five cars and trucks sold globally are now electric — in China, that figure is nearing 50%.
Annual U.S. emissions are more than a billion metric tons (or 16%) lower than their peak in 2007, even as the economy is 40% larger. The European Union has cut emissions by 37% from their peak, and by 8% in 2023 alone. Even China, the world’s top polluter, may have seen its emissions peak in 2023 — seven years ahead of schedule.
In sum, the trajectory of global emissions has been wrestled down from inexorable rise to plateau and impending peak. That may not be enough to prevent dangerous climate change, but it is sufficient to transform the outlook from a bleak world of around 4 degrees of warming and put a much more manageable world of 2 degrees within reach.
The truth is that Donald Trump can only slow, not stop the clean energy transition. The U.S. is only responsible for about a 10th of global emissions, and China, not America, is now the world’s largest market (by far) for cars and trucks, electricity, and industrial commodities like steel and cement. Trump cannot wind back the clock on technological innovation or dampen the appetite for EVs and clean energy in the rest of the world. Emerging climate technologies like decarbonized steel, cement and industrial heat can take root elsewhere, even if they face dimmer prospects in America. And a bipartisan consensus to advance technologies like geothermal, nuclear, and carbon capture in the U.S. remains.
While executive actions can be easily repealed, the legislative achievements of the past four years lower energy prices for American consumers and businesses, have sparked a long-promised American manufacturing renaissance, and direct substantial investment and job creation to Republican-represented districts and states. Texas, that paragon of conservatism, is now the undisputed king of clean energy. Factories producing batteries, EVs and solar panels are sprouting across Georgia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, and beyond. Clean energy is now big business, and influential companies stand to lose billions if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed. With Republicans securing razor-thin legislative majorities, these laws could thus prove surprisingly durable.
In times of struggle and defeat, those brave champions of civil rights would remind themselves that, though long, the arc of history bends towards justice. Today, it remains our collective task to continue to bend the arc of global emissions towards net zero.
Vice President Harris began her historic campaign by declaring, “When we fight, we win!” That isn’t always the case, but we can say with absolute certainty that if we give up the fight, we are guaranteed defeat.
There is no “game over” in the fight against climate change. The next battle begins today.
Current conditions: Colorado’s major snow storm will continue well into the weekend • More than 900 people in Pakistan were hospitalized in a single day due to extreme air pollution • Devastating flooding continues in Spain.
The world continues to underestimate climate risks, and irreversible tipping points are near, UN Secretary General António Guterres toldThe Guardian. “It is absolutely essential to act now,” he said. “It’s absolutely essential to reduce emissions drastically now.” His warning comes before the COP29 summit kicks off Monday in Azerbaijan, where negotiators are set to agree on a new global finance target to help developing countries with climate adaptation. Guterres said that if the U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement again under a Trump presidency, the landmark goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would be “crippled.” Experts say 2024 is now expected to be the first full calendar year in which global temperatures exceed the 1.5 degrees target.
With climate-skeptic Donald Trump set to retake the White House in January, many are wondering what his policies will mean for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. He’s likely to walk back pollution rules on cars and power plants, repeal some parts of the Inflation Reduction Act, boost oil and gas drilling, and pull out of the Paris Agreement. Jesse Jenkins, who leads the Princeton ZERO Lab and is co-host of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast, said projected emissions will indeed be higher than they would under current policies, but “since Trump cannot repeal grants already awarded or tax credits already provided to date, and it is unlikely that every provision in IRA will be repealed,” they probably will remain lower than Jenkins’ so-called Frozen Policies scenario, which assumes no new climate policies since January 2021.
Jesse Jenkins/REPEAT Project
Varun Sivaram, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Council on Foreign Relations, added some global context: “Even with sharp Trump domestic climate policy rollbacks, the change in U.S. emissions is trivial on a global scale and far less meaningful than expected emerging economy emissions growth,” he said.
In case you missed it (we did!): Oil giant BP said in its most recent earnings report that it has abandoned 18 early-stage hydrogen projects. It still plans to back between five and 10 projects, but that’s down from the “more than 10” it had planned for. The move will save BP some $200 million, and “could have a chilling effect on the nascent hydrogen industry,” wrote Tim De Chant at TechCrunch.
Rivian reported Q3 earnings yesterday. Here are some key takeaways:
A new study published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment found that carbon dioxide emissions from private jets have risen by 50% over the last four years. The research analyzed data from about 19 million private flights (half of which were shorter than 300 miles) made by more than 25,000 private aircraft between 2019 and 2023. In 2023 alone, private flights resulted in about 15.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Most private flights are taking place in the United States: The researchers say that while the U.S. is home to 4% of the global population, nearly 70% of all private aircraft are registered there. The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the most carbon-intensive events for private aircraft. Also on the list? The Davos conference and – uh oh – COP28.
Most private flights occur in the U.S. Communications Earth & Environment
Donald Trump’s election victory this week resulted in a $1.2 billion windfall for investors who bet against renewable energy stocks.