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:

Buildings are one of the few places where individuals have direct control over greenhouse gas emissions. You can’t instantly reduce a farmer’s beef production by eating less meat or personally shut down a natural gas power plant. But if you’re a homeowner, it’s up to you whether or not you’re burning fossil fuels every time you heat your home, use hot water, dry your clothes, or cook food. Together, these activities account for about 7% of annual U.S. fossil fuel-related carbon emissions.
That may not sound like a lot, but it adds up. When you buy a new heating system or a new clothes dryer, you’re investing in a machine you’re going to use for 15 to 20 years or more. You can decide to lock in a system that burns fossil fuels and is guaranteed to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere throughout that time — or you can invest in one that can drive down emissions as the electric grid becomes cleaner. (If you want some advice for which new appliances to go with, we have some guides for that.)
“There’s an inflection point that we’re facing right now,” Sara Baldwin, the senior electrification director at the think tank Energy Innovation, told me. “If we lock in another two decades of fossil fuel infrastructure in our homes, we’ve got way more work down the line.”
That’s not to say these are easy changes to make. Perhaps it’s not even totally fair to say “it’s up to you,” because for some homeowners, the cost of making some of these changes will be out of reach. Electric appliances are often more expensive to install than their fossil fuel counterparts. And in some cases, as in places where natural gas is much cheaper than electricity, the switch might also increase your energy bills, even though the appliances themselves are more efficient.
If you have the means, though, the benefits can be significant. Replacing your furnace with an electric heat pump — which can both heat and cool your home — could have two-for-one benefits for those without central air, especially as summers get hotter. Many homeowners also praise the quieter, more even temperature control that heat pumps provide. Electrify any of your appliances and you’ll also be helping to reduce local outdoor air pollution; switch to an electric cooktop and you’ll reduce indoor air pollution for you and your family, as well.
Another way to think about electrification is as a chance to leave your mark on the world. Political scientist Leah Stokes, who serves as policy counsel to the electrification advocacy group Rewiring America in addition to teaching at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told me she likes to think of the appliances in our homes as “the infrastructure that we are in charge of.” You can lobby your representatives to build bike lanes, but the decision is mostly out of your hands. You’re the only one that can decide to change out your furnace or your water heater, however. “These are huge opportunities for us to make legacy impacts on carbon pollution,” Stokes said. And unlike behavioral changes such as eating vegetarian, you only have to do it once. “If you sell that house, if you die, it's a piece of infrastructure that continues on.”
Making these changes won’t necessarily result in immediate emission reductions. It depends on where you live and where your power comes from. If a lot of your electricity comes from coal, for example, a natural gas furnace might emit less carbon than even the most efficient heat pump. But that’s just how the math works out today. Researchers who have modeled out the emissions impacts over the average lifetime of the equipment — about 16 years — have found that as the grid continues along its trajectory of getting cleaner, heat pumps will emit less carbon overall in every state.
Not every home electrification project will get you the same carbon bang for your buck. Space heating is by far the most energy-intensive thing we do in our homes, so from an emissions standpoint, replacing your boiler or furnace is the most effective change you can make. Clothes dryers and stoves use so little energy, comparatively, that swapping them out looks almost inconsequential for the climate, at least on paper.
But the reason electrifying your home can be such a high leverage action is not just because of the absolute emission reductions you can achieve. It can also accelerate structural changes. If you’re currently a natural gas customer, going fully electric means you’ll be able to disconnect from the local distribution system and stop paying into the pool of funds used to maintain it. That can increase rates for the remaining customers, which is far from ideal. But it also makes the economics of electrification more attractive.
“It's very important that we can't leave low income people behind,” said Stokes. “But the more folks who get off of gas, even a small number, it can really start to force the question of, should we start thinking about if we should be investing hundreds of millions of dollars into aging gas infrastructure? Or should we use that money to subsidize electrification for low income folks?”
So, where to begin? Space heating is the biggest opportunity, but it’s also the most expensive and complicated project. There’s no reason you have to start there, especially if your existing heater has a lot of life left in it. “Don't start with the hardest thing,” said Baldwin. “If it feels daunting, start with the easiest thing, or start with something that feels within reach.”
