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:
Talks, workshops, demos, and tours worth checking out at the United States’ biggest — and most chaotic — climate event.

There is no bigger climate event in the country than Climate Week NYC — and, it might be fair to say, no event more impenetrable. With over 400 talks, workshops, demos, screenings, tours, karaoke parties (???), private events, and networking mingles, and no central event space, trying to make sense of what to see and where to go is not for the faint of heart. Looking at the seemingly endless events calendar, you get the impression that you should have begun strategizing back in August.
If you are not one of those people with amazing foresight, though, then the first full day of Climate Week could have you scrambling. Some cool events are already sold out; others are invite-only. Here’s Heatmap’s last-minute guide to saving your Climate Week:
Lucid Air Demo Drives
From: Ongoing
Where: Lucid Studio, 2 9th Avenue
Do luxury EVs have you curious? Then put your name on the waitlist for a demo drive of a Lucid Air on “a designated route through the iconic streets of Manhattan,” followed by a poke around the automaker’s Meatpacking District flagship studio. Learn more here.
Book Talk with Jeff Goodell, author of The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet
From: 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Where: The Institute for Public Knowledge, 20 Cooper Square, 2nd floor
Jeff Goodell has a knack for timing; his “propulsive” new book on extreme heat was met with raves when it came out this summer during the deadly heat dome in the southwest. On Monday night, he speaks with The Institute for Public Knowledge’s Eric Klinenberg and Eleni (Lenio) Myrivili, the chief heat officer of Athens, Greece, about “life and death on a scorched planet.” Learn more here.
Up2Us2023: A Better World Is Possible
From: 7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Where: Virtual and at Adler Hall at The New York Society for Ethical Culture, 2 W. 64th Street
The climate crisis has a communication problem. At this event, Scott Z. Burns (the writer/director of Apple TV+’s Extrapolations), Project Drawdown’s lead scientist Dr. Kate Marvel, Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, and other major climate communicators will discuss how to better speak about the collaborations, actions, and global solutions at hand. Learn more here.
The Nest Climate Campus
From: Sept. 19 at 8:30 a.m. - Sept. 21, 5:30 p.m.
Where: Javits Center
The Nest Climate Campus at Javits Center is its own ecosystem within the greater Climate Week — you have to register (for free) separately, but once inside you have access to “the Climate Collective,” an “energetic networking space” filled with demos, products, and activations, as well as the main stage, where there will be speakers including former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and her fellow America Is All In co-chair, Washington state Governor Jay Inslee (on Thursday). Learn more here.
The Roadmap for Decarbonizing Cities
From: 10:00 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.
Where: Sustainability Summit NYC, 666 3rd Avenue, 21st Floor
Cities are responsible for two-thirds of global energy consumption and 70% of carbon emissions annually — but how do you go about making a whole entire urban environment greener? This short discussion is hosted by the Consulate General of Denmark in New York, and will feature Sharon Dijksma, the mayor of Utrecht — one of Heatmap’s seven sustainable neighborhoods of the future — as one of the speakers. There will be an opportunity at the end to ask questions. Learn more here.
Classic Harbor Line AIANY Climate Change Tour: Resiliency, Sustainable Architecture and the Future of NYC
From: 2:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
Where: Departs from Chelsea Piers (Pier 62) - W. 22nd Street and Hudson River
It can be easy to forget that Manhattan is an island — and susceptible to all the climate impacts that come with it. As such, to really understand how New York is changing, you need to get out on its waterways. Expect to see examples of green infrastructure, tidal marshes, and wetlands, and learn the “steps that interdisciplinary teams of urban planners, architects, landscape architects, developers, and community groups are taking to address storm surges, intense rains, and hotter temperatures.” If you miss the boat, another sailing will take place on Wednesday. Learn more here.
