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:
“Do you ever think about electric cars?”
Between solar roofs, home batteries, and electric vehicles, Tesla could potentially “do more to fight climate change than any other company — perhaps any other entity — in the world,” Walter Isaacson muses in his much-anticipated biography of Elon Musk, out Tuesday.
But while the central character is at times painted as a heroic visionary (Isaacson’s previous subjects have included Steve Jobs, Einstein, and Leonardo da Vinci), the biography also makes it clear that Tesla’s mercurial CEO isn’t always the easiest to work with — or, in the blunter words of Bill Gates, he can be “super mean.” Here are some of the most surprising moments about climate and energy shared in Isaacson’s Elon Musk:
On Musk’s EV passion:
When Elon went with [Peter] Nicholson’s daughter, Christie, to a party one evening, his first question was “Do you ever think about electric cars?” As he later admitted, it was not the world’s best come-on line.
On education:
Musk also focused on electric cars. He and [his friend Robin] Ren would grab lunch from one of the food trucks and sit on the campus lawn, where Musk would read academic papers on batteries. California had just passed a requirement mandating that 10 percent of vehicles by 2003 had to be electric. “I want to go make that happen,” Musk said.
Musk also became convinced that solar power, which in 1994 was just taking off, was the best path toward sustainable energy. His senior paper was titled “The Importance of Being Solar.” He was motivated not just by the dangers of climate change but also by the fact that fossil fuel reserves would start to dwindle. “Society will soon have no option but to focus on renewable power sources,” he wrote. His final page showed a “power station of the future,” involving a satellite with mirrors that would concentrate sunlight onto solar panels and send the resulting electricity back to Earth via a microwave beam. The professor gave him a grade of 98, saying it was a “very interesting and well written paper, except the last figure that comes out of the blue.”
On investing in batteries:
Eager to keep the conversation going, [Tesla co-founder JB] Straubel changed the topic to his idea for building an electric vehicle using lithium-ion batteries. “I was looking for funding and being rather shameless,” he says. Musk expressed surprise when Straubel explained how good the batteries had become. “I was going to work on high-density energy storage at Stanford,” Musk told him. “I was trying to think of what would have the most effect on the world, and energy storage along with electric vehicles were high on my list.” His eyes lit up as he processed Straubel’s calculations. “Count me in,” he said, committing to provide $10,000 in funding.
On building the Gigafactory:
The idea that Musk proposed in 2013 was audacious: build a gigantic battery factory in the U.S. […] There was one problem, Straubel recalls. “We had no clue how to build a battery factory.”
So Musk and Straubel decided to pursue a partnership with their battery supplier, Panasonic […] Musk and Straubel were invited to Japan by Panasonic’s new young president Kazuhiro Tsuga. “It was a come-to-Jesus session where we had to make him truly commit that we were going to build the insane Gigafactory together,” Straubel says.
The dinner was a formal, multicourse affair at a traditional low-table Japanese restaurant. Straubel was fearful about how Musk would behave. “Elon can be so much hell and brimstone in meetings and just unpredictable as all get out,” he says. “But I’ve also seen him flip a switch and suddenly be this incredibly effective, charismatic, high-emotional-intelligence business person, when he has to do it.” At the Panasonic dinner, the charming Musk appeared. He sketched out his vision for moving the world to electric vehicles and why the two companies should do it together. “I was mildly shocked and impressed, because, whoa, this is not like how Elon usually was on other days,” says Straubel. “He’s a person who’s all over the map, and you don’t know what he’s going to say or do. And then, all of a sudden, he pulls it all together.”
On the origins of SolarCity:
“I want to start a new business,” Musk’s cousin Lyndon Rive said as they were driving in an RV to Burning Man, the annual art-and-tech rave in the Nevada desert, at the end of the summer of 2004. “One that can help humanity and address climate change.” “Get into the solar industry,” Musk replied. Lyndon recalls that the answer felt like “my marching orders.” With his brother Peter, he started work on creating a company that would become SolarCity. “Elon provided most of the initial funding,” Peter recalls. “He gave us one clear piece of guidance: get to a scale that would have an impact as fast as possible.”
On buying SolarCity:
When Musk announced the deal in June 2016, he called it a “no-brainer” that was “legally and morally correct.” The acquisition fit with his original “master plan” for Tesla, which he had written in 2006: “The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy.”
