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:
Mining companies have asked for federal support — but this isn’t what most of them had in mind.

It took Donald Trump just over two months to potentially tank his own American mineral supply chain renaissance.
At the time Trump entered office, it looked like the stars could align for an American mining boom. Mining jobs had finally recovered to pre-COVID levels, thanks in part to demand for the metals required to engineer the transition away from fossil fuels (and, paradoxically, continued demand for coal). A lot of the gains in mining stocks were thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which offered a huge tax break to mining and metal processing companies and mandated that the consumer EV credit apply only to cars with a certain percentage of domestically-sourced material.
Trump 2.0 was poised to capitalize on that progress and unleash permits for U.S. mines under pared-back environmental regulations. In March, he issued an executive order to boost production of minerals in the U.S. — a maneuver that, combined with trade actions targeting China specifically, could have been the final step to bring about a mining and mineral processing resurgence in the U.S. and wrest some global market control away from China and other countries under its sphere of influence. In 2024, more than half of the mineral commodities consumed by the U.S. were imported from foreign sources, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Trump’s new global tariffs, however, sent the broader stock market into freefall, mining stocks very much included. He exempted many metals from the tariffs in their rawest form, but that was all the relief miners got. There were few exceptions for refined metal products or the inputs used for mining and mineral exploration. At the same time, metals prices — including commodities integral to battery production such as copper and lithium — are falling, with producers warning that now may be the high point for prices this year.
Part of this pricing issue is because the market appears to expect lower demand for new products that require those metals, such as EVs. Another part, as U.S. officials have said previously, is that China has been flooding the globe with minerals sold at a loss to win market influence. For this reason, D.C. policy wonks had been lobbying for legislation to address this pricing issue.
Now Trump has piled onto the industry's problems. This period could be especially painful for American mining companies, as it is exceedingly possible that a combination of lower commodity prices and higher costs for machinery and parts shatters whatever tailwinds were buoying many U.S. mining and metals projects. We may not see projects canceled yet, but a sense of extreme anxiety is sweeping the minds of many in the mining sector.
“If you look at the carrot of the pro-domestic mining policy versus the stick of the recessionary impacts from the demand side and the availability of capital impact from the supply side, the carrot is a raindrop and the stick is an ocean,” Emily Hersh, a veteran of the mining industry, told me.
Al Gore III, head of the D.C.-based electric vehicle and battery mineral supply chain association ZETA, said he agreed with Hersh’s assessment: “She’s right. We’ve been waging war against a raindrop for the last year, and now we’re in the ocean.”
Hersh has worked on mining projects across the world and taught me almost everything I know about the mining business, a sector I covered for years as a beat reporter for S&P Global and E&E News. Over the weekend, she explained to me the basic math behind why these tariffs will be bad for U.S. mining: It’ll be more expensive to buy the things abroad that companies need to build a mine, she said, from the drill rigs used in exploration to the parts required for extraction and ore storage. We don’t make a lot of those devices in the U.S., and building factories to do so will now be more expensive, too, making it more difficult to scale up what would be required to avoid higher project costs. Whatever benefits there are from trade pressure to choose U.S. mines for sourcing is outweighed by, well, everything else.
It’s important to remember how integral longstanding U.S. trade partners are to the global mining industry. Canada is one of the world’s largest producers of hardrock minerals, and at least 40% of the world’s mining companies are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Japan — now hit with a 24% tariff — was positioned to be an ally in U.S. efforts to wean off China-linked minerals and signed a minerals trade agreement under Biden. Even the Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces most of the world’s cobalt for batteries, was hit with a 10% tariff, leading Trump officials to try and appease the Congolese government by offering billions of dollars in investment.
Mining capacity is not the only constraint. We don’t process the ore we mine here, either. Take copper, a crucial industrial metal that many companies mine in America but then ship to Mexico or Canada to be refined for use in everything from cars to transmission lines and consumer electronics. This is why news of the tariffs has already led to record shipments of processed copper products into the U.S. as companies try to get ahead of the tariffs.
The final, crucial pain point: Recessions, like low metals prices, are usually horrible for mining projects and the companies developing them.
