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.
On Trump’s mineral paradox, China’s Great Green Wall, and sodium-ion batteries
Current conditions: After devastating the U.S. island of Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands territory, Super Typhoon Bavi is barreling toward Taiwan with winds of up to 200 miles per hour • Rare tornadoes brought on by storms touched down in China’s Hubei province, leaving 11 dead • Temperatures in Madrid are hovering at around 100 degrees Fahrenheit all week as the Spanish capital roasts in Europe’s latest heat wave.
Exactly three weeks after President Donald Trump signed a formal memorandum to halt the bombing campaign against Iran that the United States and Israel embarked on nearly five months ago, the war is back on. After Washington accused Tehran of launching missiles at tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz this week, Trump officially declared the resumption of combat. Speaking Wednesday morning at the NATO summit in Turkey, Trump called the Iranian regime “scum,” “sick people,” and “vicious, violent people” when asked about the peace pact during a press conference. “If they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it,” Trump said. “So as far as I’m concerned, it’s over.” He spent the rest of the day posting more than a dozen videos and photos on his Truth Social account purportedly showing U.S. missile strikes in Iran. “This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran,” Trump wrote in one post. “If it happens again, it will get much worse!”
The market is certainly preparing for worse. The price of Murban crude, the benchmark for oil flowing out of the United Arab Emirates, spiked nearly 7% on Wednesday. The European benchmark, Brent crude, jumped more than 5%. The American pricing yardstick, West Texas Intermediate crude, rose by just over 1%. Last month, my colleague Matthew Zeitlin cautioned that, despite a ceasefire, it would take a while for the Strait of Hormuz to return to normal — and “even longer” for energy markets. Emphasis on that last part.
The world’s capacity to generate nuclear energy has increased by 2.2 gigawatts already this year as new Chinese reactors have come online at a rapid clip. By 2035, global nuclear capacity is on track to surge by 44% to 535 gigawatts, up from 372 gigawatts last year. That’s according to the latest forecast from the consultancy BloombergNEF. China, the unrivaled global leader in domestic reactor construction, is largely responsible for the projected spike. Today, the People’s Republic is the world’s No. 2 user of atomic energy behind the U.S., which has long operated the largest fleet of plants on the planet. But China is on pace to surpass the U.S. by 2030 with 102 gigawatts of nuclear capacity.
Among the more promising signs for the democratic world: The U.S. is now working with Japan and South Korea to commercialize new small modular reactor technologies. On Tuesday, at the margins of the NATO summit, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed onto a memorandum with the foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea. The document “outlines opportunities for our three countries, which have complementary advantages in the civil nuclear field, to encourage mutually beneficial cooperation among their respective nuclear industries,” the State Department said in a statement.
Right after the presidential inauguration in January 2025, Matthew wrote a sharp piece identifying what he called the “paradox of Trump’s critical minerals crusade.” At issue was the fact that the new Trump administration planned to (and ultimately did) kill off policies designed to spur demand for domestically mined and processed minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earths — even as he slashed barriers to increasing the supply of those metals. U.S. production of minerals is picking up as the White House brokers a growing list of deals to give the government equity stakes in mining firms in exchange for federal support for increasing output. Sure enough, the demand just isn’t there in the U.S. On Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that companies backed by the administration, including rare earths miner MP Materials, uranium producer Energy Fuels, and the rare earths refiner Phoenix Tailings are instead selling their goods to buyers in Asia. Japanese customers were “clamoring” for rare earth metals from Phoenix Tailings, CEO Nick Myers said. The materials the firm produces are ending up “primarily in Korea and Japan.”
That isn’t stopping Trump from reviving his calls for Washington to seize Greenland and its resources from Denmark, a founding NATO ally. Speaking at the conference in the Turkish capital of Ankara, the American president repeated his claim that the U.S. invasion of the world’s largest island following Copenhagen’s collapse to Nazi blitzkrieg in April 1940 should have qualified as a permanent conquest. “We took Greenland and then, stupidly, we gave it back,” Trump told reporters. “We shouldn’t have given it back to them. We’re the ones who need it. We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Not to be an old man about it, but I remember the Iraq War distinctly — the debates over the role of Baghdad’s oil and the calls from Congress for increased U.S. production with an eye toward energy independence. Here’s some data that will make you want to dismiss your humble millennial correspondent with an “ok boomer.” On Wednesday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued a definitive new analysis showing that U.S. petroleum exports hit a record high in April after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, forcing overseas buyers to find new sources of fuel. Exports increased to 13.6 million barrels per day, 15% more than the previous record set in March.
On the other end of the American energy spectrum, the nation’s largest provider of home battery and solar equipment just launched a distributed compute pilot program for artificial intelligence servers. Under the program, Sunrun will coordinate “the selling of inference capacity to enterprise compute buyers.” In other words, homeowners can earn money by hosting “compute nodes” — small servers —that then supply output to AI companies in much the same way Sunrun’s customers are paid by giving the virtual power plant operators access to solar panels and batteries. “Over nearly two decades, we have perfected our ability to operationalize, finance, and scale distributed assets,” Paul Dickson, Sunrun’s president and chief revenue officer, said in a press release. “We are now using our leadership position in distributed home energy and proven infrastructure to bring compute closer to the sources of energy and inference.”
