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:
This year set a high bar for climate writing, from fiction like Eleanor Catton’s terrific Birnam Woods and Lydia Kiesling’s sharp and prescient Mobility to nonfiction like John Vaillant’s best-of-list-topping Fire Weather and Jeff Goodell’s timely The Heat Will Kill You First. Needless to say, next year has its work cut out for it.
But after spending the past several weeks digging through publisher catalogs and publicist emails (so … many … emails), I feel confident that the coming year of climate writing will be able to hold its own. Here are 17 books I immediately added to my to-be-read pile for 2024. (We’ve made it easy to add them to yours, too. Just check out our curated list on Bookshop here.)
Author Christy Lefteri first encountered wildfire in 2017, when she was working in Greece as a volunteer at a refugee shelter for women and children displaced by the Syrian Civil War. “I woke up one morning and the sky was filled with smoke,” she recalled to Publishers Weekly. “There was a fire in a nearby town. It haunted me.” The Book of Fire — which follows up Lefteri’s 2019 bestseller The Beekeeper of Aleppo — centers on a Greek family whose lives are forever altered when a forest fire destroys their home and village. The Guardian called it a “poignant, intimate family” story. Preorder it here.
Hannah Ritchie is the deputy editor of Our World in Data, one of my favorite resources for climate information, and her debut book has been described as a “surprisingly optimistic and often counterintuitive story, one that completely contradicts the doomsday-ism in most climate change conversations” by none other than — wait for it — Bill Gates. While many climate handbooks do a lot of handwringing, Ritchie aims to give readers actionable and data-backed ways to address urgent environmental problems. Not the End of the World has already earned a starred review from Kirkus Reviews and counts Margaret Atwood among its growing fans. Preorder it here.
If you want to get a jump on the book everyone will be talking about this winter, you should preorder Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto now. Already an international bestseller — the English translation arrives in January — Slow Down makes a Marxist argument that growth-focused solutions to inequality and climate change like the Green New Deal are a “dangerous compromise.” Instead, Saito argues for decarbonization through shorter working hours and an end to mass consumption. The book has received starred reviews from the major trade publications and excited intellectuals including philosopher Slavoj Žižek, critic and editor Malcolm Harris, and Fire Weather author John Vaillant, among others. You’ll want to have an opinion on this one. Preorder it here.
What do we owe the places we love? In 2017, Manjula Martin and her partner moved from San Francisco to a peaceful refuge in the forest of California’s Sonoma County. On the night of their housewarming party, however, a fire tore through the region; Martin’s new home survived, but it would only become under greater threat in 2020, one of the state’s worst fire seasons in recorded history. “Humans have evolved with fire,” Martin explained to my colleague Neel Dhanesha earlier this year, “and the more I engage with fire, the more I learn about it, the more I understand its role in both the land and the history of this place, the less afraid I feel.” Kirkus praised her memoir as “insightful and alarming, hopeful, and consistently engaging.” Preorder it here.
I’ve been hearing great things about Ray Nayler since the release of his debut novel, The Mountain in the Sea, in 2022, and if I’m not careful, I will soon be playing catch-up: His sophomore book will be out in just a few weeks. In this novella, Russian scientists have managed to bring woolly mammoths back from extinction, but the creatures need to learn how to survive in the modern day. Enter elephant behavior expert Damira Khismatullina — who was murdered trying to protect the world’s last herds from ivory poachers. Luckily, Damira’s consciousness was uploaded to the cloud before she was killed, and the scientists are able to implant it in the woolly mammoths’ matriarch. Library Journal named this book its sci-fi pick of the month and “highly” recommends it for “readers of eco-terrorism thrillers and climate fiction.” And the premise might not be as far-fetched as it sounds: At COP28 this year, a Russian billionaire hawked a plan to bring back woolly mammoths to Siberia. Preorder it here.
“Near-future thrillers don’t come much better than this stellar effort,” according to Publishers Weekly. Set in a post-apocalyptic future, Ben’s fiancee Cara takes a job working for a billionaire on a private island called Sanctuary Rock — then writes Ben to say she isn’t coming back. Ben, worried, decides to track down Cara by joining the community while poking around for clues into what he’s sure must be a dark plot. This climate thriller is already out in the U.K. and I keep hearing about its “effective shocker of an ending” — pick up this one before someone spoils it for you. Preorder it here.
