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:
Maybe you’re reading this in a downpour. Perhaps you’re reading it because you have questions about the upcoming hurricane season. Or maybe you’re reading it because you’re one of the 150 million Americans enduring record-breaking temperatures in this week’s heat dome.
Whatever the reason, you have a question: Is this climate change?
There’s an old maxim — that, like many things, is often dubiously attributed to Mark Twain — that goes something like, “Climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.” Weather refers to the event itself, while climate refers to the trends (averaged over 30 years or more, usually) that might make such an event more or less likely.
Climate change is almost always an exacerbating factor in the case of something like a heat wave or a heat dome. In other situations, the picture is far more complicated and uncertain. It can take years to understand if and how climate change made an extreme weather event more likely, and while organizations like World Weather Attribution work hard to provide quick and accurate estimations, getting the science wrong can fuel climate skepticism and bolster deniers’ arguments. While it might be tempting to pin all extreme weather on climate change, the truth is, not all of it is.
Still, we do know a lot about how climate change influences the weather — and we’re always learning more. While this guide is far from the be-all and end-all of attribution and should be referred to with caveats, here is what we know about how climate change is shaping the extreme weather we see today.
“When you’re looking at heat extremes, there is almost always a climate change signal,” Clair Barnes, a research associate with World Weather Attribution, told me. “I don’t think there’s ever not been a climate change signal since I’ve been doing it in the last couple of years.”
As the planet warms, local temperatures respond everywhere. There are not as many complicating variables in this relationship as there are with something like drought. “With heat waves, it’s the same answer every time: It got hotter because it’s got hotter,” Barnes said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the kind of heat waves that would have occurred once in a decade before the Industrial Revolution now occur almost three times more frequently and are 1.2 degrees Celsius (or 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. The most extreme examples — like the 2021 heat dome over the Pacific Northwest — appear to have been possible only because of warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, about 37% of global heat-related deaths, which amount to tens of thousands of deaths per year, are attributable to climate change.
There have, of course, always been heat waves. But it is with high confidence that scientists say they are hotter and last longer now than they would otherwise because of climate change.
Did climate change do it? It is “virtually certain” that heat waves are more frequent and hotter than they otherwise would be because of climate change.
WWA doesn’t specifically study wildfires since they aren’t technically “weather” (though once they form, they can make their own). Instead, the organization studies the conditions that make a fire more likely. In the American West, this deadly combo usually involves high pressure, extremely dry air, and some wind.
Globally, burned areas decreased between 1998 and 2015, but that isn’t because fire-weather conditions are improving — rather, regional leaders have gotten better at things like land use and fire management. Fire weather, meanwhile, is increasing and lasting longer due to climate change. In particular, hotter temperatures — especially hotter overnight temperatures — make it more difficult to combat the fires that do ignite. (Most fires in the U.S. start due to human negligence or arson, rather than by natural causes such as lightning strikes.)
This is especially the case in California, where 10 of the state’s largest fires have occurred in the past two decades, with five in 2020 alone; a 2023 National Integrated Drought Information System-funded study further found a 320% increase in burned areas in the state between 1996 and 2021 due to contributions of human-caused climate change, with that number expected to grow in the coming decades.
On average, wildfire weather season lengthened by two weeks around the globe from 1979 to 2019. The IPCC has medium confidence in the claim that fire weather has become more probable in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and parts of Europe over the past century, and high confidence that fire weather will increase regionally due to global warming in the coming years.
Did climate change do it? Climate change has almost certainly exacerbated the heat, humidity, and drought conditions necessary for wildfires to start. The actual ignition of the fire is frequently human-caused, however, and complicating variables such as local vegetation, forest management, and land use can also muddle the picture.
Tropical cyclones are large and complicated storm systems. Ocean temperatures, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, wind shear, barometric pressure, atmospheric moisture, the shape of the continental shelf, emergency preparedness measures, and pure luck all affect how destructive a given storm might be — when or if it makes landfall. Climate change can put a thumb on the scale, but it is far from a lone actor.
Hurricanes — the strongest manifestation of a tropical cyclone — essentially work by transferring heat from the ocean into wind energy. Because the ocean absorbs excess heat from the warming atmosphere, scientists expect to see more “major” hurricanes of Category 3 or above in the coming years.
