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:
Do you want a light tailwind or a full-on hurricane?

“The only thing better for the climate than buying an EV over a gasoline-powered car is buying no car at all,” the climate scientist
Rob Jackson has written. But for many Americans, not having a car at all is the stuff of logistical and cultural nightmares. The average person living in the U.S. covers more than 1,000 miles per month in their vehicle, and nearly 45% of people don’t even have the option of opting for public transportation. Ditching your car? You might as well ask people to give up their cell phones.
But across the country, transportation advocates and e-bike warriors are looking for solutions to go, if not entirely car-less, then at least car-light. Heatmap has put together a comprehensive guide to help you make a decision that best fits your lifestyle, whether that’s becoming a superpedestrian, a committed e-bike user, or just trying to replace a couple of short-haul drives a week.
Doug Gordon is the cohost of “The War on Cars,” a podcast about the fight against car culture. He is also a writer, TV producer, and safe streets advocate, and he advises nonprofits and mobility companies on communications strategies to promote better streets and public infrastructure through his Brooklyn Spoke Media consulting business.
Alexa Sledge is the director of communications at Transportation Alternatives, a nonprofit organization that has worked to promote non-polluting, safe, and quiet travel in New York City since 1973.
Bryan Dean is the sales manager at The eBike Store in Portland, Oregon, which opened in 2008 as the city’s first e-bike-only retailer. He’s spent over six years helping customers pick out their perfect bikes and is also the creator of the #eBikeAnywhere hashtag.
Kevin Lau is a product specialist at REI with more than 20 years of experience. He is based out of Marlton, New Jersey.
Only 8% of U.S. households currently get by without owning a car, and less than 1% of Americans commute to work by bike. The U.S. is so driving-centric that we’re home to one-fifth of all the cars on the planet despite having less than 5% of the global population. Eleven states have more registered vehicles than people.
But just because driving has always been your default doesn’t mean it makes the most sense for the kind of travel you do — even if you live somewhere without great public transportation. Over half of all trips Americans make in a car are for a distance of less than three miles — perfect to convert into a bike ride.
“I think of mobility like a Swiss army knife: You have to use the right tool for the job,” Gordon told me. “If I just need to pick up a carton of milk, does it make sense to do that in a 6,000-pound metal box on wheels that is powered by dinosaur juice? Not so much.”
On average, commuting by bike in the U.S. saves an estimated $2,500 per year, and it has been found to have massive benefits for one’s mental health, cardiovascular health, and even productivity at work. Yes, even e-bikes!
“If you go to places like Copenhagen or Amsterdam — places where there are huge numbers of cyclists — and you poll those people, concern for the environment barely cracks the top five reasons why they cycle,” Gordon said. “The reasons why people cycle in Denmark and the Netherlands are because it’s safe and convenient, and it’s often the fastest and cheapest way to get where they’re going.”
Transportation is the most significant contributor to climate change in the United States, with nearly 60% of the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from cars alone (another 23% comes from trucks). Replacing a quarter of your total driving with walking, biking, or e-biking could save 1.3 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, according to our friends at WattTime — about the same as forgoing burning 1,433 pounds of coal or three barrels of oil. If every American drove even a mere 10% less per year, it’d be like taking 28 coal-fired power plants offline.
You can still make a significant impact without ditching your car, in other words: You simply have to drive less. And the upsides are enormous. More Americans die of car pollution than in car accidents every year. Additionally, commuting by bike or by foot makes us healthier and happier.
It also helps us realize what our community priorities should be. “Individual action is not always what we need to focus on,” Gordon said. “We need to focus on institutional change. But my philosophy is that lots of individual action actually adds up to the political will to get the institutional change you need.”
A survey of studies from five countries (including the U.S.) found that the main barriers to cycling were low perceived safety, bad weather, lack of cycling infrastructure (including “shower facilities” at one’s destination), and distance and perceived effort.
Safety is a valid concern. Riding a bike is about 500 times more likely to be fatal than riding a bus, according to a 2007 study; even with the success of programs like New York’s Vision Zero, collisions with cars remain a real danger for people on bikes. The car-related pollution inhaled while cycling can also shorten a cyclist’s life by an estimated one to 40 days. But the benefits of cycling on average far outweigh the risks: Riding a bike adds an estimated three to 14 months to your life, even when the possibilities of collisions and air pollution are considered. The health benefits are so significant that a separate study by Swedish researchers found that cyclists had a 47% lower risk of early death and a 10% lower risk of hospitalization compared to car and train commuters.
What about concerns about shower availability and the “distance and perceived effort” of riding a bike? That’s where the advantages of an e-bike’s pedal assist come into play. “E-bikes are great at blasting through any concerns you have about sweat,” Gordon told me. Even in hot weather or on difficult terrain, pedal assist can keep you looking fresh when you arrive at the office.
