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:
Don’t let the political process intimidate you.

Driving less has a lot of benefits. You’ll be healthier than your vehicle-bound peers, about a third of whom don’t walk for more than 10 minutes a week. You’ll cut carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions. In the process, you’ll probably realize how awful America’s public and active transportation infrastructure is — and may want to do something about it.
The same goes for just about any action you’ll find in Heatmap’s guide to decarbonizing your life. Should it be easier to get a permit to install rooftop solar panels? For sure. Should there be more public chargers to support EV adoption in your community? Without a doubt.
It can be especially overwhelming to think about getting involved in your local political processes when it comes to mobility because the cards are stacked so heavily in drivers’ favor. But it’s far from impossible. Here’s Heatmap’s guide to advocating for better transportation options and infrastructure in your community.
This might be the hardest step of all. To take transportation as an example, most American cities and towns were literally constructed to get drivers from point A to point B as fast as possible — meaning that their design is often actively hostile to anyone who wants to walk, bike, or take mass transit instead. If you put your mind to it, you could probably devise a dozen ways to make your immediate neighborhood friendlier to carless commuters.
Transportation for America’s transit advocate guide has several suggested starting places, including advocating for additional late-night service on a particular bus route, improving access to transit stations or stops (known as first- or last-mile connectivity), and pushing for shuttle services to connect riders with jobs. Petitioning for something like a bike lane, new sidewalk, safer intersections, or a missing crosswalk is another good place to start.
“Focus on one individual project,” Alexa Sledge, the communications director at Transportation Alternatives, a New York City nonprofit promoting non-polluting, safe, and quiet travel, told me. Being clear and focused on what you want — and, importantly, not getting overwhelmed or pulled in multiple directions — will help you achieve your goal. Strong Towns, a nonprofit that supports transportation advocates, calls this step the “humble observation:” identifying where people are struggling in your community and zeroing in on the smallest first possible step to help.
Here’s the excellent news: You aren’t in this fight alone.
Pretty much every major city and metropolitan region in the U.S. has its own transportation advocacy group these days, and you’re potentially just a Google search away from locating yours. (If you can’t find a transportation-specific group, look into local climate or pedestrian organizations, which frequently have overlapping objectives.)
It’s important to link up with others not just because they might already have identified priority projects in your area. Advocating for structural change requires, by definition, allies — and unfortunately, car-centricity is so dominant that transit advocates are often forced to prove the obvious community benefits of things like better bus routes or protected bike lanes.
If you don’t live in an area with an active transit group, nationwide organizations like Transportation for America and Strong Towns can connect with to get the tools, resources, training, and advice you need to start gathering allies.
How do I change a zoning law? Or weigh in on a renewable energy project near me?
Maybe you’re reading this guide because you’re interested in advocating climate-conscious zoning reform or want to weigh in on a wind farm nearby. There is a “profound diversity” of processes to do so from municipality to municipality, and no one-size-fits-all approach. That’s why it’s extra important to get involved with a local advocacy group; veteran organizers in your area can help you navigate the labyrinthine processes of your specific local government.
That said, here are a few things to keep your eyes peeled for:
There is an old urban planning joke about how traffic woes could be fixed by adding just one more lane. (They can’t be). Alas, this is also something of a federal policy; even though the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law set aside $36 billion to “transform our transportation system,” many states used their flexible funds for things like widening roads. Mass and active transit are often only an afterthought when it comes to funding: the Capital Investment Grants Program, one of the most significant federal programs for transit, is on the chopping block every budget-writing session, and programs like the Highway Trust Fund puts as little as 13% toward mass transit.
It’s our elected officials who make these decisions, though — and it’s their job to listen to their constituents. Here’s a handy page for determining the relevant senators and representatives to contact about federal funding for transit and active mobility policies; for local projects, you’ll want to reach out to your city council members, whose names and email addresses or phone numbers you should be able to find on your city website. And if you feel you’re getting brushed off by city staff when you reach out, focus on the smallest possible steps forward and be persistent (you can learn more strategies here).
The truth is, most people don’t go to their city council meetings. “When you really get down to the local level, there often aren’t as many people fighting, so you really can make a big difference,” Sledge said. Speaking up at hearings, town halls, public comment periods, or city council meetings can result in significant change and progress.
But let’s face it: Because most of us don’t have experience in local activism, telling someone to “go to a city council meeting” is much easier said than done. “The thing to remember is that your city council members work for you,” Sledge said. “They are elected members of your government, and you vote for them, and they are paid with taxpayer money. It’s part of their job to listen to you.”
