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:
Climate shouldn’t be only a story for documentaries.
Paranormal: Caught on Camera is not the kind of television show you’d typically expect to read about in a research paper. Recent episodes include “Haunted Doll Bites Child” and “UFO Takes Off in Argentina”; a critic once described it as unsuitable for viewers who have developed “some powers of critical thought.” But credit where credit is due: Caught on Camera cites “climate change” as a possible cause of increased sightings of the Loch Ness monster.
This, alas, is the kind of meager victory the climate movement is often forced to celebrate.
According to research by USC Annenberg’s Norman Lear Center, there were just 1,228 mentions of “climate change” in the nearly 200,000 hours of unscripted TV that aired in the U.S. in the six months between September 2022 and February 2023. (Fifty-eight of those mentions were on “paranormal/mystery” programs, including Caught on Camera.) The situation is even worse for scripted film and TV: Between 2016 and 2020, just 0.6% of 37,453 scripts used the words “climate change” during their runtime. While there are notable exceptions — An Inconvenient Truth won the 2007 documentary Oscar, and The Day After Tomorrow and Don’t Look Up were mainstream hits — climate mostly remains off-screen even as nearly half the population says it has affected their lives.
Starting a Climate Film Festival, then, might seem foolish — because what would you even program? But New Yorkers are about to find out: The inaugural CFF will open Friday with a sold-out screening of the documentary Searching for Amani at the Explorer’s Club in Manhattan, with the festival’s 58 other films to be screened primarily at the Firehouse Cinema over Saturday and Sunday in a de facto kick-off to Climate Week. “Once we started digging, we found that there were an incredible number of these stories being told, but no one was really bringing them together under this rubric,” Alec Turnbull, who co-founded CFF with his wife, J. English Cook, told me.
The supply, however, is noticeably lopsided. CFF received “well over 300 submissions” during its open call for movies this past spring, according to Turnbull — enough that he and the volunteer screeners were able to winnow their broad interpretation of a “climate movie” from anything with “an environmental lens that didn’t have explicit climate themes” to movies specifically about climate.
In the end, though, unscripted documentary-style films and shorts came to dominate roughly 63% of the CFF slate. Only two of the program’s full-length features — the found-footage film Earth II and DreamWorks’ animated movie The Wild Robot — are fictional climate narratives.
This disparity might lead to the impression that there are too many climate documentaries in the world. (Seriously, how many more movies and shows can be made about regenerative farming?) While that isn’t the case — at least compared to something like the oversaturated true crime genre — documentary filmmaker might have more access to the subject than their peers in Hollywood because the medium has a “long history of addressing social issues,” Erica Lynn Rosenthal, the director of USC Annenberg’s Norman Lear Center, told me.
At least some mismatch is also likely due to “self-selection bias,” according to Turnbull. He told me that narrative filmmakers might not have submitted to something called the “Climate Film Festival” simply because they “don’t think about the work they’re doing as a climate story.” Another reason might just be endemic to film festivals. “Documentaries are really great for the festival circuit, for impact screenings, and for coupling with resources and workshops,” which boost their visibility even if they “don’t always make it to a broader audience” afterward, Tehya Jennett, whose short scripted horror film “Out of Plastic” is playing at CFF, told me.
According to the Norman Lear Center, however, nearly half of mainstream audiences said they want to see fictional stories that “include climate-related storylines” on screen. That’s far from trivial. “We know from decades of research that stories have the power to shift people’s hearts and minds and move them to action on a variety of topics, whether it’s health behavior or social issues,” Rosenthal said.
Sam Read, a CFF jury member and the executive director of the Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, an advocacy consortium that works to reduce the entertainment industry’s environmental impact, confirmed that the demand for climate narratives “currently outstrips the supply.” But he stressed to me that what makes a climate moment in a script doesn’t have to be something preachy, moralistic, alarmist, or even terribly overt, pointing to examples like the most recent season of Hacks, which included a bottle episode about climate change, and True Detective: Night Country, with its environmental and Indigenous plotlines.
