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:
The Oscar-winner and El Capitan free solo-er talks to Heatmap about solar panels, fatherhood, and his new docuseries, Arctic Ascent.

In 2017, rock climber Alex Honnold went on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to promote Free Solo, the then-new documentary about his unassisted climb of Yosemite’s El Capitan. “Is there anything bigger than that?” Kimmel prompted as a closing question.
“I mean, there are technically some bigger walls in the world,” Honnold said. “But they’re in very remote places — like Greenland.”
Five years and an Oscar later, Honnold was scrambling off a boat at the base of Ingmikortilaq, a crumbly sea cliff that towers nearly 1,000 feet higher than El Cap over an iceberg-ridden fjord in eastern Greenland. His intended first ascent was the culmination of a six-week adventure across ice fields and glaciers.
This time, Honnold wasn’t alone. The Greenland expedition included two other legendary climbers, Hazel Findlay and Mikey Schaefer, as well as Aldo Kane, who provided safety and technical support; Adam Kjeldsen, a Greenlandic guide; and perhaps most surprisingly, Heïdi Sevestre, a French glaciologist who helped set up or run 16 different studies to collect data for scientists around the world.
The team’s adventure is captured in Arctic Ascent with Alex Honnold, a three-part docuseries that premieres on Hulu and Disney+ on February 5. Ahead of its release, I spoke separately with Honnold and Sevestre about the expedition, the importance of climate science, and their respective climbs. (While Sevestre, previously a non-climber, didn’t attempt Ingmikortilaq, she did scale a 1,500-foot rock face known as the Pool Wall while drilling rock cores for samples.) Our conversations have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Unlike a lot of other outdoor sports like mountaineering or skiing or even surfing, rock climbing doesn’t seem as obviously imperiled by climate change. How did this become the cause you wanted to devote your time and money to?
Oh, I think climbing is more imperiled by climate change than most other sports. I mean, you’re right that maybe it’s not as impactful as to skiing, but it’s way more impactful than almost every other sport.
You’re still in the mountains. Wildfire smoke every summer — that’s now a thing that just didn’t exist when I was growing up climbing. Even if you’re just rock climbing, you’re always approaching in the mountains. Nowadays, most couloirs [chutes between rocks that might typically fill with snow in the winter] have melted out. Stable snow fields that have existed for generations are now melted out. Piles of teetering rubble are falling down mountainsides, and also a lot of routes are just less safe. The mountainsides themselves are collapsing, like the Aiguille du Midi gondola in Chamonix. Which, actually — one of the things we were installing in Greenland were temperature sensors on one of the cliffs, related to studying how rocks thaw out, what happens when permafrost melts. I would say that climate change is still incredibly relevant for us.
Your way into climate was through your climbing, then?
A big part of my environmental awareness in general is because of the experiences I’ve had outdoors as a climber. But long before [the Greenland expedition], I started a foundation in 2012 where I’ve been supporting community solar projects around the world and caring about the transition to renewables. I’ve cared about climate change forever. I think this was just the first opportunity to do it on mainstream television.
I saw that Arctic Ascent purchased carbon credits to compensate for production emissions. I was hoping you could talk about that decision, and how else you might have minimized your impact on the expedition, since I don’t think people are aware of how energy intensive film and TV productions can be.
In this case, other than the obvious expense of all of our flights getting to Greenland, we had a relatively low carbon footprint because we were camping the whole time. I think you’re right that a lot of television is kind of insane when you have all the RVs and everyone’s in their own thing and there’s hair and makeup and it’s just crazy with, like, a million cameras. In this case, it was basically a bunch of people camping on a glacier for six weeks, so it’s not quite the same as a Hollywood set.
But yeah, I think the idea to purchase offsets was the obvious bare minimum for a project like this. If you’re going to be doing a whole story around sea level rise, you have to do something.
