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 decarbonization benefits abound.

Electric vehicles? Really?
Is it really true that Heatmap looked at every way that you can decarbonize your life, meditated upon the politics, did the math, and concluded … that you should buy an EV? Are EVs really that important to fighting climate change?
You’ll find more thorough answers to all those questions throughout Decarbonize Your Life (plus our guide to buying an EV), but the short answer is: Yes. If you really need a car, then switching from a gas car to an electric vehicle (or at least a plug-in hybrid) is the most important step you can take to combat climate change. And it’s not only good for your personal carbon footprint, it’s good for the entire energy system.
Here is why we make that recommendation — and why you should trust us:
The best reason to use an electric vehicle is the most straightforward one: Driving an EV produces fewer greenhouse gases than driving a gasoline- or diesel-burning car. The Department of Energy estimates that the average EV operating in the U.S. produces 2,727 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution each year, while the average gasoline-burning car emits 12,594 pounds of carbon dioxide. Even a conventional hybrid vehicle — like a Toyota Prius — emits 6,800 pounds of CO2, or roughly 2.5 times as much as an EV.
These gains hold almost regardless of how you analyze the question. Even in states where coal makes up a large share of the power grid — such as West Virginia, Wyoming, or Missouri — EVs produce half as much CO2 as gasoline vehicles, according to the DOE. That’s because EVs are much more energy efficient than internal combustion vehicles. So even though coal is a dirtier energy source than gasoline or diesel, EVs need to use far less of it (in the form of electricity) to drive an additional mile.
EVs retain this carbon advantage even when you take into account their full “lifecycle” emissions — the cost of mining minerals, refining them, building a battery, and shipping a vehicle to its final destination. Across the full lifetime of a vehicle, EVs will release 57% to 68% less climate pollution than internal-combustion cars in the United States, according to a landmark analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation. (As the publication Carbon Brief has shown, many analyses of EVs versus gas cars fail to take into account the full lifecycle emissions of the fossil-fuel system: the carbon pollution produced by extracting, refining, and transporting a gallon of gasoline.)
Even if you only care about emissions math, two more important reasons justify switching to an EV.
First, when you switch to an EV, you cut down enormously on the marginal environmental cost of driving an additional mile. Most of an EV’s environmental harm is “front-loaded” in its lifetime; that is, it is associated with the cost of producing and selling that vehicle. (Most electronics, including smartphones and laptops, have a similarly front-loaded carbon cost.)
But the carbon emissions of driving an additional mile are relatively low. In other words, converting an additional kilowatt of electricity into a mile on the road is relatively benign for the climate.
That’s not the case for an internal combustion vehicle. In a conventional gasoline- or diesel-powered car, every additional mile you drive requires you to burn more fossil fuels.
Don’t overthink it: There is no way to operate a gasoline or diesel car without burning more fossil fuels. Conventional ICE cars are machines that turn fossil fuels into (1) miles on the road and (2) greenhouse gas pollution. This means that — importantly — using an internal combustion vehicle, or even a conventional hybrid vehicle, will never be climate-friendly.
That’s why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that switching to an electrified transportation system — in other words, switching from gas cars to EVs — is “likely crucial” for cutting climate pollution and meeting the Paris Agreement goals. As the International Council on Clean Transportation concluded recently, “There is no realistic pathway for deep decarbonization of combustion engine vehicles.”
This calculus is likely to improve over time. Over the past decade, the U.S. power grid’s climate pollution has plunged while emissions from the transportation sector have slightly risen; we anticipate that, over the next decade, the U.S. power grid’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to decline at least moderately. Energy experts also expect more renewables to get built, and that natural gas will continue to drive coal off of the grid. These changes mean that the per-mile cost of driving an EV will likely fall. (If you’re in the market for an EV, Heatmap is here to guide you.)
When you switch to an EV, you do something else, too — something that may sound self-evident but is actually quite important: You increase demand for EVs and for the EV ecosystem.