On hating SolarCity:
The solar roof project caused enormous friction between Musk and his cousins. In August 2016, around the time he was teasing the new product, Peter Rive invited Musk to inspect a version that the company had installed on a customer’s roof. It was a standing-seam metal roof, meaning the solar cells were embedded in sheets of metal rather than tiles. When Musk drove up, Peter and fifteen people were standing in front of the house. “But as often happened,” Peter recalled, “Elon showed up late and then sat in the car looking at his phone while we all just waited very nervously for him to get out.” When he did, it was clear that he was furious. “This is shit,” Musk explained. “Total fucking shit. Horrible. What were you thinking?”
On really, really hating SolarCity:
There were four versions [of solar roofs], including those that looked like French slate and Tuscan barrel tiles, along with a house that featured the metal roof that Musk hated. When Musk visited two days before the scheduled event and saw the metal version, he erupted. “What part of ‘I fucking hate this product’ don’t you understand?” One of the engineers pushed back, saying it looked okay to him and that it was the easiest to install. Musk pulled Peter aside and told him, “I don’t think this guy should be on the team.” Peter fired the engineer and had the metal roof removed before the public event.
On cutting solar roof installation time:
[…] Musk clambered up a ladder to the peak of the roof, where he stood precariously. He was not happy. There were too many fasteners, he said. Each had to be nailed down, adding time to the installation process. “Instead of two nails for each foot, try it with only one,” he ordered. “If the house has a hurricane, the whole neighborhood is fucked up, so who cares? One nail is going to be fine.” Someone protested that could lead to leaks. “Don’t worry about making it as waterproof as a submarine,” he said. “My house in California used to leak. Somewhere between sieve and submarine should be okay.” For a moment he laughed before returning to his dark intensity.
On talking climate with Bill Gates:
“Hey, I’d love to come see you and talk about philanthropy and climate,” Bill Gates said to Musk when they happened to be at the same meeting in early 2022. Musk’s stock sales had led him, for tax reasons, to put $5.7 billion into a charitable fund he had established. Gates, who was then spending most of his time on philanthropy, had many suggestions he wanted to make. They’d had friendly interactions a few times in the past, including when Gates brought his son Rory to SpaceX. [...] Gates argued that batteries would never be able to power large semitrucks and that solar energy would not be a major part of solving the climate problem. “I showed him the numbers,” Gates says. “It’s an area where I clearly knew something that he didn’t.” He also gave Musk a hard time on Mars. “I’m not a Mars person,” Gates later told me. “He’s overboard on Mars. I let him explain his Mars thinking to me, which is kind of bizarre thinking. It’s this crazy thing where maybe there’s a nuclear war on Earth and so the people on Mars are there and they’ll come back down and, you know, be alive after we all kill each other.”
On dismissing climate philanthropy:
At the end of the tour, [Gates and Musk’s] conversation turned to philanthropy. Musk expressed his view that most of it was “bullshit.” There was only a twenty-cent impact for every dollar put in, he estimated. He could do more good for climate change by investing in Tesla.
On Bill Gates’ betrayal:
There was one contentious issue that [Bill Gates and Elon Musk] had to address. Gates had shorted Tesla stock, placing a big bet that it would go down in value […] Short-sellers occupied [Musk’s] innermost circle of hell. Gates said he was sorry, but that did not placate Musk. “I apologized to him,” Gates says. “Once he heard I’d shorted the stock, he was super mean to me, but he’s super mean to so many people, so you can’t take it too personally.”
[...] When I asked Gates why he had shorted Tesla, he explained that he had calculated that the supply of electric cars would get ahead of demand, causing prices to fall. I nodded but still had the same question: Why had he shorted the stock? Gates looked at me as if I had not understood what he just explained and then replied as if the answer was obvious: he thought that by shorting Tesla he could make money. That way of thinking was alien to Musk. He believed in the mission of moving the world to electric vehicles, and he put all of his available money toward that goal, even when it did not seem like a safe investment. “How can someone say they are passionate about fighting climate change and then do something that reduced the overall investment in the company doing the most?” he asked me a few days after Gates’s visit. “It’s pure hypocrisy. Why make money on the failure of a sustainable energy car company?”