Much like the United Nations effort to plant trees at the southern edge of the Sahara to keep the desert at bay, China is building a Great Green Wall. Since 1978, the country has planted 66 billion trees and plans another 34 billion by 2050 in a bid to slow the spread of the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts. A new study using satellite measurements of leafy areas found that the planted forests are greening much faster than wild ones. Younger trees grow faster. But even at similar ages, planted stands grew 4.6% faster, meaning they can absorb more carbon. The findings, according to Fertilizer Daily, “suggest global climate models should better distinguish forest types and age when accounting for carbon.”
Sodium-ion technology, as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham explained two years ago, promises cheaper, less combustible batteries than its dominant lithium-ion cousin. But it remains niche and underdeveloped. Perhaps not for long. On Wednesday, sodium battery startup Peak Energy announced plans for a factory in Sacramento capable of producing 4 gigawatt-hours of sodium battery systems annually. “America needs energy storage that is lower cost, more affordable, more reliable and purpose-built to meet the demand coming onto the grid,” Peak Energy CEO Landon Mossburg said in a statement. “This facility is proof that America can lead not only in inventing the technology, but in building it at scale.”
Generate Capital, CalSTRS, and the Rhodium Group have teamed up on a new Transition Acceleration Framework to measure and assess emissions impacts.
The most common way to judge whether a company or project is helping to tackle climate change is to measure emissions. Has the company reduced its carbon footprint? Will the project add fewer greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere than alternatives?
It’s a useful metric, but a limited one. One company might be doing more to advance the energy transition than another — by investing in an expensive, early-stage solution such as geothermal power, for example — but a comparison of their carbon footprints won’t necessarily show it. At the project level, a solar farm in Mississippi, where solar deployment has lagged, will do more to decarbonize the U.S. power grid than one of equal size in California, even though both projects emit zero carbon.
This presents a challenge for climate-minded investors like Jonah Goldman, the chief strategy officer of Generate Capital, who are trying to figure out where their dollars can make the biggest difference. To solve it, Goldman worked with colleagues at the California State Teachers Retirement System, which backs Generate’s investments, and a team at the Rhodium Group to develop a new way for investors to assess where to put their money.
“The question that most of the frameworks out there ask is, what are your carbon emissions today, and can your carbon emissions be lowered?” Goldman told me. “The Transition Acceleration Framework asks, how can you apply capital that has the best chance of getting to decarbonization over a reasonable time frame?
“It sounds like a similar question. It sounds like semantics. But it’s actually quite different,” he said.
At a high level, the Transition Acceleration Framework measures how much additional decarbonization a given investment can deliver beyond what would likely have occurred anyway. It can also be used to evaluate policy interventions and procurement decisions, such as where to get power for a data center. The Rhodium Group published a white paper describing the methodology on Thursday, as well as an accompanying report using it to evaluate options for powering data centers in the U.S.
The Transition Acceleration Framework has three components: transition potential, transition efficiency, and acceleration factor.
Transition potential is “the size of the emissions-reduction opportunity,” the white paper says — it measures the gap between the current trajectory for a given technology and its potential deployment in a deeply decarbonized world. Some of the solutions with the highest transition potential scores, per Rhodium’s analysis, include light duty electric vehicles and utility-scale solar.
Transition efficiency measures how effective a dollar spent on that technology can be at closing the gap, based on an estimate of the total capital expenditure required to realize the potential. There, more nascent solutions like low-carbon cement and geothermal power score higher than EVs and solar.
Rhodium combines these two complementary metrics into a single “technology factor,” a score on a scale from one to ten that can help identify the highest-leverage sectors to invest in. (The project is similar in spirit to Heatmap’s Decarbonize Your Life series, in which we tried to determine the highest-leverage actions a given individual could take to cut emissions. If you missed it, check it out.)
While the transition potential and efficiency metrics provide a high-level view into how transformative different types of investments can be, the third component of the framework — the acceleration factor — helps distinguish between specific projects.
This starts with an assessment of five “acceleration attributes” — cost reduction, capital availability, new markets, infrastructure and supply chains, and political economy — that represent different mechanisms by which a single investment can help move an entire technology category forward.
For cost reduction, for example, an investor might ask how likely it is that the project will reduce the cost of future deployments through learning by doing or economies of scale. If it’s a first-of-a-kind project, the answer is likely yes. For capital availability, they might look at whether the investment will de-risk the technology. Goldman praised Amazon’s early investment in Rivian delivery vans — not just because it took gas-powered Amazon vans off the road, but because it also spurred other automakers and major shippers such as Walmart and GM to follow suit.
