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:
Daron Acemoglu and William Nordhaus have some disagreements.
This year’s Economics Nobel is not a climate prize — that happened in 2018, when Yale economist William Nordhaus won the prize for his work on modeling the effects of climate change and economic growth together, providing the intellectual basis for carbon taxation and more generally for regulating greenhouse gas emissions because of the “social cost” they impose on everyone.
Instead, this year’s prize, awarded to MIT’s Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson and University of Chicago’s James Robinson is for their work demonstrating “the importance of societal institutions for a country’s prosperity,” i.e. why some countries are rich and others are poor. To do so, the trio looked at the history of those countries’ institutions — laws, modes of government, relationship between the state and individuals — and drew out which are conducive to wealth and which lead to poverty.
Long story short, “extractive” institutions set up to reward a narrow elite tend to hurt economic development over time, as in much of Africa, which was colonized by Europeans who didn’t actually live there. “Inclusive” institutions, by contrast, arose in the United States and Canada, where there was significantly more European migration, thus incentivizing the ruling elite to set up institutions that benefitted a broader range of (again, European) residents.
While this research rests heavily on the climate (the reason Europeans avoided African colonies was because of the high rate of disease in tropical climates), it does not touch on climate change specifically. But Acemoglu especially is an incredibly wide-ranging scholar and has devoted some time to the specific questions of climate change — and in so doing has been a direct critic of Nordhaus, Stockholm’s preferred climate economist.
“Existing approaches in economics still do not provide the right framework for managing the problems that will confront us over the next several decades,” Acemoglu wrote in a 2021 essay titled “What Climate Change Requires of Economics,” referring directly to Nordhaus’s Nobel-winning work. “Although the economics discipline has evolved over time to acknowledge environmental risks and costs, it has yet to rise to the challenge of climate change. A problem as massive as this one will require a fundamental reconsideration of some of the field's most deeply held assumptions.”
His criticisms included that Nordhaus’s more gradualistic approach — the latest version of his model spits out that a 1.5 degree Celsius warming target is “infeasible,” and the “cost vs. benefit optimal” amount of warming as 2.6 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels with a carbon price that rises to $115 per ton by 2050 — ignores both the best way to reduce emissions and the risk of not doing so fast enough.
Acemoglu is far more optimistic about how policy can direct technological development and less sanguine about additional warming over and above the Paris Agreement limits. He argues that the possibility of theoretical “tipping points,” where exceeding certain climate thresholds by even a small amount may cause dramatic damages, make the risk of such overshoot far too great.
He also took issue with the discount rate applied to spending later vs. spending now in Nordhaus’s models. The basic idea is that a dollar spent today to mitigate the effects of climate change is more valuable than one spent in 2050. But the rates Nordhaus uses — which he derives from real-world investment returns — implies that in order for spending now to be worth it later, the benefits in 2050 or 2100 must be very, very large.
“There is a plausible economic (and philosophical) case to be made for why future essential public goods should be valued differently than private goods or other types of public consumption,” Acemoglu wrote in 2021, arguing that discount rates derived from investment returns, like the ones Nordhaus uses, might not be the best guide to public policy.
So what does the latest Nobel laureate want instead? Well, something like what the United States has been doing the past few years.
Accounting for the economic benefits of domestic or “endogenous” technological development, Acemoglu’s research finds that "the transition to cleaner energy is much more important than simply reducing energy consumption, and that technological interventions need to be redirected far more aggressively than they have been.” He explored how this process could work in papers he wrote over more than a decade, developing a model for this kind of directed technological change and applying it to the United States, starting as far back as 2012.
Across all his work on climate change, Acemoglu argues that a focus on pricing the “externalities” of carbon emissions — the harm emissions impose on everyone that isn’t reflected in the prices of fossil fuels — is myopic. Instead, the challenge is both restricting emissions and fostering clean technologies that can take the place of dirty ones, which have had a remarkable head start in investment.
