You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The era of greenwashing is ending. Here’s what’s coming next.

For a while there, oil companies wanted to convince you they were part of the solution to climate change. There was BP rebranding itself as Beyond Petroleum and, as anyone who watched American television in recent years can tell you, ExxonMobil’s investment in algae-based fuels. Dissident shareholders were even able to win board seats at Exxon.
Well, those days are over, sorta.
The profitability of oil majors soared last year as oil prices spiked and Wall Street kept a tight leash on their investments and insisted they send as much money back to their investors as possible. Exxon ditched algae-based fuels and BP is back to being BP — so long, Beyond Petroleum — and is committed to investment in oil and gas. Shareholder resolutions at Chevron and Exxon that would have them limit emissions from their products were defeated at the companies’ shareholder meetings this week by a larger margin than last year.
Exxon’s Chief Executive Darren Woods was dismissive of setting targets for the company’s “Scope 3” emissions, i.e. emissions created from using Exxon’s products, like when drivers burn gas, as opposed to emissions that derive from their extraction or production. “If an energy company discontinues operations to meet Scope 3 targets while the demand for energy remains, consumers can be forced to make do with less energy, pay significantly higher prices, or return to higher-emitting sources,” Woods said.
Two years after the activist fund Engine No. 1 was able to ride a wave of investor discontent with oil majors and win three Exxon board seats, the oil industry has largely wrested control and influence back from activists who want them to reduce their emissions — and are instead under the strict hand of Wall Street investors who are primarily concerned with returns.
But that doesn’t mean oil companies are out of the low carbon investment games. They’re just playing it on their terms.
“Broader conversations between investors and U.S. oil and gas executives have shifted away from Scope 3 considerations over the past year or so, with institutional investors expressing more interest in topics like the potential returns from nascent businesses such as hydrogen and carbon capture as a service, and corporate progress on reducing operational emissions,” according to the energy consulting firm Energy Intelligence.
Just days after Exxon’s management won over its shareholders at its general meeting, it announced a deal with the steel company Nucor to capture and store carbon emitted from a Louisiana site.
In keeping with the profit-minded, investment-skeptical state of the fossil fuel industry these days, oil companies are eager to remind investors they’re doing these deals and investments because they expect to profit from them.
“Our low-carbon projects must be advantaged and deliver competitive returns. The ability of our low-carbon projects to compete successfully for capital is important if the world is going to meet its emissions aspirations,” Woods said in Exxon’s April call with investors.
Besides the recently announced Nucor deal, Exxon’s investments include a carbon capture and storage project with the German chemical company Linde and a planned blue hydrogen facility on the Gulf Coast that would combine hydrogen production from natural gas, carbon capture and storage for both itself and neighboring plants, along with ammonia production.
Exxon “is focusing its efforts in areas that are synergistic with core competencies including carbon capture & storage (CCS), hydrogen, and biofuels,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a note to clients.
Exxon has projected some $17 billion in “low carbon” investments through 2027. Chevron is planning some $10 billion in investment in similar projects through 2028. While substantial, these companies are still investing in their core business — Exxon said in April it planned to, along with partners, spend an additional $12.7 billion on offshore drilling near Guyana.
Underpinning these investments are not just the belief that they could hedge against reduced oil demand in the future, but also subsidies for carbon capture and storage from the Inflation Reduction Act, which substantially increased tax credits for carbon storage. “Incentives included in the Inflation Reduction Act are a positive step forward, although permitting and other regulatory improvements are still needed. Europe, by contrast, policy approach remains far more prescriptive and punitive,” Woods said in the April call. The IRA and the bipartisan infrastructure law included new subsidies for factories and industrial clusters specializing in climate technologies, such as hydrogen and direct air capture. Most of these subsidies have yet to be awarded.
Chevron and Exxon are not the only American energy companies investing in these technologies. Occidental is perhaps the most aggressive, with massive investments in novel direct air capture technology that it seeks to fund — and profit from — by selling credits to companies like Airbus that can’t easily reduce their own emissions. In its most recent earnings call, Occidental executive Robert Jackson said the company “continue[s] to see the voluntary market strong or growing for our CDR sales.” Occidental is also a major investor in NET Power, which is working on its own form of carbon capture for use in gas power plants.
The technology, should it pan out (one plant in Odessa is scheduled to start operating in 2026), could receive a boost from proposed Environment Protection Agency regulations that will essentially force gas-fired plants to use some form of carbon capture and storage. Occidental plans on using NET Power’s technology for its own oil and gas operations and then to help power its planned massive fleet of direct air capture fans, chief executive Vicki Holub said in its earnings call.
But while these oil company investments are in some sense a desired effect of the Biden administration’s carrot-y approach to climate change policy, one thing they are not intended as is any type of transition to a future without oil companies.
In a report laying out its vision for the future of energy and its low carbon business, Exxon projected “all energy sources are projected to remain important through 2050, with oil and natural gas accounting for 55% of the world’s energy mix in 2050.”
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 cloak-and-dagger approach is turning the business into a bogeyman.
