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.
The president of the Clean Economy Project calls for a new approach to advocacy — or as she calls it, a “third front.”
Roughly 50,000 people are in Brazil this week for COP30, the annual United Nations climate summit. If history is any guide, they will return home feeling disappointed. After 30 years of negotiations, we have yet to see these summits deliver the kind of global economic transformation we need. Instead, they’ve devolved into rituals of hand-wringing and half measures.
The United States has shown considerable inertia and episodic hostility through each decade of climate talks. The core problem isn’t politics. It’s perspective. America has been treating climate as a moral challenge when the real stakes are economic prosperity.
I’ve spent my career advancing the moral case from inside the environmental movement. Over the decades we succeeded at rallying the faithful, but we failed to deliver change at the scale and speed required. We passed regulations only to watch them be repealed. We pledged to cut emissions and missed the mark, again and again.
People think of climate change as a crisis to contain when it’s really a competition to win. We need to build what’s next, not stop what’s bad. And what’s at stake isn’t just emissions; it’s whether America leads or lags in the next era of global economic growth.
That calls for a new approach to climate action — a third front.
In the early 1900s, the first front focused on conservation — protecting forests, nature, and wildlife. The second front, in the 1960s and 70s, tackled pollution — cleaning up our air and water, regulating toxins, and safeguarding public health. Both were about “stopping” harm. They worked because they aimed at industries where slowing down made sense.
But energy doesn’t fit that mold. International pledges and national regulations to “stop” carbon emissions are destined to fail without affordable and accessible fossil-fuel replacements. Why? Because low-cost energy makes people’s lives better. Longer life expectancies, better health care, lower infant mortality, and higher literacy follow in its wake. Energy is foundational for prosperity, powering nearly every part of our modern lives.
No high-income country has low energy consumption. Prosperity depends on abundant energy. Global energy demand will keep rising, as poor countries install more refrigerators and air conditioning, and rich countries build more data centers and advanced manufacturing. Today, fossil fuels provide 80% of primary energy because they are cheap and easy to move around. That’s why the tools of “stopping harm” that we used to protect rivers and forests will not win the race. Innovation, not limits, leads to progress.
The third front is not about blocking fossil fuels; it’s about beating them. Stopping fossil fuels doesn’t fix the electric grid or reinvent steelmaking. By contrast, lowering the cost of clean technologies will spur economic growth, create jobs in rural counties, and lower electricity bills for working families.
Yet clean energy projects in the U.S. are routinely delayed by red tape, outdated rules, and policy whiplash. A transmission line often takes more than a decade to plan, permit, and construct. Meanwhile, China has added more than 8,000 miles of ultra‑high‑voltage transmission in just four years, compared with fewer than 400 miles here at home. American entrepreneurs are ready to build but our systems and rules haven’t caught up.
And the urgency to fix the problem is mounting. Electricity prices and energy demand are surging, while terawatts of clean energy projects pile up in the interconnection queue. We are struggling to build a 21st century economy on 20th century infrastructure.
The third front of climate action starts with building faster and smarter. That responsibility lies with policymakers at every level. In the U.S., Congress and federal agencies must treat energy infrastructure as economic competitiveness, not just environmental policy. State and local regulators must expedite permitting. Regional grid operators must speed up interconnection and integration of new technologies.
But government’s role is to clear the path, not dictate the outcome. The private sector — entrepreneurs pioneering technologies from long-duration storage to advanced geothermal to next-generation nuclear — is ready to build. What they need is for policymakers to remove the obstacles. We can use public policy not to command markets, but rather to unlock them, reward innovation, and create certainty that encourages investment.
The same logic applies globally. The multilateral climate system has focused on negotiating emission limits, but we need a renewed effort toward lowering the cost of clean energy so it can outcompete fossil fuels in every market, from the richest economies to the poorest. Whether through the UN, the G-20, or the Clean Energy Ministerial, the international community must play a role in that shift — not through collating new pledges, but by taking action on cost reduction, technology deployment, and removing barriers to scale. Through economic cooperation and competition, both, domestic policies around the world need to align toward making clean energy win on economics, backed by private capital and innovation.
