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:
The R2 reveals — in its smallest details — the automaker’s aggressive new focus on keeping costs low.

Let’s get the big news out of the way: The new Rivian cars are very cool. The airy R2 is a two-row SUV that, if released today, would rival anything else on the American electric vehicle market; Rivian claims that its entry level trim will cost $45,000 and that it will get more than 300 miles of range. After including the Inflation Reduction Act’s incentives, that means the starting price for this car — for many Americans — will be $37,500.
Even more exciting are the company’s R3 and performance-oriented R3X, a hot-hatchback-slash-crossover concept that will be even cheaper than the R2 and has “the soul of a rally car,” according to Rivian’s lead designer Jeff Hammoud. It looks at once like a Volkswagen Golf GTI, an AMC Gremlin, and — could it be? — a Yugo. I love it.
It was a good day for Rivian after a disappointing year. Many things about its business are still working well. The brand evokes a fusion of Apple’s and Patagonia’s sensibilities, although it’s historically been priced more like Porsche, and it has become a favorite of high-earning Millennial dads. I saw more Apple Watch Ultras on Thursday than I have ever seen in one place before. RJ Scaringe, Rivian’s chief executive officer, was wearing one of them.
But Thursday, more importantly, signaled a new phase in Rivian’s life. After years of aggressive spending, the Irvine, California-based company is cutting costs and trying to find a financially sustainable — and profitable — footing. It’s one more sign that in the global electric vehicle sector, an industry that will be central to the fight against climate change, the startup phase has definitively ended.
This shift to profitability can be seen in virtually every aspect of Rivian’s business right now — and even in the design of the R2 itself.

If Rivian can make it, its prospects are good. It is one of a handful of American electric-vehicle makers that has a shot at competing with Tesla and surviving for the long term. But that will require it to get through the next few years and cross the “EV valley of death.” This is the period after a company has fully ramped up production and has very high costs, but before its revenue has grown to compensate. Tesla made it across this valley in 2021 and 2022; now Rivian is making its own attempt. This was the deeper message of Thursday’s event: Now is Rivian’s make-or-break moment, and the company’s leadership knows it.
To get across the valley of death, Rivian must become obsessive to the point of maniacal about its costs. The company’s survival is going to be an exceptionally close thing, and every dollar will matter. That’s why possibly the event’s most important news came right at the end, when Scaringe disclosed, almost as an aside, that Rivian is indefinitely delaying work on its new Georgia factory. That will save it about $2.25 billion, a significant sum for a company that burned roughly twice that amount last year. Rivian’s shares leapt 13% on the news.
“Every single thing we do within the business is focused on driving costs on this,” Scaringe told CNBC on Thursday. Other Rivian executives kept the message going: Walking through the R2’s design with reporters, Jeff Hammoud, Rivian’s design chief, mentioned the company’s efforts to cut costs at least six times. (Form follows function, indeed.)
The team kept asking itself “how can we simplify things — and not only simplify things from a design perspective, but also from a cost perspective,” he said, adding that “we’re not trying to make this thing feel or look cheap — that’s not what we do.”
He’s right: The R2 does not look cheap (as for feel, I wasn’t allowed to touch it), but some of the R1 series’s more premium touches are gone. Rivian has moved the R2’s speakers out of the driver and passenger doors and put them in the center console, a cost-saving measure that Hammoud suggested would give people more space for their water bottles. One of the panels in the car’s rear is made of mold-injected plastic, not sheet metal, which Hammoud said will save money and make the car easier to repair after a fender bender.
Then there are changes most drivers will never notice. The R2’s dashboard panels have a wood-like finish, and Hammoud wanted us to know that they are made of actual wood. And unlike other cars, which use wood purely as a decorative element — I assumed he was talking about the BMW i3 here — the R2’s wood is structurally integral to the dashboard. In other words, they look good and save money on underlying structural material. “With our vehicles and the R2, [the wood] literally holds the screen, it creates the shape for the vents,” Hammoud said. “If you were to take it out, literally the panel would fall apart.”

You can see, too, how other business needs are shaping how the vehicle looks and works — and even what kind of vehicle it is in the first place. Rivian only sells vehicles in the United States and Canada now, but wants and needs to expand into global markets in the coming years. It might be most famous for its pickup trucks, and yet Rivian didn’t announce a next-generation pickup on Thursday. Hammoud told me that that’s partly because Rivian is thinking about what will work well abroad, and mass pickup truck ownership remains a profoundly American phenomenon.
The charging port on the new Rivian models is on the rear passenger side, a move that confused many Americans who have come to prefer the charging port on the drivers’ side. (That’s where Tesla and the Rivian R1 put it, and the location is seen as better for home charging.) But think about it, Hammoud said. Many people in left-hand-drive countries charge their vehicles on the street, and a passenger-side setup — which becomes a driver’s side setup — makes more sense for them. The new setup also puts the charger closer to the battery, reducing the amount of high-voltage wires needed in the car. That cuts the car’s weight and — ding ding ding — lowers its cost. (Tesla puts its charger in the car’s rear for the same reason.)