To be painfully direct about why this is important, this means that you stop spending so much money into the gasoline-powered driving system — the network of car dealers, gas stations, and oil companies that subsist on fossil fuels — and begin paying for products and services from the car dealerships, charging stations, and automakers who have invested in the new, low-carbon future.
This is more important than it may seem at first. In the United States, automakers have struggled to ramp up their EV production in part because consumers haven’t been buying their EVs. EVs are a manufactured good, and the world is betting on their continued technological improvement. The more EVs get made at a company or industry level, the cheaper they should get. When you buy an EV, you prime the pump for further improvements in that manufacturing chain.
Under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has adopted rules that could make EVs more than half of all new cars sold by 2032. But those rules are somewhat flexible — automakers could also meet them by selling a lot of conventional and plug-in hybrids — and they are under legal threat. If Donald Trump wins this year’s presidential election, then he will almost certainly roll them back, much as he reversed the Obama administration’s less ambitious car rules. And even if Kamala Harris wins, then the zealously conservative Supreme Court could easily throw out the rules.
Under most future scenarios, in other words, American consumers will have considerable power over how rapidly the country switches to electric vehicles. Even in a world where the federal government keeps subsidizing EV manufacturing and offers a $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers, the country’s transition to EVs will still depend on ordinary American families deciding to make a change and buy the cars.
So if you want to decarbonize your life, switching to an EV — provided that you drive enough for it to make sense — is one of the most important steps that you can take.
When you switch to an electric vehicle, you are doing several things. First, you are cutting off a source of demand for the oil industry. Second, you are creating a new source of demand for the EV industry. Third, you are generating new demand for the companies and infrastructure — such as charging stations — that will be needed for the entire transition.
Buying an EV is a climate decision that makes sense if you want to cut your carbon footprint and if you want to change the American energy system. That’s why it’s Heatmap’s No. 1 recommendation for how to decarbonize your life.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Three climate stories that caught my eye today.
It’s been a busy few days for climate and energy news. So instead of focusing on a single story in this edition, let’s try something different and check in with a few big ones I’ve been thinking about:
Wednesday was the hottest day ever recorded in France, according to the country’s weather agency, Météo-France. The commune of Palluau, not so far from the country’s Atlantic coast, recorded a high of 43.8 degrees Celsius, or 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
The United Kingdom also set a new June temperature record. Spanish officials have suggested that the heat wave may have killed as many as 212 in their country alone. Germany, Austria, Italy, and the rest of central Europe also face searing weather.
I was particularly struck that many cities in France and Germany recorded their warmest night ever. A town in Rhineland-Palatinate, for instance, saw overnight temperatures remain above 79 degrees Fahrenheit earlier this week.
Although that might not sound so bad to American ears, it is alarming in a country where most homes do not have air conditioning. Heat waves are the deadliest type of weather event on an annual basis, but they are slow and silent killers: They prove fatal when temperatures stay high for hours, or days, at a time, and the body’s natural cooling mechanisms give out. The human body can withstand a hot day or two; it can’t hold out a hot day, a hot night, another hot day, another hot night, ad nauseam.
And let’s clearly say, too: This is climate change. As my colleague Jeva Lange wrote in 2024, record-breaking heat is the clearest symptom of anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon emissions — and therefore fossil fuels. Preventing disasters like this one is why Europe, the fastest-warming continent, has invested so much in decarbonization and net zero.
(But I suspect that in the coming years, it will invest more in air conditioning, too.)
Once a quarter, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas surveys oil and gas executives on how they're feeling about the sector. Their anonymous comments, collected at the report’s end, periodically make news — last year, you might recall, respondents were less than thrilled with the president’s policies — but I was struck by a comment in the most recent survey, which came out yesterday.
“The collision of AI development with local community activists rhymes with the early response to fracking,” one unnamed drilling executive said. “It's unclear how competitive we can be in the AI arms race unless we temper the rights given to NIMBYists (not in my backyard) and the legal maneuvers they use to stop progress.”