The Honnold Foundation focuses on bringing solar panels to vulnerable communities, but these are fairly small projects compared to the expansive solar farms we might more traditionally think of. Why did you choose to focus your time on something that might seem, at least on paper, to be of a smaller scale than, say, electrifying the grid?
It’s a totally fair question. In 2012, it wasn’t totally clear that the world was transitioning to renewables at all. It seemed like it was inevitable, but you’re never really sure — you know, back then people were into hydrogen and you’re like, “Oh, maybe we’re going to have hydrogen cars, or maybe battery electric really takes off,” blah, blah, blah. Anyway, now it seems totally clear that the world is transitioning to renewables. Within some timeframe, like 20 to 50 years, the world will be 100% renewable.
The thing is, we currently live in a world where something like a billion people don’t have access to power, and transitioning to renewables will still leave us in a world where a billion people don’t have access to power. [Editor’s note: The number of people living without electricity today is actually closer to 760 million.] As the system changes, there are so many people who are left behind. What the Honnold Foundation tries to do is find that sweet spot in helping with the transition, helping the people who are being left behind.
Part of that is just by necessity — I’m a professional rock climber, I’m not a tech billionaire. So the small-scale grants just make more sense to some extent, but they also have the biggest impact on human lives because when you do these small-scale projects, you can fundamentally change the way people live. That’s a huge impact.
I live in Las Vegas, and you see huge solar farms around the desert. It’s great; the grid is going 100% renewable. I’m into that. But realistically, the only difference it makes in most people’s lives is maybe a small change in their utility rate. Really, the people that benefit are the utility shareholders — it’s some Warren Buffett-owned utility in my case, NV Energy. That really isn’t that inspiring. This is my long rant to say that the Honnold Foundation is trying to help the humans who need it the most.
Did you get a chance to use solar panels on the Greenland expedition?
On this trip, no, because they were running a generator for production and it was charging, like, 50 batteries.
It’s funny because we did an expedition in Antarctica where we made a little climbing film as well. And on that trip, they planned to take a generator and then somebody just forgot the fuel. So we got there and we were like, “Oh, no,” and we wound up doing the whole trip off solar and it totally worked.
This was your first expedition since becoming a father. You’ve worked on the climate cause for a long time now, but I’m curious if your perspective has changed at all since your daughter June joined your family — and I know you have another daughter on the way!
Yeah, soon! No, I don’t think my perspective has changed too much. I’ve always cared about these kinds of issues. The bigger change is in the way that I spend my time. Having a family forces me to be a little bit tighter about the choices that I’m making, what expeditions I choose to go on. That makes a trip like this even more worthwhile, where you get to do great climbing and there’s a real purpose behind it, and you get to share important knowledge about things that matter.
Can you tell me a little more about the decision to bring Heïdi on board? I heard her version of the story earlier this week but I’m curious about how you found her and roped her in.
Isn’t she so amazing?
She was delightful!
That’s the thing with Heïdi. Because when you spend time with her, she just makes you care about about ice. And I don’t even like ice. It’s not my thing; I like rocks. But she made me much more knowledgeable and much more caring about that type of world.
Do you consider yourself an optimist when it comes to climate change?
I think so, which is weird because I’m optimistic despite all the data to the contrary. I understand the predictions, but there’s so much to gain. So far it’s been 20 years that I’ve been reading environmental nonfiction and we haven’t really chosen to make anything of this opportunity, but we still have this incredible opportunity to build a better world to live in, a cleaner world. We can still choose that at any point. And I just keep thinking that at some point, we’re going to choose it. You can’t keep ignoring the obvious thing forever.
How did you get involved in the Arctic Ascent expedition?
This was an absolute dream come true for me — I felt extremely lucky to get a call from the team. It is extremely challenging to go to that one remote location, one of the least studied places on Earth. But Alex, as you know, is a firm believer in the scientific work. The planets really aligned. It took about a year prior to the expedition to design the work we could do with boots on the ground.
I wanted to know what it was like to put together scientific objectives for an expedition like this. It’s a little bit unconventional because there’s a film crew and there was climbing involved.