“If you’re writing a sitcom and the mom is an office worker, could you make the mom a solar panel technician?” he asked, adding: “There are ways to both help people see what a clean energy future can look like while also exploring how this is affecting communities and how people are responding to it.”
Scripted examples, though, remain relatively rare. In the Norman Lear Center’s research, just 10% of the thousands of mentions of extreme weather in film and TV shows actually made any sort of link to global warming, perhaps because producers or executives worry that referencing climate change is political and might estrange half their audience. “The idea that [climate change] is going to alienate or turn off audiences is really an outdated perception,” Rosenthal said. Still, it’s even harder to push for experimentation and risk-taking when the film industry at large is struggling. And despite how it might look at CFF, it’s the documentarians who have been hit extra hard by the post-COVID turbulence in the movie world.
Of course, none of this is to say that documentaries are any less creative, ambitious, or worthy of being in a festival slate than their scripted counterparts. In fact, the Climate Film Festival’s centerpiece, The Here Now Project, is a documentary entirely composed of found footage of real people filming weather disasters during 2021. “Two people in the film actually say, ‘This is a horror movie,’” Greg Jacobs, who co-directed the documentary with Jon Siskel, told me.
Maybe it doesn’t really matter, then, in what exact form these stories are getting told: in a world with a changing climate, truth and fiction are equally strange.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Constellation Energy inked the deal, but the whole industry stands to win.
After Three Mile Island, what’s next?
That’s the question the nuclear industry and those who follow it were asking after news broke that Constellation Energy was planning to reboot the facility’s Unit 1, which shut down in 2019. The deal is being anchored by Microsoft, which will purchase the power in order to balance out the emissions generated by its facilities in the PJM Interconnection, the multi-state power market that includes Pennsylvania. The plant is expected to be operational by 2028, Constellation said, and will be called the Crane Clean Energy Center, in honor of the company's former chief executive.
The demand for non-carbon-emitting power — and all power — has grown since Unit 1 closed and is expected to continue to in the future, especially as tech companies like Microsoft seek to build more datacenters while complying with their pledges to power their operations without greenhouse gas emissions.
The days of nuclear power plants shuttering not because of old age, safety concerns, or local opposition, but because of the economics of subsidized wind and solar and cheap natural gas, are likely over. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois all provided subsidies to their state’s nuclear fleet as plants were threatened with closure. California’s Diablo Canyon plant has seen its decommissioning delayed and received federal aid to help stay open. At a time when states representing a big chunk of US power consumption have aggressive emissions reduction goals and worries about power reliability, money is often easily found to keep nuclear plants open.
And now much of that cash might be coming from the private sector, specifically technology companies, and independent power producers like Constellation.
“What we’re seeing is the fruits of previous labors coupled with the first-time-in- a-generation demand signals we had not yet seen,” Brett Rampal, a senior director at Veriten, an energy advisory company, told me.
These companies want the 24/7 carbon-free power that nuclear can uniquely provide. The federal government and several state capitols are also committed to bolstering the economics of America’s largest non-greenhouse-gas emitting, firm power source.
The Inflation Reduction Act contains considerable subsidies for both investing in and producing nuclear energy, as well as tools to finance nuclear power.
If history is any indication, having public and corporate policy rowing in the same direction can provide a huge boost for clean energy. For wind and solar, the two biggest demand boosters pulling forward their adoption has been technology companies wanting to buy clean power and federal subsidies for their construction and operation.
The structure Microsoft is using to purchase this power, the corporate power purchase agreement, was pioneered by Google in the late 2000s as a way technology companies could support the development of clear power even when they couldn’t directly consume it. Now these tools are being used to support nuclear power. Constellation said Friday that the deal was the largest single power purchase agreement in history. According to figures worked out by Rampal, the deal will lead to some 135 terawatt-hours of generation over 20 years (a bit short of the annual electricity generation of Argentina), generating some $13.5 billion of revenue.
“Nobody would be moving forward with these projects,” explained Rampal, without tax credits or “extremely favorable loan support from the Loans Program Office.”
The other shuttered nuclear plant looking to restart, Michigan’s Palisades, has a $1.5 billion loan guarantee from the LPO.