Aboriginal-Australian author Alexis Wright’s newest novel is aptly named: Praiseworthy has received tons of acclaim abroad, with The Guardian marveling, “How can one novel contain so much?” The book centers on a small town in north Australia threatened by a strange haze — though a precise description of the plot is difficult to come by. “The Ancestors of contemporary Aboriginal people are key to a story that also addresses issues of sovereignty, colonial violence, and the devastation caused by global climate change,” reads one attempt. “In addition, Praiseworthy is a tale of migrations and family connections elsewhere. And it is a story about donkeys.” But as “freewheeling” as its plot might be, the raves for Praiseworthy are impossible to ignore. It’s a “heartbreaking masterpiece,” said Publishers Weekly, adding: “This is unforgettable.” Preorder it here.
Former HuffPost climate reporter Sarah Ruiz-Grossman makes her debut with A Fire So Wild, which its publisher describes as Little Fires Everywhere meets Disappearing Earth. On Abigail’s 50th birthday, she decides to throw a party to raise funds for a new affordable housing project in Berkeley. But while the haves mingle with the have-nots — Willow, whom Abigail met at a soup kitchen, is working as a server at the party — a wildfire burns closer and closer to the gala. This novel sounds juicy — and ripe for Hollywood. Enjoy the bragging rights of saying you read the book first. Preorder it here.
Birding to Change the World shares its name with a course that its author, Trish O’Kane, teaches at the University of Vermont, pairing college students with elementary school children and having them go birdwatching together. But O’Kane wasn’t always a birder; it wasn’t until Hurricane Katrina struck her home in New Orleans that she “took a cup of coffee and sat on the back stoop. About a dozen small brown sparrows clung to a few spindly trees. Where did they go during the hurricane? How did they survive?” In a starred review, Publishers Weekly praised the memoir for knitting together personal and natural history to share how O’Kane’s interest in birds grew to the point that she “quit her journalism career, [returned] to school at age 45 ... and [became] an ardent conservationist.” Preorder it here.
“My grandmother Mabel Raboteau fled the coastal town of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, and the terror of Jim Crow along the northern pathway of the Great Migration, to Michigan, to save her life and the lives of her children.” So begins a 2019 essay by Emily Raboteau in The New York Review of Books titled “Lessons In Survival,” which goes on to review two other books. Now, though, it is Raboteau’s turn to tell her story. Lessons for Survival: Mothering Against “the Apocalypse” is “a probing series of pilgrimages from the perspective of a mother struggling to raise her children to thrive without coming undone in an era of turbulent intersecting crises,” per its publisher, and touches on themes of Black womanhood, art and history, and, of course, what it means to be a mother in an uncertain world. Preorder it here.
I can lose myself for hours looking at photographs by Virginia Hanusik, whose work explores how climate change is reshaping the Mississippi River delta. Into the Quiet and the Light is an apt title for her debut collection; her photos are often subdued, unpopulated, and symmetrical, a combination that gives them the quality of being both painterly and lonely. The collection will include texts from a number of writers, including architects, historians, activists, and organizers. Get a feel for Hanusik’s work with her 2022 photo essay for Bitter Southerner here before smashing that preorder link. Preorder it here.
A little over a year ago, Elizabeth Kolbert published a lengthy essay in The New Yorker under the title “Climate Change From A to Z.” It delivered on its premise: In 26 short essays ranging from “Arrhenius” to “Zero,” Kolbert tackled the uncertainty — and breadth — of the climate crisis. H Is for Hope expands on the original concept and, thankfully, doesn’t drop the lovely accompanying illustrations by Wesley Allsbrook. A must-have for your climate shelf. Preorder it here.
The planet is changing; more and more places around the globe are becoming uninhabitable. The United States is not immune: By journalist Abrahm Lustgarten’s estimate, by 2070, “at least 4 million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life.” Where will we be forced to leave? And if we leave, where will we go? Lustgarten seeks answers in his forthcoming data-driven book, On the Move, which explores what a mass migration might look like in the U.S. as fires in the West, floods on the coasts, and extreme heat and drought in the South drive populations inland. You might want to read this one before buying a house. Preorder it here.
I love history, science, and animals, so I feel pretty confident I’ll love Every Living Thing, which tells the story of Carl Linnaeus and Georges-Louis de Buffon’s dueling attempts to identify all life on Earth. I mean, pffft, how hard could it be? Author Jason Roberts reportedly spent more than a decade researching this book, which follows up his 2006 biography of James Holman, A Sense of the World, a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. Preorder it here.
