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.
Attorney General Letitia James leads a group of states suing the administration’s move to buy back two offshore wind leases.
A group of Northeast attorneys general led by New York’s Letitia James is suing the Trump administration for paying TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to walk away from its two U.S. offshore wind leases.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, alleges that the government’s settlement agreement with Total violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the statute governing offshore wind, as well as the Judgment Fund Act, which controls the pot of money the federal government uses to pay legal settlements. The other plaintiffs are New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
“After repeatedly losing in court, this administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead,” James said in a press release. “We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy.”
On March 23, the Interior Department announced it had reached an agreement with Total to cancel two offshore wind leases in the New York area and refund the $928 million cost back to the company; in exchange, the announcement said, Total would invest an equivalent amount in U.S. oil and gas projects. In a later release, the department said it would pay Total from the Judgment Fund, a permanently appropriated pot of money overseen by the Treasury Department used to settle ongoing or imminent litigation.
According to the signed settlement agreement, the Trump administration said that it would have suspended construction on the lease indefinitely due to national security concerns, after which Total would have claimed breach of contract, but instead, the two parties settled.
James’ lawsuit claims that this does not meet the Judgment Fund’s standard for imminent litigation. “A hypothetical lawsuit to challenge an agency action that had not even been threatened — here, the suspension or cancellation of the Lease — does not constitute actual or imminent litigation under the Judgment Fund Act,” it says.
The lawsuit also contends that there was no actual disagreement between the parties. Both Total and the Trump administration wanted to cancel the leases, it says, citing reporting from Axios in which Total’s CEO asserted that the agreement “came from us — we took the initiative.”
If the parties wanted to cancel the leases, they could have done so legally under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. But the government’s actions violate that statute as well, according to the lawsuit. Proper procedure would have required a hearing to investigate whether continued activity on the lease would cause serious harm to the environment or national security, and whether the advantages of cancelling outweigh those of continuing to honor the lease. The law also requires the administration to notify and coordinate with the governors of affected states, which the Interior Department did not do, the suit argues.
The states that brought the lawsuit allege the terminations will harm their economies, energy grids, and climate goals. New Jersey awarded a contract to one of Total’s offshore wind projects, called Attentive Energy Two, in 2024; the finished development would have provided the state 1.3 gigawatts of power, enough to power about 650,000 homes. On its own, the agreement would have gone a third of the way toward fulfilling a state law passed in 2018 that required New Jersey to procure 3.5 gigawatts of offshore wind energy. In addition to feeding the state’s tight electricity market, in which demand is now outpacing supply, the Attentive Energy Project would have delivered an estimated $3.1 billion in direct, indirect, and induced benefits into New Jersey’s economy.
New York did not have an active contract with any projects under development within the leased areas, but it was anticipating Total bidding into the state’s next round of offshore wind solicitations, according to the lawsuit. The state has many aging power plants nearing retirement, and its grid operator has warned that the New York City area faces a reliability risk without new generation coming online. Total’s project would have provided “critical energy diversity benefits” to the city, the suit says.
The Interior Department disputed the basis for the lawsuit, telling Heatmap that “the only thing blatantly unlawful here was the process by which these offshore wind leases were negotiated and imposed under the Biden administration.” A spokesperson reiterated that “there were serious national security risks that demanded immediate attention,” although did not elaborate on what those risks were. They also emphasized that the settlement agreements were voluntary and were approved by the Department of Justice.
“Attempts to rewrite history now cannot erase the reality of these projects and the damage they could cause,” they said.
Offshore wind advocates, however, applauded the suit. “We commend the Northeast Governors for standing up again against actions that threaten jobs, investment, and the nation's ability to meet growing electricity demand with an affordable and reliable energy source,” Liz Burdock, the president and CEO of the Oceantic Network, said.
A new scientific report on the state of the industry shows a growing gap between what we can do and what we need to do.
The gap between the world’s current capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the amount we’ll need to remove to materially address climate change is so large, it's hard to fathom crossing it. Now, a new report warns that the chasm is widening.
The third State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report, published on Tuesday, finds that while carbon removal research and deployment has advanced significantly in the past two years, it is still not growing quickly enough to reach the scale required to support the Paris Agreement temperature limits. Carbon emissions, meanwhile, have continued to rise globally, raising the amount of carbon removal required in turn.