The first step to driving less is thinking about when and where you can replace specific trips with walking, cycling, or public transportation instead. Lau told me his general rule of thumb is that if a trip is less than a mile and he can safely walk (i.e. if there are sidewalks or safe paths), then he’ll walk. “If it’s more than that, I’ll take the bike if I have a place to lock it or can bring it into my workplace or store,” he said. For trips where he might need some extra assistance — that are farther, longer, hillier, or will require carrying “more cargo without working as hard,” he’ll opt for an e-bike instead.
You can do a lot of this reconnaissance from your couch. Apple Maps and Google Maps can take a lot of the guesswork out of finding the best bike paths to and from your house and the other places you frequent, including informing you ahead of time if the route will require riding on major or minor roads or ones with protected bike lanes. Google and Apple Maps can also give you real-time information about public transportation options in your area (as well as allow you to plan for trips when service might be reduced, like late nights or weekends), and many transit systems now have their own apps to make tracking delays or alternative service simpler.
It’s funny how you don’t realize where the long, slow inclines are in your neighborhood until you’re huffing up them on a bike. Google Maps and Apple Maps can show you what elevation to expect on a walking or cycling route. If you live in a hillier area, an e-bike might be better than a traditional bike since it can take some of the ouch out of the ups.
“Something really, really important that people don’t always think about is gear,” Sledge told me. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive, but if you can only ride your bike when it’s 80 degrees and sunny, that’s not the best scenario.”
If you live somewhere where it gets hot, rainy, snowy, windy, or the weather can change unexpectedly, think ahead of time about the sort of gear you’d need to make cycling or walking more comfortable. (We have a checklist of ideas below.)
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, and Vermont all have statewide tax credits or rebates to encourage e-bike adoption.
Live somewhere that isn’t on that list? Here is a super handy tracker from the Transportation Research and Education Center at Portland State University of more than 100 counties, cities, and municipalities that offer e-bike incentive programs. Also, look for e-bike lending libraries that might be in your area.
If you’re having trouble learning about the programs available to you, head into a brick-and-mortar e-bike shop in your area or connect with your local transportation advocacy group — they’ll know what programs you can take advantage of and be happy to point you in the right direction.
Do you know what bike enthusiasts love more than anything? Creating new bike enthusiasts. If you’re still feeling intimidated by the idea of getting on a bike — or even if you’re not — “find a friend who’s already doing it,” Gordon suggested. Bike people are “an evangelical bunch, and if you tell a friend who you know is into biking or bike commutes regularly that ‘Hey, I’m thinking of doing it,’ I can guarantee that person will be more than happy to hold your hand and help you through your first ride.”
There are dozens of emissions-free or emissions-light transportation options, from using your own two feet to digging the old beater bicycle out of your garage to going full Steve Wozniak with a Segway. The most important thing is to something you’ll actually use.
That said — “What’s really going to be the best option for most Americans is an e-bike,” Sledge told me. “That’s a true car replacement when so often a [traditional] bike can’t be a true, true, true car replacement.” E-bikes are simply more practical and comfortable for longer rides or daily commutes, and if you need to haul things like groceries or children, they can’t be beaten.
I’ve looked at all my options and don’t think I can drive any less than I already do. What can I do instead?
There’s no way around it: E-bikes are pricy. “An e-bike is going to be a big purchase — nowhere near as much as a car, but still, it’s a major purchase,” Sledge said. Even with incentive programs (more on that below), you’re likely to spend more than $1,000 out of pocket.
It is tempting to look for a bargain. But Dean stressed that manufacturers and bulk retailers are “sacrificing a lot” in terms of quality and service to make a profit at lower price points. As a rule, “If you’re spending less than $1,000 on any bike, it’s landfill,” he said. “And that waste is toxic — odds are, it isn’t going to be recycled properly.”
Gordon suggested that if you’re concerned about how often you’ll use an e-bike, it makes sense to get “a cheap regular bike” initially. “Then you can figure out if this is something you want to do in the long term, and after a few weeks, or a month, or a year, you can go, ‘Okay, I’m ready for the $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 bicycle.’”
Perspective is important, too. Yes, e-bikes are expensive — if you compare them to regular bikes. “If you compare them to cars, they’re a bargain,” Gordon said. “E-bikes are a replacement tool; they’re not an upgrade from other bikes. So if you’re a family with two cars and are going down to one, getting a $2,500 or even $5,000 e-bike is a relative bargain.” Additionally, many retailers — including The eBike Store in Portland, Oregon, where Dean works — offer installment plans to help make the purchase more manageable.
