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:
As heat waves get worse, these fixes will help keep your home cool and energy efficient.

July 2023 will almost certainly be declared the hottest month ever recorded, but it is unlikely to hold that record for long. Climate change is making heat waves more frequent, intense, and longer-lasting across the U.S.
Adapting to this hotter future is often discussed at the scale of a city; measured in early warning systems, green spaces, and cooling centers. But there’s also a lot that individual homeowners can do to help their communities and protect themselves.
While the vast majority of American households — some 88% — use air conditioning for relief, homeowners would be wise to consider a variety of additional, “passive” cooling techniques. These are strategies that can keep your home at a safe temperature during a heat wave if the power goes out, an increasingly likely scenario. They will also save you a bit of money on energy bills. In a sense, adapting your home to extreme heat is just another way of thinking about how to make it more energy efficient.
These retrofits also have wider benefits. Since air conditioners work by transferring heat from inside your house outdoors, these fixes can cool down your neighborhood. They’ll cut carbon emissions and air pollution by lowering demand for electricity. If widely adopted, they’ll also help prevent blackouts and could shrink the amount of renewable energy projects that need to be built to replace fossil fuels, alleviating pressure on conservation.
I spoke with Steve Easley, a building science consultant who specializes in energy efficiency, and Shawn Maurer, technical director of the Smart Energy Design Assistance Center at the University of Illinois, about how homeowners should prioritize their options when it comes to passive cooling.
“I always recommend that people do a home energy audit from a certified HERS rater,” Easley told me, referring to the Home Energy Rating System, a nationally recognized system for inspecting and calculating a home’s energy performance. The auditor will tell you how leaky your house is, and how well your roof insulation, windows, and other parts of your house are working to keep out heat, and help you figure out what to attack first. (Easley also recommends getting at least three quotes for any of these solutions, because different contractors bid this work out very differently.)
Below are five things you can do to improve your home’s resilience to heat. Depending on a number of factors — such as where you live, how your house is constructed, and the condition it's in — the mileage you can get out of each of these measures will vary. The good news is that the federal government and many state governments offer tax credits and rebates for most of these solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act created the Energy Efficient Home Improvement tax credit, which offers homeowners up to $1,200 per year to spend on energy efficiency improvements. As part of that, you can claim $150 simply for getting an energy audit.
Maurer said the very first thing he would do to improve the efficiency of a home is to seal up any cracks where air can get in — for example, along the edges of the floors, around the windows, and in the ceiling around light fixtures. “That carries in moisture, heat, and everything from outdoors into the house. It's going to offset any air conditioned air you got inside the house. So air leakage is usually the place we recommend to start,” he said. “And then from there, it's what your budget can handle as far as adding more insulation to your house.”
Insulation comes in a wide range of materials, such as fiberglass and rock wool, blown cellulose, and rigid foam boards. It can be blown into your walls, installed on the floor of the attic, or underneath your roof deck. It’s a jack-of-all-trades when it comes to energy efficiency, since it keeps heat inside in the winter and blocks it from entering in the summer. That means it’s a great option for those in colder climates that also want to prepare their homes for hotter summers.
A 2021 study by a group of researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab modeled the efficacy of a wide array of passive cooling measures in low-income homes in Fresno, California. It found that roof insulation, along with solar-control window films, which we’ll get to in a moment, were the two most effective ways to keep heat from entering the buildings. However, the authors note that roof insulation is an expensive major retrofit, and recommend that it only be done when the roof needs replacement.
A good first step might be finding out what kind of insulation you already have. The most important metric when it comes to insulation is called “R-value,” and the higher the number, the more effective it is. Older homes may have attic insulation as low as R-13, whereas modern building codes typically require insulation between R-38 and R-60.
The new federal tax credit offers up to 30% of the total cost of a project for air sealing and insulation, maxing out at $1,200 total. (Labor costs are not covered by the credit.)