The company hasn’t always been like this. During the first decade of its existence, interest rates sat nearly at zero, and Rivian could spend with abandon. It planned for its sprawling Georgia factory and could plan to sell more expensive cars to consumers who had access to cheap credit to buy them. The R2 carries forward the R1 tradition of having a flashlight in the drivers’ side door, but it lacks the hidey holes and air suspension of its predecessor. “With the R1, it was our premium flagship. We got to say yes to a lot of things,” Hammoud said. With R2, the question was “what do we have to say no to.”

This spring, Rivian will close down its Normal, Illinois, factory for a series of process upgrades. These will speed up its assembly lines and allow it to make its existing vehicles, the R1T and R1S, faster, with fewer internal computers and less wasted material; Rivian expects these improvements to carry it most of the way to profitability.
Even if it achieves its goal of turning a technical profit by the fall, it will still have a long way to go to become an actually sustainable business — and it will have to survive another year with no new products. The R2 is not due to go on sale until the first half of 2026, and the R3, which is built on the same platform as the R2, won’t start deliveries until “after the R2.” (No price or firm release date for the R3 has been announced.) The American EV market will change significantly by then. By the end of this year, some 50 different EV models in the U.S. will get more than 300 miles of range. Hyundai, Kia, Ford, and GM are all capable of bringing new cars to market during that interval that could smoke the R2 or R3, in part because they will be benchmarked off of them. The R2 and especially R3 seem like perfect cars for today’s market — and perfect cars for Rivian’s cash-saving situation. Whether they’ll be as perfect two years from now is anyone’s guess.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
One of the largest companies in the world says its products pose catastrophic peril. Sound familiar?
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.
Imagine, for a moment, a vast and growing firm — a conglomerate that could be said to define its era of American capitalism. Over the past several years, this firm’s products have become the biggest story in the U.S. economy. Its products are so mindbogglingly expensive to produce that they have driven new types of financial and infrastructural innovation, yet nevertheless the company seems to be quite profitable.
And little wonder: Everyone wants what they have. Investors, policymakers, and economists believe that America’s ongoing economic growth and competitiveness depend on ample access to this company’s products. The sitting Republican president has staked his administration on making sure Americans can get as much of it as they want — regulations be damned.
But there is a problem. One of the company’s researchers has become convinced that the company’s products are dangerous — so harmful, in fact, that their continued use and growth trajectory portends catastrophic risk for humanity. He attempts to alert the company’s executives to this fact. What happens next?
Perhaps you know the story. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Exxon’s internal scientists concluded that the ongoing growth of fossil fuels would raise global temperatures and have “potentially catastrophic” effects on the planet’s climate. They presented these results to Exxon’s executives. A senior scientist warned that humanity had a brief window — “five to 10 years” — before “the need for hard choices regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon led a large research effort into climate change, affirming its scientific validity. But then in the late 1980s, its CEO decided to go in the other direction. Its executives chose not to warn the public about climate change — and instead began a successful disinformation campaign meant to convince the public that climate change was not settled science.
But what if things had gone differently? We’re getting a taste of that pathway now. Last week, Sam Coxon, a researcher at the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, resigned because he feared the AI industry was too close to building an “out of control” intelligence. He quit his job just a few months before his corporate equity would have vested, giving up what would have likely been life-changing wealth to warn about what he believes to be existential risks. Humanity only had a brief period of time — perhaps a year — to steer the technology to a better path, he said.
Anthropic researchers who remain at the company affirmed his analysis. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” a senior scientist at the company posted on the social network X.
But this time, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, did not respond as Exxon’s leadership did three decades ago. Instead, Amodei basically agreed with Coxon: He asked for the government to regulate artificial intelligence and “pace the frontier,” meaning that it should enforce a slower rate of cutting-edge artificial intelligence development.
I’ve thought of these two examples over the past few days as I’ve tried to make sense of the surge in public concern about AI and existential risk.
It seems to me that climate change is looming over the AI conversation and shaping the assumptions, outlook, and behavior of many key players and observers. President Trump, of course, is reading from the old playbook and has deemed AI to be a “hoax”; Coxon, appearing on Fox News, has downplayed climate change’s existential risk as compared to runaway AI. Yet even beyond those reruns and revisions, the analogy goes deeper: Just as nuclear non-proliferation agreements structured early attempts to regulate global greenhouse emissions, climate policy is now shaping how people understand AI risk.
