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:
And make a meaningful difference in the fight against climate change, while you’re at it.
Welcome to
Decarbonize Your Life, Heatmap’s special report that aims to help you make decisions in your own life that are better for the climate, better for you, and better for the world we all live in.
This is our attempt, in other words, to assist you in living something like a normal life while also making progress in the fight against climate change. That means making smarter and more informed decisions about how climate change affects your life — and about how your life affects climate change. The point is not what you shouldn’t do (although there is some of that). It’s about what you should do to exert the most leverage on the global economic system and, hopefully, nudge things toward decarbonization just a little bit faster.
We certainly think we’ve hit upon a better way to think about climate action, but you don’t have to take our word for it. Keep reading here for more on how (and why) we think about decarbonizing your life — or just skip ahead to our recommendations.
At this point, everyone knows that individual action won’t solve climate change. Didn’t BP invent the term “carbon footprint” in 2004 so as to distract from fossil fuel companies’ guilt and greed?
As the journalist Rachel Cohen has observed, around the 2010s it became unpopular to believe that individual action could help address any major social problem. And sure, it’s true that only collective action — achieved through something like the political system — will let us eventually manage climate change at the global level.
But at Heatmap, we believe that that isn’t quite the whole story. Just because politics and collective action are the only things that can solve climate change doesn’t mean they are the only things that can do something about climate change. What’s more, the problem of carbon emissions — and the stickiness of fossil fuels — emerges from a tight knot of chemical efficiency, political power, and logistical lock-in. If individual consumers can pry at that knot, can make it a little easier to imagine a post-fossil energy system, then they can realize a zero-carbon world a little sooner.
That way of thinking about climate change, however, requires us to think somewhat differently about how to take individual action in the first place. Often, when you read about how to fight climate change as a person or family, the advice assumes that you want to reduce your responsibility for climate change. You’re advised to turn down the thermostat in the winter (or turn it up in the summer), shut off the lights when you leave the room, and compost.
This advice assumes that the reader’s goal is to personally exculpate themselves or their family from global warming — and to assuage their own guilt for participating in a polluting system.
At its most sophisticated, this advice can be valuable insofar as it can help you cut your marginal carbon emissions. The most precise versions of these recommendations often speak in terms of emissions abatement: They might advise, say, that switching to a plant-based diet could save 0.8 tons of carbon emissions a year.
You’ll see some of that kind of recommendation in this project: It’s a valid way to think about individual actions, and it works especially well in some domains, such as food. But it’s not, in our view, the best way of thinking about individual action to fight climate change.
That’s because it is essentially impossible to exculpate yourself from climate change. That’s not being fatalistic. It’s just a fact. Simply by living in the year 2024, your life is enmeshed in a sprawling economic network that devours fossil fuels as its great lifestyle subsidy. Look out the nearest window — do you see cars, asphalt, power lines, sidewalks, buildings? Do you see steel-framed structures or a plane cutting its way across the sky? None of those things could exist without fossil fuels. And unless you’re looking into wild and unkempt wilderness (if so, lucky you!), then even the plants and grass out your window, the food in your pantry, grew up on fertilizer that was manufactured with fossil fuels. If you live in a rich or middle-income country, buy goods and clothes, eat food, use electricity, or even leave your house by any means other than walking, then you are responsible, to some degree, for climate change.
Trying to zero out your personal carbon footprint, in other words, is a fool’s errand. What you can do, however, is maximize the degree to which you’re building a new, post-fossil-fuel world.
To be clear, we don’t mean that in a woo-woo way. We’re not saying you should imagine a kumbaya world where we all hold hands and take public transit to the nearest all-volunteer renewable-powered co-op. We’re saying that there are real, already existing products and technologies that must become a bigger part of today’s built environment if we are to have any hope of solving climate change. What you can do — and what we recommend in this guide — is help take those technologies from the fringes into the center of everyday life. If you want to decarbonize the whole planet, you should think about decarbonizing your life.
What we have tried to do here is not focus on how to reduce your marginal emissions — the number of tons that you, personally, are responsible for pumping into the environment. Instead, we’re trying to help you understand how to focus on high-leverage actions — the kinds of choices that can drive change throughout the energy system. That’s why in this guide you’ll find advice on how to switch to an EV, buy zero-carbon electricity, make your home more energy-efficient, and electrify your appliances. We also recommend these in the order that we think they’ll be most effective — to learn more about how we reached that ranking, read about our methodology here.
