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:
Canada’s carbon tax was supposed to be different. Unlike the proposed cap-and-trade scheme in the United States or the European Union’s carbon trading system, Canada’s program was not a kitty for green energy subsidies. The tax would be split into two pieces: a charge on large industrial emitters, largely raised through provincial systems where more intensive emitters buy credits from those that emit less, and a tax on consumers that took the form of a charge on fuels, including gasoline. And the best part: The bulk of the revenue raised by the tax would be returned to provinces and individual taxpayers.
Five years after it was put in place, however, Canada’s new Liberal prime minister, Mark Carney, scrapped the consumer half of the tax as one of his first acts in office. In doing so, he was trying to cut off a potent line of attack from the opposition Conservative party, whose leader, Pierre Poilievre, has tried to center upcoming national elections on the issue. Polling from earlier this year showed that overall support had fallen from 56% in 2021 to 45% today, while Liberal support for the tax had fallen even further, from 83% to 70%.
This was despite reams of outside and official data showing that most Canadians benefited from the tax, at least in terms of (Canadian) dollars paid compared to those received in rebates. Per Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, Ontario households in the median quintile (i.e. between the 40th and 60th percentile) came out $117 ahead on average this year. And although the tax did have a slight negative effect on economic growth of 0.6%, according to PBO estimates, that study didn’t take into account the value of lower greenhouse gas emissions.
If a carbon tax and dividend can’t work even in Canada, it appears to confirm a distressing truth for climate activists — that even if people are concerned about climate change, they don’t want to pay very much to fix it.
Popular discontent with the tax — especially among Conservative voters — picked up dramatically in 2022, alongside rising gas prices. The thinking goes, “if the price of gas goes up, it’s the carbon tax,” Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, told me. But while it’s true that the carbon tax makes gas more expensive, the tax is a fixed charge, meaning that any big jump in gas prices cannot possibly be its fault. Then again, when gas prices are already high, anything extra can feel especially noxious.
“People hate the idea of a tax,” Harrison said. “When they know there’s a tax, they perceive the impact as much greater than it has been.”
There’s also a strong political element to how people feel about a carbon tax. Along with fellow researchers Matto Mildenberger, Erick Lachapelle, and Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen, Harrison examined rebate programs in Switzerland and Canada for a 2022 paper published in Nature Climate Change, and found that the simple matter of dollars (or francs) and cents could not overcome the carbon tax’s well-established political identity. In Canada, Conservative voters tended to underestimate the rebate’s size more than Liberals did.
Carney is in some sense an odd figure to ditch carbon pricing. Before his leadership campaign, he was a prominent figure in climate finance, heading up climate transition investing at Brookfield Asset Management, a huge renewable investor and developer, and was the co-chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a financial institution decarbonization group. Ideally Carney told a BBC interviewer at the 2021 COP26 Summit in Glasgow, “we would have a global carbon price.” And though that would have to vary depending on a company’s relative economic position, “everyone should try to have a price on carbon,” he said.
In canceling the tax on Friday, however, Carney said that it had become “too divisive” and was “not working,” echoing language from his leadership campaign.
The cancellation comes as the federal fuel charge was set to rise 3.3 cents per liter, from 14.3 cents to 17.6 cents. During his party leadership campaign, Carney proposed that the fuel charge be replaced with “a system of incentives to reward Canadians for making greener choices, such as purchasing an energy efficient appliance, electric vehicle, or improved home insulation.” Sound familiar?
So where does this leave carbon tax proponents? If one can’t survive in Canada, where can it?
Catherine Wolfram, an economist at MIT and former Biden Treasury official, is, like many economists, a supporter of carbon pricing. She told me that “too many people are dancing on the grave of carbon taxing writ large,” noting that the industrial side of Canada’s carbon tax is still active. And so If someone came to her for advice on a carbon tax, she would tell them to “start with something very far upstream. Start with industry. Don’t touch retail gasoline until more substitutes are available to consumers.”
She also pointed out that the industrial side of the tax was still alive in Canada, and Carney’s decarbonize your life-style proposal could address individual carbon emissions. But wouldn’t this just be the Inflation Reduction Act all over again, I asked her?
No, she said, because Canada still, for now at least, has a tax on industrial emitters.
“If we could get the U.S. to where Canada is now, I would be delighted,” she said.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On environmental science, violent tornadoes, and more bad news for Tesla
Current conditions: Flash flooding in southern Spain forced evacuations • Tropical Storm Jude displaced thousands of people in Madagascar, Malawi, and Mozambique • Huge swathes of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri are under red flag warnings today as strong winds bring another day of extreme fire weather to the region.