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Having a light-colored roof and exterior will most certainly keep your home cooler than darker options, but not all light colors are created equal. “Cool” roofs and walls are made with special materials that reflect solar energy back into space, preventing it from being absorbed by the building. They also have high “thermal emittance,” meaning they release a lot of the heat that they do absorb, rather than sending it indoors.
All kinds of materials have been developed with these properties. For roofs, there are tiles, shingles, membranes, liquid coatings, and products made of slate, wood, and metal.
Cool roofs don’t necessarily have to be white, although the color does work very well. According to a database maintained by the Cool Roof Ratings Council, the most effective products tend to be bright white coatings, but there are also gray, green, blue, brown, and tan products that are rated highly.
For reflective walls, the most effective products similarly come in white and other light-colored paints, which can reflect 60 to 90 percent of sunlight when new. An extensive 2019 study of reflective wall paints by the same group at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that cool walls can reduce annual energy use in single-family homes in warmer U.S. climates by 2% to 8.5%.
Easley said it’s worth considering a cool roof if you have a central air conditioning system in your attic. Otherwise, attics in places like Arizona can get upwards of 130 degrees, taxing the equipment and forcing it to work harder. If your attic isn’t home to your AC, it may only make financial sense to do this kind of retrofit if your house is already in need of a new paint job or your roof needs work.
But it’s probably not worth considering a cool roof if you live in a colder climate, like the Northeast and upper Midwest, since cool roofs can actually make it colder inside in the winter.
There’s no federal incentives for cool roofs, but several states and utilities offer rebates.
This is a big category, and it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the options. Starting with those that will likely cost the most to the least, you can:
• Replace your windows altogether.
• Add storm windows to the interior or exterior of your existing glass.
• Purchase films that can be applied to the existing glass to increase its reflectivity.
• Install external shutters or awnings that block the sun.
• Install interior blinds and curtains that block the sun.
Here’s a rundown of each option.
New windows: Replacing your windows can cost tens of thousands of dollars, so unless they are already in need of repair, you may want to hold off on that option. But when the day does come around, you’ll want to look for “Low-E” windows, which stands for low emissivity. The inside of the glass is coated with microscopic layers of silver that reflect heat while still allowing light to pass through.
Within that category, you’ll also want to look for windows that have what’s called a low “solar heat gain coefficient.” This measures how much heat is absorbed by the glass and transferred inside. It’s rated on a scale of 0 to 1. If you live somewhere that’s sunny year round like Arizona, you ideally want one rated 0.25 or lower.
Through 2032, homeowners can claim up to $600 in federal tax credits for purchasing Energy Star rated windows.
Storm windows: Rather than replacing your windows entirely, it’s far cheaper to install storm windows with Low-E glass, which basically involves bolting another window to the outside of your house. Storm windows have an added benefit of improving air sealing, eliminating drafts.
Film: An even lower-cost option is to look into films with low solar heat gain coefficients that can be applied to existing windows. However, Easeley warned that many manufacturers will void your warranty if you add films to your windows.
Shutters, awnings, blinds, and curtains: Exterior shutters and overhangs that block the sun from ever reaching your windows will generally be more effective than interior shades or blinds, but all of these measures can help. “Window blinds and curtains are really dirt cheap ways to control energy,” said Maurer. “It’s not a very good buffer, but it’s something.”
The Berkeley study on passive cooling measures notes that blinds moderately improve how much heat from the sun enters your home, but they can feel more effective by reducing the sensation of sunlight streaming into your house.
If you still have any incandescent lights, they can also be a significant source of heat. They should be replaced with LED lights.
Planting trees, climbing ivy, and other vegetation can also passively cool your house by shading both your house and any surrounding pavement. However, if you have solar panels, or plan to get them in the future, do not plant trees on the south side of your home as it may reduce the solar system’s effectiveness.
Maurer cautioned that if you do a bunch of work in your home to reduce your cooling needs, you’ll want to keep that in mind if you ever have to replace your air conditioner. He advised having a contractor come in to re-measure what size system you need, since doing a like-for-like replacement will probably be overkill and could result in it malfunctioning.
