You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
King Charles III has been called “the real deal” — and also a climate fraud.

At the very least, you’ve got to admit — the “Green King” has a nice ring to it.
This Saturday, for the first time in 70 years, Britain will formally crown a new sovereign, setting off a three-day weekend of celebrations that will cost taxpayers a rumored $125 million. But while King Charles III is tied with his wife, Camilla, as Americans’ second-least-favorite royal — behind only the notorious Prince Andrew — his ascension has also drawn praise from climate activists and historians worldwide, who’ve dubbed him Britain’s “environmentalist king-in-waiting.”
Charles’ more than a half-century of environmental activism will undoubtedly be tempered by what The New Yorker calls the monarchical “convention to not publicly register his own views on matters of political policy, and, indeed, to accept the policies of the government.” But his credentials as the once and future Green King of the United Kingdom are also mixed; for every illegally fished Patagonian toothfish he’d defended in the name of “the poor old albatross,” there’s also a wind turbine he’s blasted as a “blot.”
Here’s an overview of Charles’ mixed green bona fides, in passages from 10 helpful articles from around the web.
It may be tempting to think of the new King, with his bespoke Savile Row suits, Edwardian manners, and royal retinue, as an icon of a previous age. But his speeches, books, and projects do suggest a man ahead of his time. He was advocating concepts such as the circular economy and natural capital years before they captured the public’s imagination, and he’s clearly followed his own principles, converting his farm to organic practices more than 30 years ago.
“Some of these ideas were radical and literally decades ahead of their time. Some you could reprint today and they would be very much of the moment. It’s hard to overstate the role he played in putting these subjects on the agenda,” says Tony Juniper, chair of Natural England, a fellow with the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, and former executive director of Friends of the Earth and president of the Wildlife Trusts.
From “Prince Charles Was an Environment Radical. What Happens Now He’s King?” by Jonathan Manning for National Geographic, Sept. 23, 2022
[...The] 73-year-old monarch has dedicated a large part of his life to doing something about the environmental issues that, as a youth, so occupied his mind. He has been an outspoken supporter of sustainability, organic farming, renewable energy, and biodiversity. He’s encouraged others to rethink urban design and corporate production. He skips meat a few days a week. His vintage Aston Martin runs on surplus wine and excess cheese whey. Clarence House, where he lived in London as the Prince of Wales, has solar panels. Balmoral, the summer home of the Royal Family in Aberdeenshire in Scotland, features hydroelectric turbines and biomass boilers. And at last year’s COP26, the king warned world leaders that “after billions of years of evolution, nature is our best teacher” when it comes to reducing emissions and capturing carbon, noting that “restoring natural capital, accelerating nature-based solutions, and leveraging the circular bioeconomy will be vital to our efforts.”
[...Unlike] other world figureheads touting climate issues, when it comes to actually believing in the need to tackle climate change, King Charles is the real deal, argues Piers Forster, professor of climate physics at the University of Leeds and a trustee of the United Bank of Carbon.
From “What Charles the ‘Activist King’ Means for the Climate” by Tom Ward for Wired, Sept. 14, 2022
Charles — like his father, Prince Philip, before him — has at times waded into the sticky morass of population growth. In a speech given at the Sheldonian Theater at Oxford University in 2010, then-Prince Charles noted: “When I was born in 1948, a city like Lagos in Nigeria had a population of just 300,000; today, just over 60 years later, it is home to 20 million.”
With population increasing rapidly in Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City, and cities in other developing countries around the world, Charles said Earth cannot “sustain us all, when the pressures on her bounty are so great.”
[…] There may seem to be a simple logic in laying the blame for climate change on global population, which is now inching toward 8 billion. But there is a long and fraught history of thinkers in developed countries critiquing population growth in developing ones. Betsy Hartman, a professor emerita of development studies at Hampshire College, has said, “In this ideology of ‘too many people,’ it’s always certain people who are ‘too many.’”