The Climate Boot Camp
From: Wednesday through Saturday
Where: Virtual
Want to seriously up your sustainability and organizing games? The EcoActUs Working Group is offering a free, seven-and-a-half hour “Climate Boot Camp,” which involves insight from “52 expert climate leaders [about what] needs to be done about the climate crisis and how to get it done — in a series of 8-to-15-minute presentations.” The bootcamp is self-guided and virtual, and comes with a free e-workbook with “160 curated drill-down links to lectures, websites, podcasts, music, art, and film.” Learn more here.
Demo Hall: Hard Tech Solutions to the Climate Crisis
From: 4:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Where: Near Washington Square Park (exact location available upon RSVP)
Are you eager to actually get your hands on “prototypes of the technology reshaping the energy and climate economy”? Over 20 companies will be showing off their clean-tech solutions in this demo hall, with an accompanying “fireside chat” between Dr. Evelyn Wang, the director at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and journalist Molly Wood starting at 5 p.m. See the full list of attendees and learn more here.
SAVE HER! The Environmental Drag Show
From: 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Where: House of Yes, 2 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn
Forget about going to some boring networking mixer this Climate Week, because Pattie Gonia and VERA! are hosting “performances by nine sustainability drag queens, kings, and things” at the House of Yes. Start planning your outfit now: The theme is “Mother Nature’s Disco,” complete with an accompanying mood board to get you started. Learn more here.
The New York Times’ Climate Forward events
From: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Where: Virtual
The New York Times is hosting a day-long Climate Week event featuring presentations by Bill Gates, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Vice President Al Gore, chef José Andrés, tidying expert Marie Kondo, the President of the World Bank Group Ajay Banga, and others. In-person tickets are currently waitlist only and start at $350, but attending the event virtually is free for New York Times subscribers and includes access to a Slack channel set up for remote attendees. Learn more here.
Global Choices: An Evening On Ice
From: 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Where: Virtual and at The Explorers Club, 46 E. 70th Street
How long will it take someone at the Explorers’ Club’s “Evening On Ice” event to make an “Ice, Ice, Baby” reference? Find out for yourself by RSVPing to learn more about the global “ice crisis,” featuring speakers who will discuss “the science and geopolitics” behind disappearing ice and snowpack, as well as “hopeful pathways forward.” Learn more here.
Tripling Global Clean Energy Capacity By 2030: Is It Enough? Is It Possible? Will It Be Fair?
From: 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Where: Virtual and at Volvo Hall, Scandinavia House, 58 Park Avenue
RMI brings together government and clean-energy leaders to discuss “how powerful change drivers can accelerate renewable energy deployment globally by the end of this decade.” The discussion will have a particular emphasis on the Global South, especially as it pertains to adopting global energy targets around COP28. Learn more here.
Marketplace of the Future
From: 2:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Where: Starrett-Lehigh Building, 601 West 26th Street
“Everything from solar power, electric vehicles, compost programs, building retrofits, and circular fashion will be available to explore” at the seventh annual Marketplace of the Future exhibition. Tickets for the day cost $49.87. Browse the speakers and events here and learn more here.
Meet the New York Climate Exchange
From: Tours start 11:45 a.m., 12:45 p.m., and 1:45 p.m.
Where: Liggett Terrace, Governors Island
When it is completed in 2025, the New York Climate Exchange will be a 400,000-square-foot campus on Governors Island “dedicated to researching and creating innovative climate solutions that will be scaled across New York City and the world.” You don’t have to wait 15-plus months for an official introduction, though: This free tour and informational session will get you up to speed on the Climate Exchange, which will one day serve 600 postsecondary students, 4,500 K‑12 students, 6,000 workforce trainees, and up to 30 businesses through its incubator program. Be sure to check out other Governors Island events happening this week too. Learn more 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.
On a $6 billion EV write-down, a disappointing bullet train, and talks on a major mining merger
Current conditions: Nearly all of Australia is under a heat warning as wildfires continue to burn • 65,000 properties in the United Kingdom lose power due to Storm Goretti • Two tornadoes ripped through Oklahoma on Thursday, the first in the U.S. in 2026.
