You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:

On Monday, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its 2023 synthesis report, which brings together eight years of research about the planet’s rising temperature. Described as a “final warning,” a “clarion call,” and a “how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,” the report offers little in the way of new information, but much in terms of a statement on the certitude and urgency of the supporting science.
Here are five of the most important quotes from the report.
The IPCC report offers readers and policymakers “the stone-cold truth” about climate change, as “laid out in unassailable science by the world’s top climate experts,” Manish Bapna, the president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. That conviction is echoed in the report’s multiple “very high confidence” assessments. There is virtually no doubt, for example, that “climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health,” that those dangers increase "with every increment of global warming," or that the atmospheric concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide “were higher [in 2019] than at any time in at least 800,000 years." Also of assurance is the fact that climate change has caused “mass mortality events" — and that to protect against future losses to humans and ecosystems, "deep, rapid, and sustained" reduction of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is required.
Overall, the phrase “high confidence” — including the highest-level calibration of “very high confidence” — appears 118 times in the 26-page summary, The Washington Post reports. The jury isn't out on the science.
One of the report’s starkest “very high confidence” assessments is that time is rapidly running out. “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all,” the authors warn.
The window is closing so rapidly, in fact, that the 2023 synthesis report is “almost certain” to be the last IPCC assessment "while the world still has a chance of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold beyond which our damage to the climate will rapidly become irreversible,” The Guardian writes.
That sense of a last chance can be felt throughout the report. Without "urgent, effective, and equitable” progress away from our current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the threats to human life and health and global diversity and ecosystems will increase in the coming years, the report warns. By that same token, the positive actions we take now could have beneficial “impacts now and for thousands of years.”
While the policies and laws in place to combat climate change have expanded since the last IPCC report was published in 2014, the authors found we still have a long way to go. Alarmingly, the current nationally set targets of the Paris climate agreement for curbing greenhouse gas emissions aren't strong enough, and “make it likely” that we will “exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century,” which in turn will “make it harder to limit warming below 2°C.” Without more ambitious targets and stronger action by governments around the world, “global warming of 3.2°C is projected by 2100,” the report found.
The good news is, a number of strategies for lowering greenhouse gas emissions are cheaper than ever before, including solar energy, wind energy, ways to reduce food waste, and better-managed crop and grasslands.
No one is safe from the coming changes. "Every region in the world is projected to face further increases in climate hazards,” the report found.
Risks anticipated in the near-term future include heat deaths; food-, water-, and vector-borne diseases; “mental health challenges”; flooding; biodiversity loss; and decreased food production in some regions. Additionally, “current 1-in-100 year extreme sea level events” are expected to take place yearly in more than half of all studied tidal regions by 2100 — “under all considered scenarios” — due to the rising sea levels, the IPCC report found. Intensified tropical cyclones and hurricanes are also on their way.
These dangers will only “escalate with every increment of global warming,” the authors wrote. But the suffering won’t be felt equally around the globe: Some 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in areas that leave them uniquely vulnerable to climate-related hazards. Oftentimes, such disproportionately-affected communities are ones that have historically contributed the least to climate change.
If there was one overriding message in the IPCC, it’s that things need to change fast. Global warming is expected to continue to rise between now and 2040 due to increased cumulative CO2 emissions in “nearly all considered scenarios and modeled pathways,” the researchers found.
The only way to limit manmade warming is net zero CO2 emissions. What exactly does that involve? “A substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use” is the big one — along with electrification, energy conservation, and other energy advances. While good progress has been made funneling money towards those sorts of projects, we have not turned the tide just yet, as “public and private finance flows for fossil fuels are still greater than those for climate adaptation and mitigation.”
But as the authors emphasized time and time again, how effectively and how soon we cut off our emissions will largely be what determines “whether warming can be limited to 1.5°C or 2°C.” Keeping the fossil fuel infrastructure we have now, without abatement, however, would doom us to enough CO2 emissions that we “exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C.”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew was defeated by ... another wind opponent.
Democrat Zack Mullock unseated Representative Jeff Van Drew, one of offshore wind’s biggest foes, on Tuesday night in the race for New Jersey’s second district. But while Mullock is a fan of renewable energy, he’s still a man of the south Jersey shore — and unlikely to be a champion for turbines off his coast.
