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 change once dominated the Oscars. Not so much this year.
Talking about climate change: out.
Hollywood loves a good trend, but while rose appliqués and feel-good comeback stories made the cut for the 2023 Oscars, the most important story of our time was hard to spot. During Sunday night’s three-hour-and-thirty-seven-minute-long telecast, there was virtually no mention of climate change.
That marks a notable departure from years past. Going back to 2007, when An Inconvenient Truth became the first documentary to win two Oscars, celebrities like Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio, and Joaquin Phoenix have used their acceptance speeches to urge attention and action for the cause. There has also been an uptick in climate-related nominees, from Beasts of the Southern Wild (2013) to water scarcity apocalypse films like Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and Dune (2021). In 2020, the red carpet was all about sustainable fashion. Last year, after inspiring a Just Stop Oil protest at the BAFTAs earlier in awards season, Don't Look Now made the Oscars' opening monologue with host Amy Schumer joking its star, Dicaprio, is fighting climate change so he can “leave behind a cleaner planet for his girlfriends.”
But while climate may have vanished into the backdrop like a white dress into a champagne carpet on Sunday, it wasn’t actually gone. A number of this year's nominees grappled either directly or indirectly with related themes, including Best Picture competitor Avatar: The Way of Water, James Cameron’s upwards-of-two-hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar environmental exploitation metaphor; All that Breathes, a heartbreaking documentary about a Delhi bird hospital that lost so the Academy could poke Russia in the eye with Navalny; EO, a Polish foreign-language nominee that follows the trials of a donkey, and which turned half the crew working on it into vegetarians during production; and Haulout, a short doc about how rising temperatures are decimating the Siberian walrus population. The Elephant Whisperers, which examines how climate change and humans are destroying Asian elephant habitats, ultimately took the statuette in the short documentary competition and was the only climate-related winner of the night.
Researchers and storytelling consultants have pushed in recent years for there to be more projects focused on climate change, especially in fiction. As one study found, of the thousands of new scripted shows and movies made between 2016 and 2020, “only 2.8 percent included any climate-related keyword.” There is an obvious disjointedness there: If you’re “telling a story that takes place on this Earth in modern times or in the future that doesn’t acknowledge climate change, it’s going to feel divorced from the audience’s lives,” Anna Jane Joyner, the founder of Good Energy, a firm that pushes for better climate stories in Hollywood, told Time earlier this month. “You know, kind of like showing flip phones instead of iPhones.”
But just because you can tell a story about the climate doesn’t necessarily mean you should, as Apple TV+’s dreadful Extrapolations, out later this week, proves. Though storytelling will undoubtedly have a central role in how we speak, understand, and act on climate in the coming years, climate change is still a new, gangly, awkward, and developing genre — and one that too often beats you over the head with obvious metaphors or vague gestures of urgency. Avatar: The Way of Water, for example, was a visually stunning project, but it was hardly the best film of 2022, hamstrung by a shallow metaphor that veers into tropism. More promise might be found in a film like First Reformed, which struggles to reconcile faith with our destruction of the world, and which got a nod from the Academy for Screenwriting in 2019. We're still finding our way forward, with hits and misses; as the years go on, our stories will get better.
Still, it’s perhaps surprising celebrities were so tight-lipped on Sunday night. There were no social-media-friendly mentions of #StopWillow during the evening, for example, nor acknowledgments of California’s recent extreme (albeit, not always directly climate-change-related) weather. Even actress Zoe Saldaña — the ambassador for RCGD Global, which partnered with the Academy this year to distribute a responsible fashion style guide — didn’t get into the reasons why we need to focus on “sustainability” when she talked about her vintage Fendi dress.
The cynical view would be that the silence on Sunday represents passive complacency. With the growing scrutiny of individual celebrities, and social media quick to call out perceived hypocrites, no one wants to risk throwing themselves into the crosshairs by claiming to be a model climate citizen. And to be fair, Oscar viewers might not want to hear about personal responsibility from those winding about L.A. in their limousines.
More optimistically, though, it might be that climate-related storytelling just had an off year. If Avatar, All that Breathes, or EO had won, perhaps their creators would have highlighted the urgency of climate change from the stage. Next year there will also be ample opportunities, with DiCaprio back on the red carpet for Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Killers of the Flower Moon, about the murders of Osage Native Americans on their oil-producing lands in Oklahoma; Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer, a Manhattan Project biographical film with obvious preoccupations about the end of the world; and, of course, Dune: Part Two.
As Hollywood always shows, trends come and trends go. The climate wasn’t the cause du jour of this particular Oscars. But like Juliet cardigans, low-rise jeans, and other inescapable abominations, it isn’t going anywhere.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.