And not for lack of cause. In some important ways, the problems — or alleged problems, depending on your perspective on AI — resemble each other. For instance, because technology exists in a global commons, any successful AI diplomacy must involve the United States and China. And since China’s AI development currently lags the United States, American politicians must persuade China that their proposals to regulate AI are not just concealed attempts to restrain China’s development.
This dynamic has long bedeviled climate negotiations, too. Since economic growth has (until very recently) required fossil fuels, China and other middle-income countries have long feared that any global climate treaty would constrain their future economic development. The Kyoto Protocol tried to finesse this problem by splitting countries into two groups, rich and not-rich; the Paris Agreement did it by imposing no collective restrictions on fossil fuel consumption at all.
Neither approach has worked, exactly, but each offer examples, counterexamples, and tools for thought. Perhaps the Montreal Protocol, which has successfully limited global production of the pollutants destroying stratospheric ozone — and has shown how to stop the growth of a dangerous but hard-to-manufacture technology that presents near-term existential risk — is a superior model.
There is at least one big way the two risks differ. Climate change is a chemical problem that arises from the size and scale of global fossil fuel consumption. Scientists have known that the greenhouse effect is real since the early 20th century. Climate change’s physics are rudimentary enough that Exxon’s in-house scientists could predict the path of future warming with some accuracy. It is a verifiable risk.
AI’s alleged existential risks, on the other hand, emerge from a lab pushing the technological frontier too far and drilling, like Tolkien’s dwarves, too deep. AI concern relies not on empirical observations, but on a story about exponential change and runaway growth. In this way, it’s a harder risk to predict, and a harder one to accept.
Climate advocates have long wondered what would have happened if Exxon’s leaders had embraced reality and warned the public in the 1980s that global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels. Inside Climate News once called it a “road not taken.” I can’t help but wonder if we’re watching it.
The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate by a quarter point, the central bank announced Wednesday afternoon, its first rate change since Chairman Kevin Warsh took his seat in May and its first rate hike in over three years.
The federal funds rate will now sit between 3.75% and 4%. According to projections by regional Federal Reserve presidents and members of the Board of Governors, the central bank expects to hike rates one more time this year.
In its now characteristically brief statements, the Federal Open Market Committee said that the hike “will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal” for inflation. Inflation is currently running at 3.4% and has been above the Fed’s 2% target since 2021.
The FOMC’s (brief) statement explaining the hike pointed to “resilient” domestic spending and “robust” capital investment. It characterized the economy as “expanding at a solid pace,” albeit with “elevated” uncertainty due to “geopolitical developments.”
This combination of factors — high oil prices due to the partial shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and high investment in data centers — have helped push up yields on Treasury bonds, which helped maneuver the Federal Reserve into its rate hike. These rising Treasury yields have made raising capital more difficult for sectors besides artificial intelligence, very much including the capital-intensive renewable and clean energy industries.
Warsh attributed higher Treasury yields to “economic strength, competition for capital, and geopolitics,” in his press conference following the rate announcement. The yield on the 10-year treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of money throughout the economy, rose to over 5% on the news, the highest level since 2007.
Current conditions: The fast-moving Palos Fire blazed through 17 acres in Los Angeles’ La Habra Heights, injuring two • Heavy rain in São Paulo collapsed a dilapidated building, killing six • The heat index in the Mississippi Valley is topping 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
Two weeks after accusing data center opponents of wanting “to end up being backwards and poor,” President Donald Trump has landed on a new defense of the artificial intelligence buildout. It’s a lot like his old one for abdicating on the federal government’s responsibility to deal with climate-changing emissions. Essentially, it boils down to: My critics are making it all up. “It’s a hoax,” Trump told Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during the five-minute call the executive put on speaker on stage at a conference Monday in Los Angeles. “The robots are not going to be taking over the world. That’s not going to happen.” He later posted on his Truth Social platform: “The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Three-quarters of Americans are now opposed to data centers in their backyards, according to Heatmap Pro’s poll from last month. But Trump has recently bucked with some populist positions on technology that have cross-partisan appeal. While law-and-order Republicans in red states are now turning against the Flock cameras that watch for petty crime, Trump defended the technology in a recent Air Force One chat with reporters. “Trump deserves more respect for his anti-slopulist instincts,” Peter Meijer, a former Republican member of Congress who voted to impeach Trump during his previous administration, wrote in a post on X.
