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.
One of the largest companies in the world says its products pose catastrophic peril. Sound familiar?
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Imagine, for a moment, a vast and growing firm — a conglomerate that could be said to define its era of American capitalism. Over the past several years, this firm’s products have become the biggest story in the U.S. economy. Its products are so mindbogglingly expensive to produce that they have driven new types of financial and infrastructural innovation, yet nevertheless the company seems to be quite profitable.
And little wonder: Everyone wants what they have. Investors, policymakers, and economists believe that America’s ongoing economic growth and competitiveness depend on ample access to this company’s products. The sitting Republican president has staked his administration on making sure Americans can get as much of it as they want — regulations be damned.
But there is a problem. One of the company’s researchers has become convinced that the company’s products are dangerous — so harmful, in fact, that their continued use and growth trajectory portends catastrophic risk for humanity. He attempts to alert the company’s executives to this fact. What happens next?
Perhaps you know the story. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Exxon’s internal scientists concluded that the ongoing growth of fossil fuels would raise global temperatures and have “potentially catastrophic” effects on the planet’s climate. They presented these results to Exxon’s executives. A senior scientist warned that humanity had a brief window — “five to 10 years” — before “the need for hard choices regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon led a large research effort into climate change, affirming its scientific validity. But then in the late 1980s, its CEO decided to go in the other direction. Its executives chose not to warn the public about climate change — and instead began a successful disinformation campaign meant to convince the public that climate change was not settled science.
But what if things had gone differently? We’re getting a taste of that pathway now. Last week, Sam Coxon, a researcher at the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, resigned because he feared the AI industry was too close to building an “out of control” intelligence. He quit his job just a few months before his corporate equity would have vested, giving up what would have likely been life-changing wealth to warn about what he believes to be existential risks. Humanity only had a brief period of time — perhaps a year — to steer the technology to a better path, he said.
Anthropic researchers who remain at the company affirmed his analysis. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” a senior scientist at the company posted on the social network X.
But this time, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, did not respond as Exxon’s leadership did three decades ago. Instead, Amodei basically agreed with Coxon: He asked for the government to regulate artificial intelligence and “pace the frontier,” meaning that it should enforce a slower rate of cutting-edge artificial intelligence development.
I’ve thought of these two examples over the past few days as I’ve tried to make sense of the surge in public concern about AI and existential risk.
It seems to me that climate change is looming over the AI conversation and shaping the assumptions, outlook, and behavior of many key players and observers. President Trump, of course, is reading from the old playbook and has deemed AI to be a “hoax”; Coxon, appearing on Fox News, has downplayed climate change’s existential risk as compared to runaway AI. Yet even beyond those reruns and revisions, the analogy goes deeper: Just as nuclear non-proliferation agreements structured early attempts to regulate global greenhouse emissions, climate policy is now shaping how people understand AI risk.
And not for lack of cause. In some important ways, the problems — or alleged problems, depending on your perspective on AI — resemble each other. For instance, because technology exists in a global commons, any successful AI diplomacy must involve the United States and China. And since China’s AI development currently lags the United States, American politicians must persuade China that their proposals to regulate AI are not just concealed attempts to restrain China’s development.
This dynamic has long bedeviled climate negotiations, too. Since economic growth has (until very recently) required fossil fuels, China and other middle-income countries have long feared that any global climate treaty would constrain their future economic development. The Kyoto Protocol tried to finesse this problem by splitting countries into two groups, rich and not-rich; the Paris Agreement did it by imposing no collective restrictions on fossil fuel consumption at all.
Neither approach has worked, exactly, but each offer examples, counterexamples, and tools for thought. Perhaps the Montreal Protocol, which has successfully limited global production of the pollutants destroying stratospheric ozone — and has shown how to stop the growth of a dangerous but hard-to-manufacture technology that presents near-term existential risk — is a superior model.
There is at least one big way the two risks differ. Climate change is a chemical problem that arises from the size and scale of global fossil fuel consumption. Scientists have known that the greenhouse effect is real since the early 20th century. Climate change’s physics are rudimentary enough that Exxon’s in-house scientists could predict the path of future warming with some accuracy. It is a verifiable risk.