From “The Many Paradoxes of Charles III as ‘Climate King’” by Shannon Osaka for The Washington Post, Sept. 13, 2022
[...There] has long been respect for Charles among Indigenous people stretching back more than two decades to April 2001, when the prince traveled to Saskatchewan for a Cree ceremony that bestowed upon him the name Kīsikāwipīsimwa miyo ōhcikanawāpamik, or, “The Sun Watches Over Him in a Good Way.”
Our new monarch has made efforts to visit with Canadian Indigenous leaders in subsequent trips. In 2019, he invited [Perry Bellegarde, former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations] to London and [asked] him to be a part of the Sustainable Markets Initiative, which attempts to push the private sector to make the transition to low-carbon operations.
Charles even consulted with First Nations elders over Zoom during the pandemic to talk about elders’ traditional knowledge.
“He’s got it in terms of sustainable development — that we’re all connected to the land and to the water, and that what affects the animals affects us, and what affects the plants affects us, and what affects the water affects us as human beings,” Bellegarde said.
“I teased him one time in a meeting: ‘I swear to goodness, your Majesty, that you were First Nations in another life.’”
From “Call Him the Green King. Charles Will Have an Environmental Agenda. How Far Can He Push It?” by Allan Woods for The Toronto Star, April 30, 2023
Charles has never acknowledged the monarchy’s full responsibility for the climate crisis. Asked by the BBC last year if the U.K. was doing enough to combat climate change, he replied: ”I couldn’t possibly comment.” And while Charles has acknowledged the general injustice of the monarchy’s colonial legacy, he has not connected that legacy to growing climate injustice around the world.
Climate justice activists from colonized nations say this connection is important, because the very institution that gives Charles a powerful platform to speak on climate change is responsible for creating global crisis conditions in the first place. To truly be considered a “climate king,” they say, Charles would have to not only acknowledge the climate harm done by the monarchy, but take steps to repair it.
From “Stop Calling Charles the ‘Climate King’” by Emily Atkin for Heated, Sept. 14, 2022
The Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI), which Charles launched in 2020 when he was Prince of Wales, granted BP a “Terra Carta Seal” even though the oil and gas giant had failed to achieve a top score from the sustainability ranking company assessing applicants for the awards.
[…] Clive Russell, a spokesperson for Ocean Rebellion, an activist group that spun out of Extinction Rebellion, said giving BP a seal undermined SMI’s credibility: “How can an initiative co-founded by a world-renowned polluter like BP – a company currently investing £300m in renewables and £3.8bn in new oil and gas – be taken seriously? The SMI should be disbanded. Those involved should hang their heads in shame. This is blatant greenwashing.”
From “King Charles Accused of Helping BP ‘Greenwash’ Its Image With Royal Seal” by Dimitris Dimitraidis and Ben Webster for OpenDemocracy, Nov. 4, 2022
On the eve of today’s Countryside Alliance march in London, it was revealed that the heir to the throne wrote to Tony Blair expressing anger at the government for pursuing plans to outlaw the bloodsport in England.
It is understood the Prince, a passionate hunt supporter, told Blair that he “would not dare attack an ethnic minority in the way that supporters of fox hunting were being persecuted.”
From “Prince: I’ll Leave Britain Over Fox Hunt Ban,” by The Scotsman, Sept. 22, 2002
Addressing a conference of conservationists at St James’s Palace in London, the Prince of Wales announced a meeting of heads of state to take place this autumn in London under government auspices to combat what he described as an emerging, militarised crisis.
“We face one of the most serious threats to wildlife ever, and we must treat it as a battle — because it is precisely that,” said Charles. “Organised bands of criminals are stealing and slaughtering elephants, rhinoceros, and tigers, as well as large numbers of other species, in a way that has never been seen before. They are taking these animals, sometimes in unimaginably high numbers, using the weapons of war — assault rifles, silencers, night-vision equipment, and helicopters.”
