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:
Climate adaptation, from the people who brought you Saturdays

Between the delivery drivers, nurses, graduate students, dockworkers, school teachers, hotel workers, pilots, Starbucks employees, actors, writers, and — potentially — auto workers who have either gone on strike or threatened to go on strike, this summer has become what many are calling “hot labor summer.”
But it’s also just been hot — literally one of the hottest summers on record. And in one way or another the heat affected workers of all kinds around the country. A hot hot labor summer, if you will.
In Los Angeles, NBCUniversal aggressively trimmed the ficus trees that had provided striking writers with shade, which the studio claimed was unrelated to the strikes but nevertheless led to a $250 fine from the city for trimming the trees without a permit. The next week, UPS averted a strike by reaching an agreement with the Teamsters that would, among other things, lead to the installation of air-conditioning units inside delivery vans. Meanwhile, in Texas, the governor signed a bill that would invalidate mandatory water breaks for construction workers. The bill won’t take effect until September 1, but already a construction worker collapsed at a job site outside of Houston and later died from hyperthermia — in other words, he overheated.
This trend will continue: As the world heats up, working conditions will get worse. And unions are starting to become essential to climate adaptation.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
“Workers, particularly workers from communities of color and low-income communities, are on the front lines of climate change,” Lara Skinner, executive director of the Climate Jobs Institute at Cornell University, told me. “Unions are a key voice in figuring out how we deal with extreme weather and protect workers from it, but also in figuring out how we deal with the climate crisis more generally.”
Unions are famously responsible for leading the fights that created the eight-hour workday and the weekend. Those standards quickly became the norm in society at large, not just for union members. Skinner and Mark Brenner, an economist at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center, told me unions have a unique, generational chance to do the same thing for climate change.
In Portland, Oregon, for example, teachers’ unions are organizing to develop standards that would establish minimum and maximum temperatures in the classroom. If they come to an agreement that leads to the installation of HVAC systems to keep classrooms comfortable, it won’t be just the unionized teachers who benefit — their students and other school staff will as well.
“A lot of unions have kind of walked into this through an occupational safety and health lens,” Brenner told me. The last few summers, in particular, have been a wake-up call, he said. “I’ve seen a ton of unions, some of which I never would have expected, start to think about the ways that these questions are affecting their workforce and how they need to be addressing them on a longer-range horizon than what maybe they’ve historically thought about.”
Construction unions are a good example. Major construction projects tend to happen over the summer, Brenner said, and the unions are concerned about the heat either negatively affecting workers’ health or causing work stoppages, which would affect their paychecks. So they’re increasingly seeing the value in supporting decarbonization projects, because the long-term benefits would, ideally, be lower temperatures and safer working conditions.
The unions weren’t always so on board with climate legislation. In 2020, Politico reported that trade unions representing workers who historically would find employment on projects linked to fossil fuels — including construction unions — had blocked multiple state-level initiatives aimed at combating climate change. But as extreme weather worsens, and as the economic opportunity in decarbonization becomes clearer, they’re starting to come around.
It helps that the Biden administration has been vocal about the impact of heat on workers (and that President Biden has been aggressively wooing union members for years). In late July, the White House announced steps it was taking to protect workers from extreme heat, such as having the Department of Labor issue a hazard alert for heat, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is expected to release a long-awaited national heat safety standard sometime this year.
And then there’s BIL and IRA — the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
“That legislative agenda coming out of the Biden administration had a huge impact because it took the issue out of the realm of right and wrong and moved it into the realm of policy,” Brenner said. Suddenly it became clear to unions, even ones that had historically been uninterested in climate change, that there was a significant economic opportunity in clean energy and climate adaptation. It was a reckoning, Brenner said. “Like, these things are going to happen. We’re either going to be part of addressing these problems, or we’re going to be completely sidelined.”
Last year, I wrote about how clean energy jobs pay less than fossil fuel jobs, in part because fossil fuel workers have strong, storied unions that secured high pay and good benefits. If that continues, the workers who are responsible for building the infrastructure that will help the country decarbonize could end up with fewer protections and lower pay.
“There are challenges around job loss and the proliferation of non-union jobs in these new sectors,” Skinner said. “But there’s also a ton of opportunities. The amount of work that we have to do to address climate change is astronomical, right? We just really have to get so much done in the next few decades.”
The unions aren’t working alone. Around the country, unions have come together to create climate jobs coalitions that push for unionized jobs on clean energy projects and legislation that will protect workers’ health as climate change makes labor conditions more dangerous.
“I’m pleasantly surprised at the ways in which many unions are responding to this and starting to embrace these questions, not just in the reactive short-term, but in a much more strategic, longer-term way,” Brenner said. “So I think there’s a lot of reason to be hopeful that the labor movement could be a force for good.”
Read more about how jobs are adapting to a warmer world:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.