Now, look: Oil and gas executives care about the boom in part because data centers are major energy consumers. But this comment stood out because it uses the same historical analogy I’ve been meditating on. If you think back to the early 2010s, I’ve said, fracking was new and worrying to many people. But over the course of the decade it became politically polarized, with red states and some purple states embracing it and many blue states backing off of or banning it.
That’s been my framework. So I was shocked to see that J. Stuart Adams, the president of Utah’s state senate, lost his primary to a fellow Republican challenger this week. The campaign was driven by Adams’ approval of a massive data center partly owned by the “Shark Tank” celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary, known as Mr. Wonderful. The 40,000-acre data center — which could consume up to 9 gigawatts, a New-York-City-on-a-warm-spring-day’s amount of power — has proven to be enormously unpopular in Utah, and Adams ultimately demanded O’Leary shrink the project. But that didn’t pacify Republican primary voters, who have now booted Adams from a 20-year career in state politics.
Why does this matter? Because that’s not very fracking-like at all. In the 2010s, state and local Republican leaders may have faced tough battles over pipelines or eminent domain, but their voters did not broadly reject oil and gas development the way they seem to be doing for data centers now. (As our polling at Heatmap shows, the facilities are now deeply unpopular even among GOP voters.) This suggests data centers may be closer to what, say, urban housing projects or nuclear power plants once were to the American electorate — a type of highly controversial economic development that local politicians must either “own” or “fight,” and which, regardless, they see as existential for their careers.
And that in turn suggests a very different future for data centers — and a very different electricity load growth forecast — may be coming.
One last thing, and it's short. Like all middle-aged millennials, I pine for the return of cheap, useful pickup trucks like the old Ford Ranger or Toyota Tacoma. And like all millennial climate journalists, I wish electric vehicles were cheaper.
So I was delighted to see the news that the U.S. startup Slate has somehow managed to build a $25,000 two-seater pickup EV. It says it will start delivering them by the end of this year. Read Heatmap’s new piece by Andrew Moseman to learn how they did it.
Today’s top-of-the-line electric vehicles are self-driving computers on wheels built to feel as futuristic and digital as possible. They come with artificial intelligence-powered assistants, enormous touchscreen interfaces, and huge batteries.
The Slate pickup truck’s signature feature? Hand-crank windows.
As Slate Auto has developed its attempt at the bare-bones EV over the past couple of years, its 1990s-nostalgic manual windows became a symbolic choice, one meant to signal just how far it was willing to go in pursuit of affordability. On Wednesday, Slate gave us a fuller picture, revealing the details about its vehicle and providing a glimpse at how the Jeff Bezos-backed startup plans to sell an EV truck at an entry-level price. But while the pickup’s lack of power windows or a built-in stereo system are attention-grabbers, a lot of the savings lie under the skin.
Just how cheap is it? The “Blank Slate,” a version of the truck with zero bells and whistles, starts a hair under $25,000. This is a compact truck in the spirit of decades past, with two seats up front and nothing more. For a Slate that seats more than a couple, choose the SUV or fastback configuration that bumps up the price to about $30,000 or $32,000, respectively.

From there, Slate’s à la carte model takes over. Choosing a wrap to make your whole truck a color other than gray costs $499, though blessedly, Slate provides dozens of color choices as opposed to the handful of neutrals and muted colors offered on a typical new car. The portal to design one’s Slate becomes a rabbit hole of possible choices — custom taillight designs, roof racks, and wheels — all of which add a little or a lot to the price of the truck. These add-ons can quickly propel a Slate deep into the mid- or even high-$30,000s range if you’re not careful. The point, though, is that the $25,000 EV is front and center.
To achieve this starting price required a heavy dose of vintage or simplified tech. Roll-down windows and no built-in stereo speak to drivers who aren’t automotive engineering experts. But as reviewers and online commenters have noted, crank windows aren’t a make-or-break money-saver — they might knock off $20 or $40 per vehicle — and so few companies use them now that Slate had to go out of its way to source them from Brazil.