From “Prince Charles Calls for a War on Animal Poachers” by Fiona Harvey for The Guardian, May 21, 2013
“[Charles] is understood to be strongly opposed to onshore wind turbines that rise higher than 100 metres because of their visual impact, and none have been erected on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the £700m estate that provides him with a private income. He has lobbied government officials to subsidize other renewable energy sources and is reported to believe that if windfarms should be built at all, they should be far out at sea.
[...] In the past few years, the crown estate has signed a 25-year lease with the renewable energy company RWE for turbines at Little Cheyne Court windfarm in Kent and has agreed lease options with Renewable Energy Systems, which wants to erect 15 turbines in Carmarthenshire, with RWE npower for four turbines in Powys, and with E.ON for 17 turbines on the Billingborough estate in Lincolnshire
[...] “It is hypocrisy,” said Leanne Wood, a candidate for the Plaid Cymru leadership who is campaigning for Welsh energy independence. “[The prince] stands to benefit from wind projects on land in Wales, but opposes them himself. If that is his position there shouldn’t be windfarms on crown estate land.”
From “Prince Charles To Get Funding From ‘Blot on the Landscape’ Windfarms” by Robert Booth for The Guardian, Feb. 28, 2012
From now on, what the King says is less important than what he is seen to do. He now runs a multibillion-pound private corporation and has one of the world’s greatest personal fortunes. How our billionaire king spends his money and what he does with his vast properties and land holdings may fundamentally change the way Britain sees itself – and how the world regards us.
[... He] could start his green reforms of the monarchy by publicly divesting the institution of all fossil fuel interests [...] He could [offer] to the state or the National Trust most of his cold, largely empty, useless castles, palaces and mansions, such as Balmoral and Sandringham. He could then slash the estimated £90,000-a-month heating bills of any that are left – Windsor or Sandringham, for example – by investing heavily in heat pumps, solar power and insulation and then switching his bills to renewable energy providers such as Ecotricity or Good Energy.
[...He could] clear out the old rollers and Bentleys, go entirely electric, and take to bicycles and rail like other modern monarchies [...] If he was brave and fair-minded he could offer the 16 private hectares (39 acres) of Buckingham Palace to London as a new public park [...]
[...] Charles could happily dispose of most of the many thousands of great diamonds, rubies, and other jewels that have been handed personally to royalty over 200 years without anyone caring. The billions of pounds raised from such a sale could be used to establish academies of sustainable farming or permaculture in the Commonwealth countries from which most jewels were looted in colonial times and many of which are still struggling to feed themselves.
Aside from shedding most of his relations, abandoning archaic British empire medals, and generally living less lavishly, he could start hosting vegetarian banquets and end hunting on all royal lands.
At which point, he could do the decent thing and abolish himself.
From “Here’s a Plan for Green King Charles: Sell the Family Silver and Use the Cash to Save the Planet” by John Vidal for The Guardian, Oct. 6, 2022
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew was defeated by ... another wind opponent.
Democrat Zack Mullock unseated Representative Jeff Van Drew, one of offshore wind’s biggest foes, on Tuesday night in the race for New Jersey’s second district. But while Mullock is a fan of renewable energy, he’s still a man of the south Jersey shore — and unlikely to be a champion for turbines off his coast.
District 2 encompasses the entire lower quarter of the state, covering six coastal counties from Atlantic City down to the tip of Cape May and around to the Delaware Bay. The area is a hotbed for offshore wind opposition, where groups like Protect our Coasts NJ have filed legal challenges against almost every wind project proposed in the region.
After heading to Congress in 2019, Van Drew, who was previously a Democrat, switched parties and became a key ally to this movement. He called for a moratorium on offshore wind development, held hearings on offshore wind “industrialization”, and requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the industry. He also worked with the Trump administration to block projects that were under construction.
