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:
Isometric is trying to become the most trusted name in the scandal-plagued carbon market.
Regulations are probably coming for the scandal-plagued voluntary carbon market. After years of mounting skepticism and reports of greenwashing, governments are now attempting to rein in the historically unchecked web of platforms, registries, protocols, and verification bodies offering ways to offset a company’s emissions that vary tremendously in price and quality. Europe has developed its own rules, the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, while the Biden administration earlier this year announced a less comprehensive set of general principles. Plus, there are already mandatory carbon credit schemes around the world, such as California’s cap-and-trade program and the E.U. Emissions Trading System.
“The idea that a voluntary credit should be a different thing than a compliance credit, obviously doesn’t make sense, right?” Ryan Orbuch, Lowercarbon Capital’s carbon removal lead, told me. “You want it to be as likely as possible that the thing you’re buying today is going to count in a compliance regime.”
That’s where the carbon credit certification platform Isometric comes into play. Founded in 2022, the startup raised $25 million in its seed round last year, co-led by Lowercarbon and Plural, a European venture capital firm. It has created a rigorous, scientifically-driven standard for carbon removal credits, with the intention of becoming the benchmark that buyers, sellers, and other stakeholders can coalesce around. So whenever federal standards or compliance regimes do kick in, there will be no doubt whether Isometric-verified credits are up to snuff.
“Isometric was basically founded to say, look, the long-term solution here is obviously government and regulation, but in the meantime, this is too important to let the market just keep doing it like this,” Lukas May, chief commercial officer at Isometric, told me. He believes that the government’s role in the carbon market should mirror the financial sector, but instead of preventing insider trading or predatory lending, federal regulators would make high-level determinations on things like what types of credits count and how long carbon must be locked away to count as “permanent removal.” Platforms like Isometric (often referred to as registries) could then focus on setting more granular, scientifically specific requirements for particular methods of carbon removal.
The startup aims to separate itself from existing registries, which include Puro.earth, Verra, and the Gold Standard, in two big ways.
First is just a focus on science. May said that 15 of Isometric’s first 25 hires were scientists. Today, the company’s chief scientist is Jennifer Wilcox, who recently left her position on the leadership team at the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, housed within the U.S. Department of Energy. Other registries, he told me, are “filled with NGO types” and “policy people” who lack the technical background to, say, evaluate what types rock formations are best for the geological sequestration of bio-oil or how CO2 fluxes in the soil impact enhanced rock weathering. These types of in-the-weeds analyses are integral to establishing stringent protocols to validate the amount of carbon that’s actually been removed.
Additionally, May, Orbuch, and Khaled Helioui, a partner at Plural who led the firm’s investment in Isometric, all said the company fixes a key flaw in the voluntary carbon market —- alignment of financial incentives. Traditionally, carbon removal suppliers pay registries to certify their credits, which creates an incentive for registries to overlook lax standards. But Isometric is instead paid a flat fee by the buyers for performing verification work on a per-ton basis.
This year, Isometric verified its first credits ever, from the carbon removal companies Vaulted Deep, which collects sludgy, organic waste and deposits it underground, and Charm Industrial, which injects processed biomass into abandoned oil and gas wells. Credits from these two suppliers were sold to Frontier, the carbon-removal initiative led by the payments firm Stripe. Just last week, Frontier identified Isometric as its first and only leading credit issuer.
“What makes Isometric stand out is they’re explicitly focused on durable CDR [carbon dioxide removal],” Joanna Klitzke, Frontier’s procurement and ecosystem strategy lead, told me. “Durable” refers to the fact that Isometric’s projects must sequester CO2 for 1,000 years or more. “They’re building tech products that make data and reporting particularly easy for suppliers and for credit management,” she added.
Everyone is essentially trying to avoid another scandal like the one that engulfed rainforest carbon offsets, which were found to be largely worthless. The industry has thus been shifting away from more nebulous carbon offsets, which seek to avoid future emissions by preventing deforestation or funding renewables development, and towards more concrete, but often more expensive, forms of carbon removal — think direct air capture, enhanced rock weathering, or biomass carbon removal and storage, all of which have seen a boom in investment.
