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 oldest climate story isn’t about a wildfire or a hurricane, a heat wave or a drought. It’s about a flood.
“The deluge is terrifying not just for its destructive capacity but also for the way it undoes all that has been accomplished, brings us back to the fathomless chaos of beginning,” The New Yorker’s Avi Steinberg writes of this most primordial human fear, the story of which has been echoed across cultures and religions from the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh to the Bible’s Old Testament to the Ancient Greek Deucalion Myth to stories told by Native peoples across North America. It might also be humankind’s oldest cautionary tale: When the rain starts and the waters begin to rise, pay attention.
In the United States, floods are the deadliest extreme weather phenomenon after heat waves. In particular, flash floods — which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration distinguishes as flooding that “begins within 6 hours, and often within 3 hours, of ... heavy rainfall” — often take people by surprise, or are dangerously underestimated.
With Hurricane Hilary threatening to dump potentially a year’s worth of rain on parts of the southwestern United States in the span of 72 hours, learning how to react to rising waters ahead of time can be life-saving. This is what you need to know.
Unlike learning your personal wildfire risk, which is relatively easy, it can be frustrating to try to figure out the flood risk of your home.
FEMA publishes flood maps (you can search by your address here), but the shading key can be hard to make out and I had difficulty getting the images to load. I had my best luck navigating to this version of the map, clicking on the location I was interested in, then clicking to the second page of the pop-up information, where you will see “Flood Hazard Zones” followed by a letter. The letters B, C, and X designate moderate- to low-risk flood areas (though the risk in these locations is not non-existent!) while high-risk areas are marked with A or V.
An example of where to find your individual flood hazard zone on the FEMA flood map.FEMA
Personally, I preferred the clear information laid out at RiskFactor.com. The website told me my neighborhood’s risk (I live by the river in New York City, so mine is “moderate”) and the number of properties in the area that have a “greater than ... 26% chance of being severely affected by flooding over the next 30 years” (for my neighborhood, 16%!). The website will even estimate the “max depth of flooding” of a specific home or building for this year and in the next 30 years.
If you are in a moderate- to high-risk area on either map, you should take steps to prepare for a flash flood. Even if you score lower, you might want to consider preparing your house because minimal risk doesn’t denote zero risk.
Either way, you should read the below section about “what to do if you’re in a car during a flash flood,” since such a scenario can happen to anyone.
You don’t have to wait for a flash flood warning to begin to prepare for the worst. But if you’re in a situation where you can anticipate flooding — like much of Southern California, Nevada, and southwestern Arizona can right now — you should prepare ahead of time to run errands so you won’t need to leave the house during the storm. Keep in mind, the best way to stay safe during a flash flood is to not encounter the flood in the first place.
Make sure you have enough food for several days, as well as enough pet food for your animals. Also be sure to pick up any prescriptions or medications you might need. Anticipate any other reasons why you might need to leave your home and try to prevent or limit them ahead of time.
Confirm that the contents of your “go bag” or emergency evacuation kit are up-to-date. Here’s a generic checklist of what should go in it, as well as a version in Spanish.
Check the batteries in your flashlights and charge backup batteries for electronics like cell phones, in case the power goes out.
Clean up your yard if you have time; secure outdoor furniture so it doesn’t get blown around.
Prepare electricity-free entertainment options (now is the time to start brushing up on gin rummy).
Check on neighbors or relatives who might not be aware of the coming storm or have made preparations yet.
I can't believe I have to write this, but absolutely do not order Doordash or Uber Eats or food or products from any other courier service during flash flood conditions. Doing so puts other people in direct danger. Your ramen craving can be satisfied later.
Never wait out a storm in a basement or an apartment that is below ground level if you live in an area with moderate to high flood risk; move to a higher floor or find a different location to shelter in. Even if your home or basement has been okay in previous rainstorms, major flood events can overwhelm city sewer systems and back up water into areas it hasn’t reached before. As Reza Khanbilvardi, a professor of civil engineering and hydrology at City College of New York, told Gothamist after Hurricane Ida killed dozens in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in 2021, “Apartments in cellars and basements can be death traps.” Paved urban areas can be especially dangerous in these conditions.
Follow potential evacuation alerts on your phone or on a radio (yes, they still exist!). Sign up for alerts now if you haven’t already.
Seal your important documents in a gallon-size freezer bag or other waterproof bag if you anticipate needing to evacuate, The New York Times suggests.