The 2008 recession was infamous for being the moment when the U.S. lost to China on battery metals; mining companies already hurting under sagging metals prices chose to sell assets and stakes in developers in Africa and elsewhere to Chinese companies, paving the way for the global resource power imbalance Trump likes to bemoan. The 2020 Covid-19 market shock also did little to help mining projects — metals prices went up because mines had to shut down, but demand and investment also decreased. That moment translated into a short-term boon for metals trading, with excess material already floating about in commerce. But little more than that.
“You have an administration here who is trying to torpedo international financial order with a misguided idea that some phoenix is going to magically rise from the ashes,” Hersh said. “That’s not how markets work, and that’s not what history has demonstrated happens in any scenario that parallels what the Trump administration is doing now.”
Ben Steinberg, a D.C. lobbyist who helps run an ad hoc advocacy group of mining and battery material companies, put it to me more succinctly: “These projects take a long time to develop. Capital can be somewhat patient, but we know it is generally impatient. The uncertainty is incredibly destabilizing,” said Steinberg, whose coalition of companies includes ones with mining projects that have offtake agreements with Tesla and other EV manufacturers. “The tariffs aren’t what I think about when I think about more mining in the U.S. I’m thinking of permitting.”
Gore, who also represents Tesla through his trade association, told me the tariffs will mean “everything is going to move a bit slower,” including the “momentum towards onshoring a lot of the supply chain.”
“I think that in general, capitalism works when you are using signals very judiciously — using carrots far more than you use sticks,” he told me.
The National Mining Association is also carefully signaling concern about the tariffs. NMA represents more than just the interests of battery metals — it also includes coal companies and gold miners that are rare beneficiaries of the market’s tailspin. But in a statement provided exclusively to Heatmap, NMA spokesperson Conor Bernstein offered a cautious note about interpreting these restrictionist trade actions as potentially good for mining.
“Targeted tariffs can be a part of an effective policy response,” Bernstein said. “At the same time, this is an incredibly complex time for any company to be operating, and we are working closely with our members to gather information on actual and potential impacts, are engaged with the administration to provide that information, and are committed to working with the administration to rebuild American supply chain security from the mine up.”
Ian Lange, an academic at the Colorado School of Mines, offered a blunt assessment of the tariffs: They’re an opportunity for a small group of domestic producers who have successfully argued to “reshape the supply chain away from their competitors.”
For years, individual mining companies have been seeking tariffs and trade protections on specific minerals they claim are unfairly subsidized and cheaply distributed by China and other nations. These efforts, which rose to prominence in Trump 1.0 Washington over uranium and fertilizers, have become more popular and bipartisan in D.C. as part of a tit-for-tat with China over minerals used in batteries, including graphite.
If there’s any silver lining in this moment, Lange said, it is the fact that this “bunch of people who’ve been complaining get their shot.”
“You wanted this!” Lange exclaimed. “So you better take advantage of it.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Robotaxis are more likely to be EVs, and that’s not a coincidence.
Here in Los Angeles, the hot new thing in parenting is Waymo. One recent article argued that driverless electric vehicles have become the go-to solution for overscheduled parents who can’t be everywhere at once. No time to drive the kid to school dropoff or to practice? Hire a rideshare, preferably one without a potentially problematic human driver.
Perhaps it’s fitting that younger Americans, especially, are encountering electric cars in this way. Over the past few years, plenty of headlines have declared that teens and young adults have fallen out of love with the automobile; they’re not getting their driver’s licenses until later, if at all, and supposedly aren’t particularly keen on car ownership compared to their parents and grandparents. Getting around in a country built for the automobile leaves them more reliant on the rideshare industry — which, it so happens, is a place where the technological trends of electric and autonomous vehicles are rapidly converging.
This isn’t the way most people, myself included, talk about the EV revolution. That discourse typically runs through the familiar lens of our personal vehicles — which, it should be noted, Americans still lease or buy in the millions. In that light, EVs are struggling. Since buyers raced to scoop up electric cars in September before the federal tax credit lapsed, sales have slowed. Automakers have canceled or delayed numerous models and pivoted back to combustion engines or hybrids in response to the hostile Trump-era environment for selling EVs. While the world has carried on with electrification, America has backslid.
