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:

When I visited the Electrify Expo in Long Beach, California last month, the traditional automakers had set up tents and booths buzzing with happy representatives ready to show off their electric and electrified vehicles to the media and the public. And then there was Fisker, where one lonely man sat amid a group of Ocean EVs, wondering whether anyone would talk to him.
The writing was already on the wall that day. This week, the electric startup filed for its inevitable Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
In March, Fisker slashed the prices of its vehicles in a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy. It did not succeed, nor was there ever a real chance that it would. The collapse marks the second failed car company for founder Henrik Fisker, and the list of reasons makes for an excellent business school case study in what not to do. But for those of us who own an electric vehicle, or may soon buy one, Fisker’s downfall brings up a question that’s especially pointed for anyone buying a car from an EV startup: What happens if the company that made your car isn’t around anymore?
The problem is as old as the car industry. While Ford and Chevrolet feel like they’ve been around since the dawn of time, automotive history is littered with car brands that don’t make cars anymore. Studebaker. Hudson. Pontiac. Oldsmobile. Saturn. Packard. One could go on. When the companies disappeared, their vehicles became “orphan cars” with no parent company around to make parts for or fix them.
Not every orphanage looks the same. Pontiac and Oldsmobile, for example, were divisions of General Motors by the time they were killed off, so GM remained to honor warranty claims on the cars. Plymouth owners had parent company Chrysler to turn to when that marque went to the chrome mausoleum. Sometimes, a car brand like Isuzu or Suzuki quits selling cars in the American market but the company itself remains intact, and so many have been sold previously that plenty of shops and mechanics who know how to work on those vehicles remain.
When a car company that hasn’t operated in the United States for many years disappears entirely, things get dicier. Enthusiasts still collect and drive vehicles from long-dead carmakers. But acquiring parts for them can be a wild goose chase, and maintaining them relies on knowledge passed down among a select few.
Here in the EV era, the few-thousand people who bought (and actually received) a Fisker Ocean are in a tight spot. Their warranty coverage will technically endure as long as Fisker’s court proceedings are ongoing, since it’s always possible that the company could emerge from Chapter 11 and still exist on the other side. As long as Fisker is in limbo, Ocean owners might be able to get the company to fix their cars.
If the company truly goes belly-up, though — which seems like the likeliest outcome — then all bets are off. Fisker’s assets would be liquidated, and owners may be lost in the shuffle as the automaker’s pieces are sold off for pennies on the dollar to anybody who might want them.
Any Fisker-specific parts would be extremely hard to come by if the company (which was slow on its production goals in the first place) vanishes. There would be no more over-the-air software updates to add features or fix bugs; that’s more bad news since right up to the point of bankruptcy, the company was sending out updates just to fix basic operations. Even relatively simple repairs may be hard to achieve once Fisker is no more. The U.S. faces an ongoing shortage of auto mechanics trained to fix electric vehicles, which are an entirely different beast compared to internal combustion. It’s not like any old garage down the street could or would work on an Ocean.
Ocean owners are not silently accepting this crappy outcome. A bunch of them just banded together to form the Fisker Owners Association in the hopes of collectively keeping their rides driveable and viable long after Fisker the company is no more. They are fighting for ongoing support of the Ocean’s software and continued access to the 4G internet the vehicle needs for its in-car navigation system to work. They are tearing apart their Oceans to find out which parts are common and which are proprietary, and using that knowledge to build a database for all Fisker drivers.
Their troubles — and their collective action to take more control over their own cars — should be a note of both warning and hope to other EV drivers. Perhaps the disarray at Fisker makes it a special case that was doomed to fail at some point. But even respected and well-regarded EV startups like Lucid and Rivian aren’t in the rosiest financial situation. The former had to severely slow down its production projections; the latter is trying to navigate the “valley of death” until it can get its mass-market R2 and R3 vehicles on sale. Even EV king Tesla was reportedly “about a month” from bankruptcy during the dire months of 2020 when it tried to scale up manufacturing of the Model 3. Oh, and there was that time in the 2000s that Detroit’s Big Three nearly collapsed.
Rivian and Lucid owners are surely in a better spot than their Fisker counterparts — both companies are in a better position to succeed than Fisker ever was, and are more likely to receive the investment they’ll need to avoid going to bankruptcy court, should it ever come to that. But there’s never a sure thing in life, and owning an EV from a new company inherently generates some risk of becoming an orphan.
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.