Unplug electronics and move any valuables to higher floors or locations if you have time to prepare for an evacuation.
If water enters your home, evacuate immediately with your go bag. Do not wait or try to retrieve any additional items. One of the most common ways people get hurt during flash floods is by waiting too long to evacuate. Use your best judgment — if it feels safer to climb to a higher floor than to try to drive to higher ground, do so, but avoid sheltering in an attic where FEMA warns you could get trapped. “Go on the roof only if necessary,” FEMA writes, and “signal for help.”
Do not attempt to walk or swim through floodwaters. Six inches of moving water is enough to knock an adult off their feet. Electrocution is also the second-biggest cause of death during a flood after drowning; never attempt to turn off a circuit breaker box or touch appliances if you are wet or standing in water.
If you come in contact with floodwaters, be sure to wash that area of your body very well when you reach safety.
If at all possible, avoid driving during flash flood conditions. Of course, this isn’t always possible — often people are out when they get caught in a storm. The National Weather Service reports that nearly half of flash-flood fatalities are vehicle-related and the “majority” of victims are male.
First and foremost, never, ever drive through floodwaters or around a roadblock or barrier. “Turn around, don’t drown” is a well-worn NWS slogan for a reason. Just 6 inches of flowing water can move a car and just 12 inches can carry it away — it doesn’t matter how good of a driver you are.
Additionally, even if the water looks shallow, it might not be. “Do not attempt to cross a flooded road even if the car in front of you made it through,” meteorologist Bonnie Schneider writes in her book Extreme Weather.
If your car stalls in water, first responders want you to remember“seatbelt, windows, out.” Do not waste valuable time trying to call 911 and wait for rescue. Unbuckle immediately so you are free to move. Then roll down the windows so that if the car’s electrical system shorts out, you still have a means of escape. (As a backup, buy a “Lifehammer” to punch your way through the window and out of your car. If you do not have a Lifehammer or something similar, the pointy metal ends of a headrest can work in a pinch, The New York Times reports.)
At this point, there is “no right answer,” Joseph Bushra, the medical director with Narberth Ambulance, told WHYY. You need to assess the situation. If it is safe to exit your car and escape to higher ground, do so, but plan your path before getting out of the car and remember, just 6 inches of water can knock an adult over.
If it is not safe to try to make it to higher ground, then you need to get on top of your car. Turn on your hazard lights to make the car visible to first responders. Evacuate children first, starting with the oldest child, and tell them to hang onto whatever they can, The New York Times advises. Once you have evacuated and are on top of your car, then call 911.
It’s not called a “worst-case scenario” for nothing. So what do you do if you end up in the water during a flash flood?
Your number one priority should be to try to get out of the water as quickly as you can. Climb a tree, a building, a car or truck, or head toward any available higher ground.
If you are forced to swim, move perpendicular to the current. Keep in mind this is a last possible resort: “People need to realize that most people who lose their footing in a flash flood don’t get out,” Julie Munger, the founder of Sierra Rescue International, told The New York Times.
If swimming to safety isn’t possible, the Riverside County Fire Department recommends orienting your body so you’re on your back, with your feet down-current, so you can use them to move debris out of the way. “Most victims in swift water die when they get pinned against obstacles, or get trapped in submerged debris and vegetation,” the department writes. Get out of the water or on top of something as quickly as possible — and hold on tight.
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 administration can’t have it both ways on the Clean Air Act.
The Trump administration filed lawsuits this week against four states that are pursuing compensation from oil and gas companies for climate change-related damages. But Trump’s separate aim to revoke the government’s “endangerment finding,” the conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and should therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act, could directly undercut the legal basis for the suits.
In each of the cases, the Trump administration is arguing that the Clean Air Act preempts the states’ actions. But if the Environmental Protection Agency rules that the Clean Air Act does not, in fact, require the federal regulation of greenhouse gases, that argument could fall apart.
Two of the lawsuits target Vermont and New York for their new “climate superfund” laws that require the companies responsible for the greatest amount of emissions over the last three decades to pay into a fund supporting adaptation and disaster response. The Department of Justice is also suing Hawaii and Michigan to block them from suing fossil fuel companies for damages for climate change-related harms. Neither state had actually filed such a lawsuit yet, although both had expressed interest in doing so. (Hawaii went ahead and filed its suit on Thursday night.)
“I just want to start by saying that these lawsuits by the government are totally unprecedented,” Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of Law at Michigan State University, told me when we hopped on the phone. To her knowledge, never before has the federal government tried to preemptively stop a state from filing a liability case against companies.
