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 new rules are complicated. Here’s how to make sense of them if you’re shopping for an electric vehicle.

The Department of Treasury published new rules last year that will determine which new electric vehicles, purchased for personal use, will qualify for a $7,500 tax credit. They went into effect on April 18, 2023, and last for the next decade or so.
These new tax credit rules are complicated. The list of cars that qualify for the new tax credit can change from year to year — and even month to month. Many buyers in the EV market might have a few questions, including: Should I buy that new car now, or should I wait? Which cars qualify for the current tax credit, and which ones will earn the new one?
This is Heatmap’s guide to the new tax credit, why it matters, and what to keep in mind as you go EV shopping.
If you’re an ordinary American buying a brand-new EV to run errands and pick up the kids, these new rules apply to you. They will determine which cars you can get a federally funded discount on.
If you’re not buying a new car for personal use — because you’re getting it for your business, say, or because you’re buying a used EV — these new rules don’t apply to you. But you may qualify for other new subsidies. We get into those below.
And even if you are in that first category, you may discover it’s much cheaper to lease a new EV instead of buying it outright. We get into why below, too.
They completely change how the United States approaches the EV industry.
During the Bush and Obama administrations, the U.S. was focused mostly on getting automakers to begin to experiment with EVs. So it discounted the first 200,000 or so electric vehicles that each manufacturer sold by up to $7,500. If a company had cumulatively sold more than that number over time, as Tesla and General Motors eventually did, then the discount expired. By 2022, that had led to a peculiar situation where foreign automakers, such as Hyundai, could use the subsidy, while some of the largest American automakers couldn’t.
Now, U.S. policy is focused on two goals: (1) building up a domestic supply chain for EVs and (2) getting more EVs on the road. So the tax break is completely uncapped — any automaker can use it as many times as possible if they meet the criteria.
But many new requirements apply: Only cars that undergo final assembly in North America will qualify for any of the tax credit. Then, cars with a battery that was more than 50% made in North America will qualify for a $3,750 subsidy. And cars where at least 40% of the “critical minerals” used come from the U.S. or a country with whom we have a free-trade agreement will qualify for another $3,750 subsidy.
Those percentage-based requirements will ramp up over time. By 2029, for instance, 100% of a car’s battery and battery components must be made in North America.
Because Congress said so. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Democratic majorities in the House and Senate passed last year, mandated this change to the EV tax credit as part of its broad expansion of American climate policy.
Initially, fewer EVs will receive a subsidy under the new rules, Biden officials say. On a press call with reporters, a senior Treasury official argued that more cars will eventually qualify under the new rules than qualified under the old ones.
This year, at least 15 car or light trucks will receive some or all of the credit. Only some of those vehicles will qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit; some will qualify for a partial $3,750 tax credit. Here is the full list of qualifying models, along with the amount of the tax credit that they will earn:
• Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro PHEV ($3,750)
• Cadillac LYRIQ ($7,500)
• Chevrolet Bolt ($7,500)
• Chevrolet Bolt EUV ($7,500)
• Chrysler Pacifica PHEV ($7,500)
• Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid ($3,750)
• Ford F-150 Lightning, Standard & Extended Range ($7,500)
• Jeep Wrangler PHEV 4xe ($3,750)
• Jeep Grand Cherokee PHEV 4xe ($3,750)
• Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring ($3,750)
• Rivian R1S, Dual Large & Quad Large ($3,750)
• Rivian R1T, Dual Large, Dual Max, & Quad Large ($3,750)
• Tesla Model X Long Range ($7,500)
• Tesla Model 3 Performance ($7,500)
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD ($3,500)
• Tesla Model Y AWD, Rear-Wheel Drive, & Performance ($7,500)
• Volkswagen ID.4 AWD PRO, PRO, S, & Standard ($7,500)
Some vehicles that earned the full tax credit in 2023, such as the Ford Mustang Mach E, don’t qualify for any benefit as of January 2, 2024.
Yes. A few examples: The Hummer EV, which costs more than $110,000 a piece, won’t qualify for either the new or old tax credit — it’s too expensive. And the Polestar 2 won’t qualify because it’s assembled in China.
Yes. Starting this year, the U.S. is preventing cars that receive too much manufacturing input from a “foreign entity of concern” — that is, China — from qualifying for any of the tax credit. This has reduced the number of vehicles that qualify for the $7,500 bonus.
