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:
Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they would pay more to buy a U.S.-made EV over a similar Chinese model. Here's why that's significant for Biden's climate law.
Consider for a moment that you are deciding between two electric cars for purchase.
The first is a name-brand American-made EV.
The second is almost identical — same range, same features, same reviews — but it is $5,000 cheaper than the first vehicle, and it is made in China.
Which would you choose?
When asked a nearly identical version of this question last month, nearly four out of every five Americans — some 78% of adults — said that they would buy the more expensive, U.S.-made car, new results from the Heatmap Climate Poll have found. Only 22% of adults said that they would choose the less expensive Chinese vehicle.
The results, which arrive as the Biden administration is finalizing rules that will govern new electric-car subsidies, suggest that many Americans are willing to support costly measures to boost a home-grown EV industry. And it offers some of the first evidence that Americans — who have long told pollsters that they want to buy U.S.-made products, but that they won’t pay extra for them — may be changing their views and buying habits in light of geopolitics.
The result “highlights the opportunity under the [Inflation Reduction Act] that not only Biden has, but the broader U.S. automotive sector has,” Corey Cantor, a senior associate for electric vehicles at BloombergNEF, a clean-energy analysis group, told me. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed last year, contains what analysts have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for companies that manufacture EVs or their batteries in the United States.
The poll adds ballast to one of the law’s central ideas: that Americans would support policy to boost U.S. domestic industry as much — or more — than they would back a more straightforward decarbonization measure. “It sounds like the IRA’s theory — or Joe Manchin’s theory, or Biden’s theory — is really well supported by the American public,” Cantor said, referencing the two Democrats most often credited with the bill’s design.
The EV question united Americans across party, gender, race, age, and ideological lines. Among people who voted for Trump in 2020, 83% said that they would choose the American car; 76% of Biden voters agreed. More than 80% of white, Black, and Asian Americans each picked the domestic model. So did similar majorities of older and younger Americans, men and women, Democrats and Republicans, and college graduates and those without a college degree.
Even among prospective EV buyers — presumably the most cost-sensitive cohort — 75% said that they would choose the pricier, U.S.-made car. The Heatmap Climate Poll, a scientific survey of 1,000 American adults in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, was conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group and Heatmap News during a five-day period last month.
An opinion poll is not a guarantee of consumer behavior. But in the past, Americans have generally said they would choose U.S.-made products only if they cost about as much as foreign-made goods. In 2016, an Associated Press-GFK poll found that while about 75% of Americans wanted to buy U.S.-made products, only about 30% were willing to pay more for them. According to a Boston Consulting Group analysis, Americans tend to be willing to pay about 5% more for a domestic-made product, The Washington Post has reported. With the average price of a new car approaching $50,000, Americans now seem to say that they will pay more than double that to avoid a Chinese-made electric vehicle.
For now, that preference probably has bigger political implications than consumer ones. Although China makes more EVs than any other country and dominates global market share, relatively few Chinese-made vehicles make their way to the United States. The American government has imposed high tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and EV parts — including key minerals used in electronics such as lithium, cobalt, and cadmium — since 2018.
Probably the highest-profile Chinese-made EV now sold in the United States is the Polestar 2, a well-reviewed, roughly $50,000 sedan that gets 300 miles of range. Although Polestar is headquartered in Sweden and associated with Volvo, it is controlled by Li Shufu, a Chinese billionaire and the founder of the Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, China’s seventh-largest carmaker. Geely also owns Volvo, so some of Volvo’s electric cars — such as the XC40 Recharge, a small SUV — use the same underlying “platform,” or shared set of design and engineering components, as Geely’s cars.
But aspects of this arrangement are changing. Polestar has said that its next car, the Polestar 3 — an $83,000 SUV due to go on sale later this year — will be made in Ridgeville, South Carolina.
Chinese-made EVs have been welcomed more warmly elsewhere in the world. The five most popular EVs in Australia are all made in China. BYD, a Chinese firm that is by some measures already the world’s largest EV maker, sells cars there and across northern Europe; it plans to expand to the U.K., Japan, and Mexico this year. So do Geely and Nio, another Chinese automaker. And some American firms are deepening their China ties: Tesla’s Shanghai plant is the company’s largest factory worldwide.
“European consumers have been fairly favorable” to Chinese EVs, Cantor said. “The response has been more like, This is a cool car, they’re a cool company. There’s a more complicated geopolitical relationship for any Chinese company to come into the American market.”
Dan Wang, a technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, an economic-research firm based in Beijing, said that Americans may not be ready for how different these Made-in-China EVs will initially feel. “It’s not clear that the mindset [that Chinese automakers] bring from the Chinese market — featuring greater phone connectivity and a richer infotainment experience for the rider — meets the taste of Americans,” he told me.
