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:
Want to understand what’s happening to electric cars? Look at the Golden State.

As California goes, so goes the American car scene. This sentiment has long been true, given that the Golden State is the country’s biggest automotive market and its emissions rules have helped to drag the car industry toward more efficient vehicles.
It is doubly true in the EV era, since California is where electric vehicles first went big and where electric adoption far outpaces the rest of the nation. A look at the car sales data from the first half of 2024 shows us a few things about what the electric car market is and where it’s headed.
Electric cars went mainstream in a hurry here, growing from 5.8% of California car sales in 2020 to 21.5% in 2023. Then the graph flattens out: For the first half of this year, EVs made up 21.4% of new registrations. That would seem to support the gloomy narrative of a supposed EV sales slump. The truth, as it tends to be, is more complicated.
Look at the numbers broken down by quarters, rather than years, and the chart looks a little different. EV sales reached a peak in the third quarter of 2023, dipped a bit, and then jumped back up in April to June 2024 to the second-best quarter ever. That’s a blip, not a crisis, as EVs appear poised for slow growth but growth nonetheless.
Consider the context for a moment: California reached a place where 1 in 5 new cars sold are electric even with the EV affordability problem. That trend wasn’t going to continue unabated up to 30, 40, or 50% of auto sales without the industry putting out vehicles that can compete on cost with a $25,000 Honda Civic or a $30,000 Toyota RAV4. In its summary of the numbers, the California New Car Dealers Association blames inflation and rising monthly car payments for suppressing all vehicle sales at the moment, EVs included. Money matters will decide where things go from here.
The flipside of this year’s EV doomerism is the notion that drivers are turning to hybrids instead. The numbers bear out that sentiment for the moment in California. Traditional hybrid vehicles (excluding plug-in hybrids) more than doubled their market share from 6.1% in 2020 to 13.2% in the first half of 2024. Not too surprising, considering their wide availability and how appealing they are for California drivers who buy some of the nation’s most expensive gasoline.
Plug-in hybrids accounted for 3.4% of sales in the first half of this year, not far from the number they posted back in 2021. That might sound odd, given automakers’ rumblings about turning to these vehicles instead of true EVs, but a new wave of PHEVs is still in development. For now, the difficult calculus remains: Plug-in hybrids are a great choice for a lot of drivers, but they are significantly more expensive than combustion cars for not much electric range, and PHEVs can be hard to come by.
Take all these electrified powertrains together, however, and the picture is clear. Compared to 2018, when gas- and diesel-burners made up 88.4% of auto sales, that number is down to 62% for the first half of this year. Combustion-only is sinking fast, a trend that will spread from the West Coast to the rest of the nation.
My eyes don’t deceive me. Since the start of 2024, it has felt like Rivian’s trucks and especially SUVs are all over Los Angeles, driven by the kind of people who used to own Range Rovers. It turns out RJ Scaringe’s company is the fastest-growing car brand of any kind in California, with sales up nearly 77% in the first half of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.
Now, that number is deceiving. It’s easy to grow by big percentages at the beginning, and Rivian’s sales numbers are relatively small: It moved just shy of 7,000 vehicles through June, which pales in comparison to the 100,000 Teslas and 150,000 Toyotas registered in California during the same period. But Rivian’s early success in California suggests the brand is finding traction and that it might pick off plenty of drivers from Tesla's bread-winning Model Y once the more reasonably priced R2 and R3 arrive.
After all, the story of the supposed EV slump is actually the story of Tesla squandering its huge halftime lead. Ford, Toyota, Mercedes, Rivian, BMW, and Hyundai/Kia EV sales are up this year, but Tesla’s slump wipes out much of their gains.
The Model Y and Model 3 remain California’s best-selling EVs by far, with the second-place Model 3 selling three times the volume of the third-place finisher, Hyundai’s Ioniq 5. Yet Tesla sales in California are down 17% from the first half of 2023, and its market share dropped from 64.6% to 53.4%. Its only new model, the Cybertruck, sold 3,048 in the first half of this year. Californians bought nearly a thousand more Chevy Bolts — and GM isn’t even building that car right now.
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 tech giant had been by far the nascent industry’s biggest customer.
Microsoft has begun telling suppliers and partners that it is pausing future purchases of carbon removal, according to two people who have been informed of its plans.