A bigger cost-cutter was Slate’s embrace of old-school manufacturing and its willingness to consider “yestertech” that’s still perfectly serviceable, but has fallen out of use because better systems have come along. The chassis, for example, is made of ordinary steel — 250 pieces welded together as opposed to the more efficient stamping methods that have taken over automotive manufacturing. While Slate has a familiar, inexpensive MacPherson suspension up front, its rear uses a design called the De Dion that dates back to the late 1800s. (The Autopian has a nice technical write-up about why this choice makes sense.)
We often default to calling EVs smartphones on wheels because of the Tesla approach to making them — the so-called software-defined vehicle that routes its main functions through touchscreen interfaces and gets new features via over-the-air updates. So perhaps a comparison to the phone industry is apt. In the same way budget-conscious buyers were waiting for Apple to make the “affordable iPhone,” drivers have been waiting for the automakers to roll out the entry-level EV. But instead of the cheap Tesla, what we got is the Slate, which is something more like a flip phone on wheels.
That’s not to say it won’t succeed. Flip phones are enjoying a resurgence, after all, powered by their low price and by growing dissatisfaction with life in this age of touchscreens. But Slate’s unusual position in the car industry makes it difficult to predict how American drivers will respond. For those shopping solely on price, Slate may not measure up. The cheapest gas-powered cars in America include the likes of the Toyota Corolla, Hyundai Elantra, and Volkswagen Jetta, and their starting price in the mid-$20,000s includes the basic creature comforts you’d expect from a modern car, not to mention seating for at least four. In a world that still had the $7,500 federal tax credit for buying an EV, the Slate would undercut these gas-burners. In this world, it can’t (though you could add a slew of options to the Slate before it would cost the same as the $35,000 electric truck under development at Ford’s skunkworks operation).

What Slate has going for it, though, is its ability to become the exact car you’d like. Normal cars come with three or four “trim levels,” each of which adds a thousand dollars or two in exchange for more features. In practice, many people are stuck with whatever version they can actually track down at a dealership. Slate follows the Tesla-Rivian model of direct-to-consumer sales, and its trademark customizability means buyers are limited to picking from two or three versions of a car, but can design every single piece of their truck.
To be sure, lots of people don’t want this. Many are presumably happier buying a car off the familiar lot without the mental overload of choosing every single thing about their vehicle. The question is whether a quorum of drivers are ready for a new way to buy a car — or at least, so fed up with fluctuating gas prices and the out-of-control prices of new vehicles that they’re ready to take a chance on rolling their windows again.
Current conditions: France just recorded its hottest day ever, with Wednesday’s temperatures soaring to just under 111 degrees Fahrenheit; nearly 50 people died drowning while seeking respite from the heat • A pair of 7.1-magnitude earthquakes struck Venezuela, collapsing buildings in Caracas • Wind has whipped the Cottonwood Fire, one of six wildfires raging in Utah, into a larger blaze now covering 60,000 acres — and it’s still at 0% containment.
New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce committee, joined calls for a national moratorium on data center construction ahead of Wednesday afternoon’s markup of a series of bills related to the buildout of infrastructure to support artificial intelligence software. In a statement, Pallone described the bills as a “useful first step,” but one that, “compared to the challenges the American power grid is facing,” amounts to “not nearly enough.” Rather, he backed a “national AI data center moratorium until we can find a way to ensure they don’t harm our nation’s air, water, and power bills.” Pallone’s new public position makes him one of the highest-ranking Democrats yet to back the idea, championed by the likes of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of halting permitting on new data centers in response to the growing blowback from voters.
Pallone’s shift comes in response to the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would enshrine into law the voluntary pledge tech companies signed with the White House to pay for grid costs from their server farms. Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote earlier this week that the bill was “not so much an anti-artificial intelligence or anti-data center bill, but rather a move to insulate further data center development from political pressure stemming from rising electricity costs.” When Pallone made his statement a day later, Matthew wrote: “Well, at least one influential lawmaker seems to agree with me.”