In “The Environment and Directed Technical Change,” published in 2012 and co-written with Philippe Aghion, Leonardo Bursztyn, and David Hemous, Acemoglu argues that a mixture of carbon taxes and research subsides could “redirect technical change and avoid an environmental disaster” by imposing a cost on dirty technology and boosting clean technology.
Such an approach would probably rest heavily on positive subsidies and encouraging clean technology and less on a carbon tax, the four write (although a carbon tax would still help to “discourage research” into polluting technologies). It would also need to happen soon.
“Directed technical change also calls for immediate and decisive action in contrast to the implications of several exogenous technology models used in previous economic analyses.”
This framework does not precisely match United States policy — we have no carbon tax — but it does somewhat approximate it. The Biden administration’s approach to climate policy centers on large-scale investments in clean technologies, whether they’re tax credits for non-carbon-emitting electricity production or financing for clean energy projects from the Loan Programs Office, combined with a suite of Environmental Protection Agency rules that are intended to reduce pollution from fossil fuel power plants (along with an actual direct fee on methane emissions).
This approach is embedded within an overall industrial policy that’s supposed to make the economy more productive — a counter-argument to the idea that climate spending is an economic drag that trades off with environmental harms in the future. Acemoglu, too, questions the idea that there’s a tradeoff between economic growth and spending to combat climate change. Not only could renewables be cheaper than fossil fuels, “an energy transition can improve productive capacity and thus lead to an expansion of output, because transition to cleaner technologies can boost investment and the rate of technological progress,” he and his co-authors write.
Acemoglu has also weighed in on one the more controversial questions in climate policy and economics: the shale gas boom. In a 2023 paper written, again with Aghion, Hemous, and Lint Barrage, he weighed the effects of dramatic increase of domestically extracted natural gas, focusing on the importance of technological development. The Environmental Protection Agency attributes the decline in US greenhouse gas emissions since 2010 in part to “the growing use of natural gas and renewables to generate electricity in place of more carbon-intensive fuels,” due to natural gas replacing coal electricity generation. While this logic has come under fire from some activists and researchers who say the government’s models underestimate methane leakage from natural gas operations, Acemoglu took a different tack.
Yes, natural gas substituting for coal reduces short-run emissions, he and his co-authors concluded, but also, “the natural gas boom discourages innovation directed at clean energy, which delays and can even permanently prevent the energy transition to zero carbon.” They backed up this assertion by pointing to a decline in the total share of patents rewarded to renewable energy innovation between 2009 and 2016.
The way out is that same mix of carbon prices and technology subsidies Acemoglu has been recommending in some form since Kelly Clarkson was last on top of the charts, which “enables emission reductions in the short run, while optimal policy would ensure that the long-run green transition is not disrupted.”
If the Biden Administration’s climate policy works out, it will look something like that, and the prize will be far greater than anything given out in Stockholm.
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 CEO of Cleveland Cliffs is just the latest U.S. voice to affirm the dirtiest fossil fuel’s unexpectedly bright future.
While the story of coal demand has been largely about rapid industrialization in Asia — especially India and China — the United States under President Trump has been working hard to make itself a main character.
Case in point is in Middletown, Ohio, where a one-time clean steel project may be refashioned as a standard-bearer for an industry-driven U.S. coal revival. The company behind the project, Cleveland-Cliffs, won a Biden-era award of up to $500 million to develop and deploy hydrogen-based technology for iron and steel production. CEO Laurenco Goncalves began casting doubt on that project as long ago as September, when he told Politico that he was struggling to find buyers willing to pay more for low-carbon materials, and that he wasn’t sure the project “even makes sense with the grants.” Earlier this year, he told investors that the company was working with the Department of Energy to “explore changes in scope to better align with the administration’s energy priorities.”
During an earnings call Monday morning, Goncalves said the company had scrapped the project not because of the DOE, but rather because it was unable to get sufficient hydrogen for use as fuel.
“The very first thing: It’s clear by now that we will not have availability of hydrogen. So there is no point in pursuing something that we know for sure that’s not going to happen,” Goncalves said. “We informed the DOE that we would not be pursuing that project.”