On rejection:
Gates followed up in mid-April, sending Musk the promised paper on philanthropy options that he had personally written [...] “Sorry,” Musk shot back instantly. “I cannot take your philanthropy on climate seriously when you have a massive short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.” When angry, Musk can get mean, especially on Twitter. He tweeted a picture of Gates in a golf shirt with a bulging belly that made him look almost pregnant. “In case u need to lose a boner fast,” Musk’s comment read.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
What’s a big multinational like Microsoft to do when it wants to build with clean concrete?
Imagine you’re a corporate sustainability exec and your company is planning to build a new data center. You’ve managed to convince the higher-ups to pay extra to use low-carbon building materials, lest the project blow up your brand’s emissions goals. But when you meet with the general contractor hired for the job, they don’t actually know of any low-carbon concrete purveyors in the area. Concrete is a hyper-local industry by necessity — you can’t hold the stuff for more than 90 minutes or so before it hardens and becomes unusable.
So here you are, one of the few people with the power and budget to pay a premium for zero-emissions concrete — a product that must become the standard if we are to stop climate change — and you can’t even get your hands on it.
This is, more or less, the situation Microsoft has found itself in. Last year, the company’s indirect emissions rose 31%, primarily due to the construction of new data centers. Cement, the main ingredient in concrete, is one of the most carbon-intensive materials on the planet, responsible for 6% of global emissions, according to Rhodium Group’s estimate. Low-carbon cement exists and is starting to be manufactured at a small scale, but first movers with deep pockets like Microsoft can’t necessarily access it.
To solve this and help clean cement startups access a bigger pool of buyers, Microsoft is leading the development of a new market for low-carbon cement — what climate finance experts call a “book and claim” market.
The tech giant has signed a memorandum of understanding with Sublime Systems, a Massachusetts-based cement startup, saying that it will buy “environmental attribute certificates” from Sublime’s first commercial cement plants. Microsoft will “book” the environmental attributes — the greenness, for lack of a better word — of Sublime’s cement, and “claim” those attributes in its own emissions accounting.
Let’s get a collective groan out of the way. Yes, once again, the business community is proposing a sort of carbon credit system as the best way — possibly the only way — to scale climate solutions. These certificates, however, have at least one notable difference from the beleaguered carbon offsets you’ve likely heard so much about: They are tied to a physical product. Microsoft won’t be buying one ton of CO2 avoided or removed from the atmosphere and then subtracting that from its overall emissions ledger. It will be buying the rights to say that it used one ton of cement with a carbon intensity of zero (or whatever the carbon intensity of Sublime’s product ends up being). Instead of neutralizing its cement-related emissions by paying someone to plant trees, it’s doing so by enabling Sublime to sell its clean cement to local buyers at a competitive price.
“It tremendously simplifies our logistics,” Leah Ellis, the CEO and founder of Sublime Systems told me, by solving the unavoidable problem that at this early point in the company’s development, it would be impossible to deliver its cement to all the early adopters willing to pay extra for it. “We end up doing death by 1,000 pilots if we have to pilot here, there, everywhere. Being able to use the cement locally and have the carbon attribute be counted against Microsoft's Scope 3 emissions is a really innovative way to unstick this whole problem.”
That’s key. Scope 3 is a category of emissions that encompasses all the carbon that is related to a business but not directly produced by it. When Microsoft builds a data center, it has no direct control over the process used to make the cement that goes into the building. In theory, it does have the ability to say, “We want to use clean stuff, not dirty stuff.” But in reality, companies are struggling to effect change within their supply chains.
“The thing to understand right out the gate is that basically no major consumer-facing company that uses things like steel or aluminum or cement knows where their stuff actually comes from,” Stephen Lezak, a researcher focused on carbon markets at the University of California, Berkeley, as well as at Oxford University, told me. He thinks that’s going to change, and hopes that in 15 years we all look back on this fact in horror. But in the meantime, “the urgency of the climate crisis requires using high integrity tools that aren't ideal, but still preserve fundamental integrity from a carbon accounting perspective,” he said.
Microsoft, for its part, told me it sees this transaction as a near-term solution and “prioritizes buying and installing physical product first” i.e., before buying certificates, “where technical, geographical, and supply chain considerations align.”
Sublime is currently building its first commercial plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, which will use its unique zero-emissions process to produce 30,000 tons of cement per year. The Department of Energy awarded the company an $87 million grant to fund the project earlier this year. Holcim and CRH, two of the largest building materials companies in the world, have also invested in Sublime and agreed to purchase most of the volume produced by the first plant.