It might seem like everyone is into birding these days — and you can count The Joy Luck Club author Amy Tan among them. She hasn't always been curious about her avian neighbors, however. That changed in 2016, when Tan was desperate for a distraction from the world. Soon, she was sketching the birds; next, she signing up to have 10,000 mealworms delivered each week for her new friends. “I have identified 56 species in my yard,” Tan told the Sierra Club, admitting “I went a little overboard” on the whole birding thing. But it’s because she went overboard that we get to enjoy The Backyard Bird Chronicles, which gathers Tan’s journal entries and original sketches. Preorder it here.
A longtime editor for the Times Literary Supplement, Roz Dineen is set to publish her debut novel, a dystopian tale of a mother raising three children while her husband is overseas. As things worsen in the city, Cass decides to take the children to her mother-in-law’s house in the country — and when that no longer seems safe, either, to a commune on the coast. The book description brings to mind Rumaan Alam’s Leave the World Behind, Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven, and Lydia Millet’s A Children’s Bible, with the publisher writing that “against a wider backdrop of a world imploding, [Briefly Very Beautiful] is an exploration of hope and fear, beauty and joy, as well as seismic betrayal.” Preorder it here.
Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam provide power for 5.8 million homes and businesses across seven states. But since 2000, the lake has been drying up. At a certain point, if the level falls too low, it will reach “dead pool,” a state when there is only a weak amount of water flowing through the dam — what Bob Martin, the deputy power manager at Glen Canyon, has called “a complete doomsday scenario” to The Washington Post. At the same time, activists are increasingly pushing to drain Lake Powell and restore the Colorado River. Journalist and passionate river rafter Zak Podmore explores the issue further in his forthcoming book, Life After Dead Pool, which is “not a dour story of climate disaster” but rather “an original account of Glen Canyon’s resurrection,” according to its publisher. Preorder it here.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Matt Weiner on the Fix Our Forests Act and why the Senate needs to take action — now.
After the Los Angeles County wildfires in January, it seemed like the federal government was finally poised to do something about the decades of flawed forestry practices and land management policies that have turned the West into a tinderbox. On January 23, before the L.A. fires were even fully extinguished, the House of Representatives passed the Fix Our Forests Act on a bipartisan 279–141 vote, queuing up a bill that proponents say would speed and simplify forest and wildfire management projects that have gotten bogged down in a regulatory morass.
Then … not much happened. Though Republican Senators John Curtis of Utah and Tim Sheehy of Montana teamed up with Democrats John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Alex Padilla of California to write their own version of the Fix Our Forests Act for the Senate, the bill stalled after a summer spent focused on the reconciliation bill. Meanwhile, more wildfires made headlines.
Matt Weiner, the founder and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group Megafire Action, wants to bring some urgency back. This week, the organization launched a six-figure ad campaign in Washington, D.C., aimed at spurring senators to get back to working on wildfire resilience and forestry reform. Though the bill’s approach is divisive — the House version drew initial pushback from more than 100 environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and League of Conservation Voters, for opening up large tracts of federal forest to logging, among other concerns — Weiner told me “there’s no huge substantive holdup in the Senate that is keeping it from getting to 60 votes.”
I caught up with Weiner this week to learn more about where things stand with the Fix Our Forests Act and talk through some of the bill’s more controversial regulatory rollbacks. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Catch our readers up: Why the Fix Our Forests Act, and why now?
We’re looking at a generational opportunity to change the way we do land management. This is the most significant change Congress has considered since the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and maybe even since the original National Forest Act.
The smoke impacts of wildfires are killing more people than the flames. Wildfires are the most significant driver of PM 2.5 emissions growth in the country right now. The clean air community has done a fantastic job of reducing industrial emissions of PM 2.5, which has had real public health impacts, but those gains are in danger of vanishing because of the growth of wildfire smoke exposure.
Then there’s the climate. If you care about carbon emissions, this is a huge opportunity at a time when a lot of other climate issues seem to be on the backburner. The 2020 fire season in California — a particularly bad year — released enough carbon to undo 20 years of the state’s emissions reduction progress. The 2023 Canadian wildfires, if treated as a country, would have been the third-largest emitter in the world that year. And if you start thinking about Alaska and the Boreal burning in the way the West has been burning, it could potentially be game over for the climate. It’s important that people understand that this is an existential climate issue and that we have an opportunity to make progress in a bipartisan way.
