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:
There will not be one type of cultured chicken. There will be kosher cultured chicken, halal cultured chicken, and ... vegan cultured chicken?

When you’re a vegetarian, you get used to dealing with sneering, horrified, nosy, and bewildered questions of “...but why?!”
My own well-practiced answer — designed to minimize confrontation — goes something like this: I was raised not eating red meat and then when I was a teenager, I became obsessed with our cultural disconnect from our food and decided that if I couldn’t stomach killing and preparing an animal myself, then I had no right to eat it. But don’t worry, my husband eats meat! I’m not judgmental!
The truth is actually much more complicated and nuanced (my “long version” includes anecdotes about my stint at a wildlife rehabilitation center, my father’s heart attack, and an explanation of why I eat meat when I travel abroad), but I usually don’t get that far when talking with strangers. That’s because what we eat and why are deeply personal questions that can touch on everything from one’s religious beliefs to their code of ethics, cultural and philosophical values, health, and concerns about environmental impact. Every person who observes dietary restrictions around meat has spent at least some time — perhaps very little, maybe every single day — privately weighing these considerations.
Then earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture threw all of that carefully considered reasoning out the window by approving the sale of lab-grown chicken.
Don’t get me wrong: This is incredible news. Around 15% of global emissions come from livestock farming (including dairy and eggs), and it would likely be impossible to get everyone on the planet to switch to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Indeed, for animal rights activists, “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat has long been akin to cold fusion for food — that is, a science-fiction solution that theoretically fixes everything.
But now, using cells harvested from live animals, companies like Upside Foods and Good Meat are able to safely grow animal fat and muscle tissue in stainless steel tanks, resulting in what is essentially slaughter-free animal protein for human consumption. When I spoke with the influential animal welfare philosopher Peter Singer a few months ago about the ethical quandaries of eating meat during the climate crisis, he’d cited such advancements in cultured meat (at the time, only available in Singapore) as an exciting, if far-off, opportunity, telling me “if we can get that economically competitive, maybe that’ll be a solution to the problem.”
The widespread proliferation of cultured meat is admittedly still a long way off. For the time being, lab-grown chicken will only be sold in select U.S. restaurants and an enormous amount of scaling is required for cultured meat to begin to replace industrial farming. There are also concerns that current production methods are not actually more sustainable than live-animal farming. Plus, there is a squeamish factor of “meat grown in tanks” to be cleared.
But the USDA approval is still nothing short of a game-changer. “I’m vegan for ethical reasons, and so if people can enjoy the familiar tastes of meat and textures of chicken and whatever else without animals dying, then that’s a huge win in my book,” Nisha Vora, a vegan recipe developer and cookbook author who runs the YouTube channel and blog Rainbow Plant Life, told me. Still, “it will be weird to eat chicken!” she admitted.
Vora isn’t sure yet how much lab-grown meat will factor into her future recipes, explaining that many of her followers are interested in whole foods and cooking that is meat-adjacent, “so I don’t think I have a huge swath of my audience that’s really like, ‘oh, I can’t wait for meat,’ you know?” She observed, though, that lab-grown meat could potentially make labor-intensive parts of some of her recipes, like her popular vegan Crunchwrap Supreme dupe, easier and quicker, albeit not quite as healthy. “If you are vegan for health reasons, or you’re plant-based for health reasons … then maybe that’s not what you want to be eating,” she pointed out.
Omnivores might be scratching their heads at these fine nuances, wondering why they’re a big deal: No animals are killed, can’t you people ever be happy? But it’s actually the fact that the animals aren’t killed that might prevent a quarter of the world’s population from eating lab-grown meat.
Many religions have customs regarding meat consumption, including Judaism, Hinduism, certain denominations of Christianity, and Islam — groups that together make up approximately half of the global population. That means there is a lot of confusion and theological debate when it comes to cultured meat. As The Washington Post once memorably put it, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, but you’re not supposed to eat a duck, does God consider this ‘cheating’?”
The answer is, it depends.