This year, the government will also allow buyers to refund their EV tax credit at the dealership. That means buyers can now get up to a $7,500 discount at the moment when they buy their car instead of waiting until they file their taxes in the following year.
Yes. A married couple must have an adjusted gross income of less than $300,000 a year, and a single filer must have an AGI of less than $150,000 a year, to qualify for any aspect of the subsidy. A head-of-household must have an income of less than $225,000 a year.
Yes. Under the proposed rule, cars must have an MSRP below $55,000 to qualify for the credit. Vans, pickup trucks, and SUVs must have an MSRP below $80,000.
Yes. The Inflation Reduction Act also included a new $7,500 tax credit for EVs used for any commercial purpose. The Treasury Department is expected to interpret that provision to cover leasing, but it hasn’t announced the guidelines for that rule yet, so we don’t know for sure.
But the provision will probably tilt new EV drivers toward leasing their car rather than buying it outright, because the dealer should — emphasis on should — offer relative discounts on leasing vehicles as compared to buying them.
Yes. There’s also a new $4,000 tax credit for buying a used EV that costs $25,000 or less. It went into effect on January 1, 2023, so you can go ahead and use it today.
But note that it has even stricter income limits: Married couples can only take advantage of it if they make $150,000 or less, and other filers if they make $75,000 or less.
Here’s the list of cars that qualified for the $7,500 tax credit before April 18, 2023, according to the Department of Energy.
• Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro (PHEV)
• BMW 330e *
• BMW X5 xDrive45e**
• Cadillac Lyriq
• Chevrolet Bolt
• Chevrolet Bolt EUV
• Chevrolet Silverado EV
• Chrysler Pacifica PHEV
• Ford E-Transit
• Ford Escape Plug-In Hybrid *
• Ford F-150 Lightning
• Ford Mustang Mach-E
• Genesis Electrified GV70
• Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe
• Jeep Wrangler 4xe
• Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring *
• Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring *
• Nissan Leaf
• Nissan Leaf (S, SL, SV, and Plus models)
• Rivian R1S
• Rivian R1T
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range
• Tesla Model 3 Performance
• Tesla Model 3 RWD
• Tesla Model Y All-Wheel Drive
• Tesla Model Y Long Range
• Tesla Model Y Performance
• Volkswagen ID.4
• Volkswagen ID.4 AWD, Pro, and S models
• Volvo S60 PHEV *
• Volvo S60 Extended Range
• Volvo S60 T8 Recharge (Extended Range)
* These cars don’t qualify for the full $7,500 subsidy, although they all receive at least a $5,400 tax credit.
** Only some BMW X5 xDrive45e vehicles qualify — it depends where the car was made. Check the VIN or ask the dealership to confirm it was made in North America before buying.
This story was originally published on March 31, 2023. It was last updated on March 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
Get the best of Heatmap delivered to your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The COVID-era political divide is still having ripple effects.
Six years ago this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began advising that even healthy individuals to wear face coverings to protect themselves against the spread of what we were then still calling the “novel coronavirus.” Mask debates, mandates, bans, and confrontations followed. To this day, in the right parts of the country, covering your face will still earn you dirty looks, or worse.
If there were ever another year to have an N95 on hand, though, it’s this one. This winter was the warmest on record in nine U.S. states; Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and Montana have also recorded some of their lowest snowpacks since record-keeping began. That cues up the landscape in the West for “above normal significant fire potential,” in the words of the National Interagency Fire Center, which issues predictive outlooks for the season ahead. And it’s not just the West: the 642,000-acre Morrill grass fire, which ignited in early March, was the largest in Nebraska’s history, while exceptional drought conditions stretching from East Texas through Florida have set the stage for “well above normal fire activity” heading into the spring lightning season. As of the end of March, wildfires have already burned more than 1.6 million acres in the U.S., or 231% of the previous 10-year average.
“Air pollution is the most significant toxic environmental exposure that the average person is ever subjected to, and wildfire smoke in particular is probably the most toxic type of air pollution [they’re] ever exposed to,” Brian Moench, the president at Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit clean-air advocacy group, told me.