You and I have chatted before — we first spoke about the Fix Our Forests Act almost a year ago, now. What’s happened in the past 12 months with the bill?
The bill passed the House right after the Los Angeles fires. The last time we spoke [in October 2024], the bill had passed the House in the previous Congress with a bipartisan margin. But this time, it got a much bigger bipartisan show of support: 64 Democrats and all the Republicans in the House.
The bill saw some changes and improvements to focus on the immediate needs in Los Angeles County [after the January 2025 fires] — things like improving the ability of a city like Los Angeles to gain access to Community Wildfire Defense Grant funding and improvements to the Wildfire Intelligence Center targeted at making sure it plays a role in helping local governments make decisions on where to place assets before a high risk event.
Then the bill went to the Senate, but instead of moving the House bill through, a group of senators came together to write a bipartisan version with some changes. Senator Curtis from Utah was the lead, along with Senators Padilla, Hickenlooper, and Sheehy. Their version included changes to the litigation section from the House bill, which had raised concerns among a lot of environmental organizations, as well as modifications to the permitting section. That earned the bill the support of more environmental organizations than the version from the House — they have the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Audubon Society, and the National Wildlife Federation on board, as well as a lot of local organizations and wildfire groups like the Alliance for Wildfire Resilience.
But then a lot of the oxygen in the Senate was taken up by the reconciliation package. That put a pause on things through the August recess, and now they’re looking to hopefully mark up the bill during the October work period. We’re very optimistic about being able to get floor time. We think there’s a clear path to 60 votes in the Senate for this bill, and if there’s a good, constructive markup, it could be much more than that. There’s no substantive holdup as much as there is the ever-present fear of stasis and losing momentum. That’s why we launched an ad campaign with an eye toward building the urgency back up.
How did the ad campaign come together?
The idea was that this is a bipartisan issue, so where is the support? We didn’t need to launch a big persuasion campaign; we needed to highlight the absurdity of the fact that, eight months after Los Angeles, we still haven’t had any meaningful action from Congress. There is an opportunity before them that would make a big difference in wildfire policy writ large.
[embed ad]
I’m interested in your focus on using “state-of-the-art science” and “new and innovative technologies” to address wildfires and forest health. What have you seen in this space that has made you excited?
The bill is about improving the planning and implementation of wildfire policy — especially mitigation work like treatment projects, but also in the built environment. A big cornerstone of that would be the creation of a new Wildfire Intelligence Center, which would use the most advanced technology to understand what our risk profile is on the ground across landscapes and jurisdictions. Right now, there is no one entity in government responsible for taking a comprehensive look at risk across landscapes, what we’re doing on the ground, and how that buys down risk.
At the same time, one of the things we’re negotiating is making sure that the Forest Service and the Department of Interior are positioned to work with some of the companies doing advanced modeling, detection, and tracking work — as opposed to having the government try to build its own clunky system. We’ve modeled it after successful efforts elsewhere in government, such as the Defense Innovation Unit and other Department of Defense and NASA programs that have been great at harnessing private sector innovation for government use. There’s also a new pilot program in the bill, in Section 303, that would create a pathway for the Forest Service to start identifying and piloting new technologies and give them a path to scale across the agency if they find that it helps them do the job better, faster, and cheaper.
The timber industry has collaborated with the Forest Service on fire suppression since the 1920s. In the decades since, “forest management” has at times been used as a euphemism for industry-friendly practices like tree thinning, which many ecologists say would allow invasive species and brush to flourish, and would actually worsen wildfires. How would cutting the red tape around “vegetation management activities” not be a handout to the timber industry?
We all know that the best tool for mitigation is good fire, prescribed fire, beneficial fire, and — where appropriate — managed fire, as well. Unfortunately, because we’ve taken fire out of these landscapes, forested landscapes in particular are so overgrown that you couldn’t introduce good fire even if you wanted to. So mechanical thinning has to be a part of this.
One of the tensions here is that the timber industry wants merchantable timber. They want the big trees, and in a lot of cases, those are the ones we want to keep in the ground with these projects. What we’re focused on is invasive species, overgrown areas, and dead trees from morbidity events like recent droughts so that we can reintroduce good fire at scale. If we all let it burn, like some have proposed, you’d end up with hundreds of thousands of acres of landscape burning at a time, like we saw in the [2021] Caldor fire, where nothing will grow back in a way we recognize for at least decades — and given climate change, maybe not ever.
