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:
No matter where you live, you should be prepared to live without power during extreme heat.

What keeps emergency management officials up at night? Terrorist attacks. The Big One. A direct hit from a Category 5 hurricane.
But when it comes to climate-related disasters, one fear often rises above the rest: a blackout during a heat wave.
According to new research published this spring, a two-day citywide blackout in Phoenix during a heat wave could lead to half the population — some 789,600 people — requiring emergency medical attention in a metropolitan area with just 3,000 available beds. As many as 12,800 people could die, the equivalent of more than nine Hurricane Katrinas.
Power outages can happen during a heat wave for a number of reasons. The most obvious is because of strain on the power grid, as everyone cranks up their air conditioning at the same time. By one estimate, “two-thirds of North America is at risk of energy shortfalls this summer during periods of extreme demand.” Blackouts can be both city- and state-wide, like when 11 million people were without power following a deadly grid failure in Texas in 2021; or rolling, to prevent a more catastrophic failure; or localized, like when a wildfire takes down transmission lines.
Storms can also knock out power, cutting off access to life-saving air conditioning. Excessive heat killed 12 nursing home residents in Florida in the aftermath of a 2017 hurricane, the same year that hundreds died in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria lead to a months-long blackout.
There’s another possibility that has been quietly discussed by emergency officials, too: a malicious cyberattack that takes down the grid during a time of extreme heat. “What happens when a cyberattack disables access to electricity for weeks, coordinated with record-breaking heatwaves, which are significant public health concerns in themselves?” a 2021 piece in The American Journal of Medicine mused, only to conclude that “the impact on the health-care system” — including hospitals, which can run on generators but would be quickly overwhelmed — “would be catastrophic.”
So if the power goes out during a heat wave, what do you do?
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
No, you’re not psychic: You can’t predict when a power outage will leave you without your AC. But you are an informed person who’s aware that heat waves are becoming more common and intense and that extreme heat is the deadliest weather phenomenon in the United States. Virtually every American can benefit from having a plan in place for how to deal with extreme heat in the absence of AC, since nowhere is climate-proof.
At the most basic, the emergency agencies that informed this article — primarily American Red Cross, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Ready.gov, all of which can be consulted for further resources — say you should have an emergency kit prepared and up to date in your home, and sign up for emergency alerts. (Also prepare a separate emergency kit for your pets if you have any.) This should include directions to your local cooling center in addition to a hospital.
Next, “Take an inventory of your essential electrical needs,” advises the American Red Cross. “Then consider how you would live without them when the power goes out.” That list might include backup batteries for phones, fans, CPAP machines, or any other medical devices.
Also consider buying misting spray bottles (we’ll get to those later) and a cooler where you can stash food if the refrigerator goes down. Battery-operated fans can additionally be useful to have on hand, particularly in humid areas, despite many public health organizations warning against them. Extra gallons of water are a part of every emergency kit, and important to have on hand as well.
Finally, make a habit of checking in on the vulnerable people in your life ahead of time — in particular, older people who live alone — and confirm they have air conditioning units that are working. Of the 72 people who died in Oregon's Multnomah County, which makes up the bulk of the city of Portland, during a heat wave in 2021, only three were found to have a functioning AC unit.
The first thing you want to do if the power goes out during a heat wave, regardless of how severe you anticipate the situation being, is prevent the loss of whatever cool air there still is inside your house. At the most basic, this means covering your windows to keep out sunlight by drawing the blinds.
If you anticipate the power being out for more than a few hours — perhaps because one of the emergency alerts you signed up for warns you the blackout could last for days — take more dramatic measures, like using blackout curtains if you have them, or reflective, foil-covered pieces of cardboard in the windows to bounce heat off your home. The most important thing, though, is to get the windows covered with something; even a towel will do if you don’t have drapes or blinds. If you have a multi-story home and anticipate a long-lasting power outage, begin to shut upstairs doors (hot air rises!) with plans on keeping those rooms closed off for the duration of the blackout. Any particularly drafty doors or windows can be further sealed with a rolled-up towel. In a worst-case-scenario event, you’ll be staying downstairs until your air conditioning turns back on, so keep that in mind as you move through the rooms.