Our understanding of just how dangerous that smoke is grows by the year. After having their grant pulled by the Trump administration, researchers at the University of California, Davis Health and UCLA persisted in publishing a report this winter reviewing more than 8.6 million births in California and demonstrating a link between exposure to wood smoke during pregnancy and the increased likelihood of autism. Another report, also published this winter by researchers from UCLA, estimated that the particulate matter from wildfire smoke is responsible for nearly 25,000 deaths per year in the United States, with no safe threshold for exposure.
“If a person is in a circumstance where they really can’t avoid wildfire smoke,” Moench added, “they absolutely should be doing everything they can to protect themselves.”
As public health offices around the country will tell you, one of the best ways to do just that is by donning an effective mask. N95 respirators specifically are about 95% effective at protecting the wearer against the dangerous particulates in wildfire smoke (although not gases or asbestos). Though not recommended by public health departments due to their comparative ineffectiveness, even surgical and cloth masks can offer limited particulate protection of about 68% and 33%, respectively.
But you have to actually wear them. After the Los Angeles fires in early 2025, health officials warned that exposure to toxic ash and dust remained a threat even after the air quality index returned to safe levels; one public health official who spoke to The New York Times recommended wearing a face mask for at least a month after the fires, a duration likely to feel interminable to all but the most cautious of people. “I think there’s a reluctance on the part of a lot of people to wear masks based not on anything other than they don’t want to make a political statement with their public outings,” Moench said. “I think there are a lot of people who just want to shy away from the controversy that they represent, irrespective of whether or not it’s a good idea.”
Moench has first-hand experience with the frustrating experience of promoting lung health in the polarized, post-COVID world of masking. Last year, Utah lawmakers floated a statewide mask ban with exceptions only for Halloween and masquerades — but not for legitimate health concerns such as poor air quality due to wildfire smoke. Though the ban was swiftly shot down, in part due to the outcry from disability advocates and environmental health groups, including Physicians for a Healthy Environment, the fact that the legislature floated it at all underscores how masks remain divisive, even years after mandates ended.
Many in public health have approached post-COVID messaging around masking by promoting scientific facts. Bev Stewart, the regional director of health initiatives at the American Lung Association of the Mountain Pacific, told me that in her experience, “It’s rare that somebody would say, ‘I would never, under any circumstance, wear a mask.’” She called the process of trying to reach skeptics a “conversation,” noting that there tends to be “a large misunderstanding about how lungs work” — namely, that masks offer protections that extend beyond the associations with the pandemic.
“Many types of air quality concerns could be mitigated with masks,” Stewart told me. “Sometimes we’re just thinking too narrowly about one specific instance and forgetting the forest for the trees.”
Others I spoke to, though, were doubtful that the populations who are most resistant to mask-wearing could be reached through facts alone. A portion of the country has “lost all respect for empirical evidence, facts, and science — virtually everything that modern civilization was based upon,” Moench said.
Jonas Kaplan, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, has put numbers to Moench’s conjecture. During the COVID pandemic, Kaplan studied how messaging can reach anti-maskers, discovering that when “information about masks was framed in terms of pure science, there was no significant reduction in anti-mask beliefs or change in mask-wearing behavior.”
Kaplan told me that a lot of the resistance in the anti-masking community comes down to, “What will people in public think of me? What would my friends think of me?” The most effective messages, he’s found, are those that speak to in-group values rather than presenting straight facts. “It wasn’t like, ‘Studies show that this is safe …’” broke through with the skeptics, Kaplan said. “It was more about emphasizing, ‘This is important, and we should care about it.’”
Science, though, does still have a vital role to play. Though we already have a better understanding of the impacts of smoke exposure than we did even a few years ago, more research is needed into its long-term effects. That will also give us greater clarity into how to best protect the more than 25 million Americans who are exposed to wildfire smoke every year — both physically, via better masks and air filters, as well as through better public health messaging.
“Smoke by itself — we know what’s in it, and we know you don’t want to breathe it in,” Emily Fischer, a leading expert on air pollution and a researcher and professor at Colorado State University, told me. “We also know that there are protective actions that families can prepare for, and do their best to take.”
Unfortunately, under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation, which had previously led research in the area, have drastically reduced their funding. Just this week, The Hill reported that NOAA has cut off grant funding to the University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, which, in addition to research into greenhouse gases, has extensively studied wildfire-related air pollution.
Fischer has been affected, too. “My team has had grants terminated related to air quality and protecting public health, and that’s really sad because the smoke doesn’t care if you’re a kid, if you’re elderly, or if you live in a red or blue state,” she said. “Families really need to think right now about how to protect themselves and their loved ones” against the smoke ahead, she told me.