Instead, the company has had “a very good conversation” with the DOE “on revamping that project in a way that we preserve and enhance Middletown using beautiful coal, beautiful coke,” Goncalves said. (Where have we heard that kind of language before?) “We are vertically integrated, and we use American iron ore and American coal and American natural gas as feedstock, all produced right here in the United States of America, employing American workers,” he added.
The evidence for coal’s stubborn persistence globally has been mounting for years. In 2021, the International Energy Agency forecast that by 2024, annual coal demand would hit an all-time high of just over 8,000 megatons. In 2024, it reported that coal demand in 2023 was already at 8,690 megatons, a new record; it also pushed out its prediction for a demand plateau to 2027, at which point it predicted annual demand would be 8,870 megatons.
The IEA largely chalked up the results to the world’s energy needs, writing that “the power sector has been the main driver of coal demand growth, with electricity generation from coal set to reach an all-time high of 10 700 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024.”
More recent analyses confirm that power demand, especially in Asia, could prop up global coal demand possibly for decades.
“Coal-fired power could be a bigger part of the energy mix for longer than expected, scuppering efforts to meet climate change goals,” a pair of Wood Mackenzie analysts, David Brown and Anthony Knutson, wrote in a report last week, echoing the IEA’s findings. China alone is responsible for almost three-quarters of global coal consumption, according to Wood Mackenzie. “New realities for energy markets in recent years have become more, not less, supportive of coal-fired power,” Brown and Knutson write.
The analysts put peak global coal demand a year earlier than the IEA, at 2026. But they also noted that “coal demand has consistently proven more resilient than expected.”
It’s possible that these fast-growing Asian nations could, for reasons of energy security or economy, decide to keep younger coal plants active for decades while extending the life of older plants to keep costs down. In this scenario, much of the world largely transitions away from using coal for power generation, but thanks to persistent Asian demand, global coal demand peaks as late as 2030. That could mean an extra 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions compared to a base case scenario.
The U.S. federal government, meanwhile, has taken on a role as both a coal-friendly analyst and an active promoter of every facet of the industry.
A couple of weeks ago, a Department of Energy report declared that “absent intervention, it is impossible” for the U.S. to power the growth of the artificial intelligence industry “while maintaining a reliable power grid and keeping energy costs low for our citizens.” That energy-poor status quo, the DOE argued, was due in part to scheduled retirements of coal-fired generation.
The DOE has been doing its part to keep that generation online, using its emergency authorities to keep some coal plants open. It has joined President Trump in becoming a kind of all-purpose pitch man for the industry. Over the weekend, the Department’s X account posted an image of Secretary of Energy Chris Wright with a shovel, copied and pasted in front of an open-pit mine, with the words “MINE, BABY, MINE.”
On the supply side, congressional Republicans tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act a tax credit specifically for domestic metallurgical coal production, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Some of the largest end users of U.S.-mined metallurgical coal are outside the U.S., including the countries driving worldwide coal demand. India imported over 3 million tons of U.S. metallurgical coal in the first three months of 2025, with China just under a million, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
The tie-up between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel authorized in June, meanwhile, grants a “golden share” of the American company to the U.S. government, in part to ensure increased investment and capacity. That deal also explicitly provides for at least $1 billion of investment into U.S. Steel’s existing blast furnace operation, Mon Valley Works, in Western Pennsylvania. The investments “ensure Mon Valley Works operates for decades to come,” the company said in an announcement.
That means more coal: Mon Valley Works is the “largest coke manufacturing facility in the United States,” according to U.S. Steel, producing 4.3 million tons of the coal product both for its own operations and for sale to other steelmakers.
In an interview with Japanese media, Nippon Steel’s chief executive Eiji Hashimoto said that the newly expanded company will likely build a new steel mill in the U.S., as part of its goal to catch up in steel production with its Chinese rival China Baowu Steel Group Corp, while also using more of its existing capacity to increase production, hoping to eventually more than double its output by the middle of next decade.
(For what it’s worth, Japan is also a major importer of metallurgical coal from the United States, taking in just over a million tons in the first three months of 2025.)