While all this was happening, however, the rideshare industry was accelerating in the opposite direction. Waymo’s fleet of autonomous vehicles is all-electric, currently made up of Jaguar I-Pace SUVs. Uber just invested more than $1 billion in Rivian as part of a plan to add thousands of the brand’s new R2 EVs to its fleet of electric robotaxis. Tesla’s moves are particularly telling. Elon Musk is still selling plenty of normal, human-driven Model Y and Model 3 EVs to make some money for the moment, but the company’s future prospects are all-in on the Cybercab, a two-seater robotaxi that would never be driven by a person. Who’d buy such a thing? Rideshare companies — or, perhaps, people see the Cybercab as a passive income machine that shuttles their neighbors around town whenever they’re not riding in it.
Human-driven rideshare fleets are quickly electrifying, too. Uber now allows riders to request an EV explicitly, an option that has been growing in popularity, especially as rising gas prices make electric rides more appealing. The company has been offering thousands of dollars of incentives to drivers who want to buy an EV, a program that expanded nationwide this month. EV-maker Fisker went bankrupt and folded, but its orphaned Ocean vehicles are roaming New York City as rideshare cars. Sara Rafalson of the charging company EVgo recently told me that rideshare already accounts for a quarter of the energy it distributes.
Yes, gasoline carries certain advantages for a taxi service — a gas-burning cab can drive all night with just momentary refueling stops, for example, whereas an EV must go out of commission during its occasional charging stops. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the rideshare industry is going electric.
That isn’t just because EVs have a futuristic vibe. There are technological reasons, too. Tesla and Rivian have designed their vehicles to be effectively smartphones on wheels, which makes them ideally suited for robotaxis. EVs have plenty of battery power on hand to meet all the computational demands of self-driving. Plus, electric power is particularly efficient for stop-and-go urban driving.
On the EV side, the business case for electric robotaxis is particularly compelling. One reason electric cars have struggled with everyday Americans is that it’s more difficult for an individual to stomach the higher upfront cost of an EV to enjoy its longer-term rewards. That’s less true for a business, whose accountants know EVs mean less long-term maintenance.
In the case of the rideshare economy, EVs are becoming the clear choice even though they’re owned by individual drivers. While the EV purchasing tax credit is gone for individuals, drivers can get financial help from a company like Uber to purchase an EV, which allows them to insulate themselves from the volatility of gas prices and reduce their regular maintenance schedule. They can also charge strategically around their taxi trips; robotaxi fleets often concentrate their recharging to the overnight hours when electricity is cheapest.
There is plenty of evidence that the “Gen Z doesn’t want to own cars” narrative is as reductive and oversimplified as you’d think. Younger generations are interested in cars — and in electric cars, in particular — but they’re often put off by the soaring costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle. As EV prices continue to fall, you can expect EV adoption to accelerate among Gen Z and millennial drivers.
In the meantime, those folks don’t have to buy an EV to join the EV age. It’s getting more and more likely that the car that drives you to the airport will be an EV — and more likely that riders will opt for electric if given the choice.
$4 of gasoline will actually get you pretty far these days.
Everyone’s mad about high oil prices, but are they doing anything about it? With around 11 million barrels per day (about a tenth of global production) shut in, and thus missing from the global oil market, someone has to be using less of it. Maybe it’s petrochemical plants that run on tight margins slowing down. Maybe it’s European airlines cancelling flights.
At least so far, it’s probably not American drivers.
“In the U.S. we’re seeing an indifference, in terms of what we can see from consumption numbers,” David Doherty, head of natural resources research at BloombergNEF, told me on the sidelines of the research group’s annual summit last week. The Energy Information Administration’s proxy for gasoline consumption, “product supplied of finished motor gasoline,” shows no dramatic change following the beginning of the war or subsequent spike in oil prices.
Gas prices in the United States sit at $4.11 per gallon according to AAA, compared to $3.15 a year ago. But even in the context of the almost $5 per gallon in 2022 and the $4.11-ish gas hit in the summer of 2008, the impact on actual households is likely more mild.
“$4 now is very different to $4 five years ago. And it's definitely different to $4 in 2008, which is when the last price spikes came through,” Doherty said. “$4 doesn't get you a coffee now. $4 a decade ago got you coffee plus oat milk.”