Read another helpful guide about 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.
They still want to decarbonize, but they’re over the jargon.
Where does the fight to decarbonize the global economy go from here? The past 12 months, after all, have been bleak. Donald Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (again) and is trying to leave a precursor United Nations climate treaty, as well. He ripped out half the Inflation Reduction Act, sidetracked the Environmental Protection Administration, and rechristened the Energy Department’s in-house bank in the name of “energy dominance.” Even nonpartisan weather research — like that conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research — is getting shut down by Trump’s ideologues. And in the days before we went to press, Trump invaded Venezuela with the explicit goal (he claims) of taking its oil.
Abroad, the picture hardly seems rosier. China’s new climate pledge struck many observers as underwhelming. Mark Carney, who once led the effort to decarbonize global finance, won Canada’s premiership after promising to lift parts of that country’s carbon tax — then struck a “grand bargain” with fossiliferous Alberta. Even Europe seems to dither between its climate goals, its economic security, and the need for faster growth.
Now would be a good time, we thought, for an industry-wide check-in. So we called up 55 of the most discerning and often disputatious voices in climate and clean energy — the scientists, researchers, innovators, and reformers who are already shaping our climate future. Some of them led the Biden administration’s climate policy from within the White House; others are harsh or heterodox critics of mainstream environmentalism. And a few more are on the front lines right now, tasked with responding to Trump’s policies from the halls of Congress — or the ivory minarets of academia.
We asked them all the same questions, including: Which key decarbonization technology is not ready ready for primetime? Who in the Trump administration has been the worst for decarbonization? And how hot is the planet set to get in 2100, really? (Among other queries.) Their answers — as summarized and tabulated by my colleagues — are available in these pages.
You can see whether insiders think data centers are slowing down decarbonization and what folks have learned (or, at least, say they’ve learned) from the repeal of clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
But from many different respondents, a mood emerged: a kind of exhaustion with “climate” as the right frame through which to understand the fractious mixture of electrification, pollution reduction, clean energy development, and other goals that people who care about climate change actually pursue. When we asked what piece of climate jargon people would most like to ban, we expected most answers to dwell on the various colors of hydrogen (green, blue, orange, chartreuse), perhaps, or the alphabet soup of acronyms around carbon removal (CDR, DAC, CCS, CCUS, MRV). Instead, we got:
“‘Climate.’ Literally the word climate, I would just get rid of it completely,” one venture capitalist told us. “I would love to see people not use 'climate change' as a predominant way to talk to people about a global challenge like this,” seconded a former Washington official. “And who knows what a ‘greenhouse gas emission’ is in the real world?” A lobbyist agreed: “Climate change, unfortunately, has become too politicized … I’d rather talk about decarbonization than climate change.”
Not everyone was as willing to shift to decarbonization, but most welcomed some form of specificity. “I’ve always tried to reframe climate change to be more personal and to recognize it is literally the biggest health challenge of our lives,” the former official said. The VC said we should “get back to the basics of, are you in the energy business? Are you in the agriculture business? Are you in transportation, logistics, manufacturing?”
“You're in a business,” they added, “there is no climate business.”
Not everyone hated “climate” quite as much — but others mentioned a phrase including the word. One think tanker wanted to nix “climate emergency.” Another scholar said: “I think the ‘climate justice’ term — not the idea — but I think the term got spread so widely that it became kind of difficult to understand what it was even referring to.” And one climate scientist didn’t have a problem with climate change, per se, but did say that people should pare back how they discuss it and back off “the notion that climate change will result in human extinction, or the sudden and imminent end to human civilization.”
There were other points of agreement. Four people wanted to ban “net zero” or “carbon neutrality.” One scientist said activists should back off fossil gas — “I know we’re always trying to try convince people of something, but, like, the entire world calls it ’natural gas’” — and another scientist said that they wished people would stop “micromanaging” language: “People continually changing jargon to try and find the magic words that make something different than it is — that annoys me.”