“As carbon removal was emerging as a new and potentially very exciting way to do this stuff, potentially more measurable and more rigorous, we couldn’t just sit and watch the same registries do the same thing,” May told me, saying doing so would “destroy trust in the carbon removal industry before it’s even off the ground.”
In a past life, Isometric’s founder and CEO, Eamon Jubbawy, founded a digital identity verification company for the financial services industry. This gave investors confidence that he could bring his expertise in trust-building and verification services to the carbon removal space.
“It’s not a like for like, but there’s a lot of overlap in terms of actually introducing efficiency, effectiveness, and having technology really open a market,” Plural’s Helioui told me. “This is not an endeavor or an opportunity where I would have been necessarily that keen to back a first-time founder, just because of the complexity of what you need to manage,” he said. “We’re really talking about market creation.”
But May doesn’t expect Isometric to totally dominate other registries. Just like there are many private banks, May envisions an “ecosystem of high quality registries,” eventually unified around a set of federal guardrails. Until then, he believes Isometric’s role is to “set a bar that is so high that the expectation and norm in the market shifts,” thus avoiding a race to the bottom where companies are able to greenwash their image with cheap, low-quality credits.
Now, not every company can afford the highest quality credits. And because of Isometric’s 1,000-year storage requirement, many cheaper, nature-based projects, such as reforestation, are excluded from its registry, even though there’s still demand for them. Orbuch told me that Isometric will continue adding guidelines for different carbon removal pathways, as it recently did for biochar, a charcoal-like brick that locks up carbon contained within biomass.
It’s still early days, and there’s plenty of room for Isometric to grow alongside the market. After all, it’s only issued 5,350 carbon removal credits to date, while nearly two billion credits have been issued in the voluntary carbon market overall.
“The whole industry needs to be scaling up,” May told me. “So we need to, in 10 years time, be, you know, issuing and verifying hundreds of millions, if not billions, of credits annually.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
After a string of high-profile failures, this sodium-ion startup has a proprietary chemistry and a plan to compete on cost.
It’s been a bad year for batteries. Grand plans to commercialize novel chemistries and build a manufacturing base outside of China have stumbled, with the collapse of both Northvolt and Natron casting a shadow over the sector. But just as many may be losing faith, there’s a new player in the space: Alsym Energy announced today that it’s rolling out a sodium-ion battery designed for stationary storage that it says will be cheaper than lithium-ion systems from day one.
“It’s always the darkest before the sunrise,” Alsym’s co-founder and CEO Mukesh Chatter told me, saying that past failures in the battery space are irrelevant to the specific tech his company is pursuing. The startup, which raised a $78 million Series C round last April, is targeting the battery energy storage market across utility-scale, commercial, and industrial applications — everything from grid-connected systems to power for data centers, high rise buildings, and mining operations.
Alsym’s chemistry is called sodium iron pyrophosphate, or NFPP+. The “plus” represents dopants — small amounts of additional elements — which are added to the chemistry to improve performance. While the specific dopants and the battery’s electrolyte are proprietary, Chatter told me that the technology doesn’t require the critical minerals lithium, cobalt, or nickel, and that the company will source raw materials entirely from the U.S. or its allies.
The product, which is scheduled to deploy on a small scale next year and reach higher volumes in 2027, follows a decade of research into nonflammable lithium-ion alternatives. The company spent years testing different chemistries after it spun out of MIT in 2015, before settling on NFPP+ chemistry within the last 18 months. Chatter remained tight-lipped about the specifics of that process, noting only that the company faced “a couple of false starts,” coupled with supply chain challenges earlier this year.
Now, though, those years of research might have finally paid off. “I believe we are farthest ahead than anyone else in that space today in the United States,” he told me.
One of Alsym’s key advantages, Chatter explained, is that its battery has been certified by the independent safety body Underwriter Laboratories as nonflammable, compared to lithium-ion batteries, which are notoriously not. Alsym’s battery also offers superior performance at both high and low temperatures. The company’s cells will be cost-competitive with the leading lithium-ion chemistry right off the bat, Chatter told me, and the overall system will be 30% cheaper because the battery’s thermal stability and ability to perform at high temperatures eliminates the need for the costly, maintenance-heavy cooling systems. It’s a similar value proposition to that of Peak Energy, another startup seeking to deploy sodium-ion battery storage systems.