While the future of coal will be determined in Asia, the U.S. steel industry is happy to work with the Trump administration and the coal industry to keep things burning.
“They see the value in blast furnaces just as we at Cleveland Cliffs do,” Cleveland-Cliffs’ Goncalves said of the U.S. industry’s new Japanese partners.
On betrayed regulatory promises, copper ‘anxiety,’ and Mercedes’ stalled EV plans
Current conditions: Typhoon Wipha is barrelling through southern China, making its way across the mainland after pummeling Hong Kong with heavy rain • More than 60 million Americans are facing heat alerts as temperatures surge • The unusually warm 21-degree Fahrenheit temperature recorded at Summit Station in Greenland is just a few degrees off a record high.
EPA Administrator Lee ZeldinKevin Lamarque-Pool/Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans on Friday afternoon to shut down its research arm and fire hundreds of biologists, chemists, toxicologists, and other scientists whose work helps determine safe pollution levels for regulations. The announcement comes after months of denials from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin that he planned to close the division in question, the Office of Research and Development, which studies the threat from climate change, toxic chemicals, and air and water pollution on human health, and funds university research programs.
The closure comes as part of deep job cuts at the agency. In a statement on Friday, Zeldin said the more than 500 layoffs — which, combined with voluntary buyouts, will slash the EPA’s workforce by nearly one-quarter compared to January’s numbers — would save taxpayers nearly $750 million. The nation’s biggest chemical manufacturers’ lobby agreed, arguing to NPR that the cuts would “ensure American taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively.” But environmentalists warned that the cuts would “not only cripple EPA’s ability to do its own research, but also to apply the research of other scientists.”
Shares in non-Chinese producers of graphite surged on Friday after the Trump administration slapped new anti-dumping duties of 93.5% on imports of the key mineral for batteries, the Financial Times reported. Combined with existing tariffs on Chinese materials, the new trade levies total more than 160%, according to the consultancy Benchmark Minerals. In response, the stock price for Australia-listed Syrah Resources, the world’s largest non-Chinese graphite miner and the developer behind a key Inflation Reduction Act-funded project in Louisiana, shot up 22%. Canada’s Nouveau Monde Graphite spiked 26%. The dual-listed Australian-U.S. producer Novonix surged 15%.
Not all of President Donald Trump’s mineral tariffs are causing excitement for U.S. allies. Earlier this month, the White House announced 50% tariffs on copper to begin in August, but it has yet to clarify whether those tariffs will apply to refined metal, semi-refined products, or copper ore. The uncertainty is causing “anxiety,” Máximo Pacheco, the chairman of Chile’s state-owned copper miner, told the FT. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote when the tariffs were first announced, they have the potential to “provide renewed impetus to expand copper mining in the United States. But tariffs can happen in a matter of months. A copper mine takes years to open — and that’s if investors decide to put the money toward the project in the first place.”
Regulators in Virginia last week ordered electricity and natural gas provider Dominion to lay out a clearer blueprint for meeting the state’s legally-enshrined carbon-free electricity targets. But the State Corporation Commission still accepted the monopoly utility’s plans to build out more fossil fuel generation, Canary Media reported.
The Virginia Clean Economy Act, passed in 2020, requires Dominion to generate 100% of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045. The accepted plan runs up to 2039, leaving just six years to sort out the details of decarbonization. The regulators cautioned that “acceptance does not express approval.” While the statement stopped short of calling into question a proposed 944-megawatt gas complex just south of Richmond, Virginia’s capital, the commission said it would debate plans for another roughly 5 gigawatts of gas-burning power plants before approving construction..
British energy giant BP is selling off its U.S. onshore wind business as the Trump administration appears ready to smother the industry. On Friday, New York-based developer LS Power said it agreed to buy BP’s share of 10 wind projects totaling 1,700 megawatts of capacity. As part of the deal, LS Power plans to fold the wind projects into its renewable energy subsidiary, Clearlight Energy, increasing its fleet to 4,300 megawatts.