Two more academics added they wish to banish discussion of “overshoot”: “It’s not clear if it's referring to temperatures or emissions — I just don't think it's a helpful frame for thinking about the problem.”
“Unit economics,” “greenwashing,” and — yes — the whole spectrum of hydrogen colors came in for a lashing. But perhaps the most distinctive ban suggestion came from Todd Stern, the former chief U.S. climate diplomat, who negotiated the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
“I hate it when people say ’are you going to COP?’” he told me, referring to the United Nations’ annual climate summit, officially known as the Conference of the Parties. His issue wasn’t calling it “COP,” he clarified. It was dropping the definite article.
“The way I see it, no one has the right to suddenly become such intimate pals with ‘COP.’ You go to the ball game or the conference or what have you. And you go to ‘the COP,’” he said. “I am clearly losing this battle, but no one will ever hear me drop the ‘the.’”
Now, since I talked to Stern, the United States has moved to drop the COP entirely — with or without the “the” — because Trump took us out of the climate treaty under whose aegis the COP is held. But precision still counts, even in unfriendly times. And throughout the rest of this package, you’ll find insiders trying to find a path forward in thoughtful, insightful, and precise ways.
You’ll also find them remaining surprisingly upbeat — and even more optimistic, in some ways, than they were last year. Twelve months ago, 30% of our insider panel thought China would peak its emissions in the 2020s; this year, a plurality said the peak would come this decade. Roughly the same share of respondents this year as last year thought the U.S. would hit net zero in the 2060s. Trump might be setting back American climate action in the near term. But some of the most important long-term trends remain unchanged.
OUR PANEL INCLUDED… Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies | Ken Caldeira, senior scientist emeritus at the Carnegie Institution for Science and visiting scholar at Stanford University | Kate Marvel, research physicist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies | Holly Jean Buck, associate professor of environment and sustainability at the University at Buffalo | Kim Cobb, climate scientist and director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society | Jennifer Wilcox, chemical engineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former U.S. Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy and Carbon Management | Michael Greenstone, economist and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago | Solomon Hsiang, professor of global environmental policy at Stanford University | Chris Bataille, global fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy | Danny Cullenward, senior fellow at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania | J. Mijin Cha, environmental studies professor at UC Santa Cruz and fellow at Cornell University’s Climate Jobs Institute | Lynne Kiesling, director of the Institute for Regulatory Law and Economics at Northwestern University | Daniel Swain, climate scientist at the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources | Emily Grubert, sustainable energy policy professor at the University of Notre Dame | Jon Norman, president of Hydrostor | Chris Creed, managing partner at Galvanize Climate Solutions | Amy Heart, senior vice president of public policy at Sunrun | Kate Brandt, chief sustainability officer at Google | Sophie Purdom, managing partner at Planeteer Capital and co-founder of CTVC | Lara Pierpoint, managing director at Trellis Climate | Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures | Gabriel Kra, managing director and co-founder of Prelude Ventures | Joe Goodman, managing partner and co-founder of VoLo Earth Ventures | Erika Reinhardt, executive director and co-founder of Spark Climate Solutions | Dawn Lippert, founder and CEO of Elemental Impact and general partner at Earthshot Ventures | Rajesh Swaminathan, partner at Khosla Ventures | Rob Davies, CEO of Sublime Systems | John Arnold, philanthropist and co-founder of Arnold Ventures | Gabe Kleinman, operating partner at Emerson Collective | Amy Duffuor, co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures | Amy Francetic, managing general partner and founder of Buoyant Ventures | Tom Chi, founding partner at At One Ventures | Francis O’Sullivan, managing director at S2G Investments | Cooper Rinzler, partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures | Gina McCarthy, former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | Neil Chatterjee, former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | Representative Scott Peters, member of the U.S. House of Representatives | Todd Stern, former U.S. special envoy for climate change | Representative Sean Casten, member of the U.S. House of Representatives | Representative Mike Levin, member of the U.S. House of Representatives | Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at Stripe and research scientist at Berkeley Earth | Shuchi Talati, founder and executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering | Nat Bullard, co-founder of Halcyon | Bill McKibben, environmentalist and founder of 350.org | Ilaria Mazzocco, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies | Leah Stokes, professor of environmental politics at UC Santa Barbara | Noah Kaufman, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy | Arvind Ravikumar, energy systems professor at the University of Texas at Austin | Jessica Green, political scientist at the University of Toronto | Jonas Nahm, energy policy professor at Johns Hopkins SAIS | Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force | Costa Samaras, director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University | John Larsen, partner at Rhodium Group | Alex Trembath, executive director of the Breakthrough Institute | Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
Plus, which is the best hyperscaler on climate — and which is the worst?