“We’re seeing a lot of signs that there’s still growth happening,” Morgan Edwards, an assistant professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and one of the authors, told me. “But we need to see a step change in both early indicators like investment and also actual deployments” between now and 2030, in addition to serious emission reductions, she said.
The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal is a project between researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the University of Maryland, the University of Oxford, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. The latest report collates a wide range of indicators to assemble a detailed portrait of progress in the sector, from the number of research papers and patents published, to project deployments, costs, and investment, to voluntary purchases and policies.
The world currently removes approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year through intentional human activity, the authors found, which is equivalent to about 5% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions. Nearly all of that carbon removal happens through what the authors deem “conventional” methods, which include planting trees, improved forest management, soil sequestration on farms and grasslands, and coastal wetland restoration.
Less than 1% of the 2.2 billion tons comes from “novel” methods such as direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture, enhanced weathering, and biochar, the most common method. Novel carbon removal increased from 1.4 million tons in 2023 to 2 million tons in 2025, with biochar responsible for most of that. In total, novel forms of carbon removal have to grow to 70 million by 2030 and 360 million by 2035 for the world to achieve net zero and begin to reverse warming back down to 1.5 degrees Celsius this century, the authors found. And that’s assuming the emissions curve starts to bend dramatically downward.
“The gap will continue to grow if we do not pursue immediate and ambitious emissions reductions today,” Edwards said. Though the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree goal looks to be receding further out of reach, she stressed that net-zero emissions implies significant carbon removal, regardless of what temperature target you’re aiming for.
No matter how you look at it, getting to 70 million tons by 2030 would require a major shift. Right now, the most optimistic expectation for how much the carbon removal industry will grow by that point, based on corporate announcements, is about 42 million tons per year by 2030, according to the report. The capacity in the pipeline from projects that are under construction, however, amounts to just 8.4 million by 2030. At the country level, only about a third of national climate strategies even mention novel carbon removal methods, and overall carbon removal ambition among countries would have to double to close the 2030 gap.
This isn’t impossible — other technologies have achieved comparable growth rates. The report’s authors estimate that carbon removal would have to scale at speeds similar to solar power and electric vehicles. Unlike those singular solutions, however, carbon removal consists of many different technologies that intersect with a range of industries — oil and gas drilling, farming, forestry, mining — and therefore may not scale as linearly. Also, unlike EVs and solar, carbon removal isn’t a useful product with an obvious market. It’s a public good, like waste management — and an expensive one, at that.
Carbon removal funding is also highly concentrated, the authors warn, making the industry vulnerable to sudden shifts in policy and investment appetite. For example, Microsoft alone has made more than 80% of carbon removal purchases to date; then in April it confirmed it was pausing procurements, leaving behind major uncertainty over who, if anyone, will fill its role in the market. Similarly, most government funding for pilot projects to date has concentrated in three countries — the U.S., Sweden, and Denmark — but more recently the U.S. has dismantled much of its support.
The industry is also concentrated in terms of deployment. Biochar and bioenergy with carbon capture account for almost all of the 2 million tons of novel removals the authors identified. Direct air capture facilities removed just 1,500 tons in 2025, according to the report. All of that came from Climeworks’ two facilities in Iceland — Orca and Mammoth — and it’s significantly less than the roughly 40,000 tons these facilities were designed to capture each year. (While there are a few other direct air capture plants operating, they have not yet had any removals certified by a third party, and so were not included in the estimate.)
There are some bright spots in the report. Research funding, scientific publications, demonstration projects, public policies, and private investment in carbon removal are all trending up. It’s just that the results of these efforts — in terms of patents, projects under construction, and the amount of carbon being removed — are uneven.
While the report is a valiant effort to assess how far carbon removal has come, the overall picture remains deeply uncertain. That word, “uncertain,” appears over and over, applying to such questions as:
The authors emphasize the need for more research, public policy, and funding to narrow these uncertainties — especially on the demand side of the equation.
“Both demand and supply side policies are important for innovation, but much of the policy we’ve seen for CDR today has been more supply-side focused,” said Edwards. “There’s a need for a strong signal to companies who are developing these technologies and implementing CDR on the ground that the demand will be there.”