While sodium-ion cells are less energy dense than lithium-ion, eliminating the entire HVAC system means that the system itself isn’t all that much bulkier, making it possible to deploy in space-constrained environments such as commercial or residential buildings.
Alsym aims to manufacture its sodium-ion cells in the U.S., both for supply chain security and to take advantage of the country’s abundant sodium reserves. The latter, Chatter told me, means that “it will be cheaper to build it in the United States than anywhere else.”
While Alsym operates a pilot plant making sodium-ion cells, the company plans to scale its production through partnerships with third parties who either operate existing lithium-ion cell facilities or are in the process of building them, as sodium-ion cells can be produced on the same lines. “We want to partner with somebody who has that scale,” Chatter told me, explaining that a company of Alsym’s size could never compete with China by going at it alone. “But if we can partner with a much larger player who has the heft and the skill set and expertise to build large plants — or already has lithium ion plants — then we can compete head to head.”
Tata Energy, a leading power company in India worth about $14 billion, led Alsym’s Series C round. Chatter said the company also has strategic support from several mining companies, with other early use cases likely to include microgrid installations as well as primary or backup power for data centers and telecom companies.
“It’s not exactly the most glamorous space right now,” Chatter admitted, acknowledging the string of recent battery company failures. “But things happen in ebbs and flows.” He thinks the sodium-ion sector just needs one big success to prove its potential as a safer, cheaper alternative. “It really is all about cost and revenue opportunities,” he told me. If all goes according to plan for Alsym, we won’t have to wait much longer to see if he’s right.
Economist Philippe Aghion views carbon taxes as a tool to decarbonize, but not a solution in themselves.
Philippe Aghion — one of three Nobel laureates in economics announced Monday — is a theorist of innovation. Specifically, his work concerns “creative destruction,” the process by which technological innovation spreads throughout the economy as new businesses replace old ones, sparking economic growth.
If that reminds you of the energy transition, i.e. the process by which cleaner fuels and new, more efficient ways of generating energy replace fossil fuel combustion, well, you’re not alone.
“I think innovation is the best hope for climate change,” Aghion said in a 2023 interview with VoxTalks Economics. “Of course, we need to innovate in our day to day behavior, but we’ll fight climate change because we will find new sources of energy that are cleaner than coal or gas, and because we will also find ways to produce with energy-saving devices.”
Along with Brown University economist Peter Howitt, Aghion developed mathematical models to describe how creative destruction works, building on foundational work by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. Along the way, Aghion also worked with 2024 Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu, who won his prize for describing the institutions that best foster economic growth.
Aghion and Acemoglu have tangled with fellow laureate William Nordhaus, whose models of how the harms of climate change slow down economic growth practically invented the field of climate economics. In Nordhaus’ framing, climate change is the ultimate externality — that is, an economic factor not reflected in the market. The most efficient way to solve climate change, then, is to price in the externality by putting a tax on carbon emissions. Once the price of highly emitting goods reflects the true cost of producing them, the market will naturally favor lower-emitting goods.
Aghion instead sees carbon prices as another way to spur climate-friendly innovation throughout the economy.
In a 2014 paper written with Cameron Hepburn, Alexander Teytelboym, and Dimitri Zenghelis, Aghion argued that “product and process innovation” will ultimately drive decarbonization. Previous approaches to climate economics, Aghion wrote, use inadequate models for the effects of innovation, and so “significantly bias the assessment of the cost of future low-carbon technologies” to be higher than they are in reality.
To be clear, Aghion isn’t against a carbon tax. “A carbon tax or carbon price is a tool to redirect natural charge but it’s not the only tool,” Aghion said during the 2023 interview. “You need other tools, as well,” including “subsidies to green innovation, and more generally green industrial policy.” The point is less to discourage emitters and more to encourage the producers of non-emitting technologies.
Aghion argues that climate policy needs to hit hard and hit quickly, precisely to induce the kind of competitive innovation that he thinks drives economic growth. “If you wait longer, firms will be even better at dirty technologies, and it will take longer before their skills on clean technologies catch up with their skills on dirty technologies, and so you need to act promptly,” he said in 2023.
In a 2012 paper on the auto industry written with Antoine Dechezleprêtre, David Hemous Ralf Martin, and John Van Reenen, Aghion tracks patents in the auto industry and finds that “higher fuel prices induce firms to redirect technical change towards clean innovation and away from dirty innovation.”
