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:

The United Nations has published its first report card on the world’s progress meeting the climate goals under the Paris Agreement.
Although the agency doesn’t give a letter grade, the overwhelming message is clear: The world is not a pleasure to have in class. Countries are still failing to hit the goals that they set for themselves under the Paris Agreement in 2015.
Despite recent climate initiatives and new laws in the United States, China, and Europe, the world is not on track to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. And it is nowhere close to keeping average temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees, which has become a threshold for near-term climate danger.
The new assessment captures something important but often overlooked about the Paris Agreement. The treaty is largely nonbinding: It imposes no pollution-related restrictions on its members. But what it prescribes, instead, is a process. For the first time ever, that process is about to enter a new stage.
Here is how the Paris process works: Every five years, each country must submit a detailed pledge saying how much it will cut its greenhouse-gas emissions in the years to come. (These are called “Nationally Determined Contributions,” or NDCs.) A few years after that, the world engages in a “global stocktaking,” a review of how much progress has been made toward those goals and how far off humanity is from its climate goals. Then two years later, each country submits a new, more ambitious plan.
The 2023 UN climate conference, which will happen in Dubai, will see the first of these “global stocktakes.” It is meant to set the stage for 2025, when countries will formally update their Paris Agreement plans.
Last week’s report is written largely in UN-ese, a somewhat bland series of pledges and phrases that leave one with the impression that somebody should do something about all the emissions. It emphasizes that “radical decarbonization” is now needed, which will involve a rapid scale-up of renewable energy, the broad electrification of transport, and a phase-out of all “unabated” fossil fuels.
But perhaps most importantly, the report contains a helpful graph that dramatizes just how far the world remains from its most ambitious climate goals.

There are a few lessons in this chart:
Meeting the Paris Agreement goals will be extremely difficult. Since 1850, the world has steadily put more and more carbon pollution into the air every year. Decade after decade, that trend line has only ever gone up. In 2023, roughly 50 gigatons of carbon dioxide — or about 110 trillion pounds — will stream into the atmosphere from human-related activities.
Yet to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that two-century mega-trend must not only end, but almost immediately reverse itself. To have the best chance of hitting the Paris targets, global greenhouse-gas emissions must peak by the end of 2025 — scarcely more than two years away.
As soon as emissions peak, they must fall precipitously. In order to hit the 1.5 degree goal, for instance, annual global carbon pollution must fall by 48% by 2030, compared to its 2019 level.
Even the world’s most ambitious climate pledges still won’t meet the Paris Agreement goals. The world has made tremendous progress since 2010, when climate change looked likely to cause 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius, equal to about 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, of warming by the end of the century. That would have been catastrophic.
Today, scientists project temperatures to rise to something like 2.5 degrees Celsius, or about 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit, above their pre-industrial levels.
But that still won’t be enough to hit the Paris goals. Look at the red range in the chart labeled “NDCs,” the plans that countries must submit under the Paris Agreement. Although it’s not in the chart, the text of the report provides details about how much these NDCs will actually reduce emissions.
When you take these NDCs together, they suggest that the world could keep global warming to 2.1 degrees Celsius. And if countries’ long-term targets are taken into account, and the most optimistic assumptions are applied, then global temperatures may rise as little as 1.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
But those long-term plans remain speculative, and an “implementation gap” remains between what the world has promised to do and what its policies actually say will happen. And in any case, even those ambitious plans won’t bring the world to the 1.5-degree goal.
Reducing emissions, on a year-over-year basis, will be even harder. Fossil fuels remain the primary industrial energy input to the global economy. As you can see from the chart, global emissions have never seriously plateaued for any length of time, and they remain largely coupled to the global economy. (The most recent big dip in annual emissions was caused by the Covid recession.)
That’s because almost all energy development is additive: Although we think of types of energy as displacing each other — so that renewables replace natural gas, say, or coal replaced wood fires — humanity has largely added energy capacity since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The world burned more coal last year than it ever has before. Although statistics are more scarce, biomass consumption — wood-burning — is said to also be at an all-time high.
There are positive signs. As the report notes, 10- and in some cases 100-fold declines in the cost of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries have seen new renewable technologies get rapidly deployed over the past decade. But the world is not moving fast enough.
And perhaps that’s the most upbeat way to see the report card: The age of planning and innovation has ended, the UN is saying. The world of scaling and deployment is about to begin.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Welcoming the world’s first clean energy trillionaire.