It’s time to measure progress not only by tons of carbon avoided, but also by how much new energy capacity we add, how quickly clean projects come online, and how much private capital moves into clean industries.
There is a cure for the fatigue induced from 30 years of climate summits and setbacks. It’s a new playbook built on economic growth and shared prosperity. The goal is not only to reduce emissions. We must build a system where clean energy is so affordable, abundant, and reliable that it becomes the obvious choice. Not because people are told to use it, but because it is better.
On Trump's global gas up, a Garden State wind flub, and Colorado coal
Current conditions: From Cleveland to Syracuse, cities on the Great Lakes are bracing for heavy snowfall • Rainfall in Northern California could top 6 inches today • Thousands evacuated in the last few hours in Taiwan as Typhoon Fung-wong makes landfall.
The bill that would fund the government through the end of the year and end the nation’s longest federal shutdown eliminates support for the Department of Agriculture’s climate hubs. The proposed compromise to reopen the government would slash funding for USDA’s 10 climate hubs, which E&E News described as producing “regional research and data on extreme weather, natural disasters and droughts to help farmers make informed decisions.”
There were, however, some green shoots. A $730 million line item in the military’s budget could go to microgrids, renewables, or nuclear reactors. The bill also contains millions of dollars for the cleanup of so-called forever chemicals, which had stalled under the Trump administration. Still, the damage from the shutdown was severe. As Heatmap reported throughout the record-breaking funding lapse, the administration slashed funding for a backup energy storage system at a children’s hospital, major infrastructure projects in New York City, and droves of grants for clean energy.

Call it American exceptionalism. The effects of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act and America’s world-leading artificial intelligence development “have meaningfully altered” the International Energy Agency’s forecasts of global fossil fuel usage and emissions, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote this morning. The trajectory of global temperature rise may be, as I have written in this newsletter, so far largely unaffected by the new American administration’s policies. But multiple scenarios outlined in the Paris-based IEA’s 2025 World Energy Outlook predict “gas demand continues growing into the 2030s, due mainly to changes in U.S. policies and lower gas prices.”
That stands in contrast to China, a comparison that was inevitable this week as the world gathers for the United Nations climate summit in Belém, Brazil — the first that Washington is all but ignoring as the Trump administration moves to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. As I wrote here yesterday, China's emissions remained flat in the last quarter, extending a streak that began in March 2024.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Heatmap’s Jael Holzman had a big scoop last night: Yet another offshore wind project on the East Coast is kaput. The lawyers representing the Leading Light Wind offshore project filed a letter on November 7 to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities informing the regulator it “no longer sees any way to complete construction and wants to pull the plug,” Jael wrote. “The Board is well aware that the offshore wind industry has experienced economic and regulatory conditions that have made the development of new offshore wind projects extremely difficult,” counsel Colleen Foley wrote in the letter, a copy of which Jael got her hands on. The project was meant to be built 35 miles off New Jersey’s coast, and was expected to provide about 2.4 gigawatts of electricity to the power-starved state.
It’s the latest casualty of Trump’s “total war on wind,” and comes as other projects in Maryland and New England are fighting to retain permits amid the administration’s multi-agency onslaught.
Xcel Energy proposed extending the life of its Comanche 2 coal-fired power plant for 12 months past its shutdown date in December. The utility giant, backed by state officials and consumer advocates, told the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Monday that maintaining power production from the 50-year-old unit was important as the power plant scrambled to maintain enough power generation following the breakdown of the coal plant's third unit. The 335-megawatt Comanche 2 generator in Pueblo is expected to get approval to keep running. “We need it for resource adequacy and reliability, underlining that need for reliability and resource adequacy are central issues,” Robert Kenney, CEO of Xcel Energy’s Colorado subsidiary, told The Colorado Sun. The move comes as Trump’s Department of Energy is ordering coal plants in states such as Michigan to keep operating months past closure deadlines at the cost of millions of dollars per month to ratepayers, as I have previously written.