He also finds that the nature of the firms matters. Companies that have a background in green technology innovate more in green technology, while companies that specialize in carbon-emitting or “dirty” technologies are more likely to find better ways to emit carbon. You’d expect Porsche or Ferrari to come up with a better internal combustion engine than Tesla, for instance, but for Tesla to invest more in pushing the capabilities of electric drivetrains.
Tesla is in many ways the ideal example of this kind of policy mix working. The company has benefited both from federal and state taxes on gasoline (as well as California’s unique emissions rules), which suppress demand for fossil fuels, and from subsidies and other financial support, which helped it reach economies of scale and performance parity with internal combustion vehicles more quickly.
While theoretically every auto company had the same incentives in both California and the nation as a whole to develop electric vehicles, Tesla made up the bulk of the entire market for years as it never had to split its focus between a legacy internal combustion business and a battery electric business.
Aghion’s work supports this kind of “belt-and-suspenders” approach to climate policy, where fossil fuel emissions are made more expensive and subsidies are provided to advance green innovation.
This may sound pretty familiar. While America’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, eschewed carbon taxes in favor of incentives and subsidies, the overall policy mix pursued by the Biden administration — including a fee on methane emissions, regulations on tailpipe and power plant emissions, and increased fuel economy standards — approximated this mix.
Aghion clearly recognized the IRA as a real life version of his ideas. When asked in 2023 about the kind of industrial policy he envisioned, he said, “The Americans are doing it now with the IRA.”
This kind of policy mix wasn’t just optimal policy economically, but also necessary politically.
Pointing to France’s experience with fuel taxes, which led to country-wide protests beginning in 2018, he cautioned that if policy makes dirty fuels more expensive without making clean technology technology cheaper, “then people riot.”
Of course, the IRA and other U.S. climate policies have not been as politically durable as their supporters hoped for. This is despite the fact that, alongside trying to boost green businesses, recent attempts at industrial policy explicitly tried to support “dirty” business, as well, whether by subsidizing older auto companies’ investments in electric vehicles or by supporting carbon capture and hydrogen investments by big oil companies.
But the power of dirty business remained immense — and opposed to climate policy.
The oil and gas industry were some of the biggest supporters of President Trump’s reelection campaign. Since he took office, one of their own — former fracking executive Chris Wright — has overseen the dismantling of much of the Energy Department’s investments in clean energy.
The basic calculus of Aghion’s approach may very well persist as rich countries struggle with growth and the harms attributed to climate change continue to add up.
“I think now we made progress on the idea that innovation is a big part of the solution and … that carbon price is not enough,” he said. “You need smart industrial policy aimed at green innovation. That’s the idea.”
On Corpus Christi’s drought, China’s Scottish factory, and no more ships to give
Current conditions: Texas declared a wildfire disaster in 179 counties as hot, dry, windy weather puts more than half the state at risk • Floods caused by torrential rain from Tropical Storm Raymond and the remnants of Hurricane Priscilla killed at least 41 people in Mexico over the weekend • A heat wave in Central Asia is spiking temperatures as high as 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Republicans are growing frustrated with President Donald Trump’s rollbacks of policies to support solar energy, the cheapest and fastest-growing source of electricity at a moment when power prices are soaring nationwide. In Georgia, voters who backed the president say the repeal of programs that offered free panels to low-income Americans is making them second-guess their ballots. One of those voters, 39-year-old Jennifer McCoy told The New York Times, “I like a lot of Trump’s outlooks on things, but there are some things, like the solar panels, that I don’t like, now that I know.”
Utah Governor Spencer Cox, meanwhile, went on a tear on X over the Bureau of Land Management’s quashing of the nation’s largest solar project, the 6.2-gigawatt Esmeralda 7 in Nevada. In a post that linked to the scoop Heatmap’s Jael Holzman published last week on the cancellation, Cox said, “This is how we lose the AI/energy arms race with China.” While he noted that “intermittent sources have been overvalued in the past (and offshore wind is a disaster and should be discontinued), the incredible leaps in battery technology completely change the value proposition of solar in the right places.” He went on to re-post messages from three think tank researchers criticizing the move and warnings about the energy needs of data centers.