The Environmental Protection Agency reportedly plans to eliminate a department that conducts essential research and informs environmental policy. The Office of Research and Development is the agency’s largest department and has studied everything from fine particle pollution in the air to the health risks of fracking and forever chemicals. Its closure would cut up to 1,155 research jobs and “serve the Trump administration’s dual goals of reducing the size of government while potentially easing the regulation of the chemical and fossil fuel industries,” as The New York Times put it.
The move may also face legal hurdles. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House science committee, said the office was created by congressional statute and cannot just be dissolved. She added that gutting the department would prevent the EPA from fulfilling its legal responsibilities to use cutting-edge science to shape policy. “Every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can’t happen if you gut EPA science,” Lofgren said in a statement.
In other EPA news, the agency failed to meet a judge’s Monday deadline to provide clear and direct evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse by nonprofit groups approved for $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which Administrator Lee Zeldin has been attempting to terminate. Instead, the agency pointed to “unidentified media reports” and an undercover video of an EPA staffer discussing the Biden administration’s rush to get federal grants out the door before the Trump administration took over. Zeldin first froze the funds and then canceled the loans entirely, prompting lawsuits from several of the grantees.
The Department of Energy yesterday released $57 million to Holtec to help restore and restart carbon-free power generation at the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan, which shuttered in 2022. This is the second disbursement, following the January release of $38 million (the total loan guarantee is for up to $1.52 billion). The loan was approved during the Biden administration under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program, though the Trump administration was quick to take credit. “Today’s action is yet another step toward advancing President Trump’s commitment to increase domestic energy production, bolster our security, and lower costs for the American people,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a release that avoids any mention of the words “clean” or “carbon” or “emissions.” So long as Holtec can get the necessary permits, the Palisades facility will be the first commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S. to restart, and will “support or retain” 600 jobs and provide 800 megawatts of power in Michigan.
The deadly storm system that ripped across the South and Midwest over the weekend spawned at least two EF4 tornadoes in Arkansas, according to the National Weather Service. These are some of the most violent tornadoes, representing the second-highest level on the Enhanced Fujita scale used to rate tornado strength, with wind speeds from 166 to 200 miles per hour EF4s are also the rarest tornadoes, accounting for just 0.5% of all tornadoes in the U.S. between 2000 and 2022. Early damage surveys indicate one tornado ran for an hour, crossing 46 miles through two counties, with winds up to 170 miles per hour; another tornado had a path of 14.5 miles, a max width of one mile, and wind speeds reaching 190 miles per hour. Luckily no one seems to have been killed in these two twisters, though there were several injuries. But the larger tornado outbreak left at least 24 people dead and destroyed hundreds of homes across 12 states.
Trade tensions between Canada and the U.S. have prompted Toronto’s mayor to stop offering drivers financial incentives to buy Tesla vehicles for ride shares or taxis. “There are other electric cars they could purchase,” said Mayor Olivia Chow. “If you want to buy a Tesla, go ahead, but don’t count on taxpayer money to subsidize it.” She toldReuters the move was a direct response to Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, insurance experts warn that an increase in acts of vandalism targeting Teslas may prompt insurers to hike rates for the vehicles. “Tesla owners better buckle up,” wrote Rob Stumpf at InsideEVs. “Things could get worse before they get better — at least while Musk lives a double-life as part-time CEO and part-time head of state.”
And finally, car listings data suggests prices for used Teslas are falling three times faster than the used car market overall. “So much for Tesla vehicles becoming ‘appreciating assets,’” wrote Fred Lambert at Electrek.
A German court will hear testimony this week in a longstanding climate lawsuit that could hold major greenhouse gas polluters financially responsible for their contributions to climate change. The case was filed in 2015 by a Peruvian farmer named Saúl Luciano Lliuya, who argues that German multinational energy giant RWE is partly to blame for rising flood risks in his village of Huaraz due to a melting glacier. He wants the company to pay for flood prevention measures. In 2022, court judges flew from Germany to the Peruvian Andes to observe the melting glacier and collect evidence for the case, “a global first for any climate case,” The Washington Postreported at the time. The report also noted that if the lawsuit succeeded, “major polluters anywhere may be liable for the increasingly disastrous consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.”
A new study finds that beef from grass-fed cattle does not have a lower carbon footprint than beef from cattle fed grains and corn. “I have a hard time imagining … a situation in which it will prove environmentally, genuinely wise, genuinely beneficial, to raise beef,” said study author Gidon Eshel, a research professor of environmental physics at Bard College.
Job and funding cuts to federal emergency programs have the nation’s tsunami response experts, shall we say, concerned.
There is never a good time for an earthquake. But as President Donald Trump and his government efficiency guru, Elon Musk, take a buzzsaw to the federal bureaucracy, they risk discovering whether there is such a thing as an especially bad time.