Conversion kits are a popular way to convert an analog bike you already own into an e-bike by attaching a motor to the front hub, rear hub, or mid-drive. Many of these kits can be found cheaply on websites like Amazon, though The Washington Post warns that it is still a “very Wild West market” and to only buy batteries from reputable e-bike battery brands (low-quality batteries are more likely to start fires). While converting to an e-bike might be a good option for you if you want to dip a toe in the e-bike water, you’ll still need to spend several hundred dollars to get a kit that gives you the same oomph as an actual e-bike. That said, whatever option gets you on a bike is the best one, and if you’re converter-kit curious, here’s a good guide for learning where to start.
“Buying a bike at a brick-and-mortar store from competent, kind people who love their job — customers are going to have a fantastic experience,” Dean told me. “They’re going to get a great taste for the bike, which means they’ll be riding it a lot. We’re not in the business of selling bikes that sit and rot in someone’s garage.”
It is especially important to go to a store with e-bike specialists on staff (rather than a bulk retailer like Costco — or worse, anything online) because the mechanics will have checked the bike over and adjusted the safety points so it’s ready to go. “You’re going to get educated and get a strong appreciation of the beautiful tool that you are buying, and learn how to operate it and make it last,” Dean added.
Most importantly, though, ensure you take the bike for a test ride before handing over your credit card. Any retailer worth its salt will offer this as an option; the best retailers will take you on a guided test ride, where they’ll teach you how to use the e-bike you’re trying out. But the bottom line is, “Don’t buy a bike that you haven’t ridden,” Dean said. “Ride the bike before you buy it; that’s in all-caps with smiley faces and exclamation points. Don't buy the bike if you can’t ride it first.”
“Buy the bike that’s going to put the biggest, dumbest smile on your face.”
Dean said he points riders looking to log miles to the Specialized Como. “When you’re commuting long miles, you want something comfortable, something that’s reliable, something that has a strong enough motor that will get you where you’re going and a big-enough battery that you’re not going to sweat it,” he said. The Specialized Como is also an excellent choice for people who want to “show up to work not sweaty” but maybe get a little bit more of a workout on the way home.
If you prefer commuting on a traditional bike, Lau suggested REI’s ADV 1.1, a road touring bike, or the CTY 1.1 bike, a less-expensive hybrid built for logging longer distances and enduring the daily wear-and-tear of a commute. His e-bike pick for commuters is the CTY e2.2, a popular, well-reviewed, and accessible commuter bike specifically marketed to “replace car trips.”
Dean loves to recommend Tern bikes to people who want to make trips with their kids. “They’ve been doing this for a long time, they have tons of great accessories, and they use Bosch power systems,” he said — all points in the bike’s favor. That customizability and reliability make it a good fit for families who want to be able to tailor the bike to their needs and price point while also not having to worry about it breaking down in the middle of a toddler’s meltdown.
But there is one other primary reason why Dean points parents to Tern. “All of their bikes are rider first, cargo behind” — versus bucket bikes that put the cargo in front of the rider. While the latter design is also popular, it also means that if you’re trying to squeak out into traffic, you’re nosing your most precious cargo ahead of you, into potential harm’s way.
Lau offered three options for e-bikes that won’t make you miss the trunk of your car, starting with the Cannondale Cargowagen, which can lug up to 440 pounds — that is a lot of Chili & Lime Flavored Rolled Corn Tortilla Chips. Its range isn’t quite as good as some other bikes on the market — the battery is 545 watt-hours — so it’s probably a better fit for people who live in higher-density areas or near their preferred market. (You can always buy a second battery if you want a little more range.) The Cargowagen is also a class 3 bike, meaning you won’t have to worry about the ice cream melting before you can get home.
Like Dean, Lau loves to recommend Tern bikes for handling heavy loads, especially the Tern GSD S00, which conveniently folds up so it can even be stored in an apartment or transported in an elevator while still being compatible with Tern’s line of cargo-carrying products — but at almost $6,000 before add-ons, it’ll likely be out of many first-time e-bikers’ budgets. Tern’s Vektron S10 is a less expensive option and still has the power to handle hilly roads with six Trader Joe’s bags in tow. (Note that both Terns are class 1 bikes, meaning the pedal assist tops out at 20 miles per hour.)
“Lightweight e-bikes are out there,” Dean said, and can be had — for the right amount of money. “They’re usually going to start around $3,500 to $4,000 and then go up from there,” he told me, pointing to Specialized as one of his favorite lightweight brands.