Take halal, the Islamic laws governing food. A number of rules must be met for meat to be considered permissible to eat, including proper slaughtering of the animal. It is, for example, forbidden to eat an animal that dies naturally and becomes a carcass. This is an essential technicality for the 25% of people globally who keep halal.
“Any severed part of a surviving (land) livestock animal can become a carcass” — including its cells, one recent Malaysian study explained. As such, lab-grown meat would only be halal if the animal the cells were collected from was “slaughtered according to the Shariah law.” Such an interpretation has been echoed by religious authorities in Pakistan and Indonesia, the two countries with the largest Muslim populations. (Kosher-slaughtered origin animals may be acceptable in the eyes of rabbis, too, although Jewish authorities have gone back and forth on the matter).
But using cells from a slaughtered animal might be a non-starter for some hardcore animal rights activists since the shift makes the lab-grown cells ever so slightly less cruelty-free. PETA has long been a proponent and backer of cultivated meat, although on the grounds that “no animal died for it.” As PETA’s Catie Cryar clarified for me, “It is our hope that the original process used to obtain cells will be superseded by scientific advances, but at the very least, our goal would be to have no additional animals slaughtered after the original cell lines were obtained.” That means there is potentially a world in which even cultured meat gets labels distinguishing it as either “vegan friendly” or “halal and kosher” (currently, most cultivated meats are made from live-animal cells).
Hindus, meanwhile, may not eat cultured beef regardless of its origin due to the sacred status of cows, one 2020 survey found, although overall Hinduism was “the only religious group who were … more willing to eat cultured meat than conventional meat … perhaps highlighting the motivation to avoid harming animals.” And of course, all of this generalizes the positions of enormously diverse world religions — every worshipper will have their own perspective.
Then there is a whole other sect of non-meat-eaters that we’ve largely ignored: those who abstain for health reasons. While meat substitutes on the market today are made from plants, lab-grown meat is still animal meat. But that also means eating cultured steaks isn’t any better for you than eating real steaks. Even if cellular meat does eventually take off, there will be plenty of people who avoid it simply because they don’t want to include meat in their diet, no matter what its animal or, uh, tank of origin is.
Now let me guess, you nosy Nelly — you’re wondering at this point what I am going to do? I admit my thinking has been all over the place. Sure, when it comes to my animal-ethics-forward viewpoints, there should be nothing stopping me from eating lab-grown meat. I’m a big believer in open-mindedness and adaption and I fully support lab-grown meat being available on the wider market. But I also enjoy the health benefits of eating plant-based, and it’s conceptually just strange to think of myself eating chicken protein even if no chickens were harmed in the making of my meal.
Mostly I just think it’s funny how one little USDA stamp of approval has the potential to unmoor my entire identity as a vegetarian — whatever that even means anymore. We’ll probably need to come up with new terms to distinguish between people who don’t eat animal proteins, period, and people who don’t eat slaughtered animals.
I’m sure, also, that there will eventually be a need for a term to describe meat purists who avoid tank-grown proteins. Then at last it’ll be my turn to snort and ask, “...but why?!”
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 new study suggests skeptical voters don’t respond to such urgent language — while climate-concerned voters find it depressing.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, a digest from our executive editor that comes out every weekday. Subscribe to this newsletter here.
We have a fascinating new project to share with you today. It gets to the heart of the question: Is there anything that can make Americans care about climate change right now?
Starting last year, Heatmap commissioned Embold Research to study what U.S. voters currently think about climate change — what messages are connecting with Americans today and which ones are falling flat.
It’s out now. I wasn’t directly involved in this research — other members of our team led it — but I think the results are interesting, useful, and worth your attention. (Embold Research is a frequent research partner of ours, too: They conduct our data center polling.)
The report divvied the electorate into three buckets — registered voters who are already persuaded about climate change, those who are persuadable, and skeptics who are less likely to be convinced — and examines what they believe about politics, major political issues, energy, and the environment.
In the study’s first phase, for instance, we asked more than 3,200 Americans to rank 11 different issues in their relative importance. Just over 50% of Americans think climate change is “very” or “extremely important” — and while that may sound encouraging, it actually means that climate change ranked last among the 11 issues we tested.