The 700-mile Cascadia Subduction Zone runs off the Pacific coast from southern British Columbia to northern California, and has been stuck for approximately the past three centuries. When the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate finally slips free to slide beneath the North American plate, it will cause what is ominously referred to as the Big One: a megathrust earthquake expected to be “one of the worst natural disasters” in the continent’s history. Scientists put the odds of it happening in the next 50 years at around 37%, with an upper threshold of a 9.0 magnitude earthquake or possibly even higher. As the Pacific Northwest’s former FEMA director once famously (albeit somewhat hyperbolically) told The New Yorker, when the Big One hits, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”
Of particular concern for the low-lying Washington and Oregon coasts is that the earthquake could cause a tsunami, which in places could reach more than 100 feet high. While the United States Geological Survey monitors earthquake activity in the U.S., tsunamis are the domain of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is undergoing heavy staffing cuts courtesy of the Trump administration. The U.S. tsunami program — which includes staff at the National Weather Service and the two U.S. Tsunami Warning Centers in Alaska and Hawaii — comprises only about 50 people. So far, at least three scientists from the Warning Centers have been terminated, along with the director of the tsunami program, with more layoffs expected in the coming days.
“Tsunami is about the worst thing that can happen to a coastline,” Carrie Garrison-Laney, a tsunami hazards specialist at the University of Washington’s Sea Grant program who liaises with NOAA partners, told me. She added, “I’m concerned about the impact on public safety.”
Indeed, the layoffs add another layer of strain on a system that is already in transition. The National Tsunami Warning Center, in Palmer, Alaska, is set up to issue warnings to the entire West Coast, while the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, in Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor, covers the Hawaiian Islands, the Pacific territories of Guam and American Samoa, and the Caribbean. Though the warning centers are intended to serve as backups for each other in the case of a technical glitch or disaster that knocks one of them out, they use two different, incompatible software models from the 1990s. “The current systems in place are not good,” one Washington State-based emergency manager told me.
About a year and a half ago, the Tsunami Warning Center began a $2 million unification project to update the technologies and merge the platforms onto a shared system. That project is not expected to be completed until later this year, and many in the tsunami and emergency management worlds are concerned that it could get mothballed as the Trump administration continues to deplete NOAA staff and funding. “The loss of technical personnel may delay that work,” a representative from Oregon’s Department of Emergency Management confirmed to me in a statement.
That might not be an issue for coordinating an emergency response in the short term, but the longer it’s put off the greater the risk to people living in tsunami zones. “If we’re not on the cutting edge of understanding and being able to warn people about a tsunami as it’s happening, then the greater likelihood we have of something going wrong,” Daniel Eungard, a tsunami hazards geologist at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, told me. “Then you’re looking at more casualties or more damage.”
Even worse, NOAA’s Tsunami programs were already severely understaffed before the layoffs began. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii, in particular, has struggled to attract people who are willing to live on a government salary in one of the most expensive parts of the country.
Earthquakes are no-notice events, meaning they can hit with no more than a few seconds of warning. Tsunamis, as a result, don’t follow a nine-to-five schedule; the centers need to be staffed around the clock every day of the year. The Tsunami Warning Center teams were already working overtime before the added strain of Trump’s staffing cuts. Add more layoffs on top of that, and an already-small staff in charge of sending life-saving alerts faces a real risk of burnout. Oregon’s OEM also stressed that in no-notice events, quick and accurate information is imperative. Whether the NOAA layoffs will impact the quality of the warning centers’ service isn’t yet clear. (In a statement provided to Oregon’s OEM and Heatmap, the National Weather Service said that it doesn’t discuss internal personnel and management matters, but that “NOAA remains dedicated to its mission, providing timely information, research, and resources that serve the American public.”)
Though planning, alerts, emergency responses, and public messaging — including evacuation maps, sirens, and signage — for tsunami disasters are primarily done at the level of states and territories, they’re almost entirely funded through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. Even before Trump took office, states had unsuccessfully fought back against cuts to the program — ironically, to pay for the software integration project — which reduced grants for some states and territories by up to 50%.
The tsunami experts I spoke with were uniformly alarmed by the short-sightedness of the funding cuts, a situation they don’t expect to improve under the Trump administration. “We’ve been very fortunate that we’ve had very few events of significant size and damage here, and hopefully that will stay that way,” Eungard, the tsunami hazards geologist, said. “But the likelihood is that as time continues, one such event will happen.”