It’s time to call it like it is: Many data center developers seem to be moving too fast to build trust in the communities where they’re siting projects.
One of the chief complaints raised by data center opponents across the country is that companies aren’t transparent about their plans, which often becomes the original sin that makes winning debates over energy or water use near-impossible. In too many cases, towns and cities neighboring a proposed data center won’t know who will wind up using the project, either because a tech giant is behind it and keeping plans secret or a real estate firm refuses to disclose to them which company it’ll be sold to.
Making matters worse, developers large and small are requiring city and county officials to be tight-lipped through non-disclosure agreements. It’s safe to say these secrecy contracts betray a basic sense of public transparency Americans expect from their elected representatives and they become a core problem that lets activists critical of the data center boom fill in gaps for the public. I mean, why trust facts and figures about energy and water if the corporations won’t be up front about their plans?
“When a developer comes in and there’s going to be a project that has a huge impact on a community and the environment – a place they call home – and you’re not getting any kind of answers, you can tell they’re not being transparent with you,” Ginny Marcille-Kerslake, an organizer for Food and Water Watch in Pennsylvania, told me in an interview this week. “There’s an automatic lack of trust there. And then that extends to their own government.”
Let’s break down an example Marcille-Kerslake pointed me to, where the utility Talen Energy is seeking to rezone hundreds of acres of agricultural land in Montour County, Pennsylvania, for industrial facilities. Montour County is already a high risk area for any kind of energy or data center development, ranking in the 86th percentile nationally for withdrawn renewable energy projects (more than 10 solar facilities have been canceled here for various reasons). So it didn’t help when individuals living in the area began questioning if this was for Amazon Web Services, similar to other nearby Talen-powered data center projects in the area?
Officials wouldn’t – or couldn’t – say if the project was for Amazon, in part because one of the county commissioners signed a non-disclosure agreement binding them to silence. Subsequently, a Facebook video from an activist fighting the rezoning went viral, using emails he claimed were obtained through public records requests to declare Amazon “is likely behind the scenes” of the zoning request.
Amazon did not respond to my requests for comment. But this is a very familiar pattern to us now. Heatmap Pro data shows that a lack of transparency consistently ranks in the top five concerns people raise when they oppose data center projects, regardless of whether they are approved or canceled. Heatmap researcher Charlie Clynes explained to me that the issue routinely crops up in the myriad projects he’s tracked, down to the first data center ever logged into the platform – a $100 million proposal by a startup in Hood County, Oregon, that was pulled after a community uproar.
“At a high level, I have seen a lack of transparency become more of an issue.t makes people angry in a very unique way that other issues don’t. Not only will they think a project is going to be bad for a community, but you’re not even telling them, the key stakeholder, what is going on,” Clynes said. “It’s not a matter of, are data centers good or bad necessarily, but whether people feel like they’re being heard and considered. And transparency issues make that much more difficult..”
My interview with Marcille-Kerslake exemplified this situation. Her organization is opposed to the current rapid pace of data center build-out and is supporting opposition in various localities. When we spoke, her arguments felt archetypal and representative of how easily those who fight projects can turn secrecy into a cudgel. After addressing the trust issues with me, she immediately pivoted to saying that those exist because “at the root of it, this lack of transparency to the community” comes from “the fact that what they have planned, people don’t want.”
“The answer isn’t for these developers to come in and be fully transparent in what they want to do, which is what you’d see with other kinds of developments in your community. That doesn’t help them because what they’re building is not wanted.”
I’m not entirely convinced by her point, that the only reason data center developers are staying quiet is because of a likelihood of community opposition. In fairness, the tech sector has long operated with a “move fast, break things” approach, and Silicon Valley companies long worked in privacy in order to closely guard trade secrets in a competitive marketplace. I also know from my previous reporting that before AI, data center developers were simply focused on building projects with easy access to cheap energy.
However, in fairness to opponents, I’m also not convinced the industry is adequately addressing its trust deficit with the public. Last week, I asked Data Center Coalition vice president of state policy Dan Diorio if there was a set of “best practices” that his large data center trade organization is pointing to for community relations and transparency. His answer? People are certainly trying their best as they move quickly to build out infrastructure for AI, but no, there is no standard for such a thing.
“Each developer is different. Each company is different. There’s different sizes, different structures,” he said. “There’s common themes of open and public meetings, sharing information about water use in particular, helping put it in the proper context as well.”
He added: “I wouldn’t categorize that as industry best practice, [but] I think you’re seeing common themes emerge in developments around the country.”
Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.
Cole County, Missouri – The Show Me State may be on the precipice of enacting the first state-wide solar moratorium.
Clark County, Ohio – This county has now voted to oppose Invenergy’s Sloopy Solar facility, passing a resolution of disapproval that usually has at least some influence over state regulator decision-making.
Millard County, Utah – Here we have a case of folks upset about solar projects specifically tied to large data centers.
Orange County, California – Compass Energy’s large battery project in San Juan Capistrano has finally died after a yearslong bout with local opposition.