On Anthropic’s IPO, home energy rebates, and French rare earths
Current conditions: The most powerful storm to hit Western Australia in 49 years has deluged the capital of Perth • Temperatures in the Arizonan metropolis of Phoenix are climbing to 103 degrees Fahrenheit today, and will stay around that level all week • South Georgia Island, a British overseas territory near Antarctica in the Atlantic, is bracing for heavy snow.
Anthropic, the artificial intelligence giant behind the chatbot Claude, filed the first documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission to make its stock market debut. The company submitted a confidential S-1, meaning that — unlike the recent SpaceX filing — the details aren’t yet publicly available. By doing so, Anthropic has “the option to go public after the SEC completes its review,” the company wrote Monday in a blog post. The number of shares to be offered and the price “have not yet been set.” The IPO could have big energy implications. Unlike some hyperscalers, who have pushed back against the public blowback to data centers, Anthropic vowed three months ago to pay to offset electricity price hikes from its server farms, as I previously wrote. Coupled with the news yesterday morning that Iran had broken off negotiations with the U.S. to end the conflict blocking the Strait of Hormuz, Monday offered clear evidence of what Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer described as the electricity economy “having its moment.”
Here are a couple more data points: Later on Monday, Berkshire Hathaway, the investment company formerly run by Warren Buffett, announced plans to invest $80 billion into Google owner Alphabet’s data center buildout. Meanwhile, Mike Schroepfer, the former chief technology officer of Facebook parent Meta Platforms, raised $250 million for his climate-tech venture capital firm Gigascale, Bloomberg reported.
On Monday, the Department of Energy released its long-awaited guidance on how to use the remaining home rebate programs left intact after Republicans repealed broad swaths of the Inflation Reduction Act. Unsurprisingly, the program — which had a complicated rollout — initially meant to support deployment of electric heating is now no longer available for homeowners hoping to switch from gas to electric.
“Make no mistake: This is part of a coordinated strategy to boost fossil fuel profits at the expense of working families,” Tony Sirna, the deputy policy director of buildings at the progressive climate group Evergreen Action, said in a statement. “These home electrification rebates were a lifeline for families who otherwise could not afford to upgrade their homes and escape rising energy costs. Gutting them ensures millions of households remain captive customers of greedy gas utilities now poised to saddle ratepayers with up to $1.4 trillion in costs for pipelines that will ultimately be underused or entirely unnecessary.”
Allow me to break with journalistic convention and lead with the dog-bites-man story: China, already the world leader in building its own nuclear reactors, just installed the containment dome on its latest reactor at the Lianjiang nuclear power plant in Guangdong province, World Nuclear News reported. This is a vital step toward completing construction, though not unusual in a country with a whopping three dozen commercial fission reactors underway.
And now for the man-bites-dog. The United Kingdom, whose nuclear industry has long suffered the same anemia as that in the United States, just reached a major milestone on its long-delayed Hinkley Point C nuclear site in southwest England. On Monday, NucNet reported that the second reactor pressure vessel had been lifted into place by the world’s largest crane.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

A federal judge in Denver halted the Trump administration’s effort to carve up Boulder’s National Center for Atmospheric Research by handing over a supercomputing center to the University of Wyoming. The 38-page injunction, detailed in the Colorado Sun, called the move by the National Science Foundation to divest from the supercomputing center “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Senior U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson argued that his decision was necessary because a lawsuit filed in March by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research was likely to succeed, and “too much damage had already been done to the supercomputing center’s operations.”
The U.S. wants to quit Chinese minerals. But mining all those metals domestically is virtually impossible. As a result, one of the two big rare earths champions in which the Trump administration took an equity stake is now looking to Europe. On Monday, USA Rare Earth announced plans to invest more than $204 million into producing rare earths and magnets made from them. The deal, per Mining.com, builds off a previous agreement to acquire a stake in the French rare-earth processor Carester for $47 million.
France isn’t the only country netting some green investment. On Monday, Italian oil giant Eni announced its own bet on battery manufacturing. The company reached a deal for a joint venture with Seri Industrial Group to develop an integrated industrial supply chain for lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. The deal will close by the end of this week. Eni said the deal “adds another piece to the puzzle of completing the supply chain from critical minerals to the production of energy storage.”