After writing a memo last year that shook up the climate community with its call for a pragmatic “pivot,” Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates published another missive Friday morning laying out his ideas on global problems — and their solutions. The bulk of his “The Year Ahead: Optimism with Footnotes” letter touches on his primary philanthropic concern, global public health, and he laments that “the world went backwards last year on a key metric of progress: the number of deaths of children under 5 years old.” Across both public health and climate change, he maintains his characteristic optimism about innovation (now, innovation buoyed by artificial intelligence), but says that “my optimism comes with footnotes.”
On climate change specifically, Gates hails “meaningful progress” in the past 10 years in cutting projected emissions, but returns to his mantra of technological advancements to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors and bring down the cost of green technology. “We still have a lot of innovation and scaling up to do in tough areas like industrial emissions and aviation. Government policies in rich countries are still critical because unless innovations reach scale, the costs won’t come down and we won’t achieve the impact we need,” Gates says. As for his philanthropy, he writes that “I will be investing and giving more than ever to climate work in the years ahead while also continuing to give more to children’s health, the foundation’s top priority.”
Glencore and Rio Tinto, two of the world’s largest mining companies, are considering a merger, Bloomberg News reported Thursday. If Rio Tinto were to buy Glencore, they would form a $200 billion mining giant. While the two mine and trade a number of commodities, they are both big players in copper, a key metal for electrification and decarbonization because of its use in electrical equipment. Glencore is also a major producer of coal, a business Rio Tinto has exited. People familiar with the merger talks told Bloomberg that Rio Tinto would be “open to retaining Glencore’s coal business if talks are successful,” however.
General Motors said in a regulatory filing that it expects to “record charges of approximately $6.0 billion” related to downsizing its electric vehicle business. The company cited “the termination of certain consumer tax incentives and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations,” which caused “industry-wide consumer demand for EVs in North America … to slow in 2025.” The filing is a marked change from October, when the company predicted a $1.6 billion charge. which Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman attributed at the time to “chaos” induced by the Trump administration.
GM has been reducing its EV and battery commitments in the United States of late, including by transitioning an EV manufacturing facility to producing internal combustion pickup trucks and selling its stake in a battery cell joint venture. GM said in its regulatory filing that the $6 billion worth of charges “include non-cash impairments and other non-cash charges of approximately $1.8 billion as well as supplier commercial settlements, contract cancellation fees, and other charges of approximately $4.2 billion.” In other words, it's writing down the value of investments made in manufacturing capacity it won’t need and making payments to suppliers who had invested as well. It also said it expects “to recognize additional material cash and non-cash charges in 2026 related to continued commercial negotiations with our supply base” and that “proposed regulatory changes to the greenhouse gas emission standards could result in an impairment of our emissions credits.”

Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican Senator, introduced a new data center proposal on Thursday called the DATA Act. Like many government officials at the state, local, and federal levels, Cotton is aiming to balance support for data center development with protections for consumers on electricity costs. Cotton’s bill goes beyond previous proposals to promote “behind the meter” generation and would seek to foster generation that served specific customers with a setup known as a“consumer-regulated electric utility” — i.e. not a public utility.
These CREUs would exist “exclusively for the purpose of serving new electric loads that were not previously served by any retail electricity supplier” — in other words, a new electric system for new demand. These systems would operate outside of regulatory requirements for public utilities, as long as they’re “physically islanded” from the existing electric grid. “American dominance in artificial intelligence and other crucial emerging industries should not come at the expense of Arkansans paying higher energy costs,” Cotton wrote on X.
Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep and Chrysler, is ceasing production of all its brands’ plug-in hybrid models. These include the Wrangler 4xe, which Moseman described as the company’s “signature electrified effort so far.”