That said, the poll question may be unrealistic about China’s ability to make cost-efficient EVs in the American market. In addition to the high tariffs, the federal government will soon provide subsidies of up to $7,500 to EVs that meet strict U.S.-made standards; it is due to announce that program’s details later this week.
Even beyond EVs, a large majority of Americans seemed to back the IRA’s broad, industry-forward approach when it was described to them in neutral terms, the poll found. Asked to choose from a list of pro-climate policies, just under half of Americans said that they would support a carbon tax. But 69% said that they wanted the government to invest “in technologies that greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” such as renewables or carbon removal. Essentially the same share said they supported requiring businesses to buy a certain share of their energy from renewable or zero-carbon sources.
Perhaps above all, the poll hints at Americans’ deepening skepticism of what was once one of the central bargains in its global trade agreements: that the U.S. should accept less domestic manufacturing in exchange for cheaper consumer prices. Americans — at least when asked hypothetically and about their own pocketbooks — don’t seem as willing to make that exchange anymore. Will they make the same decision at the dealership? The answer will matter to more than just the auto industry.
The Heatmap Climate Poll of 1,000 American adults was conducted via online panels by Benenson Strategy Group from Feb. 15 to 20, 2023. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.02 percentage points. You can read more about the topline results here.
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 American wind industry faces a potentially existential threat.
President Trump’s executive order halting permits and leases for wind projects is starting to look like a potential existential threat to the industry’s future. Just don’t expect everyone to say it out loud.
On Monday, Trump issued an order pausing new federal approvals for wind projects, pending a “comprehensive assessment” of permitting practices, while opening the door to a review of existing leases and previously-issued permits subject to litigation. In the days following the order, lawyers, industry trade representatives, and professionals who work for renewable energy developers explained to me how this could impact essentially any wind project, even ones not sited on federal lands. Wind projects are just so large and impactfulthat it’s hard to avoid a federal permit.
Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, told me Wednesday afternoon that a pause on federal permits would impact “probably more than half” of all wind projects under development in the U.S.
“If in fact the federal government stops issuing approvals, a significant amount of the pipeline would be interrupted,” Grumet said.
Given the high costs associated with building a wind project, and the likelihood of tariffs making that situation worse, the uncertainty produced by a potential halt to permits may also be enough to cause developers to pull the plug on projects – because even if the order itself winds up tossed out in court, that could take years.
As one renewable energy professional told me anonymously, for fear of reprisal, “If we say, well we probably have the right to do this but we have to sue the government to enforce that right, it’s probably only going to get the [project] deal done 40% of the time now.” He concluded: “It’s definitely going to chill investment.”
It’s early days, and Grumet of ACP says he’s holding out hope that the new president can be walked back from the brink. He’s focusing on the possibility that people in the administration including Trump’s picks to run the Interior and Energy Departments – Doug Burgum and Chris Wright – are willing to listen and potentially help walk back a complete and total permitting shutdown.
When asked however if suing the administration may be required, Grumet said it’s a hypothetical that could come true in the worst case scenarios.
“We’re taking it seriously. But the idea that you would have a pro-business administration trying to stop private companies from taking economically appropriate action on private land is just so out of step with the role of government that we’re expecting they’re going to clarify their intent.”
Trump’s executive order is so far-reaching because wind projects regularly need federal permits and other authorizations, even if they’re sited on private or state lands.
A commonly cited federal nexus is endangered species. Opponents of wind energy have long criticized turbines for being a potential threat to birds, but it is the case that many wind projects are collocated within or near areas for rare bird migration. Cultural heritage impacts can often also be a difficulty.
One major threat I’ve been hearing about from many in the industry flew out of left field: the Federal Aviation Administration often must clear wind projects for construction. Matt Eisenson, an expert in renewables permitting at the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told me FAA approvals are required “very frequently” for wind projects because any land structure more than 200 feet tall must be approved to not be a hazard for commercial planes. And while the order didn’t cite the FAA specifically, it instructed all “relevant agencies” to wind permitting stop giving approvals related to projects, opening the door to aviation-related clearances idling on a procedural tarmac.
“Its hard to avoid it if you’ve got anything sizable,” an attorney who works in the renewable energy industry told me, adding the total scope of impact is still unknown: “There’s nobody you could talk to who could have nearly all the answers [about Trump’s order]. And that includes developers and companies, because they don’t know either.” (It’s worth noting no industry attorney would be willing to go on the record with me because of ongoing impacts to clients.)
Then there’s the existing leases and permits. It’s easy to assume that a permit issued is a permit safe, and the Biden administration quickly rushed approvals for many wind projects, onshore and offshore, in the final days before Trump’s inauguration.
But the order left open a process to challenge existing approvals through litigation. In the offshore wind space, we’re already seeing public requests for Trump to review the leases for the MarWin project off the coast of Maryland and Delaware, and Atlantic Shores off the coast of New Jersey.