The news deals a potentially major setback to the fledgling carbon removal industry, which has relied on Microsoft’s voluntary corporate buying as an anchor source of early demand. The technology giant has made the overwhelming majority of carbon removal purchases in recent years.
It’s not yet clear whether the company could still increase its investment in existing projects or when it might resume purchases in the future.
In a statement, a Microsoft spokesperson denied that the company was indefinitely pausing all of its purchases. “We continually review and assess our carbon removal portfolio along with market conditions for the optimal balance on our path to carbon negative,” she said.
Industry data suggests that Microsoft has done more than any other private company — and arguably any organization on Earth — to support early-stage technologies that could withdraw or eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has purchased 45 million tons of carbon removal, according to its own releases. The next-largest buyer of carbon removal credits — Frontier, a coalition of large companies led by the payments processing firm Stripe — has bought 1.8 million tons of carbon removal.
Microsoft made 90% of all carbon removal purchases worldwide last year, according to data from the third-party industry monitor CDR.fyi. The company is generally cited as making somewhere between 79% to 90% of all historic carbon removal purchases.
Microsoft also published guidelines about what it considered “ideal” carbon removal projects, setting de facto early industry standards for technologies including direct air capture, soil carbon management, and enhanced rock weathering.
The tech company has backed carbon removal in large part to meet its aggressive internal climate goals. Microsoft has pledged to become “carbon negative” by 2030, meaning that it must remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than it emits within four years. The company also aims to eliminate its half century of historic carbon emissions by 2050.
Like other major tech firms, including Google and Meta, Microsoft has struggled to square its years-old climate goals with the urgent need to power energy-hungry AI data centers. But it has generally been seen as more environmentally friendly than other tech firms.
When Heatmap polled climate insiders late last year, Microsoft and Google were seen as the two AI tech developers who were “best” on climate. (Meta and Amazon got failing marks.)
Microsoft was making carbon removal announcements as recently as this week. It announced its most recent purchase of CDR credits only three days ago, when it bought more than 620,000 tons of credits from an indigenous-owned bioenergy carbon capture and storage project in Saskatchewan, Canada.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers carbon removal — technologies and methods that can reduce the amount of heat-trapping pollution in the atmosphere on century-long time scales — to be essential to meet the Paris Agreement’s climate goals.
By 2050, the world will need to remove 7 to 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year in order to hold to its Paris targets, according to an independent 2024 report.
Microsoft’s apparent pause comes at a lean time for the carbon removal industry, because the Trump administration has declined to spend — and in some cases even reassigned — funds previously authorized to encourage the development of the technology. For instance, the Energy Department says it plans to use more than $500 million in carbon removal funding to prop up aging coal plants.
Congress has been more generous to carbon removal, which has historically drawn more bipartisan support than other clean energy technologies. The 2026 federal spending law included more than $116 million to support carbon removal research and set up a federal purchasing program. With Microsoft’s shift, that purchasing scheme will be more important than ever.
On ARPA-E’s record commitment, and more of the week’s fundraising news
I don’t have any AI deals to bring you this week, but luckily I can still count on fusion to generate a steady stream of announcements. This time, the funding is coming from the federal government. At its annual innovation summit, ARPA-E announced it’s committing $135 million to address key barriers to fusion commercialization — a single allocation that exceeds the total amount that the agency has previously devoted to the tech after a decade of continuous funding.
There’s also, somewhat surprisingly, still venture enthusiasm for sustainable aviation fuels. And just like last week, membrane-based industrial separations tech also secured fresh capital. Could this be one of the hottest boring industries around? On the non-venture side, the industrial waste upcycling company Sedron secured a $500 million equity investment from the decarbonization-focused firm Ara Partners.
ARPA-E Makes Record Funding Commitment to Fusion Energy
The Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, better known as ARPA-E, has propelled research and development efforts across a broad set of potentially transformational energy technologies, from thermal energy storage to advanced geothermal systems and — of course — fusion. According to the Fusion Industry Association, the agency has backed 69 fusion projects across 34 universities, 14 national labs, and 27 companies. Seven fusion startups have emerged directly from ARPA-E programs, including Zap Energy and Thea Energy. But ARPA-E thinks there’s still so much more it can do.
This week, ARPA-E announced an additional $135 million in funding for fusion. This exceeds the agency’s total prior cumulative commitment to the technology — which stands at roughly $134 million and has helped catalyze an additional $1.5 billion in private follow-on investment. This latest capital will target what ARPA-E describes as “the toughest technical barriers” to commercialization, including the development of low-cost plasma heating systems, advanced fuels, next-generation power conversion systems, and novel plant and component designs aimed at improving durability while lowering overall costs.