Keep in mind that you may not need a lightweight e-bike. “No one has ever come in and said, ‘I want a heavy bike,’” Dean pointed out. Electric motors are, by necessity, heavy, so getting a lighter bike can mean sacrificing half the motor and battery. There are workarounds: “If you have stairs to go up, almost all of these bikes have a walk assist mode,” which gently turns the tires so you’re not fighting gravity on your own, Dean told me. Likewise, if you’re trying to load your bike onto a car rack, “you don’t have to Hulk it up there; you can be a little smarter about your efforts by picking up the front wheel and putting it in the rack behind your car. Then pick up the back wheel.” If you’re really struggling with your bike, you can always pop off the battery — one of the heavier components — and carry it separately.
The best new commuter bike you can get away with is the CTY 1.1, the analog bike Lau recommended above, but for an e-bike option, he points customers to the Co-op CTY e2.1, an easy, accessible, no-frills class 1 bike that won’t run you more than $2,000. It might be a little light on features for a serious urban commuter, though.
Dean told me that the Gazelle Medeo and some of the bikes from Electra Country will have price points that could be more acceptable to customers on a budget. Gazelle uses the reliable Bosch power system, and the Medeo is “really good” and comes in “multiple versions.” (I found one for less than $2,000). Electra Country is a subsidiary of Trek and is a “one-size-fits-all, beach cruiser-looking bike” that comes in super fun colors.
Congratulations! You’re the proud owner of a bike or an e-bike (or skateboard or e-scooter or a really good pair of walking shoes). What happens now?
While the benefits of riding a bike (or any other form of active transportation) still outweigh the risks, cars are getting bigger, their blindspots are getting larger, and pedestrian and cyclist deaths nationwide are at a 40-year high. Even electric vehicles might be a small part of the problem since they’re so much heavier than regular cars — and that much more dangerous if you get hit.
I asked Sledge how newly carless commuters could become better pedestrians, and she quickly corrected me. “There is no such thing as being a good pedestrian,” she said. “So often, in the United States, when we have groups of people that are consistently harmed by other groups of people, we’re like, ‘How can the victims be better?’ And the real answer is, ‘How can we create systems and designs that protect those people?’”
We’ll get into that. But the bottom line is: be safe when you’re out on the road. Learn how to navigate intersections safely, and don’t take unnecessary risks. Especially if you’re on an e-bike, “You’re traveling faster than most cars are expecting you to,” Dean said. “To remember that, imagine you are not only invisible, but they’re all trying to kill you.”
“Riding a bike is a really good entry for a lot of people into larger political conversations about climate, the design of their cities or towns, and a host of other issues,” Gordon told me. It might only be a short amount of time before you start to wonder why there aren’t more protected bike lanes in your town or city, or why mass transit isn’t reaching your neighborhood or destination, or why lousy road design is making your commute more dangerous than it should be.
There’s some good news, though: There has never been a better time to become a transit advocate. “It could be as small as your block, or your neighborhood, or your city, but there are tons of groups all over the country that focus on working to make them safer and better for the people in them,” Sledge said.
One of the best places to start is by making your voice and your values heard. As Sledge reminded me, car companies already have — and continue to spend money and time lobbying policies that are better for drivers (and their bottom lines) than others on the road. But where to begin? “First, I would look for any kind of organization in your community, your neighborhood, or your city that focuses on safe streets or fighting climate change, and see if you can get involved with them,” Sledge said. “And if you don’t have that kind of organization, start to go to your city council meetings, making your voice heard with your local representatives — those kinds of things really make a difference.”
Another great resource is Transportation for America’s Transit Advocate Guide, which takes you step-by-step through building a movement in your community. Transportation Alternatives also hosts occasional activist trainings to help you learn how to organize successful campaigns in your neighborhood.
Maybe you bought an e-bike or a monthly metro pass … but you’ve been unable to quit your car the way you thought you would. That’s okay! This is not an all-or-nothing activity. “Don’t feel guilty if you’re still driving,” Gordon stressed. Remember that “you’re operating within a system that is built for you to drive, so starting small is really good.” Every fit and start of progress helps.
Remember also that better, low- and zero-emissions-friendly infrastructure and a pedestrian-first culture aren’t going to be built overnight. Even the most hard-core among us still need to use cars occasionally. Just “reimagining how we’re going to truly allocate our public resources — our public dollars, our public services — to serve everyone, and radically rethinking how to do that, is so important,” Sledge said.
I will leave you with one last instruction for ditching your car. When you discover the bike that lets you “follow your joy, follow your bliss,” and puts a “smile on your face” — as Dean likes to say — don’t keep it to yourself.
Someone else in your community is beginning to think about ditching their car, too. It’s your turn now. Go forth. Become someone else’s enthusiastic bike geek.