Hillsdale County, Michigan – Here’s a new one: Two county commissioners here are stepping back from any decision on a solar project because they have signed agreements with the developer.
A conversation with Save Our Susquehanna’s Sandy Field.
This week’s conversation is with Sandy Field, leader of the rural Pennsylvania conservation organization Save Our Susquehanna. Field is a climate activist and anti-fossil fuel advocate who has been honored by former vice president Al Gore. Until recently, her primary focus was opposing fracking and plastics manufacturing in her community, which abuts the Susquehanna River. Her focus has shifted lately, however, to the boom in data center development.
I reached out to Field because I’ve been quite interested in better understanding how data centers may be seen by climate-conscious conservation advocates. Our conversation led me to a crucial conclusion: Areas with historic energy development are rife with opposition to new tech infrastructure. It will require legwork for data centers – or renewable energy projects, for that matter – to ever win support in places still reeling from legacies of petroleum pollution.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Given your background, tell me about how you wound up focusing on data centers?
We won a fight against a gas plant in fall of 2023. We started saying, Instead of focusing on what we don’t want, we’re going to start focusing on what we do want. We were focusing on supporting recreational projects in our area, because this is an area where people come to hike and camp and fish. It’s a great place to ride your bike.
Then, all of the sudden, people were saying, What about these data centers?
At first, it seemed benign. It’s like a warehouse, who cares? But we started to learn about the water use concerns, the energy use concerns. We learned about the Amazon one that’s connected to Three Mile Island, which is responsible for turning it back on. We learned about one in Homer, Pennsylvania, where they’re taking a former coal plant and converting it into the largest gas plant in the country in order to power a data center. The people in that area are going to get the pollution from the enormous power plant but none of the power. It started to be clear to us that, again, behind these projects is a push to build out more fracking and gas in Pennsylvania.
From a climate change point of view, this is exactly the wrong perspective. We’re running in the wrong direction. Between water usage, and this energy usage, people are becoming alarmed that the burden will be on us and data centers will be just another boondoggle.
The last thing I’ll say is that there is nothing right now in American politics that is reaching across the aisle. Our communities are coming together. Everybody – Democrats, Republicans – to fight these things.
This is also the only thing I’ve ever worked on that people hate more than plastics.
It sounds like how you learned about these projects was, it began as an anodyne issue but you began to hear about impacts on water and energy use. When I talk to people in the development space, some will call anybody who opposes development NIMBYs. But I’m feeling like this is an oversimplification of the problem here. If you had to identify a principle reason so many people are opposing data centers, what would be the big overarching motive?
I think it seems rushed. People are concerned because it's like a gold rush.
A gas-fired power plant takes five years to build. They’re talking about data centers right now. Where is that power coming from? The whole thing feels like a bubble, and we’re concerned that people are going to invest into communities, and communities will be accepting them only to be left with stranded assets.
When I hear you bring up the principle reason being speed, I hear you. Power plants take years. Mines take years. So do renewable energy projects. Help me get a better understanding though, how much of this is purely the speed –
They’re taking people by surprise.
Take into account where we are. We live by the Susquehanna River, the longest non-navigable river in the world. It doesn’t have a lot of industry on it because it’s too shallow, but we drink from the river and we’ve just gotten it clean. The river was so low this past year that historic structures were beginning to be visible that I’ve never seen, the entire time I have lived here. That was because of a drought.
Now, add to that a couple of data centers pulling millions of gallons of water a day and only putting a portion back in, with who knows what in there. People here are saying that back in the day this river was filled with coal dust, and then we had fracking, so its… enough is enough. Let’s put something into rural communities that will actually benefit us.
The small townships [deciding] don’t know enough about data centers to plan for them. So we’re trying to make sure they’re prepared for managing them. We go to these townships being approached and encourage them to have a protective ordinance that allows them to define parameters for these things. Setbacks, water use rules, things like that.
To your point about NIMBYs – there are a few around here who really are. But there are others who really do just have concerns about how this is a bad idea and we’re rushing in a direction we don’t want to go for our state. They felt this way about fracking, about advanced plastics recycling too, for example. It wasn’t that people didn’t want the projects in their backyards – it’s that they didn’t want them anywhere. Labeling us as NIMBYs or whiners or gripers is unfair.
On that note, I can’t help but notice that these efforts to get protective ordinances on data centers are happening as opponents of renewable energy are doing the same thing. Are you at all concerned that this increased scrutiny towards land use will lead to greater restrictions on renewables alongside data centers?
You’re right that a lot of this is about land use and there are similar arguments about renewable energy. Some of these arguments are being fed by the fossil fuel industry and its allies, and a lot of it is baseless. They’re feeding in concerns about glare and noise and whatever else that don’t even really exist about solar panels.
But it is, yes, often the same people talking about protecting their land. It does have similar elements, especially because of the agricultural land use being proposed in many cases.
We need to meet the concerns about renewable energy head-on. If you talk to people and show them a picture of solar panels with sheep grazing underneath and the land can be conserved for many years, this starts to be a different argument than building a data center for Amazon or someone else that people don’t even like, using the water and all that.