Corpus Christi is the main water provider for South Texas, a region that has drawn the likes of Tesla, Exxon Mobil, fuel refineries, plastic producers, and lithium processors with what The Wall Street Journal called “the promise of land, cheap energy and, perhaps most critically, abundant water.” But a crippling drought is depleting the region’s reservoirs, and the city may fail to meet the area’s water demand in as little as 18 months. “Cue the panic,” the newspaper wrote. Industrial plants are bracing for rate hikes. “The water situation in South Texas is about as dire as I’ve ever seen it,” said Mike Howard, chief executive of Howard Energy Partners, a private energy company that owns several facilities in Corpus Christi. “It has all the energy in the world, and it doesn’t have water.”
China last week ratcheted up restrictions on exports of rare earths, including for electric vehicle batteries and semiconductors, kicking off another round of the trade war with the United States. But in Scotland, one of China’s biggest wind turbine manufacturers is investing more than $2 billion in building a new factory. Guangdong-based Ming Yang announced plans for its new plant to churn out parts for offshore turbines on Friday, though the company said the move was “subject to final approvals from the U.K. government,” the Financial Times reported.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the Trump administration’s crackdown on offshore wind is so severe the oil industry is stepping in to complain, warning that it’s setting a dangerous precedent for other energy sectors, as I reported in this newsletter last week. But private actors are, at least, responding to the Trump administration’s push to re-shore critical industries to the U.S. On Monday morning, JPMorgan Chase announced plans to invest $10 billion into mineral production and infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Equinor’s 810-megawatt Empire Wind project off the coast of New York’s Long Island has faced real challenges, with the Trump administration halting construction in April before allowing it to resume in May. The latest hurdle? The developers can’t get hold of the specially-made vessel for installing wind turbines it was counting on having by next year. As Canary Media’s Clare Fieseler wrote on Friday, two shipbuilding companies broke into a public skirmish, with one unexpectedly canceling a contract and the other threatening legal action over the construction of the specialized ship. The vessel, which is more than 98% complete, is anchored in Singapore, its fate now uncertain. “We have been informed by Maersk of an issue concerning its contract with Seatrium related to the wind turbine installation vessel originally contracted by Empire Offshore Wind LLC for use in 2026,” an Equinor spokesperson told Fieseler. “We are currently assessing the implications of this issue and evaluating available options.”
The episode shows how the Trump administration’s “total war on wind power,” as Jael once put it, makes companies more vulnerable to other setbacks. The White House tasked a half-dozen federal agencies, as I previously wrote, with trying to block construction of offshore turbines. But the general lack of ships capable of carrying giant turbines was a problem even before Trump returned to office.
California lawmakers last week passed Senate Bill 655, a first-in-the-nation framework to set maximum standards for safe indoor temperatures in residential housing. The bill requires state agencies to achieve the standard as heat deaths surge across the country. While the state has long required homes to maintain a minimum indoor air temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, there was no equivalent standard for heat. “SB 655 responds to the public health emergency of California’s deadly heat waves,” Senator Henry Stern, the bill’s lead author, said in a statement. “This bill proactively requires the state to include safe residential indoor temperatures in its policies and programs so that Californians, especially renters and low-income households who are most at risk, have life-saving cooling.”
It’s part of a bigger wave of state legislation on climate and energy that California just passed, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo outlined recently. Among them: Families who lose everything in future wildfires will now be able to collect the bulk of their insurance payout without having to catalog every item burned in the blaze under new legislation Governor Gavin Newsom signed Friday. Starting in 2026, as The New York Times reported, insurers must pay at least 60% of a homeowner’s personal-property coverage — up to $350,000 — without requiring a detailed inventory of everything lost. That’s double the 30% of the dwelling’s value that insurers were required to pay out in advance, with a payout capped at $250,000.
As the Trump administration is gutting funding for America's polar research, the British are stepping in. The British Antarctic Survey’s RRS Sir David Attenborough, a state-of-the-art ship named after the famed naturalist, will bolster research on everything from “hunting underwater tsunamis” to tracking glacier melt and whale populations. “The saying goes 'what happens in Antarctica doesn't stay in Antarctica,’” BAS oceanographer Peter Davis told reporters during a tour of the vessel as it prepared to depart Harwich, eastern England, last week.