AI’s alleged existential risks, on the other hand, emerge from a lab pushing the technological frontier too far and drilling, like Tolkien’s dwarves, too deep. AI concern relies not on empirical observations, but on a story about exponential change and runaway growth. In this way, it’s a harder risk to predict, and a harder one to accept.
Climate advocates have long wondered what would have happened if Exxon’s leaders had embraced reality and warned the public in the 1980s that global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels. Inside Climate News once called it a “road not taken.” I can’t help but wonder if we’re watching it.
The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate by a quarter point, the central bank announced Wednesday afternoon, its first rate change since Chairman Kevin Warsh took his seat in May and its first rate hike in over three years.
The federal funds rate will now sit between 3.75% and 4%. According to projections by regional Federal Reserve presidents and members of the Board of Governors, the central bank expects to hike rates one more time this year.
In its now characteristically brief statements, the Federal Open Market Committee said that the hike “will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal” for inflation. Inflation is currently running at 3.4% and has been above the Fed’s 2% target since 2021.
The FOMC’s (brief) statement explaining the hike pointed to “resilient” domestic spending and “robust” capital investment. It characterized the economy as “expanding at a solid pace,” albeit with “elevated” uncertainty due to “geopolitical developments.”
This combination of factors — high oil prices due to the partial shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and high investment in data centers — have helped push up yields on Treasury bonds, which helped maneuver the Federal Reserve into its rate hike. These rising Treasury yields have made raising capital more difficult for sectors besides artificial intelligence, very much including the capital-intensive renewable and clean energy industries.
Warsh attributed higher Treasury yields to “economic strength, competition for capital, and geopolitics,” in his press conference following the rate announcement. The yield on the 10-year treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of money throughout the economy, rose to over 5% on the news, the highest level since 2007.
Current conditions: The fast-moving Palos Fire blazed through 17 acres in Los Angeles’ La Habra Heights, injuring two • Heavy rain in São Paulo collapsed a dilapidated building, killing six • The heat index in the Mississippi Valley is topping 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
Two weeks after accusing data center opponents of wanting “to end up being backwards and poor,” President Donald Trump has landed on a new defense of the artificial intelligence buildout. It’s a lot like his old one for abdicating on the federal government’s responsibility to deal with climate-changing emissions. Essentially, it boils down to: My critics are making it all up. “It’s a hoax,” Trump told Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during the five-minute call the executive put on speaker on stage at a conference Monday in Los Angeles. “The robots are not going to be taking over the world. That’s not going to happen.” He later posted on his Truth Social platform: “The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Three-quarters of Americans are now opposed to data centers in their backyards, according to Heatmap Pro’s poll from last month. But Trump has recently bucked with some populist positions on technology that have cross-partisan appeal. While law-and-order Republicans in red states are now turning against the Flock cameras that watch for petty crime, Trump defended the technology in a recent Air Force One chat with reporters. “Trump deserves more respect for his anti-slopulist instincts,” Peter Meijer, a former Republican member of Congress who voted to impeach Trump during his previous administration, wrote in a post on X.
Nvidia’s emissions, meanwhile, appear to be soaring. A new Greenpeace analysis of Nvidia’s own climate reports by the pro-renewables analyst Ketan Joshi found that emissions relating to the supply chain for chip manufacturing soared by 725% since 2020, adding nearly 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

You wouldn’t believe some of the conditions I have heard placed on owners of hydroelectric dams seeking to relicense major clean power projects. There are obvious demands from regulators for things like new infrastructure to help migrating fish pass down a river. Then there are the less obvious, such as building an amphitheater for Boy Scouts or paving new roads far from a dam or its water source. In what the trade group called a first-of-its-kind analysis, the National Hydropower Association reviewed more than 5,000 mandatory conditions across 4,819 licensing documents filed between 1980 and 2026 in 46 states. Dam owners would need to agree to the legally binding requirements, imposed by either state or federal agencies, before a final operating license could be issued. Compared to earlier licenses, hydropower plants today “carry roughly 10 times as many mandatory conditions,” the trade association wrote in its report. “To make matters worse, many conditions are unrelated to energy production and are essentially ‘wish list’ items that hydropower producers are asked to fund, ranging from road construction unrelated to the projects to building fish passage far beyond where the fish actually are (or even could be),” the organization said. Over the next decade, 348 hydropower permits representing 12 gigawatts of capacity are due for relicensing. Many of those facilities are small, and the trend recently has been for companies to simply surrender their licenses and close up shop rather than make costly renovations.