“The environment” ranks much higher among the three cohorts, with 70% of Americans considering it at least “very” important. The economy, jobs, inflation, and the cost of living dominate voter concerns.
What’s interesting, though, is that these questions of issue importance reverse among the group of “persuaded” Americans. This group believes climate change to be among the most dire problems facing the United States. They’re concerned about the economy too, to be clear — but they also rank healthcare costs, the environment, and threats to democracy more highly than other groups. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, this group identifies overwhelmingly as Democrats.)
My colleague Jeva Lange has more on another finding from the research: why voters don’t believe politicians when they say clean energy is the cheapest form of energy available. You should read her story — but before we go, I want to highlight one more finding from the study.
In the study’s second phase, Embold Research called back 15 of the respondents from the first poll and held in-depth interviews with them about their beliefs on climate, politics, and what messages they responded well to (and which ones turned them off). Then it surveyed a new sample of more than 2,100 Americans, using lessons from the interviews to inform their questions.
One lesson from those phases: Calling climate change a “crisis” or “catastrophe” fell flat among voters — but for different reasons among each cohort.
For voters who are already persuaded about climate change’s dangers, the framing is demotivating. Those people are already worried about climate change, and so hearing that more informed advocates are worried about a climate “crisis” or “catastrophe” just makes them more numb and depressed.
Skeptics, meanwhile, think the language is meant to manipulate them. And for voters who could be persuaded about climate change, talk of a “crisis” conflicts with their observation of gradual change and punctuated equilibrium.
That message sits at odds with how Democratic politicians and issue advocates talked about climate change in the first few years of this decade, obviously. And it points to another interesting finding: Even when American voters are skeptical of climate change as an issue area, they still generally care about the environment.
This new report is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how American voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
New polling by Heatmap and Embold Research shows where one of climate advocates’ favorite arguments for renewables is falling short.
It’s the million-dollar question of clean energy advocacy: How do you persuade climate change skeptics to love renewables?
For years, the clean energy industry has treated the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of new electricity as its messaging trump card. This argument has the advantage of being true. Yes, there is nuance, room for debate, and always the possibility that things could change dramatically in the future. But this summer, the investment bank Lazard reconfirmed what the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the International Renewable Energy Agency — and plenty of other independent analyses — had found before it: that wind and solar energy are, on the whole, cheaper than fossil fuels.
And yet according to new polling and focus group conversations conducted by Heatmap News and Embold Research, the affordability argument barely moves the needle for the segment of the American public that most needs convincing. More than two-thirds (78%) of voters who are “doubtful” or “dismissive” of climate change — a population segment described by the Yale Program on Climate Communications and that we have labeled as “skeptics” — told us they believe that advocates for wind and solar energy exaggerate how cheap the sources have become (a mere 17% disagreed).
Even for those in the middle who are “persuadable” on climate change (as opposed to the “persuadeds,” who describe themselves as “alarmed” about it), an affordability argument doesn’t land cleanly — 62% believed the claims are exaggerated compared to 24%. In fact, a majority of all voters — 55% — told us that wind and solar are only cost-competitive with oil and gas because of subsidies, even as 75% acknowledge that oil and gas companies get government help lowering costs, too.
Inflation Reduction Act postmortems have a tendency to hand-wring about the Biden administration and its proxies’ lack of success pitching the affordability angle to the American public. Our polling backed up some of this. The pervasive conviction seems to be that the economic upsides of renewable energy aren’t real: 57% of all voters (and 78% of the subset of climate change skeptics) said clean energy advocates exaggerate how cheap wind and solar have become.
But as clean energy advocates look ahead to what to try the next time, our polling offers a cautionary note: The messenger, not just the message, needs a tweak. Independent scientists and researchers were the only group trusted by a majority of voters (63%), and even then, skeptics remained difficult to break through with, as less than a third putting their trust in any messenger at all.