As you’re making your sweep, also snag any medications you have stored, since heat can alter their efficacy. Many meds will become less potent or altered when exposed to high temperatures; aspirin, for example, breaks down into acetic acid and salicylic acid, which can upset the stomach.
Preventatively turn off and disconnect appliances, too, in order to avoid damage from a surge when the power returns (this is generally good advice no matter what the blackout conditions are). Then establish yourself in your darkest, coolest room — it’s likely on the north side of your home or apartment. Generally avoid south-facing rooms, followed by east- and west-facing rooms, since they get the most sunlight. Hunkering down in the basement is also potentially a good option.
Keep your refrigerator closed until about four hours have passed, at which point you should move the contents and stash them in a cooler. A full freezer can stay at a safe temperature for up to 48 hours, but as FoodSafety.gov will remind you, “when in doubt, throw it out.”
We know dangerously little about how indoor heat works. But we know that it kills — studies have found that people are most likely to succumb to heat-related illnesses in their own homes.
As a rule of thumb, if your body is exposed to temperatures of 90 degrees or higher, you are potentially at risk of heat exhaustion, which can lead to heat stroke, the National Weather Service notes. Keep in mind, though, that it can “feel like” 90 degrees when the temperature on the thermometer is as low as 86 degrees, because of humidity. If your home starts to feel hot, pay close attention to both the indoor heat and humidity and consult the NWS’s heat index to understand your risk.
Prolonged exposure to high temperatures increases the strain on your body and the danger of heat illness. While 90 degrees might be technically survivable for a healthy adult, “the temperature needs to drop to at least 80 degrees for” the body to begin to recover from extreme heat, CNN reports — part of why overnight highs can actually be deadlier than daytime highs.
Keep in mind your own vulnerabilities to heat, too: The elderly and the prepubescent are most at risk, but people taking antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticholinergics, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors can all have severe heat intolerance, too, Yale Climate Connection observes. Additionally, the publication notes, certain diabetes medications, including insulin, can be less effective when exposed to high heat. People with heart disease, kidney issues, or diabetes should be especially cautious about their health during heat waves because of the intense strain on these systems.
If the temperature starts to climb inside your home during a power outage, it is imperative to act quickly to stay healthy. Drink lots of water, but do so consistently, not in guzzling bursts; we’re limited in how much water we can absorb by how fast our kidneys can function. In extreme conditions, the body can absorb up to a liter of water per hour, but it’s often much less. It’s more important, then, to sip continually throughout the day.
If you have the option to do so, spend as much time in air-conditioned spaces as possible, particularly in the afternoon — movie theaters, malls, public libraries, community lake or pool, and friends’ and family’s homes in an area with power are all potential options. Cooling centers are also a terrific option since they are free, can be equipped with backup generators, and may have other resources handy to help you beat the heat.
But let’s assume, for whatever reason, these options are unavailable. Many cooling centers, including most of those in Los Angeles, for example, do not have backup generators, and they can quickly become crowded — one study that looked at Atlanta, Detroit, and Phoenix found that at most, 2 percent of the city population could be accommodated by existing cooling facilities.
Water, then, becomes your best friend. The evaporation of water from our skin helps pull heat away, so begin a regime of keeping a sheen of water on your skin, whether that’s by using a handheld mister or by placing cool wet towels on your body (the head and neck, armpits, and groin are the warmest parts of our bodies, so focus your efforts there). This is an especially good technique if you have a battery-powered fan to sit in front of. Though fans get a bad rap for creating “a false sense of comfort,” in the words of Ready.gov, used properly they can absolutely help — just keep in mind they stop working very effectively once it’s above about 95 degrees.
Showers can help keep you cool too, just don’t be tempted to take an especially cold one; as Popular Science explains, you don’t want to reach the point of shivering, a response that counterproductively increases our internal temperature.