I think it was extremely brave and extremely daring of the entire team to have the willingness to invite the scientists on board. Because not only did we have the best climbers in the world climbing in a very challenging and hostile environment, we’re also filming a series of documentaries and we have to do some of the very best possible science. So it’s not that easy! But what we did is, we took it step by step. We contacted all the universities and labs and institutions interested in data from this part of the world — and also interested in training me on how to collect this data. Because I really felt — it’s what I was thinking the whole time — I really felt like I was an astronaut on the ISS. I was the only one, and I had to do the best possible work.
We ended up with 16 different protocols to do on this expedition, so it was really major. And, you know, we worked with NASA, we worked with research institutes in Denmark, the University of Buffalo, and the University of Kansas, for example. So it was challenging but a dream come true to be trusted by the scientists.
Your first big polar expedition was actually to Greenland, back in 2011. Had you been back to the island between that research trip and this one?
I had spent a tiny bit of time — not so far in the field as East Greenland, but around the coastlines. But what I was doing there was mostly science communication with people who wanted to learn about the impacts of climate change on the Greenland ice sheets. So I hadn’t been on a big research expedition to Greenland since 2011. And the changes were absolutely massive.
That was going to be my question!
The Arctic is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth. Everything that’s taking place in Greenland is impacting the rest of the world, so I felt that we had a duty and a mission — on top of climbing these incredible monoliths, we actually had to bring something back to society.
In the series, you talk about how remote and understudied East Greenland is by climate scientists. But during the expedition, you were being assisted by support helicopters and by boats. So why aren’t expeditions like this one happening all the time? Is it an issue of funding or a lack of scientific interest in this particular region?
It’s crazy to think of how little data we have from the ground [in East Greenland]. We have satellites — we have as many satellites as we want. But it is very tricky to get there. What you have to understand about this place is that for 10 months of the year, there is sea ice blocking access to this field. Ten months of the year! So the rest of the year — yes, we can access by plane, we can access by boat, but it’s very expensive.
What was great about this project is that we had in mind, “How can we lower our carbon footprint?” This is why, for example, we worked with fishermen who had boats from a nearby village at the entrance of the field. It was very important for us to use local means of transportation. Of course, we had to use helicopters every now and then, because there was no other way. But it’s remote, it’s expensive, and on top of everything, it is extremely hostile.
Oh my gosh, the bashing you get when you go there! This is something that we really wanted to show in the series — how powerful nature can be. And climate change is accelerating and making these changes even more violent. So I think it’s important to show that when nature starts to be a bit destabilized, it can get very angry.
There was a paper in Nature that came out earlier this month that said nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades. In the series, there’s a bit of good news, which is that the Daugaard-Jensen Glacier is a little bit more stable than you were anticipating. Do you have any insight into why that might be?
What’s so great is, it keeps part of the mystery! I like that we still don’t totally understand what’s taking place.
The scientists we’ve been working with have told us — this is a bit technical — but it has to do with the shape of the bedrock. It seems that the glacier is resting on a little ridge that might be holding everything together. This might be the reason why the glacier is still stable; also, this part of Greenland still receives a lot of snow.
But we’ve seen some cracks in this perfect picture. You know, the NASA float [that we launched on the expedition] has told us that the temperature of the water in the fjords is increasing. So it’s not all perfect. The environment around it is definitely changing, but it seems that it has some advantages.
Were there any findings from the expedition that you are particularly excited about?
All of them! But science takes a very long time, so at the moment, we’re still waiting on a lot of the results from these different protocols. But what I want to share is something that is very simple: Greenland holds a lot of ice, and if we lose the ice, it means 6 to 7 meters of sea-level rise. As you saw in the paper that was published by Nature, at the moment, Greenland is losing 30 million tons of ice per hour. What is crucial to understand is that every action we conduct back home to reduce our carbon footprints and to preserve our climate helps Greenland and helps our collective future. All this data will help us to prepare for the things to come.