SpaceX is now a public company. The rocket and satellite maker’s shares began trading this morning, surging 19% from their initial price of $135 to more than $160 at the market close. With the sale, Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire; his wealth has roughly tripled since President Donald Trump won re-election in 2024.
I’ll let other observers judge the IPO’s success, the firm’s long-term prospects, and the meaning of a world where we now have trillionaires. So I will make a few other points:
I remain agog at Musk’s ability to raise enormous amounts of cash from public equity markets to do hardware and manufacturing development. To some degree, the idea of a venture-backed firm doing hardware engineering — or what some now call “deep tech” — is Musk’s most impressive creation. The SpaceX IPO raised $75 billion today. That money will now go in part to scaling and commercializing rockets, factory equipment, and allegedly, at some point in the future, orbiting data centers.
Let’s not forget how crucial the U.S. government is to Musk’s story. In the world of climate, energy and manufacturing, we wail about financing’s “missing middle,” the elusive type of investment that can help scale and deploy early-stage technologies by bridging the gap between expensive venture capital and cheap bank lending. But this is at least partially a solved problem. SpaceX and Tesla survived the valley of death with government help: The Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office (which the Trump administration has dubbed the Office of Energy Dominance Financing) extended a $465 million loan to Tesla to build its Fremont, California, factory in 2010; NASA’s 2008 commercial resupply contract gave SpaceX guaranteed offtake for its Falcon rocket. Neither firm would likely have survived without those key injections of financial certainty.
To some degree, Musk has already made his mark on the American economy by creating a new culture of manufacturing engineering. I cannot recommend enough my colleagues Matthew Zeitlin and Emily Pontecorvo’s report on the new cadre of climate tech founders who came up at SpaceX and Tesla. As it happens, I spent Wednesday touring a clean energy factory founded by a Tesla alumnus, and I was struck by how many signs of Musk’s bottlenecks-focused management approach were visible, even at a company seemingly run more humanely than Musk’s famously “hardcore” firms.
Sign up to get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
To that point, Emily and Matt asked a number of clean tech executives who worked for SpaceX or Tesla what they learned from the experience. Their responses are fascinating; you can read them in full here. These comments from Justin Lopas, the COO of Base Power, stuck out — he was asked the “one thing” he learned from working for Musk:
You can get way more done in a day and can move way faster than you think. This does not mean necessarily more hours (although solving any hard problem requires that too), but instead being thoughtful about sequencing work, not accepting delays from suppliers or external counterparties without solid rationale, parallel pathing, accelerating critical learnings to early in the project, etc
To step back, one irony of Elon Musk’s situation — at least to me — is that relatively few American politicians are eager to talk about what has actually driven his wealth. I’m not just talking about his firms’ reliance on public financing, although that counts too. I mean Tesla itself. Although Musk now describes that business as a “robotics company,” it is and remains an electric vehicle and battery manufacturer. (It recently began high-volume production of the Tesla Semi, a potentially game-changing long-haul electric truck.) After today, Musk’s Tesla stake makes up less than half of his wealth, but, still, he would not be a trillionaire without EVs, solar panels, and batteries.
But that is not a particularly convenient fact. That Musk is a clean energy trillionaire remains unpalatable to Republicans, who would prefer to cast EVs as an inferior substitute made to satisfy government mandates. And Musk’s antisemitism, far-right politics, and gleeful destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development — not to mention Tesla’s violation of labor law — have obviously destroyed his reputation among Democrats.
Yet his elevation to a 13-digit net worth nonetheless marks a new era in American capitalism. The richest Americans in history have almost always been oilmen: John D. Rockefeller became the country’s first billionaire by creating the Standard Oil trust; when he died in 1937, his net worth of $1.4 billion represented 1% to 2% of the country’s gross domestic product. In the 1960s, J. Paul Getty became the country’s richest person by negotiating Saudi and Kuwaiti oil concessions. Yet Musk became a billionaire not by harnessing commodities, but through his mastery of software, hardware, and clean energy.
Musk’s fortune now exceeds 3% of U.S. GDP. He is the richest American in history, judged as a share of national production. And it was electricity, lithium, and modern factory production — and, if you wish, the kerosene and methane that fuel SpaceX’s rockets — that got him there. As the science fiction writer William Gibson almost said, the future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed in your retirement portfolio yet.
Many thanks for reading, and have a wonderful weekend.
Plus SAF, another SPAC, and more of the week’s biggest money moves.
