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:
Federal vehicle subsidies are focused on electric cars. There’s a better way.

The United States is about to spend a ton of money on electric vehicle subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) contains a tax credit of up to $7,500 for electric cars and trucks, depending on multiple complicated rules and requirements that will be phased in over time.
Unfortunately, the IRA has no such subsidies for another promising electric vehicle: the e-bike. (Progressive members of Congress tried to insert one but were slapped down.) These are both far cheaper and a far more efficient use of resources.
Fortunately, e-bikes are cheap enough that it doesn't take the federal government to make a difference with policy. Even medium-sized cities can increase uptake with modest subsidies. The key will be to also change street design and regulations so that people feel confident enough to ride.
The problem with American electric vehicles is the same problem as with our gas-powered models: They’re too dang big. The Ford F-150 has been the top-selling automobile in the country for many years, and the electric version — while admittedly quite nifty — weighs 3.25 tons. The new electric Hummer is even more ridiculous, coming in at 9,000 pounds, with a 212-kilowatt-hour battery that weighs more than a Mazda Miata.
That elephantine size drastically reduces the environmental benefits of switching to an EV. Cars still require tons of steel, aluminum, and plastic to manufacture, which typically means emitting lots of greenhouse gases, particularly for steel. (A Swedish state-owned company has worked out a zero-carbon steel technology, but it is only just entering the market, and its full production system won’t be online until 2026.) The majority of U.S. electricity is also still being produced with fossil fuels, at least for the time being.
Now, that is not to say that we shouldn’t be subsidizing EVs. Driving is a major source of emissions and we do need to electrify automobiles. Instead of our current path, we should be following the example of Norway, where the vast majority of cars sold are already electric thanks to a combination of subsidies and taxes, but there is also a progressive weight tax to push against this tendency toward bloat.
Still, in addition to switching over to EVs, we would be wise to simply drive less. In addition to developing zero-carbon sources of energy, we can also reduce emissions by using energy more efficiently — and the e-bike is the perfect tool here. We don’t actually need to use a massive metal box for as many trips as we do. More than 95 percent of car trips are 30 miles or less, and nearly 60 percent are five miles or less. Electric assistance means e-bikes can be used for commuting in most locations since you don’t get nearly as sweaty. Cargo bikes are perfect for a trip to the grocery store, or for dropping the kids off at school. With proper snow removal, you can even ride in the dead of winter, as a bunch of Finnish schoolchildren have ably demonstrated.
Then because they don’t weigh 9,000 pounds, e-bikes are a hugely more efficient use of scarce resources. A single e-Hummer battery is roughly 350 times the size of the one in Rad Power’s popular RadRover 6 — which also costs $2,100 instead of $87,000 and up, and can use ordinary wall power instead of an expensive high-voltage charger. Put simply, mass e-bike adoption would give us hundreds of times more decarbonization for our policy dollar.
This logic is so compelling that e-bike sales have actually already outpaced electric car sales for many years straight. It’s a simple and cheap way to cut down on car trips and all their associated expenses, and gets you a bit of exercise to boot. So when Denver set up an e-bike rebate program, it was a wild success — a recent additional pool of rebate money was snapped up in 20 minutes. This rebate could also be collected right at the point of sale, rather than having to remember to file it with your taxes, which surely improved uptake. Similar programs are also bearing fruit in Vermont and Oregon, and one is being set up in California.
But this must be a tiny fraction of the potential pool of buyers. America, with its sprawling cities, dangerous multilane “stroads,” and meager pedestrian or cyclist infrastructure, is one of the most bike-hostile countries in the world. Even in dense cities like New York, cyclists are routinely flattened by cars. This undoubtedly prevents many people who would take up an e-bike from doing so.
However, it’s not that difficult to make even a relatively sprawly city safe for e-bikes. The key thing is to build physically separated bike lanes with curbs, bollards, parking, or other obstacles that keep cars out, and connect the lanes into a citywide network so people can get close to their destination without ever leaving the lane. Longer distances are no big deal with electric assistance — what matters is safety. Any cyclist knows that with American drivers, traditional painted bicycle gutters will be instantly used for double parking (if not lunatic passing on the right), which can make them more dangerous than no lane at all.
It’s also worth mandating speed governors and speed limits in bike lanes (which are already present in many places). Many de-restricted e-bikes can easily go 30 or even 50 miles per hour — essentially making them a motorcycle. That is both dangerous in a bike lane with many normal bikes traveling much more slowly, and risky for the cyclist who is going motorcycle speeds without proper motorcycle-grade protective gear. A full-face motorcycle helmet in particular is far, far more protective than the typical bike helmet.