Doug Gordon, the cohost of The War on Cars, a podcast about the fight against car culture, also suggested taking some of the pressure off yourself. “Don’t feel like you have to give the rousing patriotic speech in defense of the neighborhood bike lane,” he told me. “Just go and listen, and maybe if all that’s asked of you is to raise your hand when they ask how many people support this project, and that’s all you do, great.”
You don’t necessarily need to show up at a town council meeting or a representative’s office, either. Sledge suggested taking smaller steps like a phone call or email, or even just talking to people in your immediate community (for example, if you want a crosswalk outside your kid’s school, start by talking to the school board or other parents). When approaching someone like your city counselor, use language like: “This crosswalk is really important to me. How do I get this done?”
1. Depending on the project you’re pursuing, look up when your local transportation authority is inviting public comments ( here’s an example of what that page looks like in New York City). You can also search for when your state is holding public transportation hearings (here’s what Oklahoma’s looks like) and contact the relevant representatives to express your views. Most likely, though, you’ll be looking for your town’s public meeting schedule (here’s an example of San Jose’s) and seeking a special session related to transportation or a regular business meeting. Virtual hearings have also been common since the pandemic.
2. Research beforehand to learn how to comment publicly in your city or town. This may involve signing up on the town’s website or on a sign-in sheet when you arrive at the hearing.
3. In most cases, during the public comment portion of the city council meeting, you can address the council on any public issue (it does not have to be on the agenda). Again, check your city or town’s website to learn the specifics of procedures. Also, be aware of the time limit for your comments; generally, you’ll have about three minutes.
When you’re called on:
During your comment, you will probably see a timer somewhere in the room to help you track how long you have left to speak. The best comments are short and concise. Even if you’re frustrated with the process, be polite; remember that your comment can be seen and cited by anyone, including the media. Speak slowly. Here’s a guide for making an effective public comment from the National Resources Defense Council, with a sample script.
“If changing the system was easy,” writes Strong Towns, “we’d have done it long ago.” Many campaigns take years to come to fruition — being persistent and building a consensus, so advocates are working together toward the same cause, are two of the biggest lessons for success that Transportation for America stresses in their case studies.
It may take getting creative. Join the greater transportation advocacy community; listen to relevant podcasts, read related books, watch relevant YouTube videos, and learn from other campaigns. “You need a website, you need a public petition, and you need a T-shirt, because otherwise you’re just somebody with an opinion,” Rob Goodspeed, a founder of Trains Not Lanes, which successfully convinced Michigan’s Department of Transportation to drop highway expansion plans, told Streetsblog.
And when you do finally succeed? Celebrate. Promote it. Share your lessons with other organizers. Then identify a new project and begin again.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus, the Trump administration appointed a new “beacon of rational thought.”
We got a look at another major tech company’s latest energy and carbon emissions data — and it’s a doozy. On Wednesday, Microsoft released its annual sustainability report, giving us another year’s worth of energy and emissions data for a company that Heatmap’s annual insiders poll once judged to be one of the best hyperscalers for climate change.
The headline: Microsoft’s climate pollution surged last year. Its carbon emissions increased 25% year-over-year, the biggest single-year rise since at least the pandemic. The company emitted the equivalent of 21 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2025, under standard measurement methods. (It emitted slightly less under its own bespoke measurement system, which counts fuel credits and customer energy use differently.)
Electricity, which the company is buying in larger amounts than ever before to power AI data centers, is driving a good share of that increase. In 2024, carbon pollution produced by generating electricity (as well as from making chilled water and steam) was responsible for 2% of Microsoft’s total corporate carbon footprint. In 2025, that same category made up 13% of its overall emissions. The company’s power use rose by more than 24% over the same period.
That means Microsoft’s power use isn’t rising as fast as other companies’. Google’s most recent sustainability report said its own electricity consumption leapt 37% during the same period.
The report suggests, too, that Microsoft is increasingly wary of local fights over data center development — and how water has come to play an outsize role in those battles. The company reports that 2025 was the first year ever that it “replenished” more water on global scales than it withdrew. But “the next phase of our work is increasingly local,” write Brad Smith, the company’s vice chair and president, and Melanie Nakagawa, its chief sustainability officer. That line is clearly in reference to water, specifically — Smith and Nakagawa add that the company hopes to “restore more water to the watersheds where we operate than we withdraw” — but it could also cover the widespread local opposition to data centers that has exploded over the same period.