Current conditions: Temperatures in the Northeast are swinging from last week’s record 90 degrees Fahrenheit to a cold snap with the risk of freezing • After a sunny weekend, the United States’ southernmost capital — Pago Pago, American Samoa — is facing a week of roaring thunderstorms • It’s nearing 100 degrees in Bangui as the Central African Republic’s capital and largest city braces for another day of intense storms.
The price of crude spiked nearly 7% in pre-market trading Sunday after the fragile ceasefire between Iran and the U.S.-Israeli alliance. Things had been looking up on Friday, when President Donald Trump announced what appeared to be a breakthrough in talks with Tehran in a post on Truth Social, saying Iran would “fully reopen” the Strait of Hormuz. By Sunday, however, the U.S. commander in chief was accusing Tehran of firing bullets at French and British vessels in the waterway in “a total violation of our ceasefire agreement,” adding: “That wasn’t nice, was it?” On Sunday afternoon, Trump posted again to announce that the U.S. had seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship attempting to traverse the strait. The prolonged conflict will only harden the historic rupture the severe contraction of oil and gas supply to the global market in modern history has triggered in global energy planning. “As happened with Russia’s war against Ukraine, the consequences of the Hormuz closure cannot simply be undone. That leaves countries — especially poorer countries dependent on fossil fuel imports — with a stark choice about how to fuel their future economic growth,” Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week. “The crisis may have tipped the balance towards renewable and storage technology from China over oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf, Russia, or the United States.”
While the surge in gasoline costs “likely peaked,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright warned that the price at the pump could remain above $3 a gallon until 2027 during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.
The Trump administration pitched its deal to pay TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to cancel the company’s offshore wind leases as a win-win: The government would reimburse the French energy giant for every penny it spent to acquire the leases, and in exchange, Total would “redirect” the money to U.S. oil and gas development. But new document released Friday and analyzed by Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo show that “Americans’ side of the bargain appears to be worthless” given that “Total did not have to make any new investments to get its check.” Indeed, the company was already planning investments in the U.S. that would likely qualify under the deal.
Offshore wind investments are, meanwhile, moving forward. Danish developer Orsted has installed the first wind turbine at its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York, offshoreWIND.biz reported. The turbine is the first of what’s expected to be 84 turbines totaling nearly a gigawatt of maximum capacity. It comes just weeks after Wind Scylla, the Cadeler-owned vessel specially designed to deploy turbines, completed work on Revolution Wind, Orsted’s flagship first project off the coast of Rhode Island. That the project is moving ahead as normal is a victory unto itself. The Trump administration pulled out every stop to halt construction of all offshore wind projects.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that energy companies facing lawsuits over environmental damage to the Louisiana waterfront from oil and gas production can move those cases from state to federal court, where more favorable outcomes are expected. In a unanimous decision in favor of Chevron, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “Congress has long authorized” the transfer from state to federal courts. The New York Times described the ruling as “a significant victory for oil companies.”
The decision comes two months after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which concerns jurisdiction for “public nuisance” claims. It’s still awaiting a hearing date. But the litigation, which dates back to 2018, came when the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, sued the oil giants Exxon Mobil and Suncor for damages from climate change, bringing charges under state law. “The oil companies tried repeatedly to get the case dismissed, arguing that it belonged in federal court. But time and again, the courts disagreed. The Supreme Court already rejected an earlier petition to review the question of whether the case belonged in state or federal court in 2023,” Emily wrote in February. “Now it has agreed to consider a slightly different petition, filed last summer, over whether federal law preempts Boulder’s state-law claims.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has agreed to work with the state of Indiana to build out “a future pathway for nuclear energy solutions” including “small modular reactors and other advanced nuclear technologies.” The drugmaker behind antidepressant Prozac and erectile dysfunction treatment Cialis signed a letter of intent with the state last month. The deal, first reported by Axios on Friday, marks the latest example of a big corporate power user laying out plans for atomic energy investments for something other than data centers. In 2022, the steelmaker Nucor signed a deal with nuclear developer NuScale to explore building a small modular reactor near one of its electric arc furnaces, and last year forged an alliance with The Nuclear Company to consider backing the startup’s efforts to establish a supply chain for building fleets of reactors. In 2023, Dow Chemical inked a deal with X-energy to use the next-generation nuclear developer’s high-temperature gas-cooled reactors to potentially swap out fossil fuels for splitting atoms as its industrial heat source.