BP’s exit comes as the Trump administration has vowed to crack down on the expansion of wind and solar power in the U.S. Trump has long personally opposed wind energy, dating back to his unsuccessful fight against turbines erected near his golf course in Scotland before entering politics. Last week, Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported on a memo from the Department of the Interior calling for political reviews of essentially all solar and wind developments in the U.S. This would at minimum stretch out the already challenging development timeline for projects, a problem especially as developers rush to qualify for federal tax credits.
Mercedes-Benz is pumping the brakes on U.S. production of its EQ line of electric vehicles as the Trump administration winds down federal tax credits to support purchases of battery-powered cars. The German automaker told InsideEVs that, by the start of September, it planned to temporarily pause assembly lines of all variants of its EQE and EQS sedans and SUVs that are either located in the U.S. or producing vehicles bound for the American market. The manufacturer is no longer taking orders from dealers for the cars.
Reviewers had criticized the EQ models for lacking the quality and sophistication of similar gas-powered lines of Mercedes vehicles. Even before Republicans in Congress rolled back the federal government’s landmark $7,500 tax credit for EVs, Mercedes faced trouble finding buyers. Sales of the EQS sedan and EQS SUV were down 52% in the U.S. in 2024 compared to the previous year. China’s biggest electric automakers, meanwhile, are racing to build factories in Brazil, the largest car market in South America.
Like tiny winged Magellans measuring barely an inch in size, the Bogong moth of Australia regularly travels more than 600 miles using celestial navigation, according to a new study in Nature. “The moths really are using a view of the night sky to guide their movements,” a researcher told Euronews.
From the Inflation Reduction Act to the Trump mega-law, here are 20 years of changes in one easy-to-read cheat sheet.
The landmark Republican reconciliation bill, which President Trump signed on July 4, has shattered the tax credits that served as the centerpiece of the country’s clean energy and climate policy.
Starting as soon as October, the law — which Trump has dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — will cut off incentives for Americans to install solar panels, purchase electric vehicles, or make energy efficiency improvements to their homes. It’s projected to raise household energy costs while increasing America’s carbon emissions by 190 million metric tons a year by 2030, according to the REPEAT Project at Princeton University.
The loss of these incentives will in part offset the continuation of tax cuts that largely benefit wealthy Americans. But the law as a whole won’t come close to paying for those cuts in their entirety. The legislation is expected to swell federal deficits by nearly $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank. This explosive deficit expansion could make it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, possibly further constraining energy development.
President Trump has described the law as ending Democrats’ “green new scam,” and conservative lawmakers have celebrated the termination of Biden-era energy programs. The law is particularly devastating for programs encouraging electric vehicle sales, as well as wind and solar energy deployment.
But the act is more complicated than a simple repeal of Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In one case, Trump’s big law ends a federal energy incentive that has been in place, in some form, since the 1990s. In others, Republicans have tied up existing energy incentives with new restrictions, regulations, and red tape.
Some parts of the IRA have even remained intact. GOP lawmakers opted to preserve Biden’s big expansion of incentives to support nuclear energy and advanced geothermal development. That said, the Trump administration could still gut these tax credits by making them effectively unusable through executive action.
It can be confusing to keep the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s many changes to federal energy law in your head — even for experts. That’s why Heatmap News is excited to publish this new reference “cheat sheet”on the past, present, and future of federal energy tax credits, compiled by an all-star collection of analysts and researchers.
The summary takes each clean energy-related provision in the U.S. tax code and summarizes how (and whether) it existed in the 2000s and 2010s, how the Inflation Reduction Act changed it, and how the new OBBBA will change it again. It was compiled by Shane Londagin, a policy advisor at the think tank Third Way; Luke Bassett, a former Biden administration official and Senate Energy committee staffer; Avi Zevin, a former Biden official and a partner at the energy law firm Roselle LLP; and researchers at the REPEAT Project, an energy analysis group at Princeton University. (Note that I co-host the podcast Shift Key with Jesse Jenkins, who leads the REPEAT Project.)
You can find the full summary below.