“Constellation will be spending $1.6 billion of its own money to restart the plant – no state or federal aid. We may look at whether to seek a DOE loan for some of the financing, but that is not a given and not needed to make the project work. And even in that scenario, all the money is paid back in full. It’s just a slightly better interest rate,” Paul Adams, a Constellation spokesman, told me.
“The IRA contained nuclear production tax credits, which any nuclear plant is eligible for. The Crane Clean Energy Centerwould be no different once it is up and operating. That tax credit simply provides a floor price, in essence, to support nuclear production,” Adams said.
Almost immediately after the deal was announced attention turned to the Duane Arnold Energy Center plant in Iowa, which shut down in 2020 but whose owner, NextEra, has said could be a candidate for being relaunched.
After that, Rampal said, “there are tons of conversations around power uprates,” which is when nuclear plant operators install new equipment or alter the operation of existing plants to make them more powerful.
According to one study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Koroush Shirvan, uprates could increase the capacity of America’s nuclear fleet by 50%. Actual uprates tend to be far more modest (and the paper acknowledges such dramatic uprates “are aspirational and may not be practical”). The last 10 uprates have averaged 1.6%, according to data collected by the Nuclear Energy Institute.
“Many more nuclear plants could be more aggressive with uprates. There’s technology out there that could produce more power,” Mark Nelson, managing director at Radiant Energy Group, told me.
The Loan Program Office can fund these upgrades and they will benefit from tax credits alongside other existing nuclear plants.
Microsoft is not the first technology company to get into the nuclear game, although many observers have long suspected it would. Alongside Google and Nucor, the company has committed to nurturing so-called clean-firm generation to help power operations on a 24/7 basis in a way that existing renewable generation cannot. The company has made several notable hires of nuclear industry veterans in the past few years.
“There’s nowhere in the USA where you can suddenly get power needed by Microsoft while making it additional,” besides bringing new nuclear power onto the grid, Nelson told me, referring to the concept that to fully prevent carbon emissions from new corporate activity, the non-carbon-emitting energy acquired has to be new to the grid. “Not just 24/7, but 24/7 at one location.”
Microsoft’s nuclear deal is also the second major one inked by a technology company just this year. Amazon purchased a data center site co-located at another Pennsylvania nuclear plant in March. That plan to link up a data center with the Susquehanna nuclear power plant has been controversial as it is “behind-the-meter,” meaning it would be powering Amazon’s facility directly, not providing power to the grid under a power purchase agreement like Microsoft will be doing with Constellation, but some argue, still shifting costs to other grid customers. The Amazon deal also does not provide any new clean power, it simply reallocates it to a big customer.
But there are only so many existing nuclear power plants that could uprate or recently-shut plants that could restart, but whatever new nuclear power does come online, there will likely be a technology company eager to scoop it up.
“We need to stamp out nuclear plants of designs that work now and lock in new construction,” Nelson told me. “We’re in a time of extreme scarcity.”
The CEO of Cleveland-Cliffs cast doubt on a new mill funded in part by $500 million in federal grants. What does that say about corporate commitments to decarbonization?
American steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs cast doubt last week on the country’s most important green steel project. Chief executive Lourenco Goncalves suggested in an interview that the company was considering passing up $500 million of federal grants to build a new hydrogen-powered mill at its Middletown Works facility in Ohio, blaming fears that there won’t be buyers for the lower-carbon product, which he claimed could cost 40% more to produce than steel made by conventional methods. Cleveland-Cliffs later issued a short press release walking back Goncalves’s comments and reaffirming its commitment to the “transformational” project.
It’s, of course, possible that Goncalves was just expressing personal concerns that do not reflect the company’s official position. But either way, those doubts were not only real, but revealing about our prospects for decarbonization by mid-century.
First, the episode is a stark indictment of the many attempts to create demand for cleaner products by conjuring up corporate ambition on climate change. The entire rationale for cajoling corporations to quantify the emissions in their supply chains, known as Scope 3 emissions, has been to pressure them into sourcing greener inputs. The steel sector produces 7% to 9% of emissions globally: if it were a country, it would be the world’s third-biggest emitter after the United States and China. And steel represents the biggest single source of Scope 3 emissions for many companies in other industries — on the order of 40% to 45% for auto companies and as high as 85% for construction, for example. This makes steel a litmus test for whether Scope 3 footprinting and corporate commitments to green their supply chains are delivering as promised.