Now, there should be speed governors in cars as well — indeed, it’s probably more important than for bikes — but that’s a subject for another article.
American cities have a long, long way to go before they become as bike-friendly as Amsterdam or Copenhagen. But we should remember that not that long ago, both of those cities were nearly as car-infested as Tulsa is today. It took years of activism, political mobilizing, and policy reforms to turn them into cyclist paradises. There’s every reason for American cities to start following that trail.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Under new rules, the United States will impose virtually no limits on greenhouse gas pollution from power plants.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Happy Monday. It’s going to be a big week. Let’s begin with the immediate news.
This afternoon, the Environmental Protection Agency formally rolled back limits on greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants — and proposed scrapping the rest. If the proposal is finalized, then coal and natural gas power plant operators could soon release as much heat-trapping pollution as they want into the atmosphere. And thanks to other recent rollbacks, power plants can release more mercury, microscopic soot, and other hazardous air pollutants, too.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the announcement at a Group of 20 energy minister meeting in Houston.
On a legal basis, the agency is formalizing the change in two steps: First, it partially repealed some rules for power plant emissions; second, it filed a separate legal argument that the Clean Air Act “does not authorize the EPA to regulate emissions from power plants” to fight climate change. Both documents will likely go into effect later this year. Those documents were released as I wrote this newsletter, and we’re still digging through them at Heatmap.
But there are two broader ways, I think, to see this news.
The first is that it confirms America’s abdication of environmental leadership under the Trump administration. Global climate politics is now in a quite different situation than it was in, say, 2018, when the Trump administration last made similar deregulatory moves. China now operates the world’s largest carbon emissions trading system — and while that system targets an odd “intensity” measurement, and gives away many free allowances, it is expanding to other sectors of the economy and the country plans to adopt more conventional targets next year.
Which isn’t to say it’s perfect. I could find something important to criticize about China, Canada, and the European Union’s various carbon schemes. But they have policies at the national or supranational level, and the United States does not. While we still have a handful of state regional policies — such as the-cap and-trade market for Northeastern states — they have been transformed by the politics of inflation.
And things could still get worse. Earlier this year, the Trump administration repealed the EPA’s scientific finding that heat-trapping greenhouse gases can endanger the environment. If it successfully defends that move in court, then any future government will face extra hurdles when seeking to limit carbon pollution. And if the Trump administration secures the Supreme Court ruling it is obviously angling for — and gets the high court to overturn its landmark 2007 decision that said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases in the first place — then a future Democratic administration might find itself virtually without tools to limit carbon emissions.
The second way of seeing this news, though, is that little has actually changed on the ground — and the biggest unanswered question in American climate policy remains unanswered. Since the Obama administration, the federal government has regulated carbon pollution from cars and trucks (though Trump has of course sought to put an end to those rules, too). But it has never found a way to limit power plant carbon emissions in a comprehensive way.
Instead, successive Democratic presidents, Trump administrations, and the Supreme Court have played a slow-motion, 12-year-long game of regulatory ping pong. In 2014, President Obama proposed a scheme to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Since then, the first Trump administration repealed those rules, the Supreme Court stayed them (and then eventually nixed them), and President Biden proposed a new and more narrow version of them — which the Trump administration has just repealed. And Trump wants to end the game forever by preventing the Clean Air Act from ever regulating carbon emissions.
Trump and his officials are acting irresponsibly by doing so — to say the least. But the truth is that Democratic presidents have never found an enduring way to regulate power plant carbon emissions that the Supreme Court has blessed. And doing so has only gotten harder as the court has marched right over the past decade.
We will keep diving into these new documents here at Heatmap. But we have already covered this story in depth over the past 18 months, too. Check out:
There is one more thing to look forward to this week, by the way. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve will decide whether to raise interest rates. Investors now expect it to bump the federal funds rate by one-quarter of a percentage point, which will affect the investment climate for every part of the energy system — including renewables.
As my colleague Matt Zeitlin has written, interest rates dictate the economics of clean energy because most spending on renewables and other zero-carbon power plants happens at the front end, as capital expenditure. Spending on fossil fuel projects, on the other hand, is more spread out, because operators must purchase fuel over time.
One big question that the Fed will eventually need to confront: Is there any way to rein in above-trend inflation without reducing artificial intelligence spending?