The kind of shifts we advise in this guide, to be clear, won’t solve climate change on their own. But they will help you alter the systems in which you’re enmeshed, and they’ll make you a smarter climate citizen.
Flying is maybe the trickiest climate question. Although it makes up a relatively small share of both global and U.S. emissions — about 2% each — it is among the most climate-polluting activities many Americans will do on a minute-to-minute basis. (Although if you live in a dense and walkable city like New York, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C., but travel frequently, then flying may make up a large share of your emissions.) It is probably also the most difficult “everyday” activity to decarbonize.
There is no practical substitute for long-distance or transcontinental flying. Today, only one ocean liner regularly makes the journey from New York to London, and it departs from each city only once a month. And unless you hitch a ride on a container ship, there is literally no slow boat to China. If you want to travel abroad, then you must fly. Even within the United States, there is essentially no substitute for long-distance flights. Europeans and East Asians can rely on superior long-distance rail systems, but America’s extensive road network, unusually high infrastructure costs, sclerotic rail agency, and chronic lack of transit investment mean that Americans are stuck with flying or driving.
Commercial aviation is a miracle of the modern world: It facilitates a level of global connectedness and international communication that earlier generations could only dream of. Affordable and long-distance passenger flight is, in many ways, the crowning achievement of our highly technical society, and it allows for the amount of global immigration and mass tourism that defines the modern world. (If you have a private jet, of course, stop using it. Because so few people take each flight, private jets are uniquely destructive for the climate, emitting every seven hours what the average American emits all year.)
Fossil fuels’ weight and energy density is ideal for flying. There is, right now, no drop-in replacement for jet fuel that is being produced at scale. So while we have some advice about how to mitigate your climate pollution from flying, it won’t make up a large part of this guide. Reduce the number of flights you take if you can, sure, and take more direct flights if possible. But the truth is that for now, there are smarter and more high-leverage decisions that you can make.
Only decarbonization can get us closer to tackling climate change once and for all. Our belief at Heatmap is that if you care about climate change, then decarbonization — and not mere emissions reductions — should be your guiding star. If you want to follow that star, then read on.
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 Data for Progress poll provided exclusively to Heatmap shows steep declines in support for the CEO and his business.
Nearly half of likely U.S. voters say that Elon Musk’s behavior has made them less likely to buy or lease a Tesla, a much higher figure than similar polls have found in the past, according to a new Data for Progress poll provided exclusively to Heatmap.
The new poll, which surveyed a national sample of voters over the President’s Day weekend, shows a deteriorating public relations situation for Musk, who has become one of the most powerful individuals in President Donald Trump’s new administration.
Exactly half of likely voters now hold an unfavorable view of Musk, a significant increase since Trump’s election. Democrats and independents are particularly sour on the Tesla CEO, with 81% of Democrats and 51% of independents reporting unfavorable views.
By comparison, 42% of likely voters — and 71% of Republicans — report a favorable opinion of Musk. The billionaire is now eight points underwater with Americans, with 39% of likely voters reporting “very” unfavorable views. Musk is much more unpopular than President Donald Trump, who is only about 1.5 points underwater in FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average.
Perhaps more ominous for Musk is that many Americans seem to be turning away from Tesla, the EV manufacturer he leads. About 45% of likely U.S. voters say that they are less likely to buy or lease a Tesla because of Musk, according to the new poll.
That rejection is concentrated among Democrats and independents, who make up an overwhelming share of EV buyers in America. Two-thirds of Democrats now say that Musk has made them less likely to buy a Tesla, with the vast majority of that group saying they are “much less likely” to do so. Half of independents report that Musk has turned them off Teslas. Some 21% of Democrats and 38% of independents say that Musk hasn’t affected their Tesla buying decision one way or the other.
Republicans, who account for a much smaller share of the EV market, do not seem to be rushing in to fill the gap. More than half of Republicans, or 55%, say that Musk has had no impact on their decision to buy or lease a Tesla. While 23% of Republicans say that Musk has made them more likely to buy a Tesla, roughly the same share — 22% — say that he has made them less likely.
Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, worth more than the next dozen or so largest automakers combined. Musk’s stake in the company makes up more than a third of his wealth, according to Bloomberg.
Thanks in part to its aging vehicle line-up, Tesla’s total sales fell last year for the first time ever, although it reported record deliveries in the fourth quarter. The United States was Tesla’s largest market by revenue in 2024.
Musk hasn’t always been such a potential drag on Tesla’s reach. In February 2023, soon after Musk’s purchase of Twitter, Heatmap asked U.S. adults whether the billionaire had made them more or less likely to buy or lease a Tesla. Only about 29% of Americans reported that Musk had made them less likely, while 26% said that he made them more likely.
When Heatmap asked the question again in November 2023, the results did not change. The same 29% of U.S. adults said that Musk had made them less likely to buy a Tesla.
By comparison, 45% of likely U.S. voters now say that Musk makes them less likely to get a Tesla, and only 17% say that he has made them more likely to do so. (Note that this new result isn’t perfectly comparable with the old surveys, because while the new poll surveyed likely voters , the 2023 surveys asked all U.S. adults.)
Musk’s popularity has also tumbled in that time. As recently as September, Musk was eight points above water in Data for Progress’ polling of likely U.S. voters.
Since then, Musk has become a power player in Republican politics and been made de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency. He has overseen thousands of layoffs and sought to win access to computer networks at many federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Social Security Administration, and the IRS, leading some longtime officials to resign in protest.
Today, he is eight points underwater — a 16-point drop in five months.
“We definitely have seen a decline, which I think has mirrored other pollsters out there who have been asking this question, especially post-election,” Data for Progress spokesperson Abby Springs, told me .
The new Data for Progress poll surveyed more than 1,200 likely voters around the country on Friday, February 14, and Saturday, February 15. Its results were weighted by demographics, geography, and recalled presidential vote. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.
On Washington walk-outs, Climeworks, and HSBC’s net-zero goals
Current conditions: Severe storms in South Africa spawned a tornado that damaged hundreds of homes • Snow is falling on parts of Kentucky and Tennessee still recovering from recent deadly floods • It is minus 39 degrees Fahrenheit today in Bismarck, North Dakota, which breaks a daily record set back in 1910.
Denise Cheung, Washington’s top federal prosecutor, resigned yesterday after refusing the Trump administratin’s instructions to open a grand jury investigation of climate grants issued by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Biden administration. Last week EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would be seeking to revoke $20 billion worth of grants issued to nonprofits through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives, suggesting that the distribution of this money was rushed and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. In her resignation letter, Cheung said she didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support grand jury subpoenas.
Failed battery maker Northvolt will sell its industrial battery unit to Scania, a Swedish truckmaker. The company launched in 2016 and became Europe’s biggest and best-funded battery startup. But mismanagement, production delays, overreliance on Chinese equipment, and other issues led to its collapse. It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November and its CEO resigned. As Reutersreported, Northvolt’s industrial battery business was “one of its few profitable units,” and Scania was a customer. A spokesperson said the acquisition “will provide access to a highly skilled and experienced team and a strong portfolio of battery systems … for industrial segments, such as construction and mining, complementing Scania's current customer offering.”
TikTok is partnering with Climeworks to remove 5,100 tons of carbon dioxide from the air through 2030, the companies announced today. The short-video platform’s head of sustainability, Ian Gill, said the company had considered several carbon removal providers, but that “Climeworks provided a solution that meets our highest standards and aligns perfectly with our sustainability strategy as we work toward carbon neutrality by 2030.” The swiss carbon capture startup will rely on direct air capture technology, biochar, and reforestation for the removal. In a statement, Climeworks also announced a smaller partnership with a UK-based distillery, and said the deals “highlight the growing demand for carbon removal solutions across different industries.”
HSBC, Europe’s biggest bank, is abandoning its 2030 net-zero goal and pushing it back by 20 years. The 2030 target was for the bank’s own operations, travel, and supply chain, which, as The Guardiannoted, is “arguably a much easier goal than cutting the emissions of its loan portfolio and client base.” But in its annual report, HSBC said it’s been harder than expected to decarbonize supply chains, forcing it to reconsider. Back in October the bank removed its chief sustainability officer role from the executive board, which sparked concerns that it would walk back on its climate commitments. It’s also reviewing emissions targets linked to loans, and considering weakening the environmental goals in its CEO’s pay package.