Ellis hopes the deal with Microsoft will help attract additional investment and get the company through its “awkward teenage years.” Sublime needs to show investors that “people want this material, people will pay that green premium so that we can drive up the volume so that that premium goes away,” she said.
As with carbon offsets, there are still ways to game the system. Microsoft recently co-authored a report with the clean energy think tank RMI describing what a larger book and claim market for clean cement might look like and what questions need to be answered to ensure the market is credible. Until clean cement is just as cheap or cheaper than conventional cement, it’s pretty clear this kind of market will help reduce emissions. But should the environmental attributes be tied to cement, or to concrete? How should the carbon intensity be calculated? How will emissions be tracked and traced from the producer to the contractor to the building itself?
Perhaps the most critical question is how to avoid double-counting. If Microsoft is buying the right to say it used clean cement, what can the company that bought the actual cement say? Will it be able to brag that its building is green?
When I posed this question to Ellis, and Ben Skinner, a manager at RMI and one of the authors of the report, each gave me a version of the same answer: Yes and no.
Ellis launched into a passionate monologue about the concrete companies and contractors and structural engineers who should be celebrated for taking the risk of using a new material. “This problem of cement emissions is so intractable,” she said. “We need to make cement more visible. We need to talk about this more. We need more people to care. And so that physical embodiment, having it stamped ‘Sublime cement,’ and having a plaque that shows the public, hey, these are the emissions reduced by this thing you see here, you want to celebrate that physical embodiment.” At the end of all this, she added, “And by no means am I saying that you should double count.”
The suggestion is that it should be possible to separate carbon accounting and green marketing. If Microsoft has booked the green attributes of a delivery of cement, the contractors or building owners who used the physical stuff should not be able to claim they used clean cement on their emissions balance sheets, Skinner said. (What number they should use is a tricky question that will have to be solved.) But perhaps they still deserve some kind of recognition.
What kind of recognition, Lezak told me, is a gray area. “There's a really difficult part of this whole conversation, where you start anchored in material science and climate science and everything is really rigorous,” he said. “And at some point, the train sort of moves on to the political economy track, and it's really tough because you look for the same sort of black and white answers to these questions and they just don't show up.”
The details of the Microsoft deal and who can claim what are still being negotiated. At the same time, RMI and a new nonprofit called the Center for Green Market Activation have started work to stand up a larger book and claim market for cement. Their goal is to develop standards for how these certificates should be created, traded, and used so that companies that do not have the expertise or budget or resources that Microsoft has can access them. “We do think that it's possible to create a really high integrity system,” Skinner, told me.
Whether you like this idea or hate it, get ready to hear a lot more about it. The Center for Green Market Activation, which launched in June, is working to develop book and claim markets across a range of carbon intensive industries, including aviation, trucking, maritime shipping, and chemicals. There is one clear alternative to these paper-trading schemes — regulations that require companies to use more green materials over time. But proponents don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Lezak, though initially skeptical of these markets, has grown to support the idea. “There are people out there arguing that if you want to claim the emissions reduction in green steel, you need to make sure that the green steel actually shows up on your factory floor,” he said. “That's a beautiful idea, but you're talking about potentially pulling out the rug from billions of dollars of high integrity carbon finance.”
On the World Bank’s bad record keeping, Trump’s town hall, and sustainable aviation fuel
Current conditions: Parts of southwest France are flooded after heavy rains • Sydney’s Bondi Beach is closed because lumps of toxic tar are washing ashore • A winter storm warning is in effect for parts of Montana.
Nearly 40% of the climate finance funds that have been distributed by the World Bank over the last seven years are unaccounted for due to poor record keeping, according to a new report from Oxfam International. That’s up to $41 billion that is untraceable. “There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used, which makes any assessment of its impacts impossible,” the report said. “It also remains unclear whether these funds were even spent on climate-related initiatives intended to help low- and middle-income countries protect people from the impacts of the climate crisis and invest in clean energy.”
The World Bank is the largest multilateral provider of climate finance, and has a goal of directing 45% of its total financing toward climate projects by 2025. The report noted that climate finance will be a key issue at the upcoming COP29, where countries will put forward a new global climate finance goal. “The lack of traceable spending could undermine trust in global climate finance efforts at this critical juncture,” Oxfam said.