We’ll be covering that story and more as the week develops. Thanks as always for reading.
Heatmap’s latest poll adds urgency to one of the biggest questions facing the climate: Can the environmental movement come back?
Three years ago, I wrote a piece for this website about how I’d stopped openly describing myself as an environmentalist. Looking back at it now, it’s a bit of a head-scratcher: I love nature, conservation, and all things outdoorsy, and while I stand by my greater point — that we can’t let uncompromising ideals about the environment hold back renewable energy development — the truth is, I am absolutely an environmentalist. But saying so felt analogous to calling myself tender-hearted, naïve, and retrograde.
The truth is, most Americans are environmentalists, at least if you take a wide definition. In new polling and focus group research conducted by Heatmap News and Embold Research, nearly three in four registered voters (72%) told us “the environment” is extremely or very important to them personally. The environment, in fact, ranked a full 17 points higher than “climate change” in a battery of potential voter issues, despite the latter’s much more obvious existential threat. Even among the subset of people we labeled “skeptics,” for whom climate change was of minimal to no importance, a third (32%) still told us the environment matters to them greatly.
It’s no secret that “climate change” has fallen out of vogue; we’ve reported extensively on the rhetorical shift, including in coverage of our latest poll. But in a forced-choice test of three political messages, we also found voters preferred a hypothetical candidate who emphasized the environment while avoiding any words related to climate (38%, compared to 28% for a clean energy affordability message and 35% for an energy independence-focused message). Specifically, voters who picked our environmental message said they were drawn to its pitch for “cleaner air and a healthier environment for our families and communities.”
Given that the environment still seems to be a way for policymakers and communicators to reach people — including some of the most entrenched climate skeptics, who need the most convincing to back renewable energy — it appears to be a golden opportunity for a modern environmental movement to emerge and advance some of the overlapping goals of the climate movement.
But … where is it?
“As a movement, it’s semi-dormant,” John Reid, the founder of the Conservation Strategy Fund and the author of a recent Atlantic article on the decline of environmentalism in the United States, told me. The son of a Republican Senate aide who worked on the 1968 bill to establish California’s Redwood National Park, Reid stressed that environmentalism “was absolutely not a partisan issue in Congress” in the late 1960s and 1970s — what many consider the golden age of the movement, when clean air and water protections passed through Congress with conservative support. But the “trail started to go a little bit cold” under President Ronald Reagan, Reid added, calling him “the first president I’m aware of who put an anti-environmentalist in charge of the [Environmental Protection Agency]”: Anne Gorsuch.
When activists started paying attention to climate change and the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s, 2000s, and early 2010s, Reid said the movement began to shift away from its core themes of nature and conservation. “The kinds of solutions developed by free market enthusiasts isolated CO2 as a potentially investable, tradable commodity,” he said. “I think they got hyperfocused on carbon, and on the one hand it drew people who weren’t traditional environmentalists into the environmental debate — like Bill Gates and some pundits like Ezra Klein — but it’s also almost like they’ve never been on a hike before.”
The election of President Donald Trump, of course, added heretofore unimaginable headwinds to the environmental movement. Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University of Buffalo, called the current federal situation “hopeless,” and told me he’s even seen the retreat from large-scope environmental policy play out in his classroom. Every year, he assigns students in his Environmental Movements course to organize a hypothetical Earth Day-like event to inspire people to action. “Just in the last couple of years, none of my students anymore had ideas at all about anything that you might remotely call politics,” he told me. “The thing that they were most excited about was, ‘Well, we could organize community gardens. That has a direct positive impact, and it can be a kind of consciousness-raising activity.’”
When Rome told me this, it felt drained of ambition — Really? Community gardens? But when I spoke to organizers at some of the country’s most prominent and historically influential environmental and climate groups about the state of the modern environmental movement, they framed it differently. Holly Bender, the chief program officer of the Sierra Club, told me that what inspires people and makes them feel agency is “not as much climate decisions” — which may feel far off or nebulous — “but this idea that the environment is close to home.”
Amy Moas, the climate director at Greenpeace USA, pointed specifically to how data center fights have become a new nexus of environmental action at the community level. “People are seeing the impact of environmental choices in their backyard, they’re seeing how it impacts their lived experiences, and they’re willing to stand up and fight for it.”