“The question is no longer whether fusion is possible. The question is how fast we get fusion-generated power on the grid, and whether America leads that achievement,” said ARPA-E director Conner Prochaska at the agency’s annual Energy Innovation Summit this week. Today, there are over 50 fusion companies globally, collectively backed by about $10 billion in private investment. The agency framed this latest announcement in terms of strengthening U.S. “energy dominance” while guaranteeing an “affordable, reliable, secure energy supply.” Perhaps it slipped their minds, but it bears mention that fusion would also be a zero-carbon energy source.
Sora Fuel Gets $14.6 Million Boost Amidst a Struggling SAF Market
At the beginning of last year, I wrote about the money pouring into the search for sustainable aviation fuels that could help decarbonize medium- to long-distance flights. Even then, however, investment levels remained well below what experts say is needed to meet the aviation sector's 2050 net-zero target — and the situation hasn’t improved. The Trump administration’s infamous One Big Beautiful Bill reduced the SAF tax credit from up to $1.75 per gallon to $1.00 per gallon, dampening enthusiasm in the sector.
And yet there are still glimmers of momentum in the early-stage venture landscape, highlighted this week by Sora Fuel’s $14.6 million fundraise. The startup is basically trying to turn air into fuel. It’s developing a system that captures CO2 and then converts it directly into a syngas, which can then be upgraded into synthetic hydrocarbon fuels suitable as drop-in replacements for conventional jet fuel.
Unlike most DAC systems, Sora’s process doesn’t rely on energy-intensive sorbent regeneration — thermally or chemically cleaning the sorbents for reuse — which the company says allows it to avoid over 90% of conventional DAC costs. The startup claims it will be able to deliver captured CO2 at under $50 per ton — though that’s actually a substantial increase from the $20 per ton target that it cited in 2024. But if either number proves achievable at scale, that would be huge, not just for the sustainable fuels sector but the broader carbon capture market.
Sora will use the new capital to build a pilot facility, which it expects to have up and running within 18 to 24 months. "We've gone further, faster, and with less capital than anyone in the e-fuels space," said Gareth Ross, Sora’s co-founder and CEO.
MTR Secures $27 Million to Accelerate Membrane-Based Carbon Capture
Fresh on the heels of last week’s membrane funding news, which saw Via Separations raise a $36 million round, this week brought another tranche of capital into the decidedly unglamorous but essential world of industrial separations — that is, the process used to isolate specific chemicals or materials from a mixture. Membrane Technology and Research, better known as MTR, announced a $27 million Series B round led by the oil and gas-backed venture firm Climate Investment.
The startup develops membrane materials and systems for gas and liquid separations, and maintains a business division specifically devoted to carbon capture. With support from the Department of Energy, MTR is piloting its tech at a coal plant in Wyoming that it describes as the world’s largest membrane-based carbon capture system.
As I noted a few weeks ago, Climate Investment itself is flush with $450 million in new financing, having recently closed a growth fund aimed at helping decarbonization technologies bridge the “missing middle” in climate tech funding — the notorious gap between a company’s early-stage rounds and commercial deployment. The MTR investment comes out of this new fund.
Ara Partners Acquires Waste Upcycler Sedron, Invests $500 Million To Scale Its Tech
This week, the decarbonization-focused equity investor Ara Partners acquired a controlling stake in the industrial-scale waste processing and upcycling company Sedron. The new influx of capital will go towards scaling the company’s tech, which processes biosolids such as municipal sewage sludge and livestock manure into usable outputs such as clean water, fertilizer products, and supposedly renewable energy — though the company has not explained how the latter process works.
Sedron’s system combines multiple capital-intensive waste treatment steps — typically handled across separate units — into a single continuous processing platform. Sedron says this integration allows it to use 10 times less energy than conventional treatment approaches — although its own website used to claim a 30x reduction.
This new funding will go towards accelerating the company’s project development pipeline and expanding deployment across North America. Sedron is currently preparing to begin construction on a biosolids processing facility in Florida this spring, while also aiming to begin commercial operations at a large dairy manure project in Wisconsin this summer.
Why the shooting in Indianapolis might be a bellwether
This week, the fight over data centers turned violent and it has clearly spooked the sector. Extremism researchers say they’re right to be concerned and this may only be the beginning.