Not all is looking rosy for the nuclear industry. Fermi America, the startup led by former Texas Governor Rick Perry and which promised to build a giant data enter complex backed by, isn’t just “faltering, it’s imploding,” according to a report by independent energy journalist Robert Bryce. But other projects are advancing. On Friday, the next-generation reactor startup Kairos Power broke ground on its demonstration project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Then, on Saturday, Bloomberg reported The Nuclear Company was moving forward with a bid to finish construction of either South Carolina's abandoned V.C. Summer nuclear plant or one of two other potential locations in the state.

Brazil is racing to develop its critical minerals as the U.S. looks for new sources in the hemisphere that can help Washington loosen China’s grip over the metals. Just how to regulate the nascent industry is a hot topic in Brazilian politics right now. Lawmakers who back left-wing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are pushing to form a state-owned mining company. In a Sunday post on X, Lula boasted that Brazil “already holds the world’s largest reserve of niobium, the second largest of graphite and rare earths, and the third largest of nickel” — and “only 30% of the mineral potential” is mapped out as of yet. Following the lead of mineral-rich countries in Asia and Africa, Brazil said it would look to make deals for processing and refining. “We will not repeat the role of mere exporters of mineral commodities,” Lula wrote. “We are open to international partnerships that include stages of higher value added and technology transfer.”
That could be an opening for deals with China, which dominates the processing industry. Countries such as Indonesia and Zimbabwe banned exports of raw ore in a bid to capture more of the industrial supply chain. “There are a lot of countries that want something like this right now,” Tim Puko, a minerals analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me on X. “Brazil is one of the few with a good chance of pulling it off.”
Japan may be facing record gas prices as the Iran War squeezed shipments of liquified natural gas. But it’s got some backup coming onto the grid from two sources of clean firm power. Unit 6 of the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, a 1,356-megawatt Advanced Boiling Water Reactor shut down after Fukushima, has resumed commercial operation, World Nuclear News reported. Furusato Thermal Power has announced that the roughly 5-megawatt Waita No. 2 geothermal power plant, located in Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan, has officially started commercial operations, just two years after construction started, ThinkGeoEnergy reported.
Editor's note: This article was updated after publication to include other sites The Nuclear Company is considering in South Carolina.
Investor and philanthropist John Doerr shares a refresh to his Speed & Scale climate action tracker.
John Doerr thinks it’s time to refresh his grand plan for decarbonization. The Kleiner Perkins chairman and climate-focused philanthropist published his book Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now five years ago; then a year later, he introduced an online tracker to measure global progress across the book’s core objectives, which includes sectoral targets such as electrifying transport as well as execution-related goals that cut across all sectors such as winning on politics and policy and increasing investment investing.
But in the time since, both the world and the climate outlook have shifted significantly. So Doerr, alongside his co-author and advisor Ryan Panchadsaram, concluded that both the action plan and the metrics used to assess progress were due for a major revamp.
Heatmap got an exclusive look at the updated Speed & Scale tracker ahead of San Francisco Climate Week, where Doerr and Panchadsaram will unveil the new data and analytical framework underpinning this iteration. Designed to give budding entrepreneurs, business leaders, and policymakers a comprehensive view of where the world stands and how far it has to go in its fight against climate change, the tracker aims to help these stakeholders decide where to deploy their attention and capital.
Doerr told me the original plan has been a success in this regard. “We became convinced by the number of entrepreneurs, founders, technology experts and policy people who said, you know, that Speed & Scale plan influenced my decision about what to do — not how to do it, but what ought to really be done,” he said.
But Doerr is also well aware that we’re living in a different world now. “We had AI arrive and change the demand for electrical power, we have geopolitical forces that we’re trying to understand and cope with,” he told me. “And finally, there’s just the indomitable power of markets and price. All of which is to say, we can’t stick with a plan that’s five years old. It’s time to revise it.”
The updated plan preserves the six main objectives — electrify transportation, decarbonize the grid, fix food, protect nature, clean up industry, and remove carbon from the atmosphere — while including interim 2035 targets as well as 2050 targets aligned with a global net zero pathway. It also retains four other objectives on how to accelerate progress — that is, through politics and policy, turning movements into action, innovation, and investment. The team then breaks these 10 overarching priorities into subtargets called “key results,” in accordance with the goal-setting framework that Doerr famously introduced to Google in the late 1990s that has since become widely adopted across the tech industry.