With SpaceX’s historic IPO dominating headlines this week, Heatmap turned its attention to the impact Elon Musk’s protégés have had on the climate tech landscape. Right after we published the story, an underwater geothermal startup founded and staffed by SpaceX alumni announced a sizable Series A, with its founder telling TechCrunch that his “experience at a very hardcore company like SpaceX” helped shape his approach to this new endeavor.
In other news, one of the biggest players in the sustainable aviation space, Twelve, opened its first commercial fuels plant and is preparing to begin supplying low-carbon jet fuel to Alaska Airlines later this month. Meanwhile, the battery sector saw two SPAC announcements: In a bid for survival, Factorial Energy officially went public this week through a SPAC merger, while ZincFive announced plans to do the same later this year. And finally there was some positive news for Germany’s heat pump market, as the startup Galvany raised fresh funding to simplify the end-to-end process of buying, installing, and operating a heat pump.
Drawing from an increasingly familiar playbook for Musk alumni, Endurance Energy founder and former SpaceX engineer Andrew Redd applied the lessons he learned from the rocket company’s notoriously “hardcore” culture and rapid pace of development to something completely different. Now that he’s pivoted away from rocket tech, Redd wants to harness geothermal energy from underwater volcanic activity, and his startup just raised a $54 million Series A to make it happen While a growing crop of geothermal startups including Fervo and Zanskar are focused on tapping into the heat beneath our feet, no other company in the sector has sought to develop the resource beneath the ocean floor.
There are good reasons for that, of course. Offshore infrastructure is notoriously difficult and expensive to build, maintain, and repair, and saltwater is corrosive. But if Endurance can crack the code, Redd told TechCrunch he thinks the company could unlock about 6 terawatts of geothermal energy in the coming decade.
Investors seem to be convinced: Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund led the startup’s latest funding roundSeries A, its second capital raise since launching less than two years ago. Other backers include First Round Capital, Felicis Ventures, and Voyager Ventures. EnduranceThe startup is initially targeting remote islands, where electricity costs are often far higher than on the mainland. It’s already launched an initial pilot off the coast of Tonga, which still gets about 80% of its electricity from imported diesel.
Twelve, one of the best capitalized sustainable aviation fuel startups, opened its first e-fuel facility in Washington State this week. The demo plant has officially started production, and the company’s strategic partner and investor, Alaska Airlines, expects to begin using it on commercial flights as soon as this month. The plant’s launch comes roughly two years later than originally planned, a delay that’s hardly unusual for first-of-a-kind industrial projects like this. Last September, Twelve raised $645 million to complete buildout of the facility, as well as to jumpstart development of future plants, which it says will be orders of magnitude larger.
The company’s process begins with renewable-powered electrolysis. Using a proprietary catalyst, Twelve’s electrolyzer splits apart CO2 captured from a nearby ethanol plant at a lower temperature than conventional approaches, making it better suited to running on renewable energy. The company combines the resulting carbon monoxide with hydrogen to create a syngas, which gets refined into sustainable jet fuel. Airlines can blend the resulting product with conventional jet fuel (the Federal Aviation Administration allows a maximum 50% blend) to create a drop-in replacement that requires no engine modifications.
To cover the cost premium of SAF, Twelve and Alaska partnered with Microsoft. The tech giant is buying SAF certificates — essentially carbon credits — from the project to help offset Scope 3 emissions associated with employee travel. “We are seeing strong demand from the corporate offtake side, not only for employee travel, but also for freight and logistics,” Twelve’s CEO, Nicholas Flanders, told me. “Everything from pharmaceuticals to data centers use a lot of air travel.” There are also some policy tailwinds — the European Union now has a sustainable fuels mandate that requires the use of synthetic e-fuels like Twelve’s beginning in 2030.
The plant also comes online at a moment of heightened volatility in the jet fuel market. As my colleague Alexander C. Kaufman noted in Wednesday’s morning newsletter, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to soaring fuel prices, prompting domestic refiners to ramp production to record highs. By contrast, Flanders argues that SAF offers customers greater price certainty via long-term offtake agreements. “You can fix the cost of our key inputs like electricity and CO2 and so that actually makes it a more attractive project from a project financing perspective,” he explained.
SPACs are back. But this week, it’s not just another pre-revenue nuclear company that’s looking to get to market as quickly as possible. Solid-state battery startup Factorial Energy, which has yet to develop a commercial product, has merged with the blank check company Cartesian Growth Corporation III, netting it $100 billion at a $1.3 billion valuation.