For one, a dollar is hardly a dollar anymore. There’s been higher than typical inflation since 2022, and a substantial rise in overall prices since 2008. This means that a dollar of gasoline (or even $4) is taking up a smaller portion of American consumer spending than it has in the past.
Looking back even further, the American auto fleet has gotten more efficient, meaning that drivers are getting more miles per gallon — and thus miles per dollar — than they were in the past. And that’s not even taking into account the rise of electric vehicles, which allow drivers to opt out of gasoline price volatility altogether.
Ironically, a big chunk of the credit comes from the now essentially scrapped Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — themselves a response to the 1973 oil shock and designed to ease the American auto fleet’s dependency on fuels with volatile prices set by the global market by ratcheting up fuel economy over time. Then in 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the first major tightening of CAFE standards in nearly 30 years.
“CAFE standards — which have just been neutered — ultimately have helped,” Doherty told me, referring to the Trump administration’s successful efforts to undo further fuel economy progress under the Obama and Biden administrations.
Overall, the U.S. economy has also gotten less “oil intensive” — we simply use less oil per dollar of economic activity than we used to. Since 1970, oil consumption has gone up by about 20%, while the size of the economy as measured in GDP has more than quadrupled.
When it comes to how the changing price of oil, and thereby gasoline, affects drivers, it’s a little trickier. I decided to calculate the “miles per dollar” on an annual basis, and then conservatively estimated how fleet efficiency would have increased by now.
To do this, I looked at the average miles per gallon of the U.S. car fleet and the “all grades” gasoline price for those same years. (“All grades” a little higher than the typical “regular” gas series, but the data goes back further.) The MPG data only goes back to 2024, so I conservatively projected it out to this year. While U.S. drivers are getting less out of their dollar than they did in 2024, they’re also going farther than they did in 2022 and 2008, the last time gas prices spiked dramatically.
I also wanted to get an idea of how much household spending is on gasoline. There’s no perfect way to do this with up-to-date data, but I was able to look at the relative importance of transportation fuel in the Consumer Price Index, which tells you the portion of spending on gasoline among the goods and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As expected, the relative importance rose dramatically in the 1970s and early 1980s, and hit a new high in 2007; in 2025, it fell close to its all time lows at just under 3%.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also looks at annual household spending on gasoline. The latest data from 2024 agreed that it had been falling, from $2,805 in 2022, to $2,449 in 2023, and then $2,411 in 2024, but the 2025 data isn’t available yet.
Looking at more frequently updated data, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee estimated that spending in February on “gasoline and other energy goods” was just over 1.9% of all personal consumption, a more than 0.2 percentage point decline from a year ago. This was, of course, before gasoline prices soared in March and into April.
“If you were to put [gasoline] beside the cost of your rent, for example, it's becoming a much smaller slice of your outlays,” Doherty said. This is the now-abandoned fuel efficiency standards actually working, Doherty said. “It's a different share of your budget. It's a more efficient car, and that’s through design.”
This also helps explain why in the United States, we’re not seeing the “demand destruction” that should accompany a contraction in oil supply, where consumers cut back consumption in response to high prices.
But with lines of empty tankers queuing up at the United States’ Gulf Coast petroleum export complex, looking to bring American crude to markets that can’t get their hands on oil from the Persian Gulf, prices may still have a way to go. Drivers in the United States are now in a barrel-for-barrel competition with the rest of the world.
On China’s fossil fuel controls, Maine data centers, and a faster NRC
Current conditions: Nearly two dozen states from Texas to Minnesota are bracing for days of thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, and winds up to 70 miles per hour • Japan is deploying 1,400 firefighters to battle a wildfire in Iwate prefecture that has forced at least 3,000 people to evacuate • While it’s nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit and sunny today in Chernobyl, Ukraine, exactly 40 years ago yesterday the weather worsened the world’s worst nuclear accident by blowing radiation from the melted-down reactor.