Worse, these types of steel buyers have ostensibly already been organized to show demand for green inputs. Before he stepped down as President Biden’s special envoy for climate, one of John Kerry’s cornerstone initiatives was the First Mover’s Coalition, an effort to secure advanced purchasing commitments from corporate buyers for green steel and other industrial materials. The fact that the coalition’s members – many of which are major steel buyers like Ford and General Motors – were not publically jumping all over the outputs of Cleveland-Cliffs’s heavily subsidized project is itself troubling. After all, while the green premium on steel may be significant, the material is typically a relatively cheap input into much more expensive, high value-added products.
Goncalves’s comments also underscore how uncomfortable incumbent industries perceive the jump to new, low-carbon products to be. Assume that the new Cleveland-Cliffs mill does in fact pencil out at the cost originally expected and that it has a reasonable prospect of finding offtakers. The company still says it has to invest $1.1 billion to complete the project. It is not really enough, in the logic of the market, for that investment to be profitable: It has to compete against the opportunity cost of alternative investments, including manufacturing conventional steel. Even if both outputs would find buyers, conventional steel may still be more profitable.
Now imagine the company is looking at the larger direction of the industry. If they don’t do this project, they may well forestall a shift to cleaner steel and be able to keep the sector chugging along more profitably for a little longer. Complete the project, and they may bring about changes that, while maybe inevitable, are uncomfortable for the industry. After all, Cleveland-Cliffs and U.S. Steel produce the vast majority of American primary steel; they are steel production in the United States – and so they get to shape its transformation.
This behavior is similar to that of the American car industry. U.S. automakers have largely conceded that electric vehicles will eventually overtake their combustion-engine counterparts, but they are still clinging to the better margins that gas-powered SUVs provide. The short-term profits are hard to pass up, even if it means getting farther behind EV first-movers like Tesla, BYD, and Hyundai. Once the technology pathway to a sector’s transition becomes clear — even when it feels inevitable — incumbents may still have an extremely hard time ripping off the bandaid.
It’s as if decarbonization is a massive marshmallow test for corporate America, and it’s failing.
There are essentially two ways out of this dilemma.
The first is that society will need to rely on new entrants to each sector to disrupt the status quo. Companies developing entirely novel steelmaking technologies like Boston Metals become more important to the steel transition than Cleveland-Cliffs, just as Tesla has been to the American EV market. Sublime Systems may be vital for green cement, just as Fervo Energy may be for enhanced geothermal. The problem with this approach is that it is extremely expensive to build projects in heavy industries like steel, so most pathways assume that even technology developed outside of the incumbents will get deployed by them (Sublime just this week announced a tie-up with cement giant Holcim).
This leads to option two: comprehensive industrial policy. Cleveland-Cliffs may want to see not only that one green project pencils out, but that strategic opportunities and risks favor going green. This might means measures like implementing a U.S. carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to prevent foreign competitors from dumping dirty steel, the government guaranteeing offtake using public procurement programs like Buy Clean and Contracts for Difference, and ultimately policy sticks like carbon pricing that send a long-term signal favoring clean products over polluting ones, instead of relying on corporate social responsibility for a demand signal.
To decarbonize the economy, we will probably have to rely both on more robust industrial policy and the sector disruption from new entrants. While the story of this Cleveland-Cliffs project is far from over, the company’s apparent hesitancy, like that of U.S. automakers, may be teaching us a lesson that we have to learn quickly if we want to see decarbonization any time soon.
On major nuclear news, the Doomsday Glacier, and Canada’s emissions
Current conditions: Cleanup efforts have begun in Italy’s washed out Emilia-Romagna region • Endangered freshwater dolphins are washing ashore at Brazil’s Lake Tefe as water levels recede due to drought • The Colorado Rockies could see some snow this weekend.