If there’s a bright spot in our polling, it’s that attacks on clean energy have also apparently failed to gain traction. When we asked voters in a separate poll what they think is driving their bills higher, clean energy was among the least identified factors. Just 31% of voters blamed the renewable energy industry, compared with 58% who picked out new data center construction, 55% for the oil and gas industry, 52% for the aging electrical grid, and 48% for rising electricity demand. Our polling appears to describe, then, an electorate that doesn’t blame clean energy for raising electricity bills, but also doesn’t buy the messaging that it could help bring them down.
Breaking through with skeptics and persuadables is obviously the key for turning public opinion in favor of clean energy. In pursuit of that goal, Embold conducted interviews with voters to better understand where the potential openings might be for clean energy messaging to break through — and to identify the kind of language that might hamper that goal. But even after synthesizing the findings and crafting a political message designed to appeal to skeptics’ concerns — one that highlighted the falling cost of renewable electricity alongside arguments about energy security and job creation — a mere 7% of skeptics found it “extremely believable.” “Without my tax dollars, [renewables are] too expensive,” one Trump voter told us. “It will all be in a landfill in 20 years!” (Note that “skeptics” isn’t a political designation, although 89% of them told us they voted for President Trump in the last election.)
Heatmap’s polling offered a more pessimistic view of the electorate compared to comparable polling by other groups, which have found that messages about bringing down electricity bills via increasing clean energy resonate across the broad political spectrum. “We obviously do a fair amount of phone polling, and we’ve been surprised how positive people have been on clean energy and how much they see it as a central part of the solution to the energy affordability crisis that everybody is feeling,” Jesse Lee, a senior advisor at the advocacy and communications organization Climate Power, told me. (Climate Power’s poll notably looks at the whole electorate — skeptics, persuadables, and persuadeds alike — rather than segmenting their findings for more specific messaging purposes.) “But,” he agreed, “certainly there are holdouts.”
Just 20% of the skeptics Embold surveyed, for instance, told us that seeing a comparison of what families saved on their electricity bills after installing rooftop solar would improve their opinion of the technology’s affordability — and 54% said nothing could convince them that solar was affordable. A full 75% of skeptics also agreed with the statement that clean energy technologies such as rooftop solar, electric heat pumps, and electric vehicles have a high enough upfront cost that the savings over time wouldn’t be “worth it.” When asked about utility-scale generation, skeptics viewed nuclear, coal, and natural gas as the least expensive options, with wind being the most expensive, followed by solar.
I asked Lee at Climate Power if he thinks it’s worth trying to reach these entrenched climate skeptics, who make up 22% of the electorate according to our polling. “To the extent that there are limited resources, that’s probably not where you spend all your time,” he said. “You shoot for people that are at least a little bit open to it — but who might be the neighbors of [the skeptics],” he said.
“If that neighbor gets solar panels on their roof, and suddenly they’re walking around the neighborhood telling people their electricity bill was $0 last month, that’s going to have a lot more effect on a person who’s entrenched than hearing a political message from a political group,” Lee went on.
Among people who said they don’t have or can’t afford solar, just 28% told us that “seeing data showing how much money families save on their electricity bills” with solar would help convince them on its affordability. That beat out tax credits (24%), lower upfront costs (23%), financing options (19%) — and yes, “hearing about a neighbor or friend who saved money after getting solar,” which only 12% of people said might change their minds. And though only 20% of skeptics said being shown bill data would change their opinion, bill data was also the only messaging approach that ranked at or near the top of all groups alike.
Unsurprisingly, the “persuadables” group turned out to be more responsive on the question of whether clean energy is affordable. More than a quarter (27%) were receptive to bill savings data, and 60% said they trusted scientists as messengers. But crafting that message is still an uphill battle with the demographic: When Embold tailored a statement intended to move the group, fewer than three in 10 actually found it convincing.
Winning on messaging about clean energy affordability, then, is far more complicated than simply laying out facts and comparisons of renewables in a speech or advertisement. Being asked the question in a poll is not the same as a real-world test case, of course, but, but the wrong messenger risks alienating the people who most need to be convinced, our research shows. Proof needs to be local and tailored — perhaps an impossible ask of a national or even state-level general campaign.