While the key results in the original plan framed targets in percentage terms — for example, “increase EV sales to 50% of all new car sales by 2030” — the updated version uses absolute figures instead, such as “Increase the number of electric cars to over 600 million by 2035.” The idea, Panchadsaram told me, is to make the targets more tangible and thus easier to understand and act upon.
Another major change is the data that Speed & Scale uses to measure progress, which has altered the emissions picture significantly. Previously, the tracker relied on emissions estimates from the United Nations Environment Programme, but it’s since switched to data from the independent organization Climate TRACE, which combines satellite imagery, remote-sensing, and artificial intelligence to produce a more granular, point-source view of global emissions. The new data illuminated sources that have historically been undercounted, such as wildfire activity and methane leaks. This updated methodology indicates that annual emissions are about 74 gigatons a year, not the 59 gigatons that the old tracker had estimated using the UN’s numbers.
It was a shock for the team to see how drastically the topline figure changed with this new data, Panchadsaram told me, though it reinforced their notion that key results should usually represent gigaton-level opportunities for emissions abatement. But given that the world is still lagging across so many of these metrics, the Speed & Scale team no longer thinks it’s possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, although they say staying under 2 degrees remains viable with increased ambition.
But it’s not all bad news. The updated tracker highlights six key results — out of 52 total — that the world is on track to meet. These include electric vehicle adoption and achieving cost parity with combustion cars, continued scaling of solar and wind generation, cost reductions for zero-emissions firm and variable power, and reducing operational emissions among Fortune Global 500 companies. There’s even one milestone that has already been reached — clean energy jobs now outnumber fossil fuel jobs, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
When I asked the duo whether they were surprised at where we’d managed to eke out climate wins, Panchadsaram told me, “I think we were right directionally on the technologies. Who ended up scaling them was probably the radical change.” For instance, Speed & Scale spent a lot of words on the electric bus manufacturer Proterra, a Kleiner Perkins-backed startup that filed for bankruptcy in 2023. At the same time, the book devoted just a few paragraphs to the Chinese automaker BYD, which surpassed Tesla in global sales last year.
Yet unfortunately and predictably, there is a lot of bad news to be found in this latest update, too. Seven key results are labeled “code red,” indicating focus areas individually responsible for over 3 gigatons of annual emissions where there’s been little to no progress. These include methane leaks, heating and cooling of buildings, livestock management, and the manufacture of steel and other industrial materials. Beyond this, the tracker is filled with categories where we’re making either “insufficient” progress or “failing,” with the latter indicating stagnation in areas where the impact is less than 3 gigatons per year.
Many of the “code red” results represent hard-to-abate sectors where decarbonization technologies don’t exist at scale, command a high green premium, or frequently both. This is a reality that Doerr and Panchadsaram are well aware of. “Our friend Al Gore always says, ‘We have all the technologies we need to get to where we need to go. All we need is more political will,’” Doerr told me. He thinks Gore is correct — to an extent. “We’ve got all the technologies we need to get us to 2030 or 2035. We don’t have all the innovation we need to get us to 2050.”
To get even more granular on the innovation imperatives most critical to the energy transition, the Speed & Scale team partnered with organizations including Breakthrough Energy, McKinsey, Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability, and Elemental Impact to develop the Climate Tech Map, which I covered last year. In combination with the updated Speed & Scale plan, the map is designed to direct innovators toward key technological frontiers while also giving them a foundational grounding in the structure and challenges of these sectors.
Other updates to the tracker also reflect our changing political and market realities, with certain targets now recalibrated to align with current conditions. For instance, while the old tracker aimed to make climate a top-three voter issue, “we failed in achieving that objective,” Doerr told me. Climate messaging hasn’t proven to be a particularly salient issue for voters on either side of the aisle, and the updated tracker now sets what the team thinks is a more attainable benchmark — making climate a top-five issue.
Of course, even that is still quite a bold goal, as are most of the key results that Speed & Scale hope to achieve. But that’s the way it should be, Doerr said. “What was an opportunity has become an imperative, and so we have really got to step up our game and do it fast.”