Last question: Have you taken up rock climbing?
I’ll be honest: no. I think I’m a bit traumatized in a good way. I think I needed a minute to recover. But I really want to start climbing again — now, with the launch of this series, I know that it’ll be my mission for this year. Otherwise, I think Alex and Hazel will never forgive me.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: The monster snow storm headed eastward could dump more than a foot of snow on New York City this weekend • An extreme heat wave in Australia is driving temperatures past 104 degrees Fahrenheit • In northwest India, Jammu and Kashmir are bracing for up to 8 inches of snow.
Last month, Fervo Energy raised another $462 million in a Series E round to finance construction of the next-generation geothermal startup’s first major power plant. Pretty soon, retail investors will be able to get in on the hype. On Thursday, Axios reported that the company had filed confidential papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission in preparation for an initial public offering. Fervo’s IPO will be a milestone for the geothermal industry. For years, the business of tapping the Earth’s molten heat for energy has remained relatively small, geographically isolated, and dominated by incumbent players such as Ormat Technologies. But Fervo set off a startup boom when it demonstrated that it could use fracking technology to access hot rocks in places that don’t have the underground reservoirs that conventional geothermal companies rely upon. In yesterday’s newsletter, I told you about how Zanskar, a startup using artificial intelligence to find more conventional resources, and Sage Geosystems, a rival next-generation company to Fervo, had raised a combined $212 million. But as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote in December when Fervo raised its most recent financing round, it’s not yet clear whether the company’s “enhanced” geothermal approach is price competitive. With how quickly things are progressing, we will soon find out.
Fervo isn’t the only big IPO news. General Fusion, the Canadian fusion energy startup TechCrunch describes as “struggling,” announced plans for a $1 billion reverse merger deal to go public on the Nasdaq. The move comes almost exactly a month after President Donald Trump’s social media company, the parent firm of Truth Social, inked a deal to merge with the fusion startup TAE Technologies and create the first publicly-traded fusion company in the U.S. Analysts I spoke to about the deal called it “flabberghasting,” and warned that TAE’s technology represented a more complex and dubious approach to commercializing fusion than that taken by rival companies such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems. Still, the IPO deals highlight the growing excitement over progress on generating power from a technology long mocked as the energy source of tomorrow that always will be. As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham artfully put it in 2024, “it is finally, possibly, almost time for fusion.”
General Motors plans to move manufacturing of the next generation of its Buick Envision SUV from China to the U.S. in two years and end production of the all-electric Chevrolet Bolt. The Detroit auto giant makes just one of its four SUV models in the U.S., leaving the cars vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs. The worst hit was the Envision, which is currently built in China. Starting in 2028, the latest version of the Envision will be produced in Kansas, taking over the assembly line that is currently churning out the Bolt.
It's a blow to GM's electric vehicle line. Chevy just brought back the Bolt in response to high demand after initially canceling production in 2023, because as Andrew Moseman put it in Heatmap, it's “the cheap EV we've needed all along.” While Chevy had always framed the return as a limited run, it was not previously clear how limited that would be.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy said Thursday its newly rebranded Office of Energy Dominance Finance, formerly the Loan Programs Office, is “restructuring, revising, or eliminating more than $83 billion in Green New Scam loans and conditional commitments.” The move comes after “an exhaustive first-year review” of the $104 billion in principal loan obligations the Biden administration shelled out, including $85 billion the Trump administration accused of being “rushed out the door in the final months after Election Day.” In a statement, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said the changes are meant to “ensure the responsible investment of taxpayer dollars.” While it’s not yet clear which projects are affected, the agency said the EDF eliminated about $9.5 billion in support for wind and solar projects and redirected that funding to natural gas and nuclear energy. But as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo noted last night, the Energy Department hasn’t yet said which loans are set to be canceled as part of the latest cuts. The announcement may include loans that have already been canceled or restructured.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
If you know anything about surging electricity demand, you’re likely to finger a single culprit: data centers. But worldwide, air conditioning dwarfs data centers as a demand driver. And in California, electric vehicles are on pace to edge out data centers as a bigger driver of peak demand on the grid. That’s according to a new report from the California Energy Commission. Just look at this chart:

As the Golden State tries to get a grip on its electricity system, Representative Ro Khanna, the progressive Silicon Valley congressman often discussed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has doubled down on his calls to break up the state’s largest utility. On Thursday, Khanna posted on X that PG&E “should be broken up and owned by customers, not shareholders. They are ripping off Californians by buying off politicians in Sacramento.” The Democrat has been calling for PG&E’s demise since at least 2019, when the utility was on the hook for billions of dollars in damages from a wildfire sparked by its equipment. But the idea hasn’t exactly caught on.