Pennsylvania, meanwhile, may be preparing to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the cap-and-trade market in which much of the Northeast’s biggest states partake. A state budget deal described by Spotlight PA reporter Stephen Caruso on X would remove the commonwealth from the market.
Germany and Spain vowed to give $100 million to the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, a $13 billion multilateral financing pool to help poor countries deal with the effects of climate change. The funding, announced Monday at an event at the U.N.’s Cop30 summit in Brazil, is “an opportunity too large to ignore,” Tariye Gbadegesin, chief executive officer of Climate Investment Funds, said in a statement. While mitigation work has long held priority in international lending, adaptation work to give some relief to the countries that contributed the least to climate change but pay the highest tolls from extreme weather has often received scant support. In his controversial memo calling for a sober, new direction for global funding, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates called on countries to take adaptation more seriously. For more on what he said, read the rundown Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote.
Right in time for the region’s most iconic season, when even celebrants in farflung parts of this country think of the old Puritan lands during Halloween and Thanksgiving, I bring to you what might be the most New England story ever. A blade broke off a wind turbine near Plymouth, Massachusetts, last week and landed in — get ready for it — a cranberry bog. The roughly 90-foot blade left behind debris, but “no one was hurt, and the turbine automatically shut itself down as designed,” the local fire chief said.
Rob and Jesse unpack one of the key questions of the global fight against climate change with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air’s Lauri Myllyvirta.
Robinson Meyer and Jesse Jenkins are off this week. Please enjoy this selection from the Shift Key archive.
China’s greenhouse gas emissions were essentially flat in 2024 — or they recorded a tiny increase, according to a November report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, or CREA. A third of experts surveyed by the report believe that its coal emissions have peaked. Has the world’s No. 1 emitter of carbon pollution now turned a corner on climate change?
Lauri Myllyvirta is the co-founder and lead analyst at CREA, an independent research organization focused on air pollution and headquartered in Finland. Myllyvirta has worked on climate policy, pollution, and energy issues in Asia for the past decade, and he lived in Beijing from 2015 to 2019.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with Lauri about whether China’s emissions have peaked, why the country is still building so much coal power (along with gobs of solar and wind), and the energy-intensive shift that its economy has taken in the past five years. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: When we think about Chinese demand emissions going forward, it sounds like — somewhat to my surprise, perhaps — this is increasingly a power sector story, which is … is that wrong? Is it an industrial story? Is it a …
Lauri Myllyvirta: I want to emphasize the steel sector besides power. So if you simply look at what the China Steel Association is projecting, which is a gradual, gentle decline in total output and the increase in the availability of scrap. If you use that to replace coal-based with electricity-based steelmaking, you can achieve an about 40% reduction in steelmaking emissions over the next decade.
Of course, some of that is going to shift to electricity, so you need the clean electricity as well to realize it. But that’s at least as large an opportunity as there is on the power sector, so that’s what I’m telling everyone — that if you want to understand what China can accomplish over the next decade, it’s these two sectors, first and foremost.
Jesse Jenkins: Yeah. I mean, there’s some positive overall trends, right? If you look at the arc that we’re seeing in each sector, with renewables growth starting to outpace demand growth in electricity and eat into coal in absolute terms, not just market share, with the transition in the steel industry — which is sort of a story that we’ve seen in multiple countries as they move through different phases, right? As you’re building out your primary infrastructure, the first time you don’t have enough scrap, but as the infrastructure and rate of car recycling and things like that goes up, you now have a much larger supply. And that’s the case in the U.S., where the vast majority of our steel now comes from scrap.
And then, you know, the slowdown in the construction boom — China’s built an enormous amount of infrastructure and housing, and there’s only so much more that they need. And so the pace of that construction is likely to fall, as well. And then finally, the big shift to EVs in the transportation sector. So you’ve got your four largest-emitting sources on a very positive trajectory when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Mentioned:
CREA’s reports on China’s emissions trajectory
Chinese EV companies beat their own targets in 2024
How China Created an EV Juggernaut
Jeremy Wallace: China Can’t Decide if It Wants to Be the World’s First ‘Electrostate’
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.