You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
Embarrassed to be driving a Tesla these days? You’re not alone.

Tesla is ubiquitous. Following Election Day, the company’s shares broke the $1 trillion mark, making the electric vehicle manufacturer more valuable than the next 15 automakers combined. Much of that is because Elon Musk’s company is likely to benefit from its CEO having President-elect Donald Trump’s ear. But it’s also because Teslas are good EVs — the Model Y is one of Heatmap’s top picks for someone who wants to make a stress-free switch away from gasoline.
The problem is, well, Elon. Though 35% of respondents to a Heatmap poll last winter said the controversial and erratic executive made them more likely to want to purchase a Tesla, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t be caught dead in an EV that in any way benefits the newly minted government efficiency crusader.
But what about all those people who purchased Teslas before Musk went full MAGA? For them, there’s a solution in the form of bumper stickers produced by Matthew Hiller of Waikiki, Hawaii. Hiller’s side hustle, Mad Puffer Stickers, gives Tesla owners a way to disavow the company’s CEO in the form of a no Elon sticker, an Anti-Elon Tesla Club sticker, or one that spells it all out: “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.” As you might expect, business is booming.
Last night, I caught up with Hiller about his unexpected success. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
How did you begin making anti-Elon Musk stickers?
I started making stickers on my own before the Elon sticker. I work at an aquarium, so I did a lot of fish stickers. I always had an interest in making stickers — I knew how to make them, and how to put the designs and cute phrases on them.
The point came in maybe February or January of 2023. I had been wanting to buy a Tesla, but at that point, I started to notice how far off the rails Elon had been going. When he bought Twitter, he started extreme censoring of information, taking verification marks off The New York Times and things like that to sow discontent, disinformation, and push his agenda. And it was ugly. I couldn’t believe this man was using his power like this, and I immediately did not want to support him in any way. I figured, there’s no way I’m buying a Tesla — but there have got to be so many people who are so embarrassed to be repping him on the streets driving their Teslas and who want to completely disavow this guy. Because I know I would want to sell mine immediately after I saw what he was doing.
So I made the first sticker, which said, “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.” I printed up a very small run at first and just threw it in my shop. It took a while for the first sale, but after it got rolling, some people started posting pictures. It went viral a couple of times and I would see a burst of sales, and then it would quiet down. I would be selling five to seven a day, and then suddenly, there would be 50 a day because someone else talked about it on Reddit.
And now, at this point, it’s gone insane.
Have your sales gone up since the election?
Absolutely. Unbelievably.
There were major points when the sales spiked beyond anything that had happened before. The first time was when Elon went on stage with Trump at one of the rallies, and that solidified what everybody already knew: that he was in the tank for Trump, and he was going to put his full fortune behind getting the guy elected.
Then after the election, there was another huge bunch of sales because people were like, “Oh my God, this guy is now going to have a part in this government.” This was so in-your-face and so disgusting — he’s just filling Trump’s coffers with his money in exchange for position and power and influence. And it showed in the sales that other people thought so, too: I must have sold probably 250 or 300 that day, and it’s been steady ever since. I can barely keep up. My full-time job is at the aquarium, and I come home and pack stickers until 11 p.m. It’s just me and my wife doing it all.
Can you give me a ballpark of how many you’ve sold?
Definitely over 10,000. I think today we’re at about 180 [per day] — and that’s across all my stickers, not just the anti-Elon sticker. But it’s been around 100-plus every day for weeks now. It’s rough.
Which is the most popular design?
The most popular is the OG, the “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.” It’s the only one that I have that is a traditional long bumper sticker, rectangular. And I’m a little upset that it’s the most popular because it’s the hardest one to ship because of the odd-size envelopes. For all the other ones, it’s easier. But that’s the most popular one by far.
It’s currently the No. 4 best-selling bumper sticker on Amazon. It had been #1 at a few different points. At one point it was beating both Trump and Kamala stickers. And I was like, “That’s insane. People hate Elon more than they love Trump or Kamala?”
Have you sold to any Cybertruck owners, as far as you’re aware?
I have no idea. I don’t think so — I mean, everyone knew he was crazy by the time the Cybertruck came out. People buying the Cybertruck are all in.
I saw on Instagram that you dropped off some stickers at a Tesla dealership?
That was a while ago. I didn’t take stickers; I believe I had a key chain at that point. I dropped them around the store just for the heck of it, to try to drum up some interest in anti-Elon sentiment. Maybe it’d find the right person, you never know. I wish I had more time to focus on social media, but I just don’t.
Do you have any more anti-Elon sticker design plans?
There’s one that’s a little more general, and it just says, “No more billionaires.” Elon is the main problem: He’s probably the worst billionaire, but he’s not the only problem. So maybe that sticker will end up on a Tesla, too.
Will you keep making your fish stickers now that your anti-Elon business has taken off?
Yeah. I have the ideas banked, I just don’t bother printing them at this point. There’s no point — I’m swamped with what I’ve got. But yeah, absolutely. If I have a really good one, I’ll print it for the aquarium, but not my own personal store. At this point, I’m all Elon, all the time.
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 proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.