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 dashboard from the Sustainable AI Group, founded by artificial intelligence alums, estimates the relative energy intensity of proprietary tools.
The rise of artificial intelligence is driving an historic surge in electricity demand that’s boosting fossil fuel use and threatening climate progress. All this electricity doesn’t power AI in some generalized, always-on way, though. Data centers’ energy consumption is a function of the millions of individual queries users submit to AI programs such as Claude and ChatGPT.
When it comes to how efficiently models process those queries and generate responses, AI models are not interchangeable. Some are more like gas guzzlers, others more like Priuses. When a user engages an AI chatbot or AI agent, however, there’s essentially no way for them to know which kind of vehicle they are stepping into. They may know which company built it, and even the precise model name and number, but no AI company has published information about how much energy one model uses compared to another.
In the absence of corporate disclosure from the big three proprietary AI developers — Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google — researchers with the Sustainable AI Group, a research and advisory company, developed a backdoor method to estimate and compare the amount of energy these developers’ models consume. They published their findings on Tuesday in an interactive dashboard that ranks AI programs by energy intensity.
“We think this is an important next step to get some science-based information out there to help folks start making better decisions,” Boris Gamazaychikov, the CEO of the Sustainable AI Group, told me. “We also hope that if the model providers think that this is really wrong, that they can come out and prove it with some actual data.”
In general, the researchers found that larger, higher-capability models, such as Anthropic’s Opus and OpenAI’s Sol, used nearly four times as much energy on average as smaller, nimbler models from those companies, Haiku and Terra. Newer iterations of each model also weren’t necessarily more efficient than their predecessors.
While the group has yet to evaluate the latest models that hit the market during the research period, so far the researchers found that for the same task, the least efficient models can consume more than 30 times the energy of the most efficient models. They also found a significant difference between “chat” sessions, where a user asks an AI chatbot a question, and “agentic” sessions,” where a user asks the AI to perform a series of tasks. A typical agentic session used 27 times more energy, on average, than a typical chat session conducted using the same AI model.
The Sustainable AI Group was founded by Sasha Luccioni, the former AI and climate lead at the open source AI platform Hugging Face, and Gamazaychikov, who previously led AI sustainability at Salesforce. In their earlier roles, the two collaborated on a project called AI Energy Score, which is similar in spirit to the Environmental Protection Agency’s EnergyStar program for home appliances. They developed a method to directly measure the energy efficiency of “open-weight” AI models, or those that fully disclose their inner workings, and published the results in a public leaderboard.
Luccioni and Gamazaychikov founded the Sustainable AI Group because they wanted to give AI users, particularly large corporate users, the tools to understand the relative emissions impacts of proprietary AI models. Gamazaychikov told me that Salesforce had tried to get energy-use data from its AI providers for years to no avail.
Their first hire was Nidhal Jegham, a graduate student at the University of Rhode Island who published a landmark paper last year called “How Hungry is AI?” Jegham and his co-authors developed a method to estimate the energy, water, and carbon effects of proprietary models at the level of a single prompt or query. The paper was accepted by the journal Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, and the peer-reviewed version will come out in January.
The approach the Sustainable AI Group developed builds on both Jegham’s paper and the AI Energy Score project. The work began with testing open-weight models to see how they perform in realistic deployment configurations and directly measuring their energy consumption. From there the researchers identified mathematical relationships between various open models’ energy use and other measurable statistics, such as their size.
The next step was to take those statistical relationships from the open-weight models and apply them to similarly-sized proprietary models. The problem is, no one knows how “big” proprietary models are. The size of an AI model usually refers to the number of parameters it contains, i.e. the quantity of numerical representations of what the model has learned that it uses to produce a response.
“When we have a closed model, we don't have the model size. We don't have the deployment conditions. We don't have anything, so we need to find things we can observe from this closed model that can reflect its size,” Jegham explained to me. One key discovery, he said, was that “knowledge retention,” or how well the model can remember factual information, is a strong predictor of model size. A company called Artificial Analysis tests models for knowledge retention, so the researchers compared those results to model size for open models and applied the same statistical relationship to estimate the size of closed models.
This is a simplified explanation — there were many other variables and data points that went into the Sustainable AI Group’s estimates. The researchers also had to develop a separate methodology to evaluate Google’s models, since those mostly run on the company’s proprietary “tensor processing units,” rather than the Nvidia chips the researchers’ initial measurements were based on.
The group’s main findings are based on a per-token estimate of each model’s energy use, i.e. the energy required to process the smallest units of data that an AI deals with. Every time you type a question into a chatbot, the model breaks down the words into smaller bits — i.e. tokens — each just a few characters long, usually. The model also first formulates its response in tokens before translating it to text, an image, or whatever you’re requesting; input tokens are less energy-intensive than the tokens the models spit out. The Sustainable AI Group reports each of its per-token estimates as a range to reflect uncertainty.