Paul Kamenar, a lawyer involved in a suit challenging Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, says we can expect the same in his case. Kamenar is with the National Legal and Policy Center, which joined with the Heartland Institute and anti-wind group CFACT to sue the government for approving Coastal Virginia, claiming it did not consider the cumulative impacts of building the project on endangered whales.
Kamenar told me he believes the order shows Trump’s team is sympathetic to the arguments raised in the case, and he’s planning to file a request for the federal government to reconsider its permits and leasing for the project as soon as next week. Kamenar said the order provides avenues for similar challenges to many other projects.
“I think this affects all the onshore and offshore wind projects,” Kamenar said. “Some more than others. But if I were the energy company, I would be loath to continue going forward until I got clarification.”
Eisenson at Columbia told me the executive order “opened the door” to a massive range of new potential hurdles for wind development. He sees legal vulnerabilities in the executive order because there’s a history in recent case law surrounding Biden’s pauses on federal oil and gas leasing. But that’s cold comfort for an industry with such high capital costs that it describes low interest rates as its “fuel.”
“This could have a major chilling impact,” Eisenson said. “Even if the EO is unlawful, it could take years in court to invalidate an unlawful decision.”
The president’s early executive orders give the once-and-future head of the Office of Management and Budget far-reaching powers.
When Donald Trump has talked about his new administration’s energy policy leaders, he has focused, so far, on a specific type of person.
You might call them energy insiders. At the highest level, they include Doug Burgum, the former North Dakota governor and incoming interior secretary, and Chris Wright, the fracking executive and incoming energy secretary. Both soon-to-be officials know a lot about how the energy industry works, and they hold beliefs about energy development that — while far from aligned with the climate policy mainstream — are directionally in agreement with many in the fossil fuel industry itself.
But based on a close reading of Trump’s initial executive orders, they are not the only officials who will wield power in the Trump administration. Instead, crucial energy policy will be decided in part by a small number of individuals who have no special insight into the energy industry, but who do have various dogmatic ideas about how the government and the economy should work. The most powerful of this second group is Russ Vought, a lead author of Project 2025 and the director-designate of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Trump’s initial orders establish the White House Office of Management and Budget, known as OMB, as an unmistakable de facto power center for energy and climate policy in the administration. In clause after clause of Trump’s orders, energy officials across the federal government are told to consult with the OMB director before they can make a decision, rewrite a regulation, or disburse funding.
Even in more constrained presidencies, OMB has been a particularly powerful agency. As the largest office in the White House, OMB is in charge of writing the president’s annual budget proposal and working with Congress on legislation; one of its suboffices, the Office of Information and Regulation, approves new federal rules before they are finalized.
Vought’s vision for the agency goes far beyond those traditional lines, though. He believes that OMB can play a role in curtailing the size of the federal government and firing reams of civil servants. He argues that the White House can claw back funding that has been appropriated by Congress, even though the Constitution gives control over “the power of the purse” to Congress alone.
Trump’s executive orders suggest that Vought’s OMB will seek to uproot existing energy policy — and that some of his earliest attempts at freezing congressional spending may affect the climate.
A provision in Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, signed hours after his inauguration, pauses all funding tied to the Inflation Reduction Act or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law until Vought personally approves of it.
This provision appeared to freeze all funding tied to either law for 90 days, a drastic move that could already violate Congress’s spending authority under the Constitution. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a federal law that governs this authority, allows the president to pause funding for 45 days, not 90. (Vought believes that this law is “unconstitutional.”)
Then it allows Vought and Kevin Hassett, who will lead Trump’s National Economic Council, discretion over whether that money gets spent. “No funds identified in this subsection … shall be disbursed by a given agency until the Director of OMB and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy have determined that such disbursements are consistent with any review recommendations they have chosen to adopt,” the order says.
After this order threw billions of dollars of federal highway and transportation funding into question, the White House seemed to walk back some of the policy Tuesday, clarifying that it only sought to block funding related to what it called President Joe Biden’s “Green New Deal.” (Even this change still leaves open exactly what funding has been frozen.)
This is not the only place where OMB appears in Trump’s energy orders. The “Unleashing American Energy” directive requires the head of the Environmental Protection Administration to reopen a study into whether carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are dangerous air pollutants.
The EPA first found that greenhouse gases cause climate change — and are therefore dangerous — in 2009. The first Trump administration didn’t try to overturn this finding because it is scientifically unimpeachable.
The same order also says that OMB will soon issue new rules governing agency actions “when procuring goods and services, making decisions about leases, and making other arrangements that result in disbursements of Federal funds.”