Stellantis confirmed the news to industry publication The Drive, telling the outlet: “With customer demand shifting, Stellantis will phase out plug‑in hybrid (PHEV) programs in North America beginning with the 2026 model year, and focus on more competitive electrified solutions, including hybrid and range‑extended vehicles where they best meet customer needs.”
“I debated whether or not to include this in my comments,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in his final State of the State address before discussing the progress being made on California’s troubled high-speed rail project. The project is due to start running — albeit only from Bakersfield to Modesto — in 2033. The estimated cost to complete the full Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line is now some $128 billion, compared to the $33 billion targeted in 2020.
Two international law experts on whether the president can really just yank the U.S. from the United Nations’ overarching climate treaty.
When the Trump administration moved on Wednesday to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we were left to wonder — not for the first time — can he really do that?
The UNFCCC is the umbrella organization governing UN-organized climate diplomacy, including the annual climate summit known as the Conference of the Parties and the 2015 Paris Agreement. The U.S. has been in and out and back into the Paris Agreement over the years, and was most recently taken out again by a January 2025 executive order from President Trump. The U.S. has never before attempted to exit the UNFCCC — which, unlike the Paris Agreement, it joined with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Whether or not a president can unilaterally remove the U.S. from a Senate-approved treaty is somewhat uncharted legal territory. As University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Jean Galbraith told me, “This is an issue on which the text of the constitution is silent — it tells you how to make a treaty, but it doesn’t tell you anything about how to unmake a treaty.” Even if a president can simply withdraw from a treaty, there’s still the question of what happens next. Could a future president simply rejoin the UFCCC? Or would they again need to seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which would require getting 67 senators to agree that international climate diplomacy is a worthy enterprise? And what does all of this mean for the future of the Paris Agreement? Is the U.S. locked out for good?
In an attempt to wrap my head around these questions, I spoke to both Galbraith and Sue Biniaz, a lecturer at Yale School of the Environment and a former lead climate lawyer at the State Department who worked on both the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. Biniaz and Galbraith were part of a 2018 symposium on the question of treaty withdrawal that was prompted, in part, by Trump’s first attempt to remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, during his first term in the White House. Those conversations led Galbraith to consider the question of rejoining treaties in a 2020 Virginia Law Review article. Suffice it for now to say that both questions are complicated, but we dig into the answers to both and more in our conversation below.
Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.
At the most basic level, what are the constitutional questions at play in an executive withdrawal from the UNFCCC?
Galbraith: Typically, the U.S. president needs to think about both international law and domestic law. And as a matter of international law, there is a withdrawal provision in the UNFCCC that says you can withdraw after you’ve been in it for a few years, after one year of notice. Assuming they give their notice of withdrawal and wait a year, this is an issue on which the text of the constitution is silent — it tells you how to make a treaty, but it doesn’t tell you anything about how to unmake a treaty.
And we have no definitive answer from the courts. The closest they got to deciding that was in a case called Goldwater v. Carter, which was when President Carter terminated the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. That was litigated, and the Supreme Court ducked — four justices said this is a political question that we’re not going to resolve, and one justice said this case is not ripe for resolution because I don’t know whether or not Congress likes the withdrawal. There was no majority opinion, and there was no ruling on the merit for the constitutional question.
Presidents have exercised the authority to withdraw the United States from various international agreements. So in practice, it happens. The constitutionality has not been finally settled.
Both Trump administrations have removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, but the Paris Agreement was not a Senate-ratified treaty, whereas the UNFCCC is. How does that change things?
Galbraith: The text of the constitution only clearly spells out one way to make an international treaty, in the treaty clause [of Article II]. When you make an Article II treaty, it’s signed by the president and secretary of state. It goes over to the Senate; the Senate provides advice and consent — the U.S. is still not in it. At that point, the president has to take a final act of ratifying the treaty, which means depositing the instrument of ratification with the international depository, and that’s the moment you’re in. And it’s perfectly permissible for a president after the Senate has given advice and consent not to ratify a treaty, or to leave those resolutions of advice and consent for years and then go ahead and ratify.