We’ll start with some breaking news today: Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of an infamous 1979 partial reactor meltdown, will be revived by 2028 as part of a plan to provide power for Microsoft’s data centers. Constellation Energy, the plant’s owner and the largest nuclear operator in the country, announced the news today. Microsoft agreed to buy all of the plant’s power for 20 years – enough energy to power 800,000 homes.
If approved, this decision “would mark a bold advance in the tech industry’s quest to find enough electric power to support its boom in artificial intelligence,” The Washington Post reported. “The symbolism is enormous,” Joseph Dominguez, chief executive of Constellation, toldThe New York Times. “This was the site of the industry’s greatest failure, and now it can be a place of rebirth.”
“Now, THIS is additional clean supply,” said Heatmap Shift Key co-host Jesse Jenkins. “Bravo. It is remarkable to see a handful of nuclear reactors shuttered in the last decade due to poor revenues contemplating restart now. Palisades, now TMI. Who is next? Maybe it was unwise to let these plants close in the fist place eh?”
The World Bank Group yesterday announced it delivered a record $42.6 billion in climate finance in fiscal year 2024 (which ran from July to June), a 10% increase year-over-year. Climate financing made up 44% of the group’s total lending, which is awfully close to its goal, set at COP28, of 45% for fiscal year 2025. However this remains “well short of the trillions of dollars in additional resources needed annually to finance the clean energy transition in emerging markets and developing countries,” notedReuters.
Carbon removal startup Equatic announced it has started manufacturing its “oxygen-selective anode,” which has the potential to pave the way for a two-for-one climate solution: commercial hydrogen production and carbon removal. Equatic wants to use seawater electrolysis – sending an electrical current through seawater – to sequester carbon dioxide from the air in the ocean while also producing hydrogen. But as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported, electrolysis tends to turn the salt in the water into the toxic and corrosive gas chlorine, which makes commercializing such a process challenging. So Equatic set out to find the right combination of catalysts to make an anode – a sheet of conductive, positively-charged metal – that, when used in electrolysis, would screen out the salt and not allow it to react. Using ARPA-E funding, they landed on a design that produced less than one part per million of chlorine (lower than the amount in drinking water) and performed reliably for more than 20,000 hours of testing.
The company’s San Francisco facility will be able to produce 4,000 of these anodes per year to start, and is expected to operate at full capacity by the end of 2024. It will produce the anodes for Equatic’s first demonstration-scale project, a new plant in Singapore designed to remove 10 metric tons of CO2 and produce 300 kilograms of hydrogen per day — 100 times larger than the pilot version. Equatic also has plans to build an even bigger plant in Quebec that can remove 300 tons per day. That’s about three times the capacity of Climeworks’ Mammoth plant, the world’s largest direct air capture plant operating today.
Scientists who spent six years examining the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica warned this week that the outlook for the glacier is “grim.” Thwaites, often referred to as the “Doomsday Glacier,” is massive, spanning an area equal to the state of Florida. It has been retreating for nearly a century, but this melting has accelerated significantly over the last 30 years and the new research suggests it is set to worsen. Within 200 years, the glacier could collapse, raising sea levels worldwide. CNN succinctly summarized why this matters:
“Thwaites holds enough water to increase sea levels by more than 2 feet. But because it also acts like a cork, holding back the vast Antarctic ice sheet, its collapse could ultimately lead to around 10 feet of sea level rise, devastating coastal communities from Miami and London to Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands.”
Dr. Ted Scambos, U.S. science coordinator of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration and glaciologist at the University of Colorado, said “immediate and sustained climate intervention will have a positive effect, but a delayed one.”
ITGC
A sweeping new report from the World Resources Institute paints a bleak picture of what 996 of the world’s biggest cities will feel like in a world that is 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial records, and compares that to a scenario in which temperatures warm by 3 degrees Celsius. Here are some stats:
The report also looks at what warmer temperatures mean for mosquito-borne diseases. Some, like dengue, Zika, and West Nile, will become more common. But malaria could actually decline “as temperatures in many places become warmer than what is optimal for malaria-transmitting mosquitos.”
Canada’s carbon emissions dropped last year for the first time since the pandemic, falling 0.8% between 2022 and 2023.