During a debate in late October, Mullock accused Van Drew of flip flopping on wind, arguing that the congressman was a staunch supporter of the industry during his decade-long tenure in the New Jersey legislature. Mullock, who is currently serving his second term as mayor of the city of Cape May, summed up his own position by citing a resolution he signed in 2023 calling for a moratorium on surveying and acoustic testing for offshore wind development pending an investigation into a spate of whale deaths. He signed it due to “concerns” about the environment and commercial fishing, he said.
“I believe very much in our future with renewable energy,” he said. “We need to go full steam ahead with solar panels. And yes we should do wind where it is appropriate, where it doesn't hurt our environment and it doesn't hurt our commercial fishing industry.”
Mullock’s campaign website says he supports federal investments in renewable energy and incentives for energy-efficient homes. He also wants “stricter enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act,” and to fund coastal resiliency and other “smart infrastructure” projects that protect against climate impacts. He also campaigned in support of a data center moratorium.
Early signs point to a rough election for AI infrastructure.
We’ve seen enough: If this was the data center election, it was a really bad night for the industry.
Democratic campaigns and their affiliated Super PACs spent bigly on data center-themed attack ads. The ads came in various flavors. Some ads painted a vote for tax cuts as aiding data center developers. Others brought up candidates’ previous support for data centers or stock the candidate may have held in the tech industry or AI infrastructure developers. As Election Day approached, the data center industry sought to bat back claims that their sector’s poor reputation with the electorate would sway the results. People may have soured on their industry, they argued, but people weren’t going to vote based on that position.
Results are still coming in, but so far congressional races heavily featuring these data center attacks are heavily going in Democrats’ favor. In addition, these races have so profoundly shifted that it’ll be challenging for the industry to argue they played no role in the outcome.
Some of the most illustrative examples are obvious. In Georgia, Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms campaigned on a statewide data center moratorium and won control of the governor’s mansion, becoming the first black woman to ever lead a U.S. state. Similar results in Ohio where Amy Acton flipped party control of the governor’s seat with a campaign that included going hard against data centers. In Pennsylvania, two Democrats who focused on data centers in their races have flipped Republican districts: Scranton mayor Paige Cognetti and firefighter Bob Brooks. In New Jersey, Cape May mayor Zack Mullock rode data center attacks to defeat Rep. Jeff Van Drew, the biggest opponent of the offshore wind industry. In Virginia, Democrat Shannon Taylor rode data center-laden attacks to take control of the Richmond area congressional seat from Rep. Rob Wittman.
If you’re arguing this election was decided by data centers, your best proof point: Democrat Gina Hinojosa has taken control of the governor's mansion in Texas, defeating incumbent Greg Abbott, who’d sought recently to take a hard line against the industry. Hinojosa ran on going further, calling to pass a law completely pausing data center development across one of the industry’s favorite states. She won a decisive victory. So did Democratic Texas Agriculture Commissioner candidate Clayton Tucker, who I explained months ago became one of anti-data center Facebook’s favorite online personalities.
But it makes sense that data centers would matter a lot in Texas, which could be compared to Virginia in terms of their buildout. When you inspect the election results more closely, they tell a more complicated story about the upper boundaries of these data center attacks.
For decades, Greenville and Spartanburg County have been GOP vote strongholds and reliable for both Republican congressional candidates and statewide campaigns. The congressional district gave Donald Trump at least a 20-point cushion in the 2024 presidential election, according to Decision Desk HQ. Last week, I explained for subscribers to The Fight how Courtney McClain, a novice candidate living one mile from a controversial data center proposal, was running against incumbent Rep. William Timmons. I couldn’t find much in the way of online ad spending on either side in this race and it’s never been on the radar of most political observers as a campaign that could somehow flip party control. But the data center debate in Spartanburg County has been immense.
Tonight, Timmons kept his ordinarily ruby red district by slim single digits after running even for most of the night. But this swing was essentially the same as the national margin. And because Timmons didn’t lose, this actually feels like a crucial distinction – data centers were not deciding races themselves in all cases. Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darlene Graham in a result driven by Democratic overperformance and GOP underperformance in this area, but it’s challenging to tie this result to the data center issue at all. Anything from the economy and the Iran War to Graham’s deceased brother and his baggage could be blamed for this result from this heavily evangelical region.