In practice, you have all these kinds of other ways of making [a treaty]. You have what happened with the Paris Agreement, where the president does it largely on their own authority, but maybe pointing to pre-existing facts of, say, the UNFCCC’s existence. You have some international agreements that have been negotiated, then taken to Congress rather than to the Senate. Sometimes you have Congress pass a law that says, Please make this kind of agreement. So you have a lot of different pathways to making them. And I think there is a story in which the pathway to making them should be significant in thinking about, what is the legitimate, constitutional way for exiting them?
To me, it’s pretty obvious that if you don’t get specific approval for an agreement in the first place, then you should be able to unilaterally withdraw, assuming you’re doing so consistent with international law. I think the concerns around the constitutionality of withdrawal are more significant for the UNFCCC than they are for the Paris Agreements. But there nonetheless is this fairly strong body of practice in which presidents have viewed themselves as authorized to withdraw without needing to go to Congress or the Senate.
Biniaz: The Senate doesn’t ratify. It sounds like a detail, but the Senate basically authorizes the president to ratify — they give their advice and consent. And that’s important because it’s not the Senate that decides whether we join an agreement. They authorize the president, the president does not have to join. And that becomes relevant when we talk about withdrawing and rejoining.
We did not address, when we sent up the framework convention, whether it was legally necessary to send it to the Senate. But we sent it in any event, and it was approved basically unanimously by the full Senate back in 1992. With respect to the Paris Agreement, there are a lot of different considerations when you’re trying to figure out whether something needs to go to the Senate or not, but the fact that we already had a Senate-approved convention changed the legal calculus as to whether this Paris Agreement needed to go to the Senate. And then when the Paris Agreement ended up essentially elaborating the convention and the targets were not legally binding, we decided we could do it as an executive agreement. There was some quibbling in some quarters — more from a political point of view than a legal point of view — but I didn’t hear any objection from a legal point of view.
Now, in terms of withdrawing from an agreement, whether or not an agreement has been approved by the Senate, my view would be: The president can withdraw unilaterally. That is the mainstream view. It’s certainly the view that the president can withdraw unilaterally from an agreement that didn’t even go to Congress, like the Paris Agreement. And in part, that’s for the reasons that I mentioned. The Senate is not deciding to join the agreement — they’re authorizing, but it’s up to the president whether to actually join, and the president does that unilaterally. And then the mirror image of that would be he or she can withdraw unilaterally.
There’s a related legal question that has not been litigated, which is if Congress passes a law that says, Thou shalt not withdraw from a particular agreement, would that law be constitutional? Some would say no, because the president can withdraw, and so the Congress can’t fetter that right. So that’s like uncharted waters, but that’s not a live issue in this case.
Trump took the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. Biden put the us back into the Paris Agreement. Trump then took us out of the Paris Agreement again, and is now withdrawing the U.S. from the umbrella organization of the Paris Agreement. I assume that would complicate the efforts of a future president to rejoin the Paris Agreement. Would it be possible for them to rejoin the framework convention? What would have to happen?
Galbraith: So first, the framework convention is the gateway to the Paris Agreement. There’s a provision in the Paris Agreement that says, in order to be in the Paris Agreement, you’ve got to be in the framework convention. And so as a matter of international law, in order to rejoin the Paris Agreement — at least unless it were dramatically amended, which is its own unlikely thing — you would need to be a member of the UNFCCC, which does mean that the question of how you rejoin the UNFCCC becomes significant. We have very little practice on any kind of rejoining. I myself think that the president could simply rejoin the UNFCCC by pointing back to the original Senate resolution of advice and consent to it. You could go back to the Senate. You could ask Congress for a resolution.
My own view is that if the president withdraws the U.S., well, they still have on the books this resolution in which the Senate has consented to ratification — they want to go back in, they go back in. I think this is pretty logically clear, but also an important constraint on presidential power. Because it’s a much more concerning increase in presidential power if you have to do all the work of getting two-thirds of the Senate, then any president can, just at the snap of their fingers, take you out, and you have to go all the way back to the beginning.