It’s important to make sure that we don’t go back to the timber wars [of the 1980s and 1990s between environmentalists and loggers in the Pacific Northwest], but at the same time, we need to recognize that the biggest threat to our forests right now is catastrophic fire, not the timber industry. We want to deal with the threat at hand and make sure the pendulum that swung during the timber wars — for very good reason — against the timber industry comes back a little, but doesn’t swing too far in the wrong direction, either. The Senate bill strikes the right balance there.
A number of major environmental groups initially came out in opposition to the Fix Our Forests Act over numerous concerns, including that it erodes Endangered Species Act protections by exempting the Forest Service and BLM from the requirement to adjust land management policies as new information about how projects could affect threatened species arises. What is the other side of this tradeoff? How would limiting the consultation requirement advance the goal of reducing wildfires?
The biggest challenge right now is that, because of all of the regulatory hurdles, it can take upwards of a thousand days to get a project off the ground anywhere in the country. One great example of that is in the Angeles National Forest. They announced a fuel break maintenance strategy in 2020, but they were not able to get the requisite approvals until the start of December 2024. It took four years — and then the last of the permits that were most relevant to Altadena didn’t get approved until March, two months after the fire. There are very real consequences to this kind of delay, both for the environment and for human health and safety, that need to be taken into account.
If you take a step back and look at the bill, the main tool that it uses is not broad NEPA exemptions or writ-large changes in the law. It utilizes categorical exclusions, a method that has been used for energy projects in other areas and is increasingly sought after to advance targeted projects with public benefits.
One great example is the Tahoe categorical exclusion, on which a significant portion of this bill is based. It was a 10,000-acre CE created in 2016, which allowed for work that protected communities and ecosystems and got good fire on the ground. It’s work that directly saved South Lake Tahoe from the Caldor Fire. But one of the challenges right now is that the current level for CE is 3,000 acres, and when we’re talking about landscapes in forests that are hundreds of thousands of miles big and a fireshed that nationwide is 50 million acres, then 3,000 acres is not enough for it to be worth it for the Forest Service and Park Service and DOI officials to go through the CE process — which takes six months and is very rigorous.
But we also wanted to show restraint here for environmental purposes. We wanted to make sure that this was as targeted as it needed to be, and not overly expansive.
On California solar, climate tech’s master plan, and Climeworks’ ‘milestone’ deal
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Gabrielle is intensifying as it travels northwestward through the Atlantic, and may strengthen into a hurricane near Bermuda over the weekend • A trio of tropical storms — Mitag, Ragasa, and Neoguri — is barreling toward East Asia, threatening to build into typhoons as they approach China, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan • A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck off Russia’s Pacific coast, triggering a tsunami advisory.
All but one member of New York’s Public Service Commission voted Thursday to endorse a plan from the gas utility National Grid that depends on construction of a controversial natural gas pipeline, the Albany Times-Union reported. The state has yet to approve the pipeline plan. In 2019, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo rejected the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, better known as the Williams Pipeline, on the grounds that it threatened too much environmental damage. Soon after, Cuomo shuttered the nuclear power plant that once supplied a significant portion of New York City’s energy, and the offshore wind projects meant to generate much of its carbon-free electricity stalled out. The only major power project to bring clean electricity into the city, the transmission line designed to connect the five boroughs to the hydroelectric system in Quebec, is underway, but at peak capacity will only supply about half of what the Indian Point nuclear station once produced. As a result, the New York City region on the state’s grid system depends on gas and oil for nearly 90% of its electricity.
The decision drew swift blowback from climate groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which called the pipeline a “climate and affordability boondoggle.” The utility’s “own demand forecasts confirm there is no imminent reliability need — capacity is more than sufficient to meet peak demand well into the 2040s, even under unusually cold temperatures,” Chris Casey, the New York utility regulatory director at NRDC, said in a statement. “The Commission’s decision to signal its support for this fracked gas pipeline very likely contradicts state law, is not in the public interest, and will be vigorously challenged.”
Representative Scott Peters, the Democrat who represents part of San Diego, accused the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management of halting permitting on solar projects in California. At a press conference Thursday to promote a bipartisan proposal he drafted along with the Colorado Republican Representative Gabe Evans to ease federal energy permitting, Peters said he had just been told that the agency would not approve any more panels. “It’s hard to get a deal unless we resolve that,” Peters said, according to a post on X from Politico reporter Joshua Siegel.