District 2 encompasses the entire lower quarter of the state, covering six coastal counties from Atlantic City down to the tip of Cape May and around to the Delaware Bay. The area is a hotbed for offshore wind opposition, where groups like Protect our Coasts NJ have filed legal challenges against almost every wind project proposed in the region.
After heading to Congress in 2019, Van Drew, who was previously a Democrat, switched parties and became a key ally to this movement. He called for a moratorium on offshore wind development, held hearings on offshore wind “industrialization”, and requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the industry. He also worked with the Trump administration to block projects that were under construction.
During a debate in late October, Mullock accused Van Drew of flip flopping on wind, arguing that the congressman was a staunch supporter of the industry during his decade-long tenure in the New Jersey legislature. Mullock, who is currently serving his second term as mayor of the city of Cape May, summed up his own position by citing a resolution he signed in 2023 calling for a moratorium on surveying and acoustic testing for offshore wind development pending an investigation into a spate of whale deaths. He signed it due to “concerns” about the environment and commercial fishing, he said.
“I believe very much in our future with renewable energy,” he said. “We need to go full steam ahead with solar panels. And yes we should do wind where it is appropriate, where it doesn't hurt our environment and it doesn't hurt our commercial fishing industry.”
Mullock’s campaign website says he supports federal investments in renewable energy and incentives for energy-efficient homes. He also wants “stricter enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act,” and to fund coastal resiliency and other “smart infrastructure” projects that protect against climate impacts. He also campaigned in support of a data center moratorium.
Early signs point to a rough election for AI infrastructure.
We’ve seen enough: If this was the data center election, it was a really bad night for the industry.
Democratic campaigns and their affiliated Super PACs spent bigly on data center-themed attack ads. The ads came in various flavors. Some ads painted a vote for tax cuts as aiding data center developers. Others brought up candidates’ previous support for data centers or stock the candidate may have held in the tech industry or AI infrastructure developers. As Election Day approached, the data center industry sought to bat back claims that their sector’s poor reputation with the electorate would sway the results. People may have soured on their industry, they argued, but people weren’t going to vote based on that position.
Results are still coming in, but so far congressional races heavily featuring these data center attacks are heavily going in Democrats’ favor. In addition, these races have so profoundly shifted that it’ll be challenging for the industry to argue they played no role in the outcome.
Some of the most illustrative examples are obvious. In Georgia, Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms campaigned on a statewide data center moratorium and won control of the governor’s mansion, becoming the first black woman to ever lead a U.S. state. Similar results in Ohio where Amy Acton flipped party control of the governor’s seat with a campaign that included going hard against data centers. In Pennsylvania, two Democrats who focused on data centers in their races have flipped Republican districts: Scranton mayor Paige Cognetti and firefighter Bob Brooks. In New Jersey, Cape May mayor Zack Mullock rode data center attacks to defeat Rep. Jeff Van Drew, the biggest opponent of the offshore wind industry. In Virginia, Democrat Shannon Taylor rode data center-laden attacks to take control of the Richmond area congressional seat from Rep. Rob Wittman.
If you’re arguing this election was decided by data centers, your best proof point: Democrat Gina Hinojosa has taken control of the governor's mansion in Texas, defeating incumbent Greg Abbott, who’d sought recently to take a hard line against the industry. Hinojosa ran on going further, calling to pass a law completely pausing data center development across one of the industry’s favorite states. She won a decisive victory. So did Democratic Texas Agriculture Commissioner candidate Clayton Tucker, who I explained months ago became one of anti-data center Facebook’s favorite online personalities.
But it makes sense that data centers would matter a lot in Texas, which could be compared to Virginia in terms of their buildout. When you inspect the election results more closely, they tell a more complicated story about the upper boundaries of these data center attacks.
For decades, Greenville and Spartanburg County have been GOP vote strongholds and reliable for both Republican congressional candidates and statewide campaigns. The congressional district gave Donald Trump at least a 20-point cushion in the 2024 presidential election, according to Decision Desk HQ. Last week, I explained for subscribers to The Fight how Courtney McClain, a novice candidate living one mile from a controversial data center proposal, was running against incumbent Rep. William Timmons. I couldn’t find much in the way of online ad spending on either side in this race and it’s never been on the radar of most political observers as a campaign that could somehow flip party control. But the data center debate in Spartanburg County has been immense.