Larry Waters, an HVAC contractor I interviewed for our heat pump guide, recommends making a “gas inventory” — a list of all of your gas appliances and how old they are. Replace whichever appliance is nearest to the end of its useful life first, but plan ahead for future projects. Figure out if you’ll need to budget in an electrical upgrade, or if you can combine any of the work to save money.
The following guides will help you navigate each of these projects, with recommendations from experts who are on the ground, helping homeowners through this every day.
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 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.”
Rob gets into the latest state-level policy developments with Heatmap’s own Emily Pontecorvo.
When New York passed its first major climate law in 2019, climate advocates hailed the work as a milestone: The Empire State vowed to cut its carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, as compared to their 1990 levels, giving it some of the world’s most ambitious subnational climate policy. But last week, Governor Kathy Hochul and the state legislature moved to rewrite key provisions in that law, weakening deadlines and redefining its emissions math.
What happened? And would New York have ever been able to hit its 2030 goal? On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Emily Pontecorvo, a founding staff writer at Heatmap. They discuss how New York has changed its targets, why it has altered its approach to natural gas, and whether state-level climate goals can survive an age of affordability politics.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
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 their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: The other thing they did was this accounting change around how the state law considers methane. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Emily Pontecorvo: So, one of the things that made the New York climate law especially ambitious was they created in the law this rule that they were going to account for methane very differently than the way that almost any other state and most of the rest of the world does. And I’m sure listeners know, but methane is another greenhouse gas. It’s much more powerful than carbon dioxide, but it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long. It breaks down more quickly.
And so when you’re trying to kind of convert all greenhouse gases into one number, a carbon dioxide equivalent, there’s different ways to do that. You can measure methane on its effect on the atmosphere on warming over a 20-year period, which will make it look very, very strong because it’s strongest during that period. Or you can measure it over a 100-year period. These are the two common ways of doing it. And while much of the rest of the world uses the 100-year global warming potential of methane, New York was using the 20-year, which meant that all of New York’s methane emissions from landfills, from natural gas, those emissions had a much bigger effect on the state’s overall emissions. So it made the overall emissions seem higher on paper than if New York had used this other, 100-year global warming potential.
And there was actually a second thing that New York did that was unique, which is the state said, we’re not just going to account for the methane emissions that happen within our economy, within our borders. We’re also going to take ownership and take responsibility for methane from upstream from the natural gas that we use. So New York gets a lot of its natural gas from Pennsylvania, from West Virginia. And so New York is keeping on its own books the methane that’s leaks out of the drilling and pipelines and other infrastructure in those other states.
And so the big change in the budget deal was one, that New York was no longer going to include those emissions upstream in its own ledger. And two, that it’s going to switch to this 100-year accounting global warming potential. And so those two things combined, it really just takes a lot of carbon dioxide equivalent, or it takes a lot of methane off of New York’s books and makes the distance between now and the 2030 goal look a lot smaller.
Meyer: Stepping back, methane, as we’ve been saying, is a short-lived greenhouse gas. It’s extremely potent when it’s first released into the atmosphere, and then it quickly breaks down into carbon dioxide. And what’s interesting about it is that if you look at a molecule of methane, it is actually going to trap far more heat.
So methane, CH4, it will eventually oxidize down and break down into CO2. A singular molecule, the carbon in a molecule of methane, is going to trap more heat over its lifetime as an emission in the atmosphere in its CO2 form than in its CH4 form. And that’s because CO2 is extremely long-lived in the atmosphere. Basically, methane lasts 20 years in the atmosphere or so. It has this somewhat unstable and changing rate of decay in the atmosphere, but it’s not going to last longer than 100 years. And then CO2 will last roughly 1,000 years in the atmosphere. It essentially has a geological time scale in the atmosphere.
So methane’s going to matter way more later on as CO2. But as the U.S. energy system has come to rely more on natural gas, and therefore, as methane emissions have gone up, because methane is the largest component of natural gas, there was an effort to basically ... I don’t want to say make the methane emissions look worse, but like, try to capture — I think the counterargument here was that a lot of short-term warming seems to be coming from methane, and so therefore we should make methane look worse in the accounting than it might if we took a totally kind of apolitical, long-termist, geological accounting scale.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
How New York Is Weakening Its Climate Law, by Emily Pontecorvo
LA Times: After heated debate, California updates key climate limit. Critics say it’s a retreat
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.