Kidus Girma, the campaign director at Sunrise Movement, told me that the youth activist network is now focused on finding “the most immediate and pressing thing” in people’s lives and “clarifying how it’s a climate issue.” He pointed to community resistance to data centers, which has risen in response to the idea that “a couple of tech billionaires [who are] able to radically reshape the American energy market in a couple of years, and what degree of local control folks should have about energy production,” but which people also oppose due to concerns about electricity and water use.
Girma sees the climate and environmental movements as deeply intertwined but ultimately separate — however, each can be considered the umbrella under which the other nests. If anything, though, the modern environmental movement has only gotten wider: After seeming to reach its peak of influence in 2021 and 2022, the Sunrise Movement has since reassembled to take on the Trump administration more explicitly, including patrolling for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers in Minnesota.
“Environmentalists understand that the forces in the federal government that are sending troops out to arrest and deport innocent people are the same forces that are destroying the environment and making climate change worse,” Aaron Sachs, an environmental historian at Cornell University and the author of the forthcoming book The Earth Is Ours, Not Mine: A History of Environmental Justice, told me. He added that the environmental movement at large is “so much more aware of intersectionality now,” and that organizers “don’t make the kinds of distinctions that older people might be tempted to make, which I think is a good thing.”
If our polling found the possibility of a cross-spectrum coalition under the banner of the environment, Girma has seen it in person in local data center fights. “We’re at the point where MAGA voters and lefty Sunrisers are strategizing together on how to get their county to make a different decision,” he told me. But others told me that part of the reason the environmental movement may seem absent from people’s minds right now is that “there are so many crises happening at the same time,” as Moas, the climate director at Greenpeace USA, said. Election corruption, concerns about AI, the Iran War, immigration — “there are too many issues for any one to be center stage,” she went on. “There are multiple ‘top priority’ issues.”
But to Reid of the Conservation Strategy Fund, it’s exactly this dilution of focus that is the core obstacle for the modern environmental movement. “It’s like a Christmas tree dynamic, where people get to come and hang whatever liberal cause they care about and act as if right-minded people should all be on the same side of all of these issues,” he said. He told me that strange bedfellows can come together on specific issues and make a change — like how onX, a popular mapping software among hunters, is currently galvanizing its members to oppose the rollback of the Roadless Rule. “If you think of alliances as Venn diagrams, insisting on near-total overlap will limit your allies to a number too small to make a movement,” he later wrote me in an email.
Whatever is holding back the modern environmental movement, it does not appear to be its ultimate underlying aim of protecting the planet. “If you drop the label ‘environmentalism’ and just ask people: Will my kids’ water be safe, or is the air going to make my family sick? — you get resonance from that,” Marc Yaggi, the CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance, told me. “I think that’s because people have learned to distrust the process, but not the goal.”
Our data seemed to back his view. When we asked voters why they haven’t done more to support clean energy, for example, just 7% (and only 16% of climate skeptics) said it was b ecause “I don’t believe in the goal.” Distrust in politicians and advocacy groups, the futility of the current political environment, and competing priorities (“other issues matter more to me”) all ranked higher.
“I really believe there is a whole lot of love and affection for nature and concern for environmental quality out there in the general public,” Reid said. “It may be quiet, it may be latent, it may get silenced by more immediate concerns that people have. But I do believe it’s out there.”
This new report is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how American voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
Current conditions: The Atlantic set a record on Saturday for the longest stretch of the hurricane season since the advent of satellites without a major named storm • Argentina is bracing for severe Zonda winds, a type of intense downslope gust unique to the eastern side of the Andes Mountains • While the wildfires darkening skies over Indonesia have receded, blazes are still raging across the southern shores of Sumatra, Borneo, and West Papua.
The United States is preparing to eliminate any cap on the amount of planet-warming pollution from burning coal or gas that power plants can spew into the atmosphere. On Sunday night, The New York Times reported that the Environmental Protection Agency planned to announce a final repeal of climate rules on the power sector at this week’s summit in Houston of energy ministers from the Group of 20 nations. The EPA already moved to remove the entire legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases at any level by gutting its endangerment finding, which my colleagues Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo explained last winter. In March, as I told you at the time, almost half of all U.S. states sued to block the administration from rescinding the finding. The EPA went on to scrap standards on climate-heating emissions for car tailpipes and loosened rules on heat-trapping chemicals used in refrigerators and air conditioners. Under the new proposal, which the Times noted would come out Monday, power plants would still face limits on mercury, arsenic, and other contaminants, “though the EPA has already loosened restrictions on how much mercury they can emit.”