Switch into light, airy clothes and avoid physical activity as much as you can. At night, keep an eye on the temperature; if it’s cool enough outside, open all your windows to create a cross-flow of air, but be sure to close your windows up after temperatures begin to climb again in the morning.
Pay attention to how your body is responding and know the symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke (we have a guide for that here). Typically the first signs are cramps, headaches, or dizziness.
If you begin to feel too hot or sick, it’s time to evacuate your home. Heat illness can go from “uncomfortable” to deadly within 90 minutes, so it’s better to act decisively and get to safety rather than wait and get sicker, when your decision-making abilities begin to erode.
Check what heat relief options exist in your area. Many cities now have programs designed to protect people during extreme heat events, such as the Heat Relief Network in Phoenix, which offers everything from hydration sites to air-conditioned respite centers. Urban areas frequently offer free air-conditioned bus rides to cooling centers, too. But because some of these sites might be unavailable during a major power outage, check local government websites for information.
Before leaving your home, collect any medications and important documents you might need. Also bring any animals you have at home — as the Red Cross emphasizes, “If it’s not safe for you to stay behind then it’s not safe to leave pets behind either.”
If you believe you have the symptoms of heat exhaustion, seek medical attention immediately. But keep in mind, hospitals will likely be overwhelmed during a major power outage — it’s better to have a plan for dealing with the heat long before you ever get sick, rather than try to deal with illness after it’s already set in.
Read more about heat waves:
This Is How You Die of Extreme Heat
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A letter from Day 2 of New York Climate Week.
Utilities sit at an uneasy intersection between private company and public service. Typically, it’s quite a profitable place to be: Investor-owned utilities get to be monopolies in order to provide electric service in a particular geography and then charge government-approved rates. But that also places them on the front lines of the consumer and political backlash to rising electricity prices.
Those prices are likely to continue to rise. The energy advocacy group PowerLines estimates that in 2025, electric and gas utilities requested some $31 billion worth of rate hikes. Spending on that scale translates into higher rates for consumers as utilities pass along their development costs to their rate base. S&P Global projects that electric and gas utilities will undertake $1.3 trillion in capital expenditures through 2030.
Utility executives are as much politicians as they are operators, as their entire corporate existence depends on a government relationship. So it was no surprise that Calvin Butler, chief executive of Exelon, the utility holding company with around 11 million customers spanning from the Chicago area to the Atlantic Seaboard, was speaking at an event on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly hosted by the foreign policy think tank the Atlantic Council on the same agenda as the foreign ministers of Spain and Romania and the prime minister of Syria.
As all this was going on, the White House and Congress appeared to be in the end stages (or at least the beginning of the end stages) of hashing out a deal on permitting reform. While the investor-owned utility trade group the Edison Electric Institute has been publicly supportive of a permitting deal since last year, several industry and policy insiders tracking the deal have told me this week that utilities’ relative political weakness is one reason why a deal might pass.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
That’s because an effective reform to transmission and permitting — especially to interregional transmission planning — could threaten utilities’ spending on serving their own individual territories.
“They are gonna get smoked in the Senate permitting deal,” one energy industry figure following the negotiations told me. When I asked why utilities aren’t opposing a deal, the insider told me, “They need too much from [the Department of Energy] the next few years. They can’t oppose this.”
(I sent a request for comment to EEI, which didn’t respond by press time.)
Butler didn’t weigh in permitting reform — I submitted a question at the event, but alas, it went ignored — but he was straightforward about the importance of maintaining good community and political relationships in the face of rising prices.
“We have to be connected to talk about siting of transmission, distribution lines, or substations. It’s what we do. I always say this: All politics is local,” Butler said. When it comes to local politics, Butler said that Exelon is at the “forefront of advocating responsible growth, responsible build-out, and community benefits agreements that benefit those communities.”