NOAA, of course, isn’t the only agency in turbulence right now. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which would be tapped to respond to a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami on the West Coast, is in similar disarray. “Nobody should feel particularly assured that FEMA is coming to their assistance in your time of need," Rob Moore, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently told NPR. One emergency management official agreed to speak with me only off the record; when I asked whether they felt like FEMA could be counted on in the case of a near-future disaster, they scoffed. (For the time being, the USGS seems to have survived some of the probationary cuts, though its funding is also on the chopping block.)
The situation at NOAA should be a major concern for everyone who lives in a coastal region, whether it’s American Samoa, Alaska, or the Oregon Coast. An earthquake is a no-notice event for a reason; it doesn’t wait on politics, personnel, or outdated technologies to be updated, and it can strike at any time.
But for as long as the Big One holds off, Garrison-Laney, the specialist at Sea Grant, said her NOAA colleagues are in her thoughts. “It’s a group of people who work really hard and do really great work,” she told me. “There’s nothing wasteful about the work that they’re doing.”
On a dangerous storm front, New Jersey’s offshore wind farm, and the Mauna Loa Observatory
Current conditions: Much of the southern Plains remain at risk for extreme fire weather today and tomorrow • A month’s worth of rain fell over six hours in Florence, Italy • It’s about 50 degrees Fahrenheit and cloudy in Dublin for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade.
At least 40 people died in severe storms that ripped across the Midwest and South over the weekend. Missouri recorded the most fatalities, with 12 people known to have died in tornadoes that caused “staggering” damage. In Oklahoma, nearly 300 buildings were destroyed in an eruption of wildfires fueled by dry conditions and strong winds. Mark Goeller, director of Oklahoma Forestry Services, called the blazes “historic” and said he had never seen anything like them. Dust storms in Kansas and Texas caused deadly highway pile-ups.
The U.S. is emerging from a pretty warm and dry winter. Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma are all experiencing drought conditions. Other states hit hard in the wall of storms include Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The system is moving east now, but another wave of dangerous weather is right behind it
Tornado damage in AlabamaJan Sonnenmair/Getty Images
Fire damage in OklahomaScott Olson/Getty Image
Plans to build New Jersey’s first offshore wind farm are in trouble after the federal Environmental Appeals Board invalidated a key air pollution permit for the site at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency. The permit was granted back in September, but some local residents protested, and the EPA asked the board to allow it to review the project’s environmental impacts in line with President Trump’s executive order pausing all wind permits. “Atlantic Shores is disappointed by the EPA’s decision to pull back its fully executed permit as regulatory certainty is critical to deploying major energy projects,” the project’s developer toldBloomberg.
Heatmap’s Jael Holzman has been warning for months that the Atlantic Shores site could be vulnerable to permitting shakeups. In January she said the project was “on deathwatch” after Shell announced it would pull out of its 50-50 joint venture with EDF Renewables to develop the wind farm.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who was sworn in on Friday, announced that one of his first moves will be to eliminate the country’s consumer carbon tax. The policy, which has been in place since 2019, made consumers pay an extra fee (offset by rebates) to use fossil fuels, but Carney believes this unfairly punishes cash-strapped consumers rather than big corporate polluters. He has proposed introducing more financial incentives to encourage people to invest in things like energy efficiency upgrades and electric vehicles. “This will make a difference to hard-pressed Canadians, but it is part of a much bigger set of measures that this government is taking to ensure that we fight against climate change, that our companies are competitive and the country moves forward,” Carney said. The move may give Carney and his Liberal Party a better chance in the upcoming general election: The carbon tax has been a “a potent point of attack” from Conservatives in recent years.
The office that manages one of the most important projects tracking levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases could have its lease terminated as part of sweeping cost-cutting measures by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The NOAA office in Hilo, Hawaii, houses the Mauna Loa Observatory, which measures carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and charts them onto the Keeling Curve. The measurements are “among the most reliable and sound data on greenhouse gas concentrations because the Mauna Loa Observatory is so far from the influences of any major pollution sources,” according toThe Washington Post. The observatory itself isn’t being targeted, but it is run by the Hilo lab’s staff, so an office closure would threaten operations at Mauna Loa.
Closing arguments will begin today in a case that could ruin the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace. The company that operates the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer, accuses Greenpeace of coordinating disruptive protests over the (now operational) pipeline’s construction in 2016 and 2017, and seeks $300 million in damages, an amount that could bankrupt the activist group. Greenpeace insists Energy Transfer has no evidence to support its claims, and that the protests were mostly organized by Native American groups. The group says the lawsuit is a critical threat to free speech and peaceful protest rights.
“I think anger can be a positive thing, but it’s the loss of hope, even if it’s marginal, that is truly, truly dangerous to this movement.”
–Rebecca Evans, sustainability director for the city of Ithaca, New York, on how cities are navigating the chaos of Trump 2.0