In an executive order in early April, Trump had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement” of state climate laws and actions that “may be unconstitutional” or “preempted by federal law.” The order singled out lawsuits against oil companies as well as climate superfund laws, calling both a form of “extortion” and a “threat to economic and national security.”
Nevermind that climate change is a major threat to economic and national security, and states have filed these lawsuits and created these laws because they are scrambling to find ways to pay to address the unprecedented damages brought by the increasing severity of wildfires and floods.
Even before Trump took office, Rothschild said, the federal government had warned states that they were going to need to take more responsibility for preparing for and responding to increasing natural disasters. “[States] do not have the resources alone to address this problem,” said Rothschild. “These companies have engaged in an activity that causes external harms that they’ve not taken into account as part of their business practices, they’'re imposing all the costs of those harms on states and citizens, and they should be liable to help us deal with the resulting problems. That’s a very normal activity for tort suits.”
Dozens of states have filed similar lawsuits seeking damages from oil companies. (A Justice Department press release did not say why it was singling out states that had not taken any legal action yet rather than targeting those that had.) Many of these lawsuits have been stuck in a holding pattern for years, though. “Climate superfund” laws are a new legal strategy, modeled on the federal superfund program, that some states are testing to get oil companies to pay up.
The DOJ’s lawsuits claim that states cannot fine oil companies for their emissions because that authority lies with the federal government under the Clean Air Act. That argument is underpinned by the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, which stems from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act, and therefore the EPA must determine whether these emissions pose a threat to public health. The court said that if the agency finds there is enough scientific evidence to say greenhouse gases are harmful, it must develop regulations to rein them in. EPA officially made this finding in 2009.
This was a big headache for Trump during his first term. He wasn’t allowed to simply repeal Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas rules — by law, he had to replace them. If he’s able to reverse the endangerment finding, however, he could undo climate protection rules and that would be that.
At the same time, he’d make oil companies much more vulnerable. “There is great concern that reversing the finding would open the door to a lot more nuisance lawsuits against all types of energy companies,” Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell, a lobbying firm, told E&E News. “It would eliminate one of the best arguments that oil companies have used to get lawsuits against them dismissed,” he added.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin will face an uphill battle in reversing the finding, as there is a mountain of scientific evidence that greenhouse gases cause dangerous climate change. But Zeldin may instead try to argue that the EPA did not consider the cost of addressing these emissions when it made the initial finding — and that the costs of reining them in outweigh the costs of emitting freely.
Legal experts are skeptical this argument will go anywhere, either. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA’s endangerment finding should be based on science, not economics. Cost-benefit analyses and other policy considerations are relevant if the EPA finds that greenhouse gases do, in fact, pose a threat, but they “do not inform the ‘scientific judgment’” that the law requires the EPA to make, the judge ruled. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn “Chevron deference,” a decades-long precedent that gave agencies broad authority to interpret their statutory mandates, could also hurt Zeldin’s case.
Rothschild, for her part, is confident that states’ superfund laws and tort suits are defensible regardless of what happens to the endangerment finding. These actions have nothing to do with the Clean Air Act, she argued, because they are not an attempt to regulate emissions. “They're trying to impose liability for local, environmental, and public health harms from past activities,” she said.
One thing is for certain: Between states’ lawsuits suing oil companies, oil companies’ countersuits, the DOJ’s new lawsuits against states, and probably future suits against any actions the Trump administration takes on endangerment, there’s going to be a whole lot of new case law about greenhouse gases over the next four years.
The fundamentals are the same — it’s the tone that’s changed.
At some point in the past month, the hydrogen fuel cell developer Plug Power updated its website. Beneath a carousel explaining the hydrogen ecosystem and solutions for transporting fuel, the company’s home page now contains a section titled “Hydrogen at Work.”
“Hydrogen is key to energy independence, providing clean, reliable power while reducing reliance on imported fuels,” the text in this new box reads. “Plug’s hydrogen and fuel cell solutions strengthen the energy grid and enhance national security, positioning the U.S. as a leader in the global energy transition.”
It is fairly ordinary website copy, but to a keen reader, the text jumps out as an obvious Trump 2.0 tell. Plug Power — like many green economy companies — has pivoted to meet the political and economic moment, where “energy independence” and “energy dominance” are in and “climate” and “sustainability” are out.