Butler also assigned some blame for the electricity price backlash to data centers and the technology industry, pointing to “people’s concern with AI, people’s concern that they’re going to lose jobs.” The tech industry, he said, “lost the narrative up front, and it’s tough to get it back.”
In the minds of the public and local government figures, however, utilities are very much a part of that story. Several governors or utility regulators in territories served by Exelon have opposed their rate increase requests, especially Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who demanded that Exelon subsidiary PECO withdraw a rate case, in a move he claimed saved ratepayers $510 million. North Carolina regulators also rejected a more than $500 million gas project proposed by Duke Energy, calling its price “staggering.”
When it came to how utilities affect everyone in their territory through the prices they charge, Butler was more direct and less cheery than his talk about community benefits. When asked if Exelon could “strengthen the grid” without raising prices, Butler plainly said, “No, you can’t.”
“We’re investing $41.7 billion,” he added. “I’m a part of that increase.”
An investor argues that climate tech should learn to stop worrying and love the robots.
For three years the entire conversation about artificial intelligence in the climate tech and clean energy communities has been about demand. This, of course, is reasonable. The scale of what the world is building right now has no precedent. Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft together spent more than $420 billion on data center infrastructure in 2025, a number dwarfed by the $745 billion they’re expected to spend in 2026. The McKinsey Global Institute puts the global data center buildout through 2030 at $7 trillion — more than the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, and the Apollo program combined.
About 15% to 20% of that unfathomable spending is going exclusively to power the data center scale-up. By 2030, data centers will consume between 3% and 5% of all electricity generated on Earth.
The carbon cost is worse than the financial cost. Google's total greenhouse gas emissions rose by more than 50% in 2024 compared to five years earlier, even as the company worked harder than any of its peers to source clean power. In Armstrong County, Texas, the company is working with developer Crusoe Energy on a nearly gigawatt-scale natural gas plant to power its Goodnight data center campus.
But here is something else to consider: In 2024, Google ran a 17-week trial on 2,400 transatlantic American Airlines flights using a system designed to predict and avoid the formation of contrails. Contrails are the ice crystal trails left by jet engines that account for roughly a third of aviation's total warming impact — more than the impact of the fuel burning. The AI model rerouted flights slightly to avoid the atmospheric conditions that produce persistent contrails, and in doing so, cut contrail formation by 62% without any meaningful increase in fuel burn.
Around the same time, Microsoft used its Azure Quantum Elements platform to sift through 32 million possible chemical candidates for new battery chemistries, and in 80 hours narrowed the field to a handful of promising compounds that could reduce the amount of lithium required by as much as 70%. Meta, working with Georgia Tech, built one of the largest open-source datasets for discovering better sorbent materials for direct air capture, the process of pulling carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Researchers ran nearly 40 million quantum mechanics calculations across 8,400 candidate materials, looking for those that could grab CO2 efficiently without also absorbing water from the air.
All of these things happened in the past two years. They were largely invisible to consumers. Yet they produced meaningful, even transformative climate benefits. Crucially, they cost almost nothing compared to the AI infrastructure buildout. They were side projects, pursued by teams whose quarterly numbers did not depend on their product’s success.
I argued two years ago in an interview with Heatmap that the steep financial and carbon costs of the AI buildout are worth it, and that if we stick with it, the power of AI will quickly yield innovative solutions to address climate change. But the opposition to data centers and AI deployment has created a frustrating paradox. A sector that has spent years describing a technology primarily as a threat — to the grid, to society, to humanity itself — will not, at the end of that time, be in a strong position to invest in what that technology can build. The sector wrote itself into the role of the regulator and critic at precisely the moment it should have been adopting the role of the main customer.
In the first half of 2026 alone, investors put $407 billion into AI startups, Pitchbook calculated. Climate tech, over the same stretch, did fine: $26.1 billion, according to CTVC’s insights report, up 55% year-over-year, the strongest first-half investment numbers since 2022. But low-carbon data centers alone took 34% of it, and two of the sector’s biggest deals were both for data center infrastructure. We essentially took an historic year of climate tech investment and used it to become AI's electricity supplier.
