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:
They fall short of President Biden’s power plant goals — and he’s running out of time and tools.

As you may have heard, the Biden administration on Thursday proposed regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from new and existing power plants.
The rule is a landmark. If implemented successfully, it would mark the first time that the United States has regulated emissions from existing power plants, one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the economy.
Yet coverage of the rule has deviated in some respects from what it would actually do. The rule falls short of its goals in at least one important way: It will not meet President Joe Biden’s targets for the power sector.
Soon after he took office, President Biden committed the United States to generating 100% of its electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2035. It is part of his broader Paris Agreement pledge to slash U.S. carbon pollution in half by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels.
But the EPA’s proposal would not achieve a zero-carbon power grid even by 2040, five years after the president’s deadline. If the rule is implemented, then the American electricity system will emit 458 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2040. While that is a significant reduction — it’s about 70% lower than today’s annual emissions — it is obviously not zero.
“These rules and this section of the Clean Air Act is not designed to achieve President Biden’s clean power targets,” Charles Harper, a policy analyst at Evergreen, a climate advocacy organization and think tank, told me.
“These power-sector rules are an important contributor to reducing emissions to the power sector, but they alone won’t get to a zero-carbon grid — and that’s by design within the statute.”
On one hand, the EPA’s proposal reveals the success of President Biden’s flagship climate accomplishment, the Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA’s proposal can mandate carbon capture and storage so aggressively because that law’s subsidies and tax credits made it economically feasible for utilities. The proposal is “designed very, very well to work in tandem with the IRA tax credits,” Nick Bryner, a law professor at Louisiana State University, told me.
In fact, according to the rule’s analysis, the climate law — and not the proposed rule — will drive most of the emissions declines in the power sector from 2028 to 2040. The rule is tinkering around the edges of a much larger transformation.
But on the other hand, the rule reveals the limits of that metamorphosis. The Biden administration has adopted more climate policy than any previous administration, yet they are running out of tools to make their climate goals a reality. The EPA will be lucky to finalize these rules before the end of Biden’s first — and potentially only — term. And it is not working on any other proposed power-sector regulation that might get the country all the way to Biden’s 2035 goal.
At this point, Biden may need a revolution of state and local climate advocacy — not to mention another four years in office, and perhaps even another congressional majority — to achieve his most ambitious climate goals. The planet is only getting hotter.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
France’s deadliest heat wave since 2003 killed more than 2,700 people — and possibly as many as 5,700.
More than 5,700 excess deaths were recorded in France during this summer’s record-breaking heat wave, the country’s health agency announced today. That makes the event — which ran, by the official reckoning, from June 17 to July 2 — the country’s deadliest heat wave in more than 20 years.
That’s in line with other estimates we’ve heard. EuroMOMO, a network of European public health agencies that track excess mortality, found that the continent saw more than 10,000 excess deaths during the same period. Roughly 90% of those victims were older than 65, it said. (France’s cohort seems similar: Adults older than 75 made up about two-thirds of the victims, the government said.)
These numbers are staggering — and much larger than some astute Heatmap readers might anticipate. If you read my colleague Jeva Lange’s piece on why it’s so hard to estimate heat deaths last week, she cited a much smaller estimate: Roughly 2,700 died in France during the most recent heat wave. That tally came from Christopher Callahan, an Indiana University scientist who studies climate change’s economic and social costs.
Why is there such a gap between the figures? I emailed Callahan to find out. He shared a few thoughts. First, he uses a different (and theoretically more rigorous) method than the French government: “Our approach uses a statistical relationship between temperature and mortality to explicitly quantify how many additional deaths are associated with a given day’s temperature,” he wrote. “France’s report of excess deaths is just based on how many more people died in late June compared to previous Junes - but we don’t know if those people died because of the heat or some other factor.” (Carbon Brief recently published a Q&A on these varying approaches.)
That might mean his estimate is right, in which case France has misidentified roughly nearly 3,000 deaths. But it could also mean his model, which is trained on data from 2004 to 2019, is “missing something,” he said, like a post-Covid change to public health risk. Last year, Callahan and his colleagues used a similar model to estimate deaths from France’s worst-ever heatwave, a 2003 episode that overwhelmed morgues and killed about 16,000 people. Even 23 years ago, global warming helped make that disaster larger than it needed to be: Some 6,000 of those deaths were due to climate change, their paper found.
Either estimate of the 2026 heat wave, of course, is shattering. As Jeva wrote, even the lower figure would mean the 2026 heat wave killed as many people as died in three years of French homicides. But the divergence in estimates tells us something else too: Even as climate change breaks records and alters our world, we’re never going to quite agree on where it ends and normal randomness begins.
The AI data center boom does not seem close to ending. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, announced its second quarter results this evening, and it beat Wall Street’s expectations, nearly quadrupling its profit on a year-over-year basis. Among the drivers: Its cloud business grew 82% compared to the same quarter last year. (As I’ve written, that rapid growth is helping to turn Alphabet and other hyperscalers into light industrial firms.)
The company’s AI bets seem to be paying off so far — so Google is now planning on spending even more on data centers, energy infrastructure and AI development this year than it once anticipated. It raised its estimates of 2026 capital expenditure to $195 billion to $205 billion, which is above earlier projections and twice as much as it spent in the same category last year. 2027 could be even bigger, it signaled. The company’s shares fell slightly on the news in after-hours trading, but from an energy and climate wonk perspective, the message is clear: For now, the AI demand surge transforming the power sector — and the real economy — continues to chug along.