Missing from the new executive orders is virtually any mention of the National Energy Council, the new Burgum-led entity that Trump has said he will create in the White House. It’s still unclear what role this body will play in the Trump administration, but it has been described as a nerve center for decision-making about all energy policy. The new array of orders suggest OMB may already be claiming part of that role.
That said, the Interior and Energy secretaries make their own appearance in the orders. The orders direct the Secretary of the Interior to investigate what can be done to speed up and grant permits for domestic mining. And the orders convene the Endangered Species Act’s so-called “God squad,” a council of agency heads that can override provisions in the conservation law. The Interior Secretary sits on this powerful committee.
The most significant sign of Wright’s influence, meanwhile, is that Trump’s declaration of an energy “emergency” calls out energy technologies that he favors or that his company has invested in, including geothermal technology and nuclear fission.
One possible reason for Wright and Burgum’s absence: Neither has yet joined the administration officially. Both are likely to be confirmed by the Senate on Thursday. They might want to talk to their colleague Russ Vought when they get in the door.
On Trump’s EPA appointees, solar in Europe, and a new fire in California.
Current conditions:Ireland and the UK are preparing for heavy rain and 90 mile per hour winds from the coming Storm Eowyn, which will hit early Friday morning • A magnitude 5.7 earthquake struck the Philippines on Thursday • The Los Angeles fire department quickly stopped a new brush fire that erupted near Bel Air on Wednesday night from progressing.
The Hughes Fire, which broke out Wednesday morning near a state recreation area in northwest Los Angeles County, grew rapidly to more than 10,000 acres — nearly the size of the Eaton Fire in Alatadena — within just a few hours. CalFire, the state fire agency, ordered more than 30,000 people to evacuate, and 20,000 more were warned to prepare for mandatory evacuation. Harrowing footage posted online by United Farm Workers shows strawberry pickers in nearby Ventura County harvesting through a thick orange haze. But by Wednesday night, the fire was 14% contained and had only burned through brush — no structures have been reported as damaged. L.A. County is still under a red flag warning until Friday morning. A light rain is expected over the weekend.
Resting after evacuating near Castaic, California.Mario Tama/Getty Images
The European Union got more of its electricity in 2024 from solar panels than from coal-fired power plants — the first time solar has overtaken coal for an entire year in the bloc, according to a new analysis by the think tank Ember. The group found that natural gas power also declined, cutting total 2024 EU power sector emissions to below half of their 2007 peak. Renewable energy now makes up nearly half of EU energy generation, up from about a third in 2019, when the European Green Deal became law. Another 24% of its power comes from nuclear, meaning that nearly three-quarters of the EU’s power is now carbon-free. “Fossil fuels are losing their grip on EU energy,” Chris Rosslowe, a senior analyst at Ember and lead author of the report said in a press release.
Chart courtesy of Ember
Three former Environmental Protection Agency staffers who played key roles undoing chemical, climate, and water regulations during Trump’s first term are heading back to the agency. Nancy Beck, a toxicologist and former director of regulatory policy for the chemical industry’s main trade group, the American Chemistry Council, has been named a senior adviser to the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety, according to The New York Times. She famously re-wrote a rule that made it harder to track the health effects of “forever chemicals.” Lynn Ann Dekleva, who had a 30-year run at DuPont (which invented forever chemicals) before joining the first Trump administration, has been appointed a deputy assistant administrator overseeing new chemicals. Lastly, David Fotouhi, a lawyer who most recently fought the EPA’s ban on asbestos and previously helped Trump roll back federal protections for wetlands, has been nominated to return to the agency as one of its top brass — deputy administrator.
Two partially-built nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina, abandoned in 2017 after their construction became a boondoggle, could be the latest prize for a data center developer looking for clean, 24/7 power. South Carolina state-owned utility Santee Cooper, which owns the reactors, is seeking proposals from buyers interested in finishing construction or doing something else with the assets. The company claims it is “the only site in the U.S. that could deliver 2,200 megawatts of nuclear capacity on an accelerated timeline.” The plant was about 40% complete when the project was halted.
Trump floated the idea of putting states in charge of disaster response in an interview on Fox News Wednesday night. Trump told Sean Hannity that he’d “rather see the states take care of their own problems” and that “the federal government can help them out with the money.” The statements come ahead of Trump’s plans to survey recovery efforts from Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and the aftermath of the wildfires in California later this week — his first trip since beginning his second term. The interview followed reporting from The New York Times that Trump has installed Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL “who does not appear to have experience coordinating responses to large scale disasters,” as temporary administrator at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
California State Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris wants to set up a pilot program to test the potential for self-driving helicopters to put out wildfires under conditions that are too dangerous for human pilots. The idea might not be so far off — Lockheed Martin demonstrated that its autonomous Black Hawk helicopter could locate a fire and dump water on it in Connecticut last fall.
An autonomous Black Hawk demonstrates its potential.Courtesy of Lockheed Martin