Cost, as a message, is still a winner, in other words. But the window for communicating on it is far narrower than many advocates likely realize. As one 2024 third-party voter told us after reading Embold’s three tailored messages on clean energy, “I don’t really like any of them. They all seem to just be telling me the ‘truth,’ but I don’t know the truth without evidence.”
This is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how U.S. voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
On solar manufacturing, New England gas, and Pacific Northwest geothermal
Current conditions: The Pacific just can’t catch a break this hurricane season as forecasters warn that a new tropical development called Invest 96E could form in the next two days off Baja California, right behind Hurricane Lowell • In Indonesia, the wildfires blazing through the peatlands and forests of Borneo and Sumatra are now emitting by far the most carbon dioxide of any blazes in the world • A late-summer heat wave is sending temperatures along the California coastline beyond 100 degrees Fahrenheit this week.
When Alphabet inked its first nuclear deal in 2024, the Google parent company opted to back a next-generation, fluoride salt-cooled reactor startup called Kairos Power. Six months later, the tech behemoth contracted Elementl Power, a nuclear project developer that works with all kinds of reactors, to scout locations for deploying novel atomic technologies. Last October, Google broadened its approach to focus on large-scale reactors that either already existed or were under development. The company eyed financing the construction of the abandoned Westinghouse AP1000s planned for the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina before the project went under nearly a decade ago. Then Google and NextEra began laying the groundwork to restart the Duane Arnold nuclear station, Iowa’s only such plant, which shut down in 2020. As I told you on Tuesday, that latter deal took a major step forward when the Department of Energy pledged $1.9 billion toward bringing the single 615-megawatt reactor back online.
Now Google is exporting its strategy to Europe. On Wednesday, the giant announced a 22-year power purchase agreement with the Finnish utility Fortum Oyj to extend the life of the Loviisa nuclear station by buying as much as 50% of its electricity from 2030 to 2049. The contract — the first of its kind in Europe to provide for direct power purchases between a specific power plant and a hyperscaler — starts in 2028.
The deal is part of a broader $15.1 billion investment into artificial intelligence infrastructure throughout Finland over the next two years, and will direct roughly $1.1 billion toward the plant’s relicensing. “Long-term partnerships like the one between Fortum and Google are essential to making that happen, especially in today’s uncertain market environment characterized by low visibility and highly volatile electricity prices,” Fortum CEO Markus Rauramo said in a statement. In a text message last night, Emmet Penney, the director of energy and infrastructure at the Foundation for American Innovation, told me it was once “fashionable to say that nuclear was dead in the West, that we could only look on as nuclear slouched toward its demise and irrelevance.” Now, however, “Google is doing the world a favor by showing why and how that view was wrong” by demonstrating willingness to put its money where its mouth is to expand the power supply, he said. “Some things are fads, but nuclear is never out of season.”
Global investments in manufacturing clean technology fell 14% in the first quarter of 2026 and another 7% in the second three-month window, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor released Thursday of the first half of this year. For the first time, China’s share of green manufacturing investments dipped below a third, marking a significant decline from its peak of over 71% in 2023. A major drop in the expansion of solar panel factories accounted for much of the slowdown. Investments in new factories fell by 83% in the second quarter of 2026 compared to the peak in the last three months of 2023. China accounted for 94% of the decline. But China’s contraction came with expansion elsewhere. India, for example, saw solar factory investments accelerate from 5% to 48%, making it the largest net contributor for the past four quarters. Solar manufacturing is expanding in the U.S., and the Department of Commerce’s new import duties on the polysilicon needed to make most panel components should help that continue. But the overall picture for clean energy investment, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo described in the spring, is mixed.
There are green shoots, however. While the amount of capital spent on construction of new manufacturing and industrial plants slowed, the value of such investments rose 10% in the first quarter of this year and held steady in the second quarter, breaking a 10-quarter streak of declines in announced investments. The bulk of the deals were in critical minerals, wind, sustainable aviation fuel, batteries, and — yes — solar. But there’s also more coal. On Thursday morning, the International Energy Agency forecast global coal demand to reach a record high of nearly 9 billion metric tons this year.