“I am actually shocked every time I look at the website of a climate tech company that still uses the language from 12 months ago, from four months ago — that doesn’t do them any good,” Peter Atanasoff, the managing director and vice president of Scratch Media and Marketing, which helps B2B technology companies and climate tech businesses achieve growth and recognition, told me.
The shift in language is more significant than just brands chasing the latest buzzwords.
The first Trump administration saw broad-based pushback from the business community against Trump’s more inflammatory positions, especially by consumer-facing brands that played to the pussy hat-wearing, brunch-and-protest attitudes of the time. The CEOs of Facebook (now Meta), Nike, and Google issued statements of disappointment when the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk even dropped out of the president’s business council over the decision. It was, needless to say, a very different time.
During Trump’s second term, he promised “retribution.” Many of the more moderate voices from his first administration are long gone, and there’s a palpable fear among nonprofits and businesses of drawing the wrong kind of attention from Washington, losing grant funding for saying the wrong thing. “The real trigger” for resulting differences in branding between the first and second Trump administrations has been “the change of tone and change of economic policy,” Atanasoff told me. “It is explicit opposition to any of these technologies."
The administration has launched an all-out assault not just on climate policy, but also on the very language of the energy transition. In a February memo obtained by E&E News, the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed 34 words to be erased from official documentation, including “global warming,” “carbon footprint,” “net zero,” and even “green.” As I’ve covered for Heatmap, farmers applying for Department of Agriculture grants have been encouraged to resubmit proposals with climate-focused language removed and “refocus … on expanding American energy production.” And at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, scientists have quickly learned to pivot to talking about “air pollution” rather than emissions, contending with a banned-words list of their own.
Lobbyists and clean energy companies that want to be in the administration’s good graces have adapted, as well. That has changed the tenor of green business at large. Alexander Bryden, who runs the Washington, D.C. office of Browning Environmental Communications, told me over email that tweaking brand language is “typical after any change of administration, particularly when there are significant shifts in policy.” But especially for organizations in the public eye, “it’s more important than ever to highlight the historic and potential economic benefits of environmental solutions — and show how they are supported by, and benefit, people across the political spectrum.”
The actual fundamentals of green business haven’t changed, though. On the contrary, in the first quarter of 2025, venture capitalists and private equity firms invested more than $5 billion in climate tech startups in the U.S., a 65% increase from the same period a year earlier, according to PitchBook data. While there are certainly obstacles like supply chain uncertainty and tariffs to contend with, especially for clean energy manufacturing, on the whole “it’s still a great time to start a climate startup,” Tommy Leep, the founder of the software-focused venture firm Jetstream, told my colleague Katie Brigham last November. His caveat? “Just don’t call it a climate startup.”
Roger Ballentine, the president of the management consulting service Green Strategies and the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton, explained this thinking to me. “It’s what I refer to as climate capitalism, which is the realization that by incorporating climate change and its risks and opportunities into your business strategy, you’re actually going to be a more successful, more profitable, and more competitive company,” he said. Even with the recent economic turbulence, “That hasn’t changed. That’s not going to change.”
Where you do see adjustments, however, is “around the edges,” per Ballentine. Companies are attempting to match the frequency of the administration and, in turn, the broader policy ecosystem — a frequency that tends to be aggressive, assertive, and heavy on words like “dominance” and “security.” It might also take the form of decreasing the volume at which companies had previously shouted their climate bona fides.
Anya Nelson, the senior vice president of public relations at Scratch M+M, said her team has also advised touting “American-made production” in brand messaging, and reframing copy to focus on “the positive impacts and immediate business benefits” of the companies, rather than more idealistic messaging about climate goals that may have had stronger resonance during the Biden administration.
At this point, you may have noticed that I haven’t quoted any corporate brand officers. That’s not because I didn’t try to talk to any. (Even Plug Power, my example at the beginning of this story, didn’t respond to a request for comment on the change in their messaging.) Though the sudden prevalence of terms like “energy dominance” becomes conspicuous once you start to look for them, no one wants to draw the wrong kind of attention from the administration. It’s part of a greater trend of clamming up that my colleagues and I have experienced across sectors in our reporting, and at a time when even the word “green” can give you a black mark, I can’t say I don’t understand.
Ballentine, the Green Strategies president, dismissed reading too much into how language itself changes under President Trump. “If yesterday a new technology company was touting itself as a climate solution, and now it’s touting itself as a way to achieve energy dominance — I don’t care,” he said.
His thinking was more pragmatic. “Good business remains good business,” Ballentine went on. “Around the edges, will things change? Yes. General belt tightening? Yes. Fundamental change of direction? No.”