The biggest story in energy right now is data centers.
After decades of slow load growth, forecasters are almost competing with each other to predict the most eye-popping figure for how much new electricity demand data centers will add to the grid. And with the existing electricity system with its backbone of natural gas, more data centers could mean higher emissions.
Hyperscalers with sustainability goals are already reporting higher emissions, and technology companies are telling investors that they plan to invest hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, into new data centers, increasingly at gigawatt scale.
And yet when we asked our Heatmap survey participants “Do you think AI and data centers’ energy needs are significantly slowing down decarbonization?” only about 34% said they would, compared to 66% who said they wouldn’t.
There were some intriguing differences between different types of respondents. Among our “innovator” respondents — venture capitalists, founders, and executives working at climate tech startups — the overwhelming majority said that AI and data centers are not slowing down decarbonization. “I think it’s the inverse — I think we want to launch the next generation of technologies when there’s demand growth and opportunity to sell into a slightly higher priced, non-commoditized market,” Joe Goodman co-founder and managing partner at VoLo Earth Ventures, told us.
Not everyone in Silicon Valley is so optimistic, however. “I think in a different political environment, it may have been a true accelerant,” one VC told us. “But in this political environment, it’s a true albatross because it’s creating so many more emissions. It’s creating so much stress on the grid. We’re not deploying the kinds of solutions that would be effective."
Scientists were least in agreement on the question. While only 47% of scientists thought the growth of data centers would significantly slow down decarbonization, most of the pessimistic camp was in the social sciences. In total, over 62% of the physical scientists we surveyed thought data centers weren’t slowing down decarbonization, compared to a third of social scientists.
Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist, told us he didn’t see data centers and artificial intelligence as any different from any other use of energy. “I also think air conditioning and lighting, computing, and 57,000 other uses of electricity are slowing down decarbonization,” he said. The real answer is the world is not trying to minimize climate change.”
Mijin Cha, an assistant professor of environment studies at the University of California Santa Cruz, was even more gloomy, telling us, “Not only do I think it’s slowing down decarbonization, I think it is permanently extending the life of fossil fuels, especially as it is now unmitigated growth.”
Some took issue with the premise of the question, expressing skepticism of the entire AI industry. “I’m actually of the opinion that most of the AI and data center plans are a massive bubble,” a scientist told us. “And so, are there plans that would be disruptive to emissions? Yes. Are they actually doing anything to emissions yet? Not obvious.”
We also asked respondents to name the “best” and “worst” hyperscalers, large technology companies pursuing the data center buildout. Many of these companies have some kind of renewables or sustainability goal, but there are meaningful differences among them. Google and Microsoft look to match their emissions with non-carbon-power generation in the same geographic area and at the same time. The approach used by Meta and Amazon, on the other hand, is to develop renewable projects that have the biggest “bang for the buck” on global emissions by siting them in areas with high emissions that the renewable generation can be said to displace.
Among our respondents, the 24/7 “time and place” approach is the clear winner.