Tonight, Timmons kept his ordinarily ruby red district by slim single digits after running even for most of the night. But this swing was essentially the same as the national margin. And because Timmons didn’t lose, this actually feels like a crucial distinction – data centers were not deciding races themselves in all cases. Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darlene Graham in a result driven by Democratic overperformance and GOP underperformance in this area, but it’s challenging to tie this result to the data center issue at all. Anything from the economy and the Iran War to Graham’s deceased brother and his baggage could be blamed for this result from this heavily evangelical region.
However, it will be challenging for the data center sector to differentiate themselves from this outcome, especially since a pro-data center Super PAC – Building the Future – publicly waded into the race in support of Graham only to lose. “Darlene Graham’s loss is a black eye for the data center industry,” wrote Teddy Schleifer of The New York Times on election night.
The same story played out in Georgia’s 1st district, which includes the city of Savannah. OpenAI is developing a controversial data center project in Effingham County, northwest of Savannah and the congressional race – which like South Carolina’s 4th had comparatively little spending – has been chock full of data center mudslinging, with the Democrat Amanda Hollowell calling for broader moratoria on development.
Effingham County went for Trump by almost 50 points in 2024. As of this story’s publication, the Republican, Jim Kingston, is winning by a single percentage point with 93% of the vote in. Most of what’s left is in Effington. Should this candidate win, it’s safe to say it’s because voters in this county looked past data centers, or did not link their vote for a national candidate to the local development.
On Election Night, Effingham County formally tabled any decision on the OpenAI data center. So at least on the ground level, people are paying close attention to these results.
After taking two seats in a special election last year, the party gained a third in the midterms.
Democrats claimed two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission in a special election last year, ending almost 20 years of unanimous Republican control over the regulator.
One of those winning Democrats, Peter Hubbard, ran again this year for a full six-year term in a rematch against Republican Fitz Johnson. The other open seat this year saw Sheila Edwards running in an open race against Republican Josh Tolbert.
Both Hubbard and Edwads won, securing a 3–2 Democratic majority on the Public Service Commission.
“Over the last 12 months, Georgian consumers have made one thing clear: They are tired of rising utility bills and they are hungry to see change. Georgia’s sea change moment for energy policy has arrived,” Charles Hua, the executive director of the utility-focused advocacy group PowerLines, told me.
The Democrats have not been shy about what their priorities will be on the commission.
“Winning control of the Georgia Public Service Commission means prioritizing lowering power bills instead of constantly increasing corporate profits, ramping up the deployment of clean energy technologies, and focusing the people in our decision-making as state regulators,” Hubbard said in a statement on his website.
Edwards, for her part, made it clear where she stands on data centers specifically in an October debate with Tolbert. “They came into our communities,” Edwards said. “They didn’t pay any taxes. They are using our water, using our electricity, and they’re being a public nuisance to the communities that they’re coming into.”
Hubbard also talked about data centers on Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast back in June. “I advocate for a whole-of-government approach, because while the Public Service Commission really only has oversight over the power side of things — where that power comes from and how much data centers are paying on their tariff — there’s much larger issues in terms of water use, in terms of the tax incentives,” he told my colleague Robinson Meyer. “The estimate is $3.5 billion in tax abatements this year in Georgia, uncollected revenue that data centers otherwise would be willing to pay.”
The race has seen outsize spending and interest from major figures not accustomed to dealing in utility regulator races. (Just 10 states have elected utility commissions, period.) Kamala Harris appeared at a virtual fundraiser for the Democratic candidates in Georgia, as well as Democratic hopefuls to the Arizona Corporation Commission. The solar energy industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of the Democrats in Georgia. Meanwhile, anonymous donors pumped millions of dollars into Tolbert’s bid.
Democrats swept into the Georgia PSC last year on a wave of dissatisfaction with rising electricity prices, especially rate hikes attached to the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, which ran years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. In the runup to the election, the PSC approved a three-year base rate freeze proposed by Georgia Power in an attempt to head off public dissatisfaction.
In the past year, rates in Georgia have gone up by less than 1% across the state on average, according to the Heatmap-MIT Electricity Price Hub, while rates are up over 18% in the last three years and over 6% in the past two years.
Shares in Southern Company, the parent company of Georgia Power, were down slightly more than 0.5% in after-hours trading Tuesday night.