Biniaz: There are many options. One is a straightforward option: You go back to the Senate, get 67 votes. Another would be you get both houses of Congress to authorize it [on a majority vote basis]. Another would be — and there may be more — but another would be the idea that the original Senate resolution which we used in 1992 to join still exists, and nothing has extinguished it. And there the analogy would be to a regular law.
There’s several laws in the United States that authorized the president to join some kind of international body or institution. There’s a law that authorizes the president to join the International Labor Organization. There’s a law that authorized the president to join UNESCO. In both of those cases, the U.S. has been in and out and back in — and I think in one case, at least, back out. No one has batted an eye because, well, it’s a law. So the question there would be, is there any reason why a Senate resolution would be any different? Professor Galbraith explores in her law review article that exact question, and concludes that, no, there shouldn’t be a difference — I’m simplifying, but that’s the gist. And under that theory, yeah, a future president could rejoin the convention on his or her own, utilizing that authority, and then after having rejoined the convention, rejoin the Paris Agreement.
So you mentioned that there’s a provision in the UNFCCC that says you have to give notice that you’re exiting, and you wait a year, and then you exit. What does not waiting a year look like?
Galbraith: It can happen that an entity will announce its exit and then violate international law by violating the treaty terms during that one-year period. If there are, say, reporting obligations that the United States has, it would be a violation of international law not to meet those during the period while you’re still a party to the treaty.
This is obviously an escalation of Trump’s previous actions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, in the sense that it cuts off the path to rejoining that. What does this tell us about the way the Trump administration views its position within global climate diplomacy, and also the international community, period?
Galbraith: It adds to the impression that we already see other contexts, which is that the second Trump administration is even less inhibited and climate-aware than the first administration was — which is really saying something, right? This is an escalation of a position that was already an international outlier. Every other country is in these things, and it shows a real, powerful, and deeply upsetting failure to address the crisis of the global commons.
Biniaz: The way I think about it is that, during Trump 1, it was more like there was an absence of a positive — so in other words, the administration continued to participate in negotiations. They were not pressing countries to take climate action, but neither were they pressing countries not to take climate action. This administration, you could think of it as not just the absence of a positive, but the presence of a negative. I don’t mean that in any judgmental sense. I just mean there’s been much more of an active push from the administration for others to sort of follow suit or to vote against climate-related agreements such as at the [International Maritime Organization]. That’s quite a difference between 1 and 2.
Going into this past year’s COP, it seemed like there was already a sense that international climate diplomacy was, if not dead, at least the wind had come out of the sails. Do you agree? And if so, do you think that wind will come back?
Biniaz: You have to think of international climate diplomacy very broadly. It’s not just the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and decisions that are taken by consensus. That was pretty thin gruel that came out of COP30. But if you think of international climate diplomacy more broadly as all kinds of initiatives, coalitions that are operating among subgroups of countries and at all levels of stakeholders, there’s really a lot going on in what people call the real world. I think over the next couple of years, the proportion of action that’s taken officially, by consensus, dips somewhat, and action goes up. And maybe that balance shifts over time. But I think it’s wrong to judge climate diplomacy simply by what was achievable by 197 countries, because that’s always going to be the hardest to achieve, with or without the United States.
I think it’s more difficult without a pro-climate U.S. because of the role the U.S. has historically played, in terms of promoting ambition and brokering compromises and that kind of thing. But I don’t think, if you only look at that, it’s not the right metric for judging all of global climate diplomacy.
On Venezuela’s oil, permitting reform, and New York’s nuclear plans
Current conditions: Cold temperatures continue in Europe, with thousands of flights canceled at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, while Scotland braces for a winter storm • Northern New Mexico is anticipating up to a foot of snow • Australia continues to swelter in heat wave, with “catastrophic fire risk” in the state of Victoria.