A group of 27 research teams has been given £81 million (about $102 million) to look for signs of two key climate change tipping points and create an “early warning system” for the world. The tipping points in focus are the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, and the collapse of north Atlantic ocean currents. The program, funded by the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency, will last for five years. Researchers will use a variety of monitoring and measuring methods, from seismic instruments to artificial intelligence. “The fantastic range of teams tackling this challenge from different angles, yet working together in a coordinated fashion, makes this program a unique opportunity,” said Dr. Reinhard Schiemann, a climate scientist at the University of Reading.
In 2024, China alone invested almost as much in clean energy technologies as the entire world did in fossil fuels.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of the person serving as EPA administrator.
Rob and Jesse get real on energy prices with PowerLines’ Charles Hua.
The most important energy regulators in the United States aren’t all in the federal government. Each state has its own public utility commission, a set of elected or appointed officials who regulate local power companies. This set of 200 individuals wield an enormous amount of power — they oversee 1% of U.S. GDP — but they’re often outmatched by local utility lobbyists and overlooked in discussions from climate advocates.
Charles Hua wants to change that. He is the founder and executive director of PowerLines, a new nonprofit engaging with America’s public utility commissions about how to deliver economic growth while keeping electricity rates — and greenhouse gas emissions — low. Charles previously advised the U.S. Department of Energy on developing its grid modernization strategy and analyzed energy policy for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Charles about why PUCs matter, why they might be a rare spot for progress over the next four years, and why (and how) normal people should talk to their local public utility commissioner. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: I want to pivot a bit and ask something that I think Jesse and I have talked about, something that you and I have talked about, Charles, is that the PUCs are going to be very important during the second Trump administration, and there’s a lot of possibilities, or there’s some possibilities for progress during the Trump administration, but there’s also some risks. So let’s start here: As you survey the state utility landscape, what are you worried about over the next four years or so? What should people be paying attention to at the PUC level?
Charle Hua: I think everything that we’re hearing around AI data centers, load growth, those are decisions that ultimately state public utility commissioners are going to make. And that’s because utilities are significantly revising their load forecasts.
Just take Georgia Power — which I know you talked about last episode at the end — which, in 2022, just two years ago, their projected load forecast for the end of the decade was about 400 megawatts. And then a year later, they increased that to 6,600 megawatts. So that’s a near 17x increase. And if you look at what happens with the 2023 Georgia Power IRP, I think the regulators were caught flat footed about just how much load would actually materialize from the data centers and what the impact on customer bills would be.
Meyer:And what’s an IRP? Can you just give us ...
Hua: Yes, sorry. So, integrated resource plan. So that’s the process by which utilities spell out how they’re proposing to make investments over a long term planning horizon, generally anywhere from 15 to 30 years. And if we look at, again, last year’s integrated resource plan in Georgia, there was significant proposed new fossil fuel infrastructure that was ultimately fully approved by the public service commission.
And there’s real questions about how consumer interests are or aren’t protected with decisions like that — in part because, if we look at what’s actually driving things like rising utility bills, which is a huge problem. I mean, one in three Americans can’t pay their utility bills, which have increased 20% over the last two years, two to three years. One of the biggest drivers of that is volatile gas prices that are exposed to international markets. And there’s real concern that if states are doubling down on gas investments and customers shoulder 100% of the risk of that gas price volatility that customers’ bills will only continue to grow.
And I think what’s going on in Georgia, for instance, is a harbinger of what’s to come nationally. In many ways, it’s the epitome of the U.S. clean energy transition, where there’s both a lot of clean energy investment that’s happening with all of the new growth in manufacturing facilities in Georgia, but if you actually peel beneath the layers and you see what’s going on internal to the state as it relates to its electricity mix, there’s a lot to be concerned about.
And the question is, are we going to have public utility commissions and regulatory bodies that can adequately protect the public interest in making these decisions going forward? And I think that’s the million dollar question.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Download Heatmap Labs and Hydrostor’s free report to discover the crucial role of long duration energy storage in ensuring a reliable, clean future and stable grid. Learn more about Hydrostor here.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.