It might sound like branding agencies are encouraging companies to “play along” with the administration, but Nelson of Scratch M+M stressed that wasn’t what she was trying to say. At the end of the day, “your end goal is to be a viable company, right?” she said. “To be a thriving company that is going to change the world, first and foremost, you need to make sure you don’t go out of business.” The message might be more accurately summarized as “read the room.”
A report from Heatmap’s San Francisco Climate Week event with Tom Steyer.
Last Thursday at San Francisco Climate Week, Heatmap hosted an event with a lineup of industry leaders and experts to discuss the most promising up-and-coming climate tech innovations amidst a backdrop of tariff and tax credit uncertainty.
Guests at Heatmap's event, Climate Tech's Next Winners.Sean Vranizan
First up, Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer sat down with Tom Steyer, the billionaire investor and co-founder of Galvanize Climate Solutions, to explore the most promising climate technologies to scale. “No one's going to adopt new technologies to be nice,” Steyer noted. “They're gonna adopt new technologies because they're better, because they're a better deal, because they're cheaper or in some ways solve a pain point for the customer.” Steyer went on to emphasize that there is at least one “transformational and disruptive” idea for every six verticals in the climate industry — for example, measuring carbon sequestration in nature with machine learning andAI, a concept that was “literally unimaginable 5 years ago.”
Tom Steyer and Robinson Meyer.Sean Vranizan
As for the Trump-sized elephant in the room, Steyer encouraged climate tech startups to focus on “good leadership” as well as the willingness to adapt in this uncertain moment. “You’re gonna have hard times, and the world is going to change, and you’re going to have to figure out what to do,“ he said. Steyer also noted that all Americans, not only those working in climate tech, should understand the energy transition as a background condition of their careers. “If you want to be a screenwriter (...) be a screenwriter. But it’s really important that you put [the energy transition] into your screenwriting. If you‘re a banker (...) be a banker with an awareness of this issue. Bank the good stuff, not the bad stuff,” Steyer explained. He finished up the discussion with a remembrance of the late Pope Francis, a “tremendous human being for the planet.”
Sam D'Amico and Nico Lauricella.Sean Vranizan
Also on Thursday was a lightning talk between Nico Lauricella, Heatmap’s CEO and editor in chief, and Sam D’Amico, the founder and CEO of Impulse Labs, which sponsored the event. D'Amico explained that in addition to being an induction stove, Impulse’s Cooktop is “a way to get battery storage into people's homes” — a “concept car” for using batteries in appliances to create a more decentralized grid. Lauricella and D’Amico also discussed the impacts of Trump’s tariffs on clean tech companies like Impulse, with D’Amico advising other founders in the room to build prototypes based on the supply chain and to make sure they have options in terms of where their products are manufactured so they can keep up with changing trade policies.
Impulse's high-power Cooktop on display at the event.Sean Vranizan
Lastly, Heatmap News staff writer Katie Brigham hosted a panel with Gabriel Kra, managing director and co-founder at Prelude Ventures, Clea Kolster, partner and head of science at Lowercarbon Capital, and Rajesh Swaminathan, partner at Khosla Ventures. The group spoke about the unique circumstances facing investors in the climate technology space, what their firms are looking for when investing in the newest climate innovations, and how AI fits into the picture.
Katie Brigham, Clea Kolster, Gabriel Kra, and Rajesh Swaminathan.Sean Vranizan
All three panelists acknowledged that it’s a delicate time for clean tech investors and companies alike. “Volatility and uncertainty are the enemies of running and planning a business,” warned Kra. The true cost of the tariffs is therefore extremely high, Kra explained. Kolster agreed that things are generally gloomy in the investment space, but also highlighted the technologies that are currently thriving. Carbon removal, she pointed out, “is going better than ever. Contracts are being inked right now, in the past few weeks.” The companies and technologies she’s excited about, Kolster added, are building “cheaper, better, faster,” as Steyer pointed out earlier in the evening.
Swaminathan added that there will always be a certain element of risk when it comes to investing in emerging technologies. “Clean tech companies have so many single points of failure,” he said. “And you have to prop up each part with the right leadership team. You have to have strong pillars so that [your company] doesn’t break.”
Guests following the discussion.Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Guests at SFCW
Sean Vranizan
Thank you to our presenting sponsor, Impulse, as well as our supporting sponsor, V2 Communications, and our event host, IndieBio.