The White House said in a memo released Wednesday that it would withdraw from more than 60 intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international climate community’s governing organization for more than 30 years. After a review by the State Department, the president had determined that “it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support” to the organizations listed. The withdrawal “marks a significant escalation of President Trump’s war on environmental diplomacy beyond what he waged in his first term,” Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote Wednesday evening. Though Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (twice), he had so far refused to touch the long-tenured UNFCCC, a Senate-ratified pact from the early 1990s of which the U.S. was a founding member, which “has served as the institutional skeleton for all subsequent international climate diplomacy, including the Paris Agreement,” Meyer wrote.
Among the other organizations named in Trump’s memo was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which produces periodic assessments on the state of climate science. The IPCC produced the influential 2018 report laying the intellectual foundations for the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
More details are emerging on the Trump administration’s plan to control Venezuela’s oil assets. Trump posted Tuesday evening on Truth Social that the U.S. government would take over almost $3 billion worth of Venezuelan oil. On Wednesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told a Goldman Sachs energy conference that “going forward we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace.” A Department of Energy fact sheet laid out more information, including that “all proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in U.S. controlled accounts,” and that “these funds will be disbursed for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people at the discretion of the U.S. government.” The DOE also said the government would selectively lift some sanctions to enable the oil sales and transport and would authorize importation of oil field equipment.
As I wrote for Heatmap on Monday, sanctions are just one barrier to oil development among a handful that would have to be cleared for U.S. oil companies to begin exploiting Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
In a Senate floor speech, Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico blasted the Trump administration’s anti-renewables executive actions, saying that the U.S. is “facing an energy crisis of the Trump administration’s own making,” and that “the Trump administration is dismantling the permitting process that we use to build new energy projects and get cheaper electrons on the grid.” Heinrich, a Democrat, is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a key player in any possible permitting reform bill. Though he said he supports permitting reform in principle, calling for “a system that can reliably get to a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ on a permit in two to three years — not 10, not 17,” he said that “any permitting deal is going to have to guarantee that no administration of either party can weaponize the permitting process for cheap political points.” Heinrich called on Trump officials “to follow the law. They need to reverse their illegal stop work orders, and they need to start approving legally compliant energy projects.”
He did offer an olive branch to the Republican senators with whom he would have to negotiate on any permitting legislation, noting that “the challenge to doing permitting reform is not in this building,” specifying that Senators Mike Lee, chair of the ENR Committee, and Shelly Moore-Capito, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, have not been barriers to a deal. Instead, he said, “it is this Administration that is poisoning the well.”

The climate science nonprofit Climate Central released an analysis Thursday morning ranking 2025 “as the third-highest year (after 2023 and 2024) for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters — with 23 such events causing 276 deaths and costing a total of $115 billion in damages,” according to a press release.
Going back to 1980, the average number of disasters costing $1 billion or more to clean up was nine, with an average total bill of $67.9 billion. The U.S. hit that average within the first weeks of last year with the Los Angeles wildfires, which alone were responsible for over $61 billion in damages, the most economically damaging wildfire on record.
The New York Power Authority announced Wednesday that 23 “potential developers or partners,” including heavyweights like NextEra and GE Hitachi and startups like The Nuclear Company and Terra Power, had responded to its requests for information on developing advanced nuclear projects in New York State. Eight upstate communities also responded as potential host sites for the projects.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul said last summer that New York’s state power agency would go to work on developing 1 gigawatt of nuclear capacity upstate. Late last year, Hochul signed an agreement with Ontario Premier Doug Ford to collaborate on nuclear technology. Ontario has been working on a small modular reactor at its existing Darlington nuclear site, across Lake Ontario from New York.
“Sunrise Wind has spent and committed billions of dollars in reliance upon, and has met the requests of, a thorough review process,” Orsted, the developer of the Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York, said in a statement announcing that it was filing for a preliminary injunction against the suspension of its lease late last year.