There’s one more thing to flag about this report: Although it just came out, it covers Microsoft’s 2025 fiscal year, which began in July 2024 and ended more than a year ago. That means it’s inherently an out-of-date view — it shows us what Redmond was doing as the AI and data center boom got underway, but not what it’s doing now. We’ve known for some time that the company is struggling to meet booming AI power demand while maintaining its power commitments; it paused carbon removal buying in April and revised its own clean energy commitments in May.
I should add that Microsoft would prefer that we look at other numbers in the report. First, under its in-house measurement scheme, the company says it released only 20 million tons of carbon pollution over the past year, a figure that appears in its top-line charts. Second, Microsoft estimates that it would have done even more harm to the climate — producing 34 million tons of climate emissions — if not for its corporate policies of buying zero-carbon electricity, using renewable fuels, and improving the energy efficiency and carbon footprint of its XBox game consoles and Surface tablets.
We asked Microsoft for a follow-up interview, but unfortunately they didn’t make anyone available. I’ll be back tomorrow to look at Microsoft’s report in context with other hyperscalers.
Speaking of a sudden rise in gaseous emissions, the Trump administration today named a new leader of the federal government’s marquee in-house climate research office, the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Per Politico, the new top dog is Matthew Wielicki, a UCLA PhD who (1) has a Substack, (2) refers to himself (in the third person) as a “beacon of rational thought” and “professor in exile” on said Substack, and (3) has suggested on X that climate change belongs in the “Department of Imaginary Problems.”
What can I say? Back during President Trump’s first term, his administration tried to bury the publication of the National Climate Assessment by dumping it on a holiday weekend. Now it seems to have taken another strategy. All I can say is, Dr. Wielicki, from one beacon of rational thought to another: I look forward to following your work.
Water pollution in Wyoming has big implications for the future of data center development.
Did a Meta data center introduce a rare, dangerous bacteria into the sewers system of Wyoming’s capitol city? It’s an environmental pollution mystery with an answer that could decide the future of American AI infrastructure development.
Our drama begins in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where the city’s board of public utilities just wrapped up a lengthy investigation into the presence of Cupriavidus gilardii, a potentially lethal bacteria resistant to heavy metals, in the city’s wastewater treatment systems. Apparently, in February, board staff detected the contamination and shut off public access to the city’s water reuse system, a supply of treated non-potable water fed with treated wastewater and used for lawns, athletic fields, and other green spaces. Officials were worried that spraying this water could release into the environment a bacteria found to cause fatal health outcomes in immunocompromised or elderly people who are infected by it.
The board then identified a culprit – Goat Systems LLC, a Delaware-registered firm without a website Meta tasked with overseeing its large $800 million hyperscale project in Cheyenne dubbed Project Cosmo. Goat Systems lost its wastewater disposal permit. The board plans to also fine Goat Systems for violating city code “along with additional fees for our remediation efforts,” board public affairs coordinator Erin Lamb told me in an email. (The only person publicly affiliated with Goat Systems is Pamela Gregorski, an employee for a company that specializes in creating LLCs. Gregorski, who is linked to other LLCs handling Meta projects across the country, did not reply to requests for comment.)
In public comments and statements to me, the board linked the bacteria to water used to flush the Meta data center’s closed-loop cooling system so debris could be removed before the facility was operational. “We were able to connect the Meta data center campus to this through sampling their site,” Lamb said.
This finding led Cheyenne to also indefinitely ban data center projects in the city from ever disposing of “fill-and-flush water” in the sewer system again.
Meta has not denied contamination was found by the city, but says repeated sampling at its project site failed to come up with any evidence confirming they were the source. One can imagine a scenario where the data center and its design played no role in this bacteria showing up, or that city officials erroneously tagged the tech company with responsibility at a time when they’re dealing with political troubles already.
But what is happening in Cheyenne, first reported last week by Wyoming local press, will have consequences for the future of AI infrastructure whether or not Meta was actually even responsible. Right now, all over the country, tech companies are failing to get permits for their data centers because people are worried about water use. These closed-loop data center designs are supposed to address those concerns, letting large hyperscalers contain, cycle, and reuse the water they use for months or even years. A story like this gaining traction in public discourse around data centers will inevitably damage the sector’s public image unless rectified – and fast.
Cheyenne’s claims about the Meta data center being responsible for the bacteria have already metastasized on social media, disseminated through channels often cited by data center opponents on the ground elsewhere in the country. “REPORT: ‘RARE’ BACTERIA DISCHARGED INTO WYOMING WATERSHED LINKED TO DATA CENTER,” reads one post by a Facebook user Izzy Bella that has been shared more than 2,600 times. “Think of this the next time you hear blatant greenwashed lies like ‘closed loop cooling.” This post has been shared by major anti-data center groups on Facebook, including Pennsylvania Data Center Resistance, a social media page for organizing against projects in the Keystone State.