“I urge anyone who cares about reliable, affordable power to read this groundbreaking study,” Malcolm Woolf, NHA’s top executive, said in a statement. “Hydropower, a superhero of the grid and an American icon of energy production, is at great risk due to a broken regulatory framework. Relicensing an existing hydropower facility often takes decades and costs millions of dollars. If these facilities go away, so does the affordable power they produce, the good jobs they create, and the critical infrastructure and ecosystem care they provide.”
Back in May, I told you that South Korea — arguably the most competent builder of atomic power reactors in the democratic world — was “coming to America’s nuclear rescue.” Last week, we discussed the possibility of Seoul’s state-owned nuclear company building reactors in the U.S. as part of a trade pact with the Trump administration. Now we have a clearer picture of where those negotiations may be going. On Tuesday, The Korea Economic Daily reported that South Korea is seeking a roughly 15% stake in Westinghouse, the maker of America’s flagship nuclear reactor, and a seat on its board as part of any deal with Washington. The move, the newspaper noted, is designed to “turn a U.S. request for Korean capital into a strategic foothold in America’s nuclear buildouts.” Ownership by one of America’s closest East Asian allies would be nothing new for Westinghouse, which was owned in the mid 2000s by the Japanese industrial giant Toshiba. Today Westinghouse is a privately held joint venture between the publicly traded investment behemoth Brookfield Asset Management and the Canadian uranium miner Cameco, but the company filed confidential paperwork to the Securities and Exchange Commission in July as a first step toward going public on the stock market.
The market only appears to be expanding. Global nuclear capacity could more than triple by 2060, according to this week’s latest forecast from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations affiliate that oversees nuclear technologies worldwide.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Spend a few minutes scrolling through a comedy fan’s TikTok stream and you’ll find skits playing to the same memetic trope, an anthropomorphized caricature of an incompetent, mistake-prone AI agent guzzling and spilling lots of water. It’s no wonder the joke has already become hack. More than three-quarters of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about the environmental impact of AI, and half are extremely or very concerned, according to data from the latest annual poll from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. In every case, self-identified Democrats are more concerned about environmental issues than Republicans. While 40% of Democrats expressed concern over the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency, just 18% of Republicans said the same. With meat, the ration is 42% to 21%. With air travel, it's Democrats at 38% and Republicans at 17%. But interests converge slightly more on data centers, with 65% of Democrats and 42% Republicans extremely or very concerned about the environmental impacts of AI.
In theory, the late 20th century liberalization of America’s electricity markets should have put a premium on transmission companies building new arteries in the system. In practice, the high cost and grave risk of taking on dozens, sometimes droves, of landowners for right of way to build a power line that stretches hundreds of miles across multiple regional grids makes the task almost impossible, particularly in markets where a power company can’t offset the cost of new lines with other sources of revenue such as generation or power sales. A new report by the Center for Public Enterprise has concluded that “only the federal government can intervene to sew together this national macrogrid by bridging the jurisdictional divides between utilities and regions, instituting planning pipelines with access to finance and cost recovery, and fixing interconnection procedures.” As of yet, that looks unlikely beyond the increased focus on regional planning under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 1920. The rule is facing legal challenges that aren’t expected to be resolved until next year, according to Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.
When I visited Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in Massachusetts earlier this summer, I saw how much progress the company had made toward building what could be the world’s first power-producing fusion reactor, called SPARC. To work, the interior of the torus-shaped, doughnut-like reactor needs to be very cold so magnets can pick up on the contrast in temperatures with the extremely hot plasma fusing together. That’s where the cryogenics come in. The facility’s cryogenics equipment is now up and running, the company said on Wednesday, marking yet another milestone toward next year’s anticipated start up. “That temperature, a few degrees above absolute zero, is what’ll enable our magnets to bottle up a superhot cloud of charged particles called a plasma so fusion can occur,” Adam Weiner, the director of cryogenics at Commonwealth Fusion Systems, said in a statement.