For now, the firm is keeping its per-token estimates behind a paywall, but it has already started to use them to advise corporate clients in estimating their AI-related emissions, Gamazaychikov said. For example, he mentioned working with Etsy to help the online retailer develop a “model router,” essentially some software that routes a given query to the most appropriate model for the task, taking into account carbon and cost. It’s also partnering with the corporate emissions accounting platform Watershed to explore how to integrate its model-specific energy numbers into Watershed’s system.
Instead of displaying per-token energy use, the Sustainable AI Group’s public dashboard ranks models’ energy intensity per “typical” session, whether chat or agentic. It defines a typical chat session as “a short back-and-forth” with “a question, an answer, and a follow-up or two to refine or clarify it,” whereas a typical agentic session is “an hour or two of the assistant reading files, making changes and checking its own work across a project.” There are also results for a “heavier” or “lighter” session — generally tasks that take more or less time or require greater or fewer back-and-forths with the AI.
The least efficient AI model for both a typical chat and agentic session, per the dashboard, is Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5. A typical agentic session uses 76 watt-hours, according to the Sustainable AI Group’s estimate, or about the amount of electricity it would take to charge four smartphones, per Department of Energy estimates. The most efficient model for a typical chat session was Claude Haiku 4.5, while the most efficient model for a typical agentic session was Open AI’s GPT-5 nano.
Jegham said the point of the dashboard is not to villainize particular companies or models or to argue that more efficient models are superior. He acknowledged that a more complex task may require a larger model, and a larger model is likely going to be more energy intensive than a smaller one.
The ranking is also flawed in that it assumes every model delivers responses with the same amount of verbosity. In reality, some models may use more words, and therefore more tokens, to answer the same question. Jegham gave the example of Anthropic’s Sonnet and Opus models: Sonnet is less energy intensive per token, but it typically requires more tokens for the same task, so sometimes it’s more energy intensive than Opus. The dashboard doesn’t reflect these differences.
While energy intensity is the core of the dashboard’s function, it also includes estimates of each model’s carbon emissions per session. That calculation opens up many more cans of worms, since actual emissions depend on where in the country the hardware that’s processing the AI session is located and what’s powering it. There’s no easy way to know which data center is processing a given AI request. Instead, the dashboard offers users the option to toggle between different emissions intensities to reflect different scenarios — a data center powered by behind-the-meter natural gas plants, for example, versus one located on a relatively clean grid.
A typical agentic session with Claude Fable 5 powered by a behind-the-meter gas plant emits roughly 52 grams of CO2, it says, while a heavy session emits just over 200 grams — equivalent to driving about half a mile in a gasoline-powered vehicle.
I reached out to OpenAI and Anthropic to ask why they don’t publish energy intensity data, whether there are barriers to doing so, and whether they have plans to do so in the future. A spokesperson from OpenAI told me the company relies “on infrastructure partners to operate the data centers that run our models, so we don’t directly collect the underlying energy data. That’s an important consideration in how we assess and provide this information.” Anthropic declined to comment.
Google, on the other hand, has published an energy use estimate for “the median Gemini Apps text prompt in May 2025,” but has not provided an update for subsequent model versions. In response to my request for comment, the company reiterated statements from Cooper Elsworth, a senior technical manager for AI energy, which Google shared with me for a previous story on Watershed’s efforts to calculate AI-related emissions. He said there is no industry consensus for how to measure and disclose the environmental footprint of frontier AI models. He also echoed OpenAI’s comments, noting that gathering accurate energy use data requires “highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” which not all AI providers have access to.
“We believe there is immense value in aligning the industry on comparable metrics to fairly compare and incentivize action,” he said.