The Trump administration has dismissed every member of the independent board that oversees the National Science Foundation. In what The New York Times described as a “terse email” sent Friday afternoon, members of the 25-member National Science Board were told their position was “terminated, effective immediately.” Willie E. May, a terminated board member and a vice president at Morgan State University, told the newspaper: “I am deeply disappointed, though I cannot say I am entirely surprised. I have watched the systematic dismantling of the scientific advisory infrastructure of this government with growing alarm, and the National Science Board is simply the latest casualty.” The move to seize tighter control over funding for scientific research comes two months after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the legal finding that underpins all federal climate regulations and days after the Department of Health and Human Services nixed publication of a study about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
Meanwhile, a top Republican in Congress has confirmed the limits of President Donald Trump’s bid to cap pay at the Tennessee Valley Authority. The White House’s push to limit compensation at the nation’s largest public power utility to $500,000 only applies to the chief executive, Representative Chuck Fleischmann, Republican from Tennessee, told The Knoxville News Sentinel. The White House sought to fire TVA CEO Don Moul last year, but ultimately backed down.

Beijing has laid out plans for tighter controls over fossil fuel use and greater oversight of heavy emitters in what experts told Carbon Brief was “a signal of China’s ongoing commitment to climate action and bridging policy” between the government’s national and sectoral five-year plans. The policy document, totaling nearly 2,800 words when translated into English, is what’s known as a “guiding opinion,” and “is not strictly binding, it bears the stamp of the two highest bodies in China’s political system, conveying a strong sense of authority,” wrote Anika Patel, the China editor at Carbon Brief, noting that “this is the first high-level document to explicitly link decarbonisation efforts with energy security and industrial development.” As Qi Qin, a China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told Heatmap’s Katie Brigham last month: “I don’t think China is creating these technologies as a niche climate experiment anymore. They’re being folded into a broader industrial strategy. I think that the more important question is which of them are moving into real deployment now, and which are still at the stage of strategic signaling.”
At roughly the same time, the Chinese government has published an atlas of deep-sea mineral deposits as the People’s Republic looks to ramp up its ambitions to harvest critical metals from the ocean floor.
At the start of this month, I told you Maine was poised to become the first state to ban construction of data centers, at least temporarily. Not anymore. On Friday, Governor Janet Mills vetoed the bill, the Portland Press-Herald reported. In her message to the legislature, the Democrat said that, while a moratorium “is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates,” the “final version of this bil fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region.” The 2023 closure of Androscoggin Mill, a pulp and paper plant, dealt what she called “a devastating blow” to the town, located roughly an hour and 20 minutes north of Portland, and the server farm would help “promote reinvestment and job creation at the former mill,” she said. Mills is locked in a heated race with left-wing populist Graham Platner for the Democratic nomination to take on Republican Senator Susan Collins this November.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The British-listed green fertilizer company Atome is set to build a first-of-a-kind project in Paraguay, taking advantage of low-cost hydropower to produce ammonia using green hydrogen instead of natural gas. The firm’s final investment decision on the $665 million plant in Villeta, south of the capital of Asunción, comes as the Iran War disrupts fertilizer markets and drives up costs. “We’ve proven that you can actually close and finance an industrial-scale, green fertilizer facility,” chief executive Olivier Mussat told the Financial Times. “It’s never been done before.”
Duke Energy’s Robinson nuclear power plant in South Carolina just won the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval to operate for 80 years as part of the fastest license renewal review in the agency’s history. The NRC cleared Unit 2 of the Robinson Steam Electric Plant — a single-unit pressurized water reactor — to operate for another 20 years. This, according to World Nuclear News, is the unit’s “second, or subsequent, license renewal: it received a 20-year renewal of its original 40-year license in 2004.” The NRC formally accepted the license renewal application for docketing on April 28, 2025, then completed the review within a 12-month timeframe. That’s six fewer months than the previous schedule, in accordance with an executive order Trump issued last year. “This milestone proves we can deliver results quickly without compromising safety,” NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said in a statement. “By focusing on essential factors for sustained nuclear power plant safety and applying lessons learned from past renewals, our team was able to work efficiently while maintaining their commitment to enabling timely safety decisions.”
TotalEnergies may be exiting offshore wind in the U.S. for the price of $1 billion from the Trump administration. But over in Kazakhstan, the French energy giant is expanding its wind footprint. While the landlocked Central Asian country doesn’t have much in the way of shores off of which to build turbines, it does have vast, windy steppelands. TotalEnergies plans to invest in a gigawatt of wind power and 600 megawatt-hours of battery storage, Renewables Now reported.