New energy technologies such as batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines are driving demand for minerals and spurring a controversial push for new mines on virgin lands. But a new study by researchers at the University of Queensland’s Sustainable Minerals Institute found that a production boom is already underway at existing mines. The peer-reviewed paper, which is the first comprehensive global analysis of brownfield mining expansion, found that existing mines are growing in size and scale. Just because the mines are already there doesn’t mean the new production doesn’t come with some social cost. Nearly 78% of the 366 mines analyzed in the study “are located in areas facing multiple high-risk socioeconomic conditions, including weak governance, poor corruption control, and limited press freedom,” the study found.
The Department of the Interior has a new coal mascot. On Thursday, the agency posted an animated picture of a cartoonish, rosy-cheeked, chicken nugget-shaped lump of coal clad in a yellow hardhat and construction gear. His name? Coalie. The idea isn’t original. Australia’s coal-mining trade group rolled out an almost identical mascot a few years ago — same anthropomorphic lump of coal, same yellow attire. The only difference? His name was Hector, and he wore glasses.
The Secretary of Energy announced the cuts and revisions on Thursday, though it’s unclear how many are new.
The Department of Energy announced on Thursday that it has eliminated nearly $30 billion in loans and conditional commitments for clean energy projects issued by the Biden administration. The agency is also in the process of “restructuring” or “revising” an additional $53 billion worth of loans projects, it said in a press release.
The agency did not include a list of affected projects and did not respond to an emailed request for clarification. However the announcement came in the context of a 2025 year-in-review, meaning these numbers likely include previously-announced cancellations, such as the $4.9 billion loan guarantee for the Grain Belt Express transmission line and the $3 billion partial loan guarantee to solar and storage developer Sunnova, which were terminated last year.
The only further detail included in the press release was that some $9.5 billion in funding for wind and solar projects had been eliminated and was being replaced with investments in natural gas and building up generating capacity in existing nuclear plants “that provide more affordable and reliable energy for the American people.”
A preliminary review of projects that may see their financial backing newly eliminated turned up four separate efforts to shore up Puerto Rico’s perennially battered grid with solar farms and battery storage by AES, Pattern Energy, Convergent Energy and Power, and Inifinigen. Those loan guarantees totalled about $2 billion. Another likely candidate is Sunwealth’s Project Polo, which closed a $289.7 million loan guarantee during the final days of Biden’s tenure to build solar and battery storage systems at commercial and industrial sites throughout the U.S. None of the companies responded to questions about whether their loans had been eliminated.
Moving forward, the Office of Energy Dominance Financing — previously known as the Loan Programs Office — says it has $259 billion in available loan authority, and that it plans to prioritize funding for nuclear, fossil fuel, critical mineral, geothermal energy, grid and transmission, and manufacturing and transportation projects.
Under Trump, the office has closed three loan guarantees totalling $4.1 billion to restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, upgrade 5,000 miles of transmission lines, and restart a coal plant in Indiana.
With a China-Canada import deal and Geely showing up at CES, these low-priced models are getting ever-closer to American roads.
Chinese EVs are at the gates.