Going solely off what happened in Wyoming, some in the state are concerned the process of cleaning these loops before opening a data center can produce some nasty byproducts. Dr. Jonathan Brand, a civil engineering professor at University of Wyoming, has been studying the data center buildout in Wyoming for years, watching what’s happened in Cheyenne closely, and like me has way more questions than answers.
Usually, Brand said, a company using water in metal-intensive industrial applications – think a metal plating facility – has to test that fluid before it’s dumped into a municipal sewer system. The chain of events spelled out by the board left him “guessing that didn’t happen here,” and he’s worried the bacteria formed within whatever petri dish-like environment was created inside the network of looping pipes before it was flushed.
“The bacterium was the canary they saw, but you could have a lot of residual metals, which is not something we normally test for at a wastewater plant,” he said. “What else was in that discharge? Nobody else has let us know that and they’re probably not going to.”
City officials claim the water was tested before it entered the sewer and was missed, but there’s a trust deficit between locals and the government on what happened. Little of this information was public until a few weeks ago. Cheyenne residents first learned trouble was afoot on June 26, when the board posted a press release “reminding all residential, commercial, and industrial customers that the discharge of hazardous substances into the sanitary sewer system is strictly prohibited.” Nothing was included about data centers at all; all the board said was that the bacteria was dumped by “an industrial user within the system.”
Then Exie Brown, a Cheyenne resident and GOP candidate for state house, blasted a press release out on social media declaring “a credible source with knowledge of the [board] investigation and sampling” told him the “industrial user” was a data center.
I reached out to Brown asking how he learned about this. His answers were cryptic. “I was given a piece of paper with that name of a bacteria on it,” he told me over the phone, declining to name the “very credible source” who told him about the contamination. “That it was released into our waste water system, that it came from a data center, that it was Meta, that they found out in February, and I needed to check into this.” When I asked why the piece of paper, he replied: “Because they [the source] wanted to keep this quiet. Off the phones and stuff.”
City officials deny any malintentions behind the delay and claim they’re learning about all of this at the same pace as the average resident. “We learned here a week or so ago,” Cheyenne mayor Patrick Collins told me in an interview. He added this wouldn’t have stirred as much interest “had it been something else,” referencing the fact it was from a data center.
“As I understand it, the contractor that was building the site was flushing out a closed-loop cooling system, and when they tested the water everything seemed to be fine, but when it was released into our system, bacteria had grown and was released into our wastewater treatment,” Collins said. “It just happened to be a data center. It’s an unfortunate and highly regrettable situation.”
The mayor acknowledged this contamination will make it “a little tougher” to argue for more data centers in the city. There are currently 10 operational data centers in Cheyenne and surrounding Laramie County, according to estimates from pro-business group Cheyenne LEADS, which has said five projects are under construction – including the Meta facility – and at least nine others are “in various stages of planning or due diligence.”
On Monday, the Cheyenne city council will vote on whether to annex land owned by various nearby property owners for more data center deals, including parcels owned by the family of U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis. Before this event, Cheyenne was incredibly resistant to the anti-data center backlash, handily rejecting proposals to pause development.
Collins thinks Cheyenne will still be open to the tech sector. But the bacteria changed things. “I recognize there’s going to be challenges as we move forward. It’s something we’re going to have to look into. This was a regrettable situation that happened.”
We will see more transparency soon from the Cheyenne city government about the contamination. The board tells me it’s planning a press conference next week where Lamb told me “more information will be made available.”
Francis Brennan, a public affairs manager in the company’s strategic response division, provided me with a statement from an unnamed “Meta spokesperson” claiming that Fortis – the construction company hired by Meta and Goat Systems LLC – was directly handling water disposal on site. After the board “shared that it found a substance in the city’s wastewater” the construction company “began hauling it offsite.” Meta claimed Fortis has not been able to corroborate the presence of this bacteria in comparable water samples.
“Meta is committed to being a good neighbor in Cheyenne, including through the protection of local water resources, and will continue encouraging collaboration between Fortis and the board until this situation is revoked,” the statement read. Meta declined to answer follow-up questions..