The Iran War has cost the average American car owner an extra $156 and the average SUV driver another $232 in gasoline costs, according to new data from the policy shop Third Way. But the newly mapped analysis, shared exclusively with me, shows that Republican-leaning states in the Mountain West and beyond paid some of the highest prices for a conflict. Alaska saw one of the biggest spikes, with gas prices rising by $1.40 per gallon, a 39% increase. Wyoming followed close behind, with prices soaring by $1.37 per gallon, a 50% surge. Prices in Utah, meanwhile, climbed by $1.30, or 47%. That stands in contrast to many big Democratic-leaning states. New York’s gas prices rose by $1.23, or 41%, while California’s prices went up $0.94, or 20%. That, of course, doesn’t reflect where the prices were already high. I just returned this week from a trip to Los Angeles, where gas was nearly twice as expensive as in New York City.
Century Aluminum, America’s largest primary aluminum producer and the developer behind the first new U.S. smelter in 50 years, has inked a deal with a green cement startup to supply a key raw material. Brimstone, known as a major player in the race to commercialize green cement, also generates alumina. On Wednesday, the startup unveiled a memorandum of understanding with Century Aluminum to establish a domestic “mine to metal supply chain” for aluminum made from scratch rather than scrap. “Foreign sources, including China, currently dominate global alumina production. Brimstone is bringing alumina production home and doing it at a globally competitive price,” Brimstone CEO Cody Finke said in a press release. “Brimstone is upending the massive global imbalance by producing alumina from rock quarried here in the United States.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Until the nation’s flagship reactor project came online and transformed Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Generating Station in eastern Georgia into America’s most powerful atomic electrical plant, Arizona’s Palo Verde Generating Station was the No.1 nuclear facility by size in the country. The desert state is now looking to reclaim its mantle. The trio of utilities Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, and Tucson Electric Power said Wednesday they are continuing “to work together to explore adding nuclear generation in Arizona.” The next step, the companies said, is a siting study that’s expected to be completed within the next six months. The Arizona Corporation Commission, the regulator in charge of utilities in the state, is holding an informational workshop today.
Meanwhile, the developer behind Canada’s flagship reactor design — which, because it’s cooled with pressurized heavy water, can run on raw uranium — just submitted initial paperwork to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to start the licensing process to approve what’s known as the CANDU. Pronounced CAN-do and produced by manufacturer AtkinsRéalis, the reactor is the workhorse of the Canadian and Indian fleets and can be built reliably, but requires more maintenance than the light water reactors that run on enriched uranium and make up the entire U.S. fleet. “As the United States enters a new chapter in its civilian nuclear program, AtkinsRéalis is uniquely positioned, as the steward of CANDU technology, to help advance the country’s ambitious energy policy through proven, low-cost reactor technology with a world-class reputation,” Ian L. Edwards, the company’s president and chief executive, said in a statement. As I told you last month, the CANDU is at the heart of Canada’s new nuclear strategy.

The world needs a lot more copper. And while siting and building new mines takes time, two of the planet’s biggest producers are preparing to increase production at existing mines. On Wednesday, London-based Anglo American and the Chilean state-owned Codelco inked a deal to increase production through a joint venture at Los Bronces and Andina copper mines in the South American nation. The joint mining plan is expected to unlock 2.7 million metric tons of additional copper over a 21-year period, delivering an average of 12,000 tons per year. The increase comes with “minimal capital investment” and should bring the new supply online by 2030. “This agreement represents a more efficient and responsible way to develop one of the world’s leading copper districts,” Bernardo Fontaine, Codelco’s chairman, said in a statement. “It allows us to make better use of existing infrastructure, capture greater benefits for Chile, and move forward with a long-term vision based on operational excellence, sustainability, and the responsible use of resources.”
If green hydrogen is the stuff made with clean electricity and water and blue hydrogen is made with natural gas equipped with carbon capture, then the orange stuff is found in underground rock formations where naturally occurring gas forms and then is encouraged to continue forming through artificial means. Heatmap’s Katie Brigham did a good job of explaining the concept here. Well, now a French renewables developer FDE is promising to start producing orange hydrogen “by late 2028 or early 2029” after finding a naturally-occurring underground reservoir in northern France that can be tapped and stimulated to produce additional fuel, Hydrogen Insight reported.