Google was the “best” pick for 20 respondents, “Google and Microsoft” for 14, and Microsoft alone for 7. By contrast, Amazon and Meta, respectively, had 3 votes each.
As for the “worst,” there was no clear consensus, although two respondents from the social sciences picked “everyone besides Microsoft and Google” and “everyone but Google and Microsoft.” Another one told us, “The best is a tie between Microsoft and Google. Everyone else is in the bottom category.”
A third social scientist summed it up even more pungently. “Google is the best, Meta is the worst. Evil corporation” — though with more expletives than that.
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
The Secretary of Energy beat out the EPA’s Lee Zeldin and OMB’s Russ Vought.
Who’s the biggest climate villain in the Trump administration — other than President Donald Trump himself? Our Heatmap braintrust had one clear answer: Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
Wright entered the Trump administration 2.0 with lots of good will in the energy sector and wonky academia because of his education at MIT and tenure as CEO of a power and fuels company. But his Trumpian turn — terminating billions in energy and climate spending and pivoting to misinformation-riddled tweets — has shocked essentially everyone who thought he’d be a cooler head on energy and climate. Wright’s official X account has become a receptacle for questionable statements about the energy sector, such as the provably false claim that covering the entire planet in solar panels would only produce a fifth of the world’s energy. This prompted Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer to suggest that one might call him “Chris Wrong,” instead.
Turns out climate insiders agree. Approximately 32% of respondents in our annual Insiders Survey named Wright as the Trump administration’s biggest decarbonization opponent. Participants spanning professional backgrounds focused on his transformation from Ivy League-adjacent energy wonk and business executive to an anti-renewables cultural crusader, with multiple survey respondents describing Wright’s rhetoric on energy as “stupid.” They also pointed specifically at his decision to help prop up aging coal plants, a step that former Energy Secretary Rick Perry tried to take under the first Trump administration but did not follow through with.
“I think he’s smart enough to know exactly how stupid what he’s saying really is,” one reformer told us. One academic complained: “I really wish he would have come in and been the businessman that I thought he was.”
Some survey respondents pointed to Wright after naming other officials they thought were doing more damage to climate policy. Illinois Democratic Representative Sean Casten argued that Office of Management and Budget head Russ Vought — the third most popular climate villain — was the most disruptive to the energy transition because Vought handles the intricacies of the administrative state, laying the blame for any DOE policies at his doorstep, not Wright’s.
“Chris Wright is a stupid guy with not a lot of power,” Casten said. “Russ Vought is a smart guy with a lot of power.”
Holly Jean Buck, a former management and program analyst in the Energy Department’s fossil and carbon management division, told us that “the worst” of this administration has come from its cancellation of DOE decarbonization projects. But it’s unclear whether Wright himself led the charge to derail those efforts. “A lot of that rests with Chris Wright, but I don’t know if there were other people driving those decisions. The internal politics within the administration are kind of opaque to me.”
As a factual matter, few have been more harmful for federal decarbonization efforts than Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin, who is in the process of shredding regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Zeldin was the second most popular answer to this particular question overall, but only eight people said he was the most harmful. Even fewer people — only three — named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose secretarial orders under White House direction have all but frozen new solar and wind approvals across the government.
A non-trivial number of respondents told us they see Trump’s cabinet officials simply taking orders from the top of government. “I don’t want to point the finger at anyone other than this president because he owns it all,” one former government official told us. “He’s the one that is going to bear the brunt and be responsible.”
We reached out to the Energy Department for comment. Here is spokesperson Ben Dietderich’s response, in full:
Secretary Wright is proud of the Trump administration’s work to restore commonsense energy policy at home and abroad. Our priority is making energy affordable, reliable, and secure for every American — not catering to far-left activists.
And here’s the irony: President Trump’s push for a true American nuclear renaissance and expanded U.S. natural gas exports will likely make him the most effective leader in history at reducing carbon emissions. When that happens, we trust you’ll be ready to hand him the award he’s earned.
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.