However, it will be challenging for the data center sector to differentiate themselves from this outcome, especially since a pro-data center Super PAC – Building the Future – publicly waded into the race in support of Graham only to lose. “Darlene Graham’s loss is a black eye for the data center industry,” wrote Teddy Schleifer of The New York Times on election night.
The same story played out in Georgia’s 1st district, which includes the city of Savannah. OpenAI is developing a controversial data center project in Effingham County, northwest of Savannah and the congressional race – which like South Carolina’s 4th had comparatively little spending – has been chock full of data center mudslinging, with the Democrat Amanda Hollowell calling for broader moratoria on development.
Effingham County went for Trump by almost 50 points in 2024. As of this story’s publication, the Republican, Jim Kingston, is winning by a single percentage point with 93% of the vote in. Most of what’s left is in Effington. Should this candidate win, it’s safe to say it’s because voters in this county looked past data centers, or did not link their vote for a national candidate to the local development.
On Election Night, Effingham County formally tabled any decision on the OpenAI data center. So at least on the ground level, people are paying close attention to these results.
After taking two seats in a special election last year, the party gained a third in the midterms.
Democrats claimed two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission in a special election last year, ending almost 20 years of unanimous Republican control over the regulator.
One of those winning Democrats, Peter Hubbard, ran again this year for a full six-year term in a rematch against Republican Fitz Johnson. The other open seat this year saw Sheila Edwards running in an open race against Republican Josh Tolbert.
Both Hubbard and Edwads won, securing a 3–2 Democratic majority on the Public Service Commission.
“Over the last 12 months, Georgian consumers have made one thing clear: They are tired of rising utility bills and they are hungry to see change. Georgia’s sea change moment for energy policy has arrived,” Charles Hua, the executive director of the utility-focused advocacy group PowerLines, told me.
The Democrats have not been shy about what their priorities will be on the commission.
“Winning control of the Georgia Public Service Commission means prioritizing lowering power bills instead of constantly increasing corporate profits, ramping up the deployment of clean energy technologies, and focusing the people in our decision-making as state regulators,” Hubbard said in a statement on his website.
Edwards, for her part, made it clear where she stands on data centers specifically in an October debate with Tolbert. “They came into our communities,” Edwards said. “They didn’t pay any taxes. They are using our water, using our electricity, and they’re being a public nuisance to the communities that they’re coming into.”
Hubbard also talked about data centers on Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast back in June. “I advocate for a whole-of-government approach, because while the Public Service Commission really only has oversight over the power side of things — where that power comes from and how much data centers are paying on their tariff — there’s much larger issues in terms of water use, in terms of the tax incentives,” he told my colleague Robinson Meyer. “The estimate is $3.5 billion in tax abatements this year in Georgia, uncollected revenue that data centers otherwise would be willing to pay.”
The race has seen outsize spending and interest from major figures not accustomed to dealing in utility regulator races. (Just 10 states have elected utility commissions, period.) Kamala Harris appeared at a virtual fundraiser for the Democratic candidates in Georgia, as well as Democratic hopefuls to the Arizona Corporation Commission. The solar energy industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of the Democrats in Georgia. Meanwhile, anonymous donors pumped millions of dollars into Tolbert’s bid.
Democrats swept into the Georgia PSC last year on a wave of dissatisfaction with rising electricity prices, especially rate hikes attached to the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, which ran years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. In the runup to the election, the PSC approved a three-year base rate freeze proposed by Georgia Power in an attempt to head off public dissatisfaction.
In the past year, rates in Georgia have gone up by less than 1% across the state on average, according to the Heatmap-MIT Electricity Price Hub, while rates are up over 18% in the last three years and over 6% in the past two years.
Shares in Southern Company, the parent company of Georgia Power, were down slightly more than 0.5% in after-hours trading Tuesday night.