During a town hall event hosted by Univision last night, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked by a veteran construction worker – who had seen first-hand “the devastating impacts of climate change” – if he still believed global warming was a “hoax.” In his response, Trump claimed to be an environmentalist, saying he’d won “many awards over the years” for the way he’d constructed his buildings, “the way I used the water, the sand, the mixing of the sand.” But, he said, “we can’t destroy our country” for the sake of saving the climate. He said the U.S. is competing against China, which “doesn’t spend anything on climate change.” According to the International Energy Agency, last year China alone accounted for one-third of the world’s clean energy investments.
Needless to say, Trump didn’t really answer the question about whether he thought climate change was real, but he did cast doubt on sea level rise and claimed “the real global warming we have to worry about is nuclear.”
I’ll just take this opportunity to remind you that Heatmap’s Jeva Lange put together an exhaustive fact-check on Trump’s climate and weather claims going back to 2001.
The Supreme Court yesterday allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward with its rule restricting climate pollution from power plants, meaning that one of the Biden administration’s key climate policies can stay in place. For now. The high court’s decision will allow the EPA to defend the rule in a lower court over the next 10 months. Whether the Biden administration’s new attempt at regulating climate pollution will survive depends on the outcome of next month’s election. The Trump campaign has said that it will overturn the EPA’s new climate rules. Should Harris win, the rule will still have to survive the lower court challenge. That case is scheduled to be heard in front of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this term.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy yesterday announced its first two loans for sustainable aviation fuel. The roughly $3 billion in funding will go to two companies:
“As the aviation sector aims to meet its decarbonization goals, SAF will become increasingly vital,” the DOE said in a statement. “SAF is the only viable near-term option to decarbonize the airline industry.”
A Canadian court’s ruling on a climate lawsuit today could influence similar cases in Canada and other countries. Seven young people are suing the Ontario government over its emissions targets, which they say are inadequate and violate their human rights. If the case heads to Canada’s Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs win, that would “dramatically open the door to new litigation,” constitutional law expert Emmett Macfarlane toldReuters. “That would be explosive. It would have immediate ramifications for all governments.”
The University of California, San Diego, is the first major public university to require all its undergraduate students to complete a climate change course.
They may not survive a full challenge, though.
The Supreme Court allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward with its rule restricting climate pollution from power plants on Wednesday, meaning that one of the Biden administration’s key climate policies can stay in place. For now.
The high court’s decision will allow the EPA to defend the rule in a lower court over the next 10 months. A group of power utilities, trade groups, and Republican-governed states are suing to block the greenhouse gas rule, arguing that it oversteps the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA’s new rules, which were finalized in April, would be the government’s first successful effort to regulate climate pollution from the power sector. The electricity industry is the second most-polluting sector in the American economy.
The Obama administration previously tried to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from the power sector. The Supreme Court blocked those rules from taking effect in 2016, before striking them down completely in 2022.
This time, the agency has written the rules within a framework laid out by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in that ruling. In that now landmark case, the court ruled that the EPA could restrict greenhouse gas pollution from power plants only by requiring new technology, such as carbon capture equipment, to be installed at the plant itself. The agency couldn’t require utilities to stop burning fossil fuels and build more renewables.
In the near term, whether the Biden administration’s new attempt at regulating climate pollution will survive depends on the outcome of next month’s election. The Trump campaign has said that it will overturn the EPA’s new climate rules. During his first term, Donald Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental and climate protections.
Should Harris win, the rule will still have to survive the lower court challenge. That case is scheduled to be heard in front of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this term.
“The high court made the right call,” Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Given its rulings in recent years undercutting environmental protections, the refusal of the majority on the Supreme Court to block this vital rule is a victory for common sense.”
Not all the news from the Supreme Court on Wednesday was good for climate advocates, though.
In the same decision that let the new rules stand, the high court’s conservative justices signaled that they might block the rules next year.
“In my view, the applicants have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges” to the rule, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a short statement attached to the stay, which was cosigned by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
But because the rules don’t require utilities to start complying until next June, there was no reason to grant an emergency stay, the two justices added.
Justice Clarence Thomas would have gone further and stepped in to block the rules immediately. Justice Samuel Alito, another reliable conservative vote, did not participate in the deliberations.
That suggests that four justices could be ready to block the rules as soon as next year. They would need only one more vote — from Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Amy Coney Barrett — to stay the protections from taking effect.
The statement didn’t provide any hints to what Roberts or Barrett are thinking.