Fortis confirmed they were responsible for dumping water on site when the contamination was discovered. They stated they’ve been unable to confirm the presence of the bacteria. In a statement provided to me, the company said: “Immediately upon learning of the issue, we stopped discharging water into the city’s wastewater system. We have since engaged in a thorough investigation that has included ongoing repeat testing by independent environmental specialists and have found no trace of the substance.”
A conversation with Ross Marchard of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance
This week’s conversation is with Ross Marchard, executive director for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a center-right advocacy group that focuses on what it sees are onerous policies potentially hindering responsible collection and use of tax dollars. TPA’s position on AI clearly skews pro-free market, as they’ve recently defended Anthropic from Trump administration attacks. TPA also recently took on the mantle of defending data centers from noise complaints, publishing a paper on Tuesday “debunking myths about data centers being excessively noisy.” The paper references various analyses of data centers by state legislators and local regulators to argue that claims the sector is generally noisy are false.
I asked TPA’s executive director to chat with me about why and how the organization will try to quell these fears. The conversation was really interesting so I decided to share it with you in full, sans light editing for clarity and consistency.
What prompted you to write this report?
Obviously, data center projects have been getting so much media attention. With that attention there’s an outsized share of misinformation in coverage of these data center projects, and politicians have irresponsibly spread this misinformation to try and enact moratoria and heavy-handed restrictions on these projects
TPA wanted to get the truth out. Make sure local residents living alongside these data centers have access to all the information they need. Make sure this misinformation is countered.
Before we get into the noise aspect, how is this focusing on “taxpayer protection”?
Sure, well, great case in point is Loudon County. They’ve embraced data centers and look what’s happened, they take in a billion dollars a year in revenue from these data centers and it’s allowed them to lower property taxes. You see a wider pattern across communities. They rake in a tremendous amount of tax revenue and increasingly common well-paying jobs, six-figure blue collar jobs that are a direct result of allowing data centers into communities.
I know you’re based in D.C., near Loudon County. I went to a data center in Sterling, Virginia, in that county, and it was especially noisy. Sort of a worst case scenario on that. Your report talks about misinformation around noise and data center – where is the misinformation happening on this issue?
We saw a recent court case out of New Jersey that alleges data centers generally are as loud as helicopters. Look, anything is possible for a particular project. But what we can say based on our analysis of the data, studies and sound impact assessments, and analyses by state and local governments is that this isn’t the case for the vast majority of data centers.
No use of land is going to be sound-free. I live right on Georgia Avenue in Washington, D.C., so I know noise. But everything we analyzed showed data centers and energy generation on site are going to make some noise but not enough to be harmful to human health. Often it’s no louder than the typical conversation between two people.
Speaking of Loudon County, though, I can point to an example of a project I myself visited that was I’m sure welcomed at first on tax revenue grounds. Now people seem to regret that decision.
As someone trying to address those who are concerned, is it helpful for you to really just call this concern rooted in misinformation? Is this really going to be potent when projects like the one in Sterling exist?
First and foremost, it’s very important to listen to people and their concerns. If folks are living alongside a data center and say they’re hearing loud noises, that warrants investigation. But it’s also important to look at the full array of evidence and we’ve done that. So far, it does not appear to be the case based on the overwhelming amount of evidence that is publicly available that data centers use a lot of water, use inordinate amounts of electricity, or are loud in a way that disrupts human health.
What do you think the policy solutions are to address these noise concerns? How do you listen to people, without going into overgeneralization, as you put it?
People tend to point out the loudest data centers are the ones with on site energy generation. If you ask the operators of data centers and the companies building data centers, they’ll tell you more often than not the reason they’re putting generation on site because the utility permitting process takes far too long. That’s the result not necessarily of utility regulations but state regulations foisted upon utilities. So you have to look at everything from state regulation to grid operation regulation. If you make the process easier for data centers to get hooked up to the grid, you’ll see less on site energy generation, and a lot of the noise complaints will go away.
So from your standpoint, a solution to the noise complaint is that it should be easier to hook up to the grid?
Yes. If you allow data centers to get hooked up to the grid, you’ll see fewer diesel generators and that’ll mean fewer noise complaints.
Now, I want to be clear, the vast majority of data centers with noise complaints – those are usually because of on-site energy generation – are not unduly noisy. If you want to cut down on those complaints, what makes the most sense is to make it easier for data centers to hook up.
Fun question to close: what was the last song you listened to?
“Yellow” by Coldplay.
Are you listening to “Yellow” while you’re writing about data centers?
I listen to the song sometimes when I’m writing about data centers. It’s also a very good somber reflection song, which is a pretty common sentiment amongst millennials.