Current conditions: Last weekend’s nor’easter caused up to $13 billion in damages across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United States • Hurricane Nolo shut down a major highway on Hawaii’s Big Island • A heat dome forming over eastern Africa is driving temperatures in Juba, the impoverished capital of South Sudan, past 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
At last, right after hopes dimmed, we have a deal. Senate negotiators reached a bipartisan agreement on a package of federal permitting reforms, locking in what Politico described as “the contours of long-sought legislation to speed up approvals for new energy projects in the U.S.” Democratic negotiators Senators Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told the news outlet they were withholding endorsements of a final deal as “the last five yards” of the agreement are hammered out. Whitehouse cautioned that he needed “more clarity from the Trump administration” on what their easing of the blockade on wind and solar approvals would mean. Neither Democrats nor Republicans released text of the bill, which both parties said should come out this week.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is set to issue only its second construction permit for a novel type of nuclear reactor in decades. At 11 a.m. EDT, the agency is scheduled to give the Tennessee Valley Authority the go ahead to begin building what could be the nation’s first commercial small modular reactor, a 300-megawatt unit at the federally-owned utility’s Clinch River site. The project is one of two the Department of Energy is financing to support deployment of third-generation SMRs, a technology based on existing large-scale reactors but shrunken down to force developers to buy more and help the industry bring down the cost of atomic power through repeatedly building the same design. (The second one is Holtec’s expansion of the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan.) The permit comes six months after the NRC gave TerraPower, the Bill Gates-backed fourth-generation nuclear developer, the green light to start constructing its liquid sodium-cooled reactor at the site of an old coal plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming. The unit planned at Clinch River is a BWRX-300, a boiling water reactor from GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy that borrows from the technology behind roughly a third of the American nuclear fleet. Boiling water reactors, pioneered by General Electric in the mid-20th century, traditionally represented a competitor to the more dominant pressurized water reactor invented by Westinghouse. By the time Clinch River comes online, North America may already have its first BWRX-300 in operation in Canada, where Ontario Power Generation is building the first reactor at its Darlington plant. TVA has said it plans to bring its debut BWRX-300 online by the end of 2033 at the latest. Yet, despite the forthcoming permit, no start date for construction has been announced.
The NRC, meanwhile, has sought to advance plans to restart the functional reactor at Constellation Energy’s Christopher Crane Clean Energy Center, the facility formerly known as Three Mile Island. Last week, the agency issued an environmental assessment finding no significant impact from plans to begin generating electricity at the plant again. While America’s attempt at restarting a permanently shuttered reactor for the first time are largely going according to plan, regulators are investigating what the Detroit Free-Press described as a “mishap” in the handling of fuel for Holtec’s Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, which could come online in a matter of weeks. The company said nuclear fuel rods “tipped” during installation, halting the refueling process and forcing plant operators to return to the NRC for approval to retrieve the assembly from within the reactor vessel.
Arevia Power marketed itself as a renewable energy powerhouse led by solar industry veterans. Now, my colleague Jael Holzman reported yesterday, the company is making data centers and gas turbines central to its business. “Arevia is an energy company that delivers reliable and affordable electricity to the communities and utilities we serve,” Ricardo Graf, the company’s chief development officer, told her via email, acknowledging that “in some cases, that energy may be solar; in others, it may be gas.” He added that “yes, we also develop data center projects, but ones with accompanying power solutions to ensure ratepayers are not impacted by the data center’s energy needs.”
The shift in focus comes right as American solar offers a major new business opportunity. Solar panels are aging, and newer technologies are as much as 70% more efficient than those designed and built two decades ago. “All across the United States, solar panels are withering on the vine. Equipment installed 10 to 15 years ago is still capturing sunlight and pumping out electricity, but significantly less of it than when the cells were new,” my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote yesterday about a new report examining the potential to swap out the country’s existing panels for new ones. “This is not a story about decline, however, but about growth. America’s aging solar farms represent an opportunity to expand clean energy capacity without using more land — and potentially without having to wait years for new projects to get through the grid’s interconnection queue.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The TVA isn’t the only government-owned utility making progress on clean power plants. The New York Power Authority — the state electrical company that then-Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt established in the 1930s and later used as a model for New Deal investments such as the TVA — said Monday that it will take a 51% stake in a 240-megawatt solar plant in the state’s rural northern reaches, according to the Watertown Daily Times. The Rich Road solar farm in Canton, near the Canadian border, will follow a model promoted by progressive legislators with a bill meant to encourage the state to finance and own renewable projects to speed up decarbonization of the grid. Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, has used that authority to support her plans to build at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear power through NYPA. (That effort, as I told you yesterday, has drawn some blowback from left-wing Democrats who oppose nuclear energy.) EDF Power Solutions North America, a subsidiary of the French electrical giant, will own the other 49% share of the project, which is set to begin construction next year. Once completed, the facility is expected to provide credits to low-income New Yorkers to lower bills.

When I used to think about the Rhine River, the first thing that came to mind was a song off my favorite album from high school. Written and performed by Beirut, the stage name of an American guy who galavanted around Europe making folksy songs that sounded straight out of an American teenager’s romantic notion of an Old World beer hall, the song was called “Rhineland.” Over mournful horns and a plunky mandolin, the song repeats a refrain: “Life, life was all right on the Rhine,” bringing to mind some kind of bucolic interwar existence in an ill-fated era of European history. Two decades later, I can’t tell which has changed more, me or the place I was imagining. The correct answer is probably “both,” but the clearest answer today is the latter. Levels at a key gauge of the mostly German waterway dropped to 1.2 inches below the threshold ship operators use to determine how much cargo their vessel can safely carry down the river without risking damage or running aground, Bloomberg reported. Despite a slight recovery on Monday, the cost of shipping diesel from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe hit a record €260 per ton (equal to just under $296), after more than doubling this month amid the aftershocks of the summer’s record heat waves and droughts.