The U.S. has enough solar panels in operation today to power more than 50 million American homes, representing over a third of households. That’s according to the latest market analysis conducted by the consultancy Wood Mackenzie on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association and released early this morning. Solar developers added 11.4 gigawatts of generating capacity in the second quarter of 2026, a 45% increase from the same period last year and 43% increase from the first three months of this year. Most of that new capacity came from utility-scale projects, which added 9.6 gigawatts — a 61% year-over-year leap. “Solar and storage have grown to a scale most Americans have yet to fully realize and we simply can’t meet America’s growing energy needs without these technologies,” Tim Pawlenty, the chief executive of the solar industry’s leading trade group, said in a statement.
It’s a milestone for solar’s expansion, and highlights the competitiveness of the technology despite the Trump administration’s crackdown on renewables it criticizes as too weather dependent. But it’s only a description of capacity. It’s virtually impossible for all the solar panels in the country to produce power at the same time, and the swings in electricity production are ultimately what draw criticism from those who instead push for generating stations that can pump out power at all times of day. That, in my view, makes the most important signal in the report the speed of the growth, demonstrating how quickly solar can come online and serve surging demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Yesterday I told you that a federal court overturned the water permits New Jersey issued for construction of a pipeline to carry more natural gas into the Northeast, delivering a blow to the pipeline push the region is gearing up for as winter energy demands increasingly become what my colleague Matthew Zeitlin described bluntly last year as “a problem.” But there’s some good news, via the latest analysis from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Enough cheap gas is flowing into New England at a moment when consumption is relatively low to push down prices. Natural gas prices at Algonquin Citygate, a trading and pricing hub in Boston that averages out what New England is paying for the fuel, are now trading at a discount compared to the main U.S. benchmark, the Henry Hub. Prices at Algonquin Citygate averaged 43 cents per million British thermal units less than Henry Hub from April through July. Part of the price drop came from a drop in demand as home heating fell off during the summer and solar generation increased during longer sunny days. Increased supply from Appalachia was another factor, as was a spike in imports from Canada.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and agriculture are widely recognized as the primary drivers behind rising global temperatures. But scientists have long warned that, as the planet grows hotter, natural feedback loops will begin to pump more emissions into the atmosphere, from methane seeping out from decaying ancient material in thawing permafrost or carbon dioxide spewing from infernos like those scorching Indonesia’s biggest islands. A new study suggests that those warming-induced greenhouse gases from natural sources could amplify global warming by 20% to 30% this century, adding as much 0.4 degrees Celsius to the global temperature average. The authors of the study, published early Thursday morning in the journal Environmental Research Letters, billed it as the largest effort to date to quantify the combined impact of carbon dioxide and methane from permafrost thaw, wildfires, wetlands, and inland waterways. Permafrost thaw, however, comprises roughly half the projected emissions. The authors came from Stanford University, Woodwell Climate Research Center, research nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions, and the advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund. Even if emissions from human activities reached net zero, greenhouse gases could create feedback loops that raise global temperatures by at least 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. A higher emissions scenario could be twice that much warming.
“The results are a wake-up call, and it’s imperative that they be included in the next generation of climate policies,” Robert Jackson, the Stanford University professor and chair of the Global Carbon Project who co-authored the paper, said in a statement.
The Pacific Northwest is poised for a big geothermal push. Hexagon Energy, an independent energy developer, and timber and wood giant Weyerhaeuser Company just inked a strategic partnership that will clear the way for geothermal projects across the latter company’s vast property portfolio in Oregon and Washington. “Geothermal energy represents an emerging opportunity to provide clean and reliable, around-the-clock power, and our ownership presents a unique platform to evaluate that potential in the Pacific Northwest,” Kendall Fountain, Weyerhaeuser’s vice president of energy and natural resources, said in a statement. Once built, the projects are expected to generate up to 3 gigawatts of power.