The proposal is a framework for a bill, essentially a blueprint of what members of the House Problem Solvers Caucus feel constitute reasonable compromises. For Republicans, the agreement offers fewer bureaucratic roadblocks to all kinds of new infrastructure, including gas pipelines. For Democrats, it charts a path for building more of the transmission lines that are key to adding more renewables to the grid. “It’s a big step to have our caucus, which is a pretty significant number of Republicans and Democrats, sign on to a pretty detailed set of policy principles,” Peters said. But as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last month, “unless Democrats trust the Trump administration to actually allow renewables projects to go forward, his proposal could be dead on arrival.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
On Thursday, a new coalition that includes Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy, consulting giant McKinsey, and Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability launched the Climate Tech Atlas. The proposal maps out ways to decarbonize different sectors of the economy, and lists priorities for innovation. The idea is not to eliminate potential solutions, Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported in her scoop about the project, but rather “to enable the next generation of innovators, entrepreneurs, researchers, policymakers, and investors to really focus on where we felt there was the largest opportunity for exploration and for innovation to impact our path to net zero through the lens of technology,” according to Cooper Rinzler, a key collaborator on the initiative and a partner at the venture capital firm Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
Microsoft has announced “the world’s most powerful AI data center” in southeastern Wisconsin. The project, called Fairwater, “is a seamless cluster of hundreds of thousands of NVIDIA GB200s, connected by enough fiber to circle the Earth 4.5 times,” CEO Satya Nadella wrote in a post on X. “It will deliver 10x the performance of the world’s fastest supercomputer today, enabling AI training and inference workloads at a level never before seen.” He said Microsoft would match “all of the energy that is consumed with renewable sources.”
That power generation could prove more popular than the data center itself. Just 44% of American voters would support or strongly support a data center being built near them, while 42% would oppose or strongly oppose it, according to a Heatmap Pro poll Matthew covered last week. That mere 2% of net support compares to net support of 34% for a gas plant, 19% for a wind farm, 34% for a solar project, and 11% for batteries.
The carbon removal startup Climeworks just signed its largest-ever deal. By 2039, the Switzerland-based company, one of the biggest direct air capture developers in the world, agreed to suck 31,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere on behalf of Schneider Electric, the French industrial giant. Schneider said it remains committed to slashing the direct emissions from its operations by 90% in the next 25 years, and that this deal addresses “future neutralization needs while pursuing aggressive emissions reductions, and supporting the scale-up of an industry crucial for achieving net zero.” In a statement, Schneider’s sustainability chief Esther Finidori said that “both carbon removal and carbon reduction are fundamental to achieving our climate goals, as well as those of the planet.” For Climeworks, the deal is a “milestone,” said CEO Christoph Gebald.
The speed of climate change may be throwing the insect world out of whack. But a new study has put offshore oil rigs in the North Sea to work identifying the vital role a migratory insect plays. University of Exeter researchers studied 121 marmalade hoverflies that landed on an oil rig in the Britannia oil field. The rig off the coast of Scotland was far from any vegetation or land, so the pollen found on 92% of hoverflies “shows they can transport pollen over great distances, potentially linking plant populations that are hundreds of kilometers apart,” according to a press release. “By analysing the pollen samples and wind patterns, we estimate that many of the hoverflies had flown from places including the Netherlands, northern Germany and Denmark — over 500 kilometers away,” Toby Doyle, Exeter’s Centre for Ecology and Conservation in Cornwall, said in a statement.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the company behind the Fairwater project.
And more on the week’s most important battles around renewable energy.
1. Indianapolis, Indiana – The Sooner state’s top energy official suggested energy developers should sue towns and county regulators over anti-renewable moratoria and restrictive ordinances, according to audio posted online by local politics blog Indy Politics.
2. Laramie County, Wyoming – It’s getting harder to win a permit for a wind project in Wyoming, despite it being home to some of the largest such projects in the country.
3. Ada County, Idaho – Like Wyoming, Idaho is seeing its most populated county locking up land from being available for renewables development.
4. Fairfield County, Ohio – Activists are plotting another appeal to overturn the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision on a solar farm.
5. Franklin County, Virginia – Constitution Solar is struggling to assuage local residents’ complaints about a proposed project in this county despite doing, well, it appears anything to make them happy.
6. Sumter County, South Carolina – One solar developer is trying for a Hail Mary with South Carolina regulators to circumvent a painful local rejection.