“While the Amazon-Rivian deal wasn’t 100% responsible for it, it certainly was a huge signal to the market that there was safety in solving this last mile delivery problem,” he said.
The Rhodium report outlines a method investors can use to score and weight the various attributes and combine them with the technology factor score to reach a final “acceleration factor” score.
In an accompanying report, Rhodium researchers used the framework to compare a number of different options for powering data centers in the U.S. It’s a high-level assessment — i.e. it doesn’t consider project-specific acceleration attributes — but it provides a rough hierarchy of the arrangements that accelerate the energy transition the most against those that do the most harm. At the top of the list is a grid-connected data center that signs a power purchase agreement with a clean, firm generator, such as a nuclear or geothermal plant. At the bottom, with a negative score indicating it would actually hinder progress relative to a regular grid connection, is an off-grid data center powered entirely by natural gas.
Of course, hyperscalers prioritizing speed to power are unlikely to wait around for a nuclear plant to get built. But there are plenty of options between that and behind the meter gas. An off-grid data center that builds enough renewables and batteries for 95% of its electricity needs and relies on gas backup scores higher than a grid-connected project that buys spot market renewable energy certificates.
“Different data center power configurations can have a meaningfully different impact on the transition, even if you’re looking at things that might on the surface seem relatively similar,” Michael Delgado, a partner at Rhodium, told me.
For now, the Transition Acceleration Framework is just that — a framework. Rhodium is piloting it with Generate and CalSTRS, as well as some additional partners, conducting bespoke assessments or their portfolios and projects. The hope is that it could eventually inform not just individual investment decisions or portfolio analyses but regulations and policy packages.
“This is an open method that we’re trying to put out there and get feedback on from the investment and philanthropic and policy world,” Delgado said.
The question is whether he still has a choice.
The United States has resumed bombing Iran, the U.S. military’s regional command announced on Wednesday. The United States also bombed more than 80 sites on Tuesday, including radar and air defense facilities, but the new set of targets is more expansive.
President Trump declared on Wednesday that the ceasefire between the two countries is dead. Yet he also suggested that an extended war isn’t on the table. “We’re not looking for long term,” he said at the NATO Summit in Turkey. “Anything that happens is going to be over very quickly … and will only make it safer, including for oil.”
Such a statement surely reflects the president’s awareness that his war isn’t very popular among Americans. But does he have any leverage anymore over how long the war lasts? When Trump okayed the interim Iran ceasefire in June, he said that Iran would not toll oil and gas tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Since then, Iran and Oman have started setting up the infrastructure to do just that. That discrepancy may have been the ceasefire’s doom: The truce broke down after Iran fired missiles at oil and natural gas tankers that were allegedly not using its approved route through the strait. (Iran has said that its preferred route through the waterway is the “only safe passage.”)
American officials have said that restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is one of their goals in ending — and now, resuming — the war. But the strait was open to all before the war began; Iran only shuttered it after the United States and Israel began bombing in February. Yet now that Iran has learned how easily it can close the strait and keep it closed, it has a new weapon to wield over the American and European economies.
And what of the country’s nuclear program? Back in March, it allegedly didn’t play into the calculus, partly because President Trump claimed the U.S. had destroyed the program in 2025. Instead, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the president had no choice but to enter the new conflict because Israel was already going to bomb Iran, and since the Islamic Republic would respond by targeting American bases in the Middle East, the United States might as well strike first. A day later, President Trump changed the story, saying that Iran was already planning to bomb U.S. military bases, which forced pre-emptive action on America and Israel’s part.
Yet by April 1, the president had justified the war to the American people by citing Iran’s nuclear program more than 20 times. “For years, everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. But in the end, those are just words, if you’re not willing to take action when the time comes,” he said. The new conflict had obliterated the country’s navy, defense industrial base, and ability to produce missiles, he said. Yet Iran — partly thanks to its small, cheap drones — was able to keep the strait closed for another two months.
What does all of this mean for energy and decarbonization? More expensive fossil fuels. The global crude benchmark Brent surged to $80 a barrel today, while West Texas Intermediate surpassed $74, bringing both to roughly the same level as when the June ceasefire was first announced. Researchers at Brown University estimate that Americans have paid $60 billion — or roughly $500 per household — more for gasoline and diesel than they would have had the conflict never happened.
If this stage of the war doesn’t go “long term,” as Trump hopes, then at least the world will have a little more oil than anticipated to work with, as stockpiles have risen in recent days. But a new and extended phase of the war threatens a return to the prices seen earlier in the spring — or prices that go even higher, should China decline to tap its reserves this time. One potential early pain point is diesel, which is already expensive because of Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries. Costlier fuel will keep encouraging more EV sales in Europe, Asia, and even the United States; high diesel prices in particular will provide a tailwind to the shockingly rapid electrification of China’s trucking sector.
Of course, the war will bring much more besides — more squandered time, more military spending, more human misery. It is the first that Trump might regret most. A conflict the White House joined without much public debate — and once forecast would last “four to six weeks” — now looks likely to eat much of his second term.