This is definitely a net positive, and critical to a clean hyperscale movement. But there’s more to be done.
Roughly one climate venture dollar in five went to something AI-enabled in 2025, which is a real increase from previous years. But out of $40 billion total climate tech investment last year, that amounts to only about $8 billion. Set that against the $242 billion that went into AI startups in a single quarter — the world's entire annual investment in AI for climate is roughly what AI startups raised every three days at the start of this year.
The three breakthroughs I mentioned at the beginning of this article are just the beginning of what AI can do for the climate — in many cases they’re the easy breakthroughs. They’re prediction, search, and optimization problems where the AI is essentially a faster pair of eyes.
The larger prize is what my colleagues at Obvious Ventures and I have come to call “generative science.” These are models trained in chemistry, physics, and biology that can propose genuinely novel arrangements of atoms rather than merely sorting through existing ones. This is where we unlock nuclear fusion, carbon-free cement and steel, and grid systems that balance themselves. We can make cancer vaccines and drugs optimized with a single patient’s DNA. If we ever make it to another planet, it will be because of AI. The same is true if we ever learn to sustainably feed 10 billion people.
This is not a speculative category anymore. A series of startups are making meaningful breakthroughs in these kinds of technologies. In Cambridge, England, a materials science company called CuspAI is building foundation models for chemistry to find materials for direct air capture of carbon dioxide. In California, Periodic Labs, founded by the researcher who led materials and chemistry at Google DeepMind, raised a $300 million seed round at a $1 billion valuation to run autonomous synthesis labs hunting for superconductors that work at higher temperatures (its valuation has since risen dramatically). And Zanskar, a company Obvious Ventures has backed, trained its models on subsurface data and a century of drilling and satellite records to find geothermal resources the industry had already written off. Last year, it identified a blind site in western Nevada with no geysers or surface expression that has the potential to generate over 100 megawatts.
Zanskar, however, is an exception. None of these other technologies were backed by climate funders. CuspAI and Periodic Labs have received financing from sovereign wealth funds, chipmakers, generalist growth firms, and individual investors who made their fortunes in software.
I’ll be the first to acknowledge that building a climate tech company isn’t easy. Investors often have to make two bets at once: that the science will work and that, if it does, there will be a viable business on the other side. Unlike chatbots from the frontier AI labs that have grown to $1 trillion valuations in less than five years, meaningful climate tech breakthroughs take longer to deploy, and even longer for their impact to put a meaningful dent in climate change.
But companies like CuspAI, Periodic, and Zanskar are proof of what’s possible when we point AI and climate tech in the same direction.
There are three main things we can do differently to continue that progress, and we can start each of them today.
As with any economic shift, aligning the incentives gets us much further than any fleeting policy commitment. When alignment happens, it creates a flywheel where AI powers research in climate tech, whose breakthroughs get fed back into AI to run models more cleanly and efficiently.
Jakob Uszkoreit, the former Google engineer who co-authored the transformer architecture that powers today’s leading large language models, described to me the paradox this way: AI needs carbon to get off the ground, but once airborne, it becomes the mechanism that solves the carbon problem. The question is whether we achieve liftoff before the end of the runway.
New research finds that Europe’s 2025 heat wave was made measurably worse by greenhouse gas emissions since the Paris Agreement.
Europe’s record-breaking heat wave in 2025 would have been a third of a degree Celsius cooler if not for emissions released just since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2015, researchers found in a new study published Tuesday by the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.
The research marks a step forward for attribution science, which has traditionally worked to tie extreme events such as heat waves and floods to climate change writ large. Now, using artificial intelligence trained on climate models, researchers have managed to link extreme weather to a specific subset of emissions.
“Not only does every little bit of emissions count, but the amount of emissions released since 2015 significantly increased the temperature of [the 2025 European] heat wave,” Jared Trok, the study’s lead author and a PhD student at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, told me. “Before this paper” — which found 99-in-100 odds that human-caused emissions since 2015 increased the severity of the 2025 heat wave — “we couldn’t really make a claim to that extent.”