Life may never be the same for Indianapolis city-county councilor Ron Gibson, who voted for a controversial data center last week, citing its economic benefits, and, on the morning of April 6, woke to find 13 bullets were fired through the door of his north-east Indy home. Beneath his doormat read a note left behind: “No Data Centers.” Gibson, who did not respond to multiple requests for additional comment, told the media some of the shots landed near where he played with his child hours earlier.
It was the third incident this year indicating the bubbling angst against data centers really does have potential to turn violent. In February, a man was arrested in Troy, Illinois, for threatening to shoot and kill employees for a data center developer working in his community. In March a California company sued activists fighting their project after they allegedly suggested people assassinate individuals involved with it, invoking infamous murder suspect Luigi Mangione, who allegedly shot and killed a healthcare CEO in 2024.
AI infrastructure boosters were quick to turn the Indianapolis shooting into a chance to broadly criticize those who oppose data centers. The AI Infrastructure Coalition, a new pro-data center D.C. trade group, blasted a statement out to press from co-chairs former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and former Rep. Garret Graves. “Local leaders must be able to represent their community without worrying about the threat of violence,” Sinema and Graves stated. “Opponents of AI infrastructure are using increasingly heated and false language to claim that data centers threaten the wellbeing of communities. This rhetoric has consequences.”
Although I take umbrage with the claim opponents are using “false language” – data centers can bring profound environmental and cost-of-living consequences — one can easily see a powder keg forming online around data centers.
All you have to do is look at discussions of what happened in Indianapolis. News of the event posted to the “Say NO to Data Centers” Facebook group went viral, inviting mostly comments endorsing the shooting. “Good. They should be afraid of an educated and armed population,” reads the top comment, netting almost 640 likes. When I first posted about the shooting to X and Bluesky, my words went wildly viral, becoming some of the most shared content on either site about the incident. Among the most engaged-with replies to my X post: “When you realize that the only way this ends is when people start doing things you can’t post online,” read one. “If they ever caught him and I was in the jury, I’d vote not guilty,” stated another. A third declared, “MOSA - make officials scared again.”
This didn’t surprise Clara Broekaert, a Geneva-based research analyst for The Soufan Center, a nonprofit organization focused on studying global extremism and terrorist threats. Broekaert told me in an interview her organization has been doing “extensive” open-source intelligence surveys to understand the risk of violence over data centers. For the most part, while overwhelmingly negative, people are simply expressing negative perspectives. However, she said that since “early 2024, we have seen a spike in online rhetoric and activism that threatens physical actions against infrastructure and people involved in it.” Most common are comments encouraging arson and sabotage against data centers themselves but increasingly, threats are being levied against people working at development companies and politicians who support data centers. The threats stem from various root causes, she said, ranging from fears their quality of life will be dramatically harmed by data centers to frustrations about water consumption. She pays particular attention to individual county commissioners’ social media pages when conflicts over projects are going on, and hears some of the violent rhetoric crop up in public hearings.
Broekaert doesn’t think we’ll see “a huge uptick in violence against people” but is concerned that “we’ll see more physical sabotage,” especially as political organizing movements against data centers converge – the right-left horseshoe alignment I’ve previously discussed.
“You just see this bottled up resistance against data centers,” she said. “It’s very closely connected to an economic disillusionment.”
Jordyn Abrams, an extremism research fellow at the George Washington University, said there are different strains of violent anti-tech movements to track. In some ways she said these risks can be traced to longstanding histories of eco-terrorism as protest, pointing to a leftwing organization’s arson attack against a Tesla factory in Germany as just one example. On the flip side of the coin, you’ve got ecofascist ideologies warping minds against technology broadly, like what motivated the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand. Of course, there’s also your garden variety unhinged individuals venting anger in unhealthy and dangerous ways.
Irrespective of what brought someone to violence, Abrams said this trend is something anyone involved in the data center boom needs to pay more attention to. “I think there’s a concern when we’re promoting resolving things with violence,” she said, noting these online discussions can become siloed avenues for radicalization. “There’s a growing sentiment that can, in an echo chamber, become an even greater challenge.”
Once again I do not believe that most people who fight data centers are violent and many have valid reasons for their frustrations. But I believe we will likely see more attacks on structures and people involved in this nascent industrial tech boom, and I hope people take this escalating environment seriously.