Low-priced electric vehicles by the likes of Geely, BYD, and Zeekr have already sold enormous numbers in their home country and spearheaded EV growth around the world, from Southeast Asia to Latin America. Now they’re closing in on America’s borders. Canada just agreed to a new trade deal with Beijing that would kill the country’s 100% tariff on Chinese cars and, presumably, allow them to undercut the existing Canadian car market. In Mexico, EV sales surged by 29% in 2025 thanks to the arrival of Chinese models.
Though China’s EVs are still unavailable in the U.S., they feel ever-present already. Auto journalists (myself included) drive these vehicles abroad and rave about how capable they are, especially for the price. Social media influencer hype has fed an appetite for both entry-level and luxury Chinese models — and confused plenty of Americans wondering why they can’t buy them. Headlines speculate about how the Detroit auto giants could ever hope to compete once cheap BYD Dolphins start to populate American roads. Chinese giant Geely, which owns Volvo and Polestar, appeared at CES earlier this month, as if to signal that the arrival of Chinese electric vehicles is imminent.
But is it? The outlook remains rather murky.
The first thing to know is that Chinese cars are not outright banned from coming to America. Instead, it’s a constellation of economic and technological headaches that keeps Beijing at bay. A 100% tariff makes it difficult to compete on cost, even with America’s notoriously expensive EVs. America’s safety and emissions standards are difficult and expensive to meet. Because of national security concerns, connected cars (i.e. those that can hook into the internet) cannot use Chinese-made software, a ban that’s soon to expand to electronic hardware.
Those restrictions aren’t likely to change anytime soon. Sean Duffy, the U.S. transportation secretary, responded to Canada’s removal of its Chinese car tariff by saying our neighbor to the north would “surely regret it.” Members of Congress from both parties are largely opposed to allowing Chinese cars into America under the logic of protectionism for U.S. automakers.
Yet all that might not be enough to prevent the eventual arrival of Geelys and BYDs. The first variable is the unpredictability of President Trump, who has said before that he would like to see Chinese-made cars in America. I don’t expect the United States to eliminate its tariff entirely the way Canada has, but look, you just never know what the heck is going to happen these days.
In the meantime, Chinese automakers are strategizing how they might navigate the rules in place and sell cars here anyway. Crash safety, for example, isn’t the impediment it might appear to be. China’s carmakers have intentionally designed their models in such a way that they could be tweaked, rather than totally redesigned, to meet more stringent rules.
As for the rest, the global reach of these companies could help them get around rules that specifically target China. Geely, which has suggested it will reveal plans for an American invasion within two to three years, builds Volvos in South Carolina and could use those facilities to build Geely-branded EVs in the United States. Company representatives also hand-waved away the problem of Chinese-made software, arguing that as a global brand, it’s already accustomed to meeting the various data privacy regulations of different countries and regions.
In other words, Chinese car companies could skirt some American hurdles by making their cars a little less Chinese. The problem is that doing so might spoil their secret sauce. Part of the magic of Chinese EVs is their responsive, easy-to-understand touchscreen interface that’s obviously superior to what’s offered in otherwise-excellent electric vehicles by Chevy or Hyundai. There’s no guarantee Geely could easily secure a Western-made replacement of the same quality.
The key question, then, is: Will Americans want the versions of Chinese EVs that come to America? We’ve noted recently that drivers are finally showing signs that they are fed up with the cost of new cars spiraling out of control. The kind of cheap Chinese EVs now on sale around the world would be a godsend for money-stressed Americans who are dependent on the automobile. But tariffs and other aforementioned factors mean that the models we get likely won’t be $10,000 basic transportation machines that undercut the entire overpriced American car economy.
Instead, Geelys for America probably will be big, luxurious vehicles whose appeal is fundamentally about feeling techy, futuristic, and cool, much the way Tesla first won over U.S. drivers. To that end, the brand brought a couple of fancy plug-in hybrid SUVs to CES to show Americans what we’re missing. Five years hence, we might not be missing them at all.