Though the record-breaking 2026 heat wave fell outside the scope of the study, the 2025 heat wave was no joke either — temperatures crested 115 degrees Fahrenheit in Spain and Portugal, and more than 16,000 died across the continent. Trok’s findings about a relationship between the past decade of emissions and intensified heat also held true for Europe’s hottest week in every year since at least 2021.
While a third of a degree Celsius might not sound like a lot — “it’s smaller than our ability to actually sense,” Trok acknowledged — there’s a growing body of scientific literature that suggests even incremental increases in temperature can be deadly. “It’s nonlinear,” Trok added. “For every additional increment of temperature, the impacts on heat-related mortality are even larger than the previous increment.” Though Trok and his colleagues did not look at mortality specifically, the reasoning indicates dozens if not hundreds of people could have died due to that fraction of a degree.
The study highlights the advances in the specificity and speed of attribution science, which a quarter of a century ago struggled to distinguish the influence of all historical emissions on any individual event. But it also suggests something grim: The past decade also overlaps with the biggest global efforts toward decarbonization. “Even if the decarbonization goals are achieved, these results as well as others suggest near certainty that the extremes, particularly extreme heat, will continue to intensify,” Noah Suresh Diffenbaugh, a Stanford climate scientist and the paper’s senior author, told me.
Paired with a separate commentary also published today by the U.S. Climate Collection, a joint project of AGU and the American Meteorological Society, the research adds an urgent underline to the need for research like Trok’s to be incorporated into state and local policymaking. Many of the institutions that existed to do so in the U.S., however, have collapsed or been actively dismantled by the second Trump administration.
The Climate Collection formed in the void that followed the forced breakup of the sixth National Climate Assessment (and is made up of many of its authors), and argues that the NCA did more than just good rigorous science — it also helped translate that research into a reliable springboard for policymakers.
The U.S. Climate Collection aims to compile an open-access collection of research papers that “lays the groundwork for future national and subnational assessments of climate risks and solutions in the United States.”
The group’s first paper serves as “a call to our colleagues to meet that need and the charge that has been given to us by society to produce the science” necessary for policymakers and other groups to “make better decisions,” Melissa Kenney, one of the commentary’s lead authors and director of research and knowledge initiatives at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, told me.
In the past, the formal NCAs have helped inform everything from New Hampshire flood risk management plans to city- and state-level climate policies, the Climate Collection writes in their commentary. (They also set expectations: The last NCA required the involvement of 500 authors, 250 technical contributors, and synthesized more than 8,200 studies, meaning the Collective likely couldn’t replicate the rigor and scope even if it wanted to.) The Climate Collection specifically singles out attribution as an area of priority.
“Compounding extremes and cascading climate risks are increasingly overwhelming our legacy policies and infrastructure,” Kenney said, adding that “being able to understand the impact of these compounding extremes is really critical in a number of communities to be able to make smart, multi-decadal decisions like infrastructure choices.”
But as Trok’s research shows, even assumptions about the climate of 2015 are out of date. Investments in adaptation are a small fraction of the total dollars spent addressing climate change, and as Diffenbaugh stressed, the new paper is just the latest “of a number of studies that highlight that we can expect further acceleration of impacts from extreme events.”
The U.S. Climate Collection doesn’t intend to fill the gap left by the collapse of NCA6 (nor could it, its authors point out, given that it’s a self-organized volunteer group). But its call for synthesis papers of smaller scopes could give policymakers grounds to make decisions pulled from rigorous, peer-reviewed research as the world changes all around us. “These types of assessment reports are one of our greatest professional obligations as scientists,” Kenney said. “Most people will not go and read hundreds of scientific papers to be able to understand what we know and what we still need to know.”
“But,” she added, “there’s a real need for us to be able to provide the information” — before it becomes old news, too.