The company was upfront about needing the SPAC to stay afloat after racking up losses since its founding in 2013. Factorial’s SEC filing states that prior to this new capital, “its liquidity wasn’t sufficient to fund twelve months of operations.” Yet it does have real traction in the industry — Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Hyundai, and Kia have all made strategic investments, looking to use Factorial’s tech in their electric vehicles to achieve higher energy density, longer range, and faster charging.
Solid state batteries typically use a solid electrolyte in place of the flammable liquid electrolytes found in conventional lithium-ion cells, but Factorial is starting with more of a hybrid approach. Its initial design relies on a “quasi-solid” gel-like electrolyte, which allows it to use an energy dense lithium metal anode while preventing the needle-like dendrite growth that predisposes solid-state batteries to short circuit. Factorial is manufacturing these cells at a pilot plant in Massachusetts, while working on a prototype with a fully solid electrolyte that could offer even greater performance gains.
Factorial isn’t the only battery company with SPAC news this week. ZincFive, a nickel-zinc battery producer, also announced plans to go public via SPAC in a deal expected to close in the second half of this year. Unlike Factorial, however, ZincFive is already making money, selling its batteries to hyperscalers and other data center operators as a backup power solution to bridge the gap in between when the power goes out and when the backup generator turns on. As the company’s CEO Tod Higinbotham told Bloomberg, “We have the backlog. We have the capacity. We have the demand. We really need capital.”
Navigating the maze of consumer clean energy incentives and coordinating home energy upgrades is hardly a U.S.-specific challenge. Just a few years ago, heat pump sales in Germany were falling precipitously despite generous subsidies and proven tech. One startup, Galvany, theorized the problem wasn’t the heat pumps themselves, but rather the unnecessary complexity of the surrounding ecosystem. Now it’s raised roughly $11.5 million to help streamline the process of getting heat pumps into consumers’ homes and apartments.
“In Germany, heat pumps do not fail because of the technology, but because of the gap between subsidy bureaucracy, installation capacity, and economic viability for the end customer,” the company’s CEO, Raik Belka, said in a press release. This is exactly the gap we are closing.” The approach is already paying off — Galvany has installed more than 2,500 heat pumps to date and became profitable last year after increasing its revenue sevenfold.
The startup produces its heat pump in partnership with Panasonic, but its real innovation lies in the way it streamlines sales, procurement, installation, and ongoing heat pump operations into a single platform. Potential customers enter their building data online and, after a feasibility check, get a quick quote that factors in subsidies. They can then purchase a standardized kit that’s simple for installers to assemble. Once operational, the heat pump’s energy management system, which launches this summer, will automatically adjust heating loads based on the cost of electricity, saving customers money without them having to actively manage the system.
The administration filed to dismiss an appeal of a December ruling that overturned its wind permitting freeze.
Trump’s Department of Justice is giving up on defending the president’s wind permitting moratorium.
The DOJ filed a motion on Wednesday to dismiss its appeal of a federal court’s December decision vacating the order to halt wind energy approvals. The plaintiffs in the case — New York and 16 other states, as well as the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a trade group — did not oppose the motion. The case will not be officially dismissed, however, until the First Circuit Court of Appeals approves the request, which typically happens quickly when both parties support the dismissal.
The case stems from an executive order President Trump issued on the first day of his current term temporarily withdrawing all areas of the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing and pausing all federal authorizations for onshore and offshore wind projects while the administration conducted a review of leasing and permitting practices.
States took the administration to court last May, arguing that the order was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedures Act. They claimed it harmed their ability to source reliable and affordable energy and threatened billions of dollars in investment in supply chains, workforce development, and wind industry-related infrastructure.
On December 8, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in the states’ favor and vacated the wind order. More specifically, the judge vacated the portion of the order directing agencies to pause permits and other authorizations. The withdrawal of areas eligible for new leases remains in effect.
What it means is that federal agencies will now have to proceed with permitting wind projects using the existing statutory and regulatory framework, Kit Kennedy, the managing director for power, climate, and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me in an email. “The door to federal permitting is now unlocked again and each developer will be able to make the case for permitting their individual project based on the facts and the law,” she said.
The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the First Circuit in February, but never submitted an opening brief. The initial deadline was May 11, but on May 4, the DOJ requested additional time to file the brief. The judge gave the defendants until June 10. On that date, the defendants filed the motion to dismiss.
This is a developing story and we’ll update it as we learn more about the administration’s actions and their effects.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that the freeze and ruling apply to onshore as well as offshore wind. It also adds a quote from Kit Kennedy.