Nearly a year ago, I told you about the legal challenges already mounting for President Donald Trump’s order to keep a Michigan coal-fired station open past its planned retirement date on the grounds that the broader grid system is under an “emergency” level of stress. Maintaining the J.H. Campbell coal station for just three months past its previously-agreed closure cost the utility Consumers Energy nearly $30 million. And all that was to fulfill an illegal order, a federal court just decided. On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers to force the plant to stay open. The court found that the Department of Energy illegally invoked Section 202(c), the emergency authority of the Federal Power Act, to override the long-term planning process through which Consumers, Michigan, and the Energy Department had agreed to terminate power production at the 1.4-gigawatt plant. The agency has since used the same statute to order coal plants in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Washington to remain open. “The DOE needs to stay in its lane and use its emergency powers only in actual emergencies,” Michael Lenoff, Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “Preventing the market-driven retirements of coal plants to advance a coal-friendly agenda is not a proper use of emergency powers.” In July, Washington State announced a deal with utility TransAlta to convert the state’s only remaining coal plant to run on natural gas. But that same day, the Energy Department renewed its directive to keep TransAlta’s Centralia coal plant running for at least another three months. “America needs more reliable power, not less, and today’s order will help ensure reliable electricity generation remains available to help address periods of peak demand,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement at the same time. “The Trump administration remains committed to reversing the misguided energy subtraction policies it inherited from past leaders.”
The White House, meanwhile, is considering using the Defense Production Act to expand U.S. oil refining capacity. The proposal, reported by Reuters, came up during a meeting between Trump and a dozen U.S. refiners, who told the president that federal money “would be better directed toward making refineries more efficient or expanding existing plants rather than financing an entirely new refinery,” which would cost more and take years to complete.
A surge of utility-scale solar projects racing to completion before the federal tax credits expires in July added 11.4 gigawatts of capacity to the U.S. in the second quarter of this year, representing a 45% increase. That’s according to a PV Tech analysis of the latest Solar Energy Industries Association report I told you about on Thursday. Rooftop solar was a mixed bag in the second three-month stretch of 2026. Residential solar installations fell 12% year over year and community solar declined 14%, but corporate and industrial projects grew by 11%. Utility-scale projects, on the other hand, soared by 61% year over year. “The concentration on utility-scale developments was a direct response to the Trump administration’s phaseout of tax credits for renewable energy deployments from July 4, 2026 and the ‘safe harbor’ period that requires projects are placed in service,” PV Tech wrote.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney instructed his special envoy to Europe to “scope out the most ambitious possibilities short of full membership” in the European Union or its common market, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The details, the newspaper noted, “are still being sketched by technical working groups for what the prime minister has told his aides will be the reorienting of an economy and a society that for half a century has been dominated by the U.S.” If successful, the pivot to Brussels would reshape the energy and resource profile of both continents, pairing Europe’s wealth and vast population with Canada’s vast supply of oil, gas, and minerals. “In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada and our European partners are moving ever closer,” Carney said in a statement over the weekend. “Our shared values, complementary strengths, and common interests serve as the strong foundation on which we can build a stronger future. Together, Canada and our European partners have the ambition and strength to create a more just, stable, and universally prosperous world.”

Canada boasts the world’s second-biggest output of uranium, a potential boon to Europe’s nuclear sector. But with Kazakhstan, the world’s top supplier, cautioning that more of its supply could end up going to China and other new buyers, Australia — the world’s No. 4 supplier — is looking for a bigger stake in the world’s third-place producer, Namibia. A pair of Australian companies are pushing ahead with plans to build new projects in the southwest African nation, Bloomberg reported last week. Bannerman Energy and Deep Yellow are both based in the Western Australian mining hub of Perth. Bannerman is considering a joint venture with China National Nuclear Corporation in which Beijing’s state-owned reactor operator would buy a 45% stake in a mine and agree to buy 60% of its output once the project is commissioned in 2028. Deep Yellow’s nearby Tumas project is, per the newswire, “a little less advanced but targeting a final investment decision toward the end of the year.”
China’s wind turbine champion, Goldwind, is getting into another green sector. The world’s largest turbine manufacturer shipped its first batch of green methanol from a 160-megawatt project in Inner Mongolia to South Korea, where it’s expected to be shipped to a buyer in the EU, Hydrogen Insight reported. It’s yet another sign of how China is stepping up to meet the EU’s carbon tariff.