Nvidia’s emissions, meanwhile, appear to be soaring. A new Greenpeace analysis of Nvidia’s own climate reports by the pro-renewables analyst Ketan Joshi found that emissions relating to the supply chain for chip manufacturing soared by 725% since 2020, adding nearly 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

You wouldn’t believe some of the conditions I have heard placed on owners of hydroelectric dams seeking to relicense major clean power projects. There are obvious demands from regulators for things like new infrastructure to help migrating fish pass down a river. Then there are the less obvious, such as building an amphitheater for Boy Scouts or paving new roads far from a dam or its water source. In what the trade group called a first-of-its-kind analysis, the National Hydropower Association reviewed more than 5,000 mandatory conditions across 4,819 licensing documents filed between 1980 and 2026 in 46 states. Dam owners would need to agree to the legally binding requirements, imposed by either state or federal agencies, before a final operating license could be issued. Compared to earlier licenses, hydropower plants today “carry roughly 10 times as many mandatory conditions,” the trade association wrote in its report. “To make matters worse, many conditions are unrelated to energy production and are essentially ‘wish list’ items that hydropower producers are asked to fund, ranging from road construction unrelated to the projects to building fish passage far beyond where the fish actually are (or even could be),” the organization said. Over the next decade, 348 hydropower permits representing 12 gigawatts of capacity are due for relicensing. Many of those facilities are small, and the trend recently has been for companies to simply surrender their licenses and close up shop rather than make costly renovations.
“I urge anyone who cares about reliable, affordable power to read this groundbreaking study,” Malcolm Woolf, NHA’s top executive, said in a statement. “Hydropower, a superhero of the grid and an American icon of energy production, is at great risk due to a broken regulatory framework. Relicensing an existing hydropower facility often takes decades and costs millions of dollars. If these facilities go away, so does the affordable power they produce, the good jobs they create, and the critical infrastructure and ecosystem care they provide.”
Back in May, I told you that South Korea — arguably the most competent builder of atomic power reactors in the democratic world — was “coming to America’s nuclear rescue.” Last week, we discussed the possibility of Seoul’s state-owned nuclear company building reactors in the U.S. as part of a trade pact with the Trump administration. Now we have a clearer picture of where those negotiations may be going. On Tuesday, The Korea Economic Daily reported that South Korea is seeking a roughly 15% stake in Westinghouse, the maker of America’s flagship nuclear reactor, and a seat on its board as part of any deal with Washington. The move, the newspaper noted, is designed to “turn a U.S. request for Korean capital into a strategic foothold in America’s nuclear buildouts.” Ownership by one of America’s closest East Asian allies would be nothing new for Westinghouse, which was owned in the mid 2000s by the Japanese industrial giant Toshiba. Today Westinghouse is a privately held joint venture between the publicly traded investment behemoth Brookfield Asset Management and the Canadian uranium miner Cameco, but the company filed confidential paperwork to the Securities and Exchange Commission in July as a first step toward going public on the stock market.
The market only appears to be expanding. Global nuclear capacity could more than triple by 2060, according to this week’s latest forecast from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations affiliate that oversees nuclear technologies worldwide.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Spend a few minutes scrolling through a comedy fan’s TikTok stream and you’ll find skits playing to the same memetic trope, an anthropomorphized caricature of an incompetent, mistake-prone AI agent guzzling and spilling lots of water. It’s no wonder the joke has already become hack. More than three-quarters of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about the environmental impact of AI, and half are extremely or very concerned, according to data from the latest annual poll from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. In every case, self-identified Democrats are more concerned about environmental issues than Republicans. While 40% of Democrats expressed concern over the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency, just 18% of Republicans said the same. With meat, the ration is 42% to 21%. With air travel, it's Democrats at 38% and Republicans at 17%. But interests converge slightly more on data centers, with 65% of Democrats and 42% Republicans extremely or very concerned about the environmental impacts of AI.
In theory, the late 20th century liberalization of America’s electricity markets should have put a premium on transmission companies building new arteries in the system. In practice, the high cost and grave risk of taking on dozens, sometimes droves, of landowners for right of way to build a power line that stretches hundreds of miles across multiple regional grids makes the task almost impossible, particularly in markets where a power company can’t offset the cost of new lines with other sources of revenue such as generation or power sales. A new report by the Center for Public Enterprise has concluded that “only the federal government can intervene to sew together this national macrogrid by bridging the jurisdictional divides between utilities and regions, instituting planning pipelines with access to finance and cost recovery, and fixing interconnection procedures.” As of yet, that looks unlikely beyond the increased focus on regional planning under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 1920. The rule is facing legal challenges that aren’t expected to be resolved until next year, according to Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.
When I visited Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in Massachusetts earlier this summer, I saw how much progress the company had made toward building what could be the world’s first power-producing fusion reactor, called SPARC. To work, the interior of the torus-shaped, doughnut-like reactor needs to be very cold so magnets can pick up on the contrast in temperatures with the extremely hot plasma fusing together. That’s where the cryogenics come in. The facility’s cryogenics equipment is now up and running, the company said on Wednesday, marking yet another milestone toward next year’s anticipated start up. “That temperature, a few degrees above absolute zero, is what’ll enable our magnets to bottle up a superhot cloud of charged particles called a plasma so fusion can occur,” Adam Weiner, the director of cryogenics at Commonwealth Fusion Systems, said in a statement.