The latest trouble comes as the Trump administration weighs the merits of a ban on diesel exports. At Heatmap’s Climate Week event last Wednesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright ruled out such a step. But Trump said he was “very seriously” considering the step, despite warnings from Goldman Sachs that doing so would raise prices in Europe.
TotalEnergies may be taking up President Donald Trump on his legally sketchy offer of nearly $1 billion to abandon its offshore wind ambitions in the U.S. But the French energy giant — the second-largest European oil company after Shell — sees the energy shock brought on by the U.S. war against Iran as a boon to that very business. CEO Patrick Pouyanne said “high oil prices” are “accelerating electrification,” according to a snippet shared on X by Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas. “We have seen a huge surge in EV sales,” he added, noting that sales are booming well beyond China, in India, Latin America, and Europe. Increased profits from higher crude prices spurred the company to start buying back roughly $5 billion in shares over the next two quarters.
By neutering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the Trump administration cements the country’s dependence on oil and liquid fuels.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday news digest written by our executive editor.
President Trump’s big fuel efficiency rollback is here. This afternoon, the Department of Transportation significantly weakened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the federal government’s rules that encourage new cars and trucks to get gradually more fuel-efficient over time. Instead of mandating that new cars and trucks hit a target of more than 50 miles per gallon, as the old Biden-era rules had required, new vehicles sold in the U.S. will now need to average only 34.9 miles per gallon.
That target is below the level that most automakers have already achieved in their vehicle fleet. (For reasons too obscure to recount here, the regulatory standard of 34 miles per gallon aligns to real-world gas mileage in the mid-to-high 20s — something my 15-year-old hatchback manages to achieve without much straining.) The new rules also retroactively rewrite the standard back to 2022, meaning that automakers whose fleets once broke the law may now be in the clear.
These changes, in other words, render the fuel economy law, first enacted in 1975, is now moot. But Republicans in Congress had arguably already achieved this last year, when they zeroed out all of the law’s fines for automakers as part of the president’s tax and spending bill. These two changes, taken together, mean that the Trump administration has successfully neutered the U.S. fuel efficiency rules.
We are digging into the rule-making here at Heatmap, and I hope to have more on the documents in the days to come. But one of the lasting ironies of President Trump’s approach to fuel efficiency will be that his own presidency demonstrates its strategic inadequacy.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy law, after all, did not originate as an environmental policy — climate change had scarcely emerged as a pressing issue in the mid-1970s — but as a national security and economic sovereignty measure. In the aftermath of the oil embargo, American politicians realized that the U.S. economy was far too dependent on oil for its long-term good. This set off a scramble to find new energy sources, prompting a dash back to coal in the electricity sector and a surge in federal R&D spending on alternative energy. (This funding boost eventually created the modern solar, wind, battery, and fracking industries.)
It also led to a successful push to regulate gas mileage. Crucially, this effort did not limit emissions from any one type of vehicle, as the Environmental Protection Administration’s toxic air pollution rules aim to do. Rather, it targeted the average fuel efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States in each model-year. The point was not to regulate any one type of vehicle out of existence, but to increase the country’s overall fuel efficiency over time.
That decades-long effort was never perfect. It created in American statute, for instance, a lasting distinction between cars and trucks, which has bedeviled regulators as SUVs have taken up a larger portion of the new vehicle fleet. But it has also inarguably succeeded: The United States ekes far more value out of every barrel of oil today than it did half a century ago.
Yet the time is ripe to keep making progress. President Trump’s administration has illustrated the persistence of our oil dependence — and the political and strategic problems that it can still engender. Even though the United States has since become the world’s largest producer of oil, the linked and globalized nature of fuel markets means that a supply shock anywhere leads to price hikes everywhere. When an oil crisis arrives — even a largely self-inflicted one, as in the case of the Iran war — then the price of moving things and people rises, the economy suffers, and the president’s popularity falls. Countries can protect themselves from these shocks on a short-term basis by stockpiling oil (as the United States, in fact, does), but they can avoid them only by switching to a far more efficient and electrified transportation system.
President Trump, in other words, may regret the current oil and refining crisis. But by gutting the fuel economy standards — and waging war on electric vehicle incentives more broadly — he is increasing the likelihood that America will face many more crises like it in future years. Consider it his particular gift to his successors.