The storms aren’t just getting more powerful, though. Because of the interaction between ocean heat and energy in a hurricane, the storms also intensify more rapidly and are “more than twice as likely to strengthen from a weak Category 1 hurricane to a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane in a 24-hour period than they were between 1970 and 1990,” according to new research published last year.
WWA says it cannot attribute the intensification of any individual storm to climate change due to relatively limited modeling so far, so the organization instead looks at how climate change may have amplified associated rainfall and storm surges. Rainfall and flooding are, in fact, more deadly than high wind speeds in hurricanes, and both are understood to be increasing because of climate change. Put simply, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, which means worse deluges. Researchers linked extreme rainfall during Hurricanes Katrina, Maria, and Irma to climate change; Hurricane Harvey, which flooded up to 50% of the properties in Harris County, Texas, when it made landfall in 2017, had a rainfall total 15% to 38% greater than it would have been in a pre-industrial world, researchers found. Additionally, rising sea levels caused by climate change will worsen coastal flooding during such events.
However, “trends indicate no significant change in the frequency of tropical cyclones globally,” according to the IPCC. That is, there aren’t more hurricanes; the ones that form are just more likely to become major hurricanes. Scientists understand far less about what climate change means for the smaller Category 1 or 2 storms, or if it will impact the diameter of the storms that do form.
Did climate change do it? The greenhouse effect is making the atmosphere warmer, and in a warmer climate, we’d expect to see more major hurricanes of Category 3 and above. Evidence also points to hurricanes intensifying much more rapidly in today’s climate than in the past. Climate does not seem to play a role in the overall number of storms, though, and other critical factors like the path of a storm and the emergency preparedness of a given community have a significant impact on the potential loss of life but aren’t linked to a warmer atmosphere. Hurricanes are complicated events and there is still much more research to be done in understanding how exactly they’re impacted by climate change.
In the winter, your skin might feel dry, and your lips might chap; in the summer, many parts of the country feel sticky and swampy. This is simple, observable physics: Cold air holds less moisture, and warm air holds more. The “Clausius-Clapeyron” relation, as it is known, tells us that in 1 degree C warmer air, there is 7% more moisture. All that moisture has to go somewhere, so quite literally, when it rains, it pours. (That is, when and where it rains: WWA notes that “an attribution study in northern Europe found that human influence has so far had little effect on the atmospheric circulation that caused a severe rainfall event.”)
Like heat, the relationship between warm air and rainfall is well understood, which is why the IPCC is highly confident in the attributable influence of climate change on extreme rain. While it may seem confusing that both droughts and intense rainfall are symptoms of climate change, the warming atmosphere seems to increase precipitation variability, making events on the extreme margins more likely and more frequent.
Increased precipitation can have counterintuitive results, though. Rain occurring over fewer overall days due to bursts of extreme rainfall, for example, can actually worsen droughts. And while it might seem like more water in the atmosphere would mean snowier winters, that’s only true in certain places. Because it’s also warmer, snowfall is declining globally while winters are getting wetter — and as a result, probably more miserable.
But what does “more rain” really mean? Rain on its own isn’t necessarily bad, but when it overwhelms urban infrastructure or threatens roads and houses, it can quickly become deadly. Flooding, of course, is often the result of extreme rain, but “the signal in the rainfall is not necessarily correlated to the magnitude of the floods because there are other factors that turn rain into a flood,” Barnes, the research associate with WWA, told me, citing variables such as land use, water management, urban drainage, and other physical elements of a landscape.
Landslides, likewise, are caused by everything from volcanic eruptions to human construction, but rain is often a factor (climate-linked phenomena like wildfires and thawing permafrost also contribute to landslides). The IPCC writes with “high confidence” that landslides, along with floods and water availability, “have the potential to lead to severe consequences for people, infrastructure, and the economy in most mountain regions.”
Did climate change do it? More extreme rainfall is consistent with our understanding of climate change’s effects. Many other local, physical factorscancompound or mitigate disasters like floods and mudslides, however.
When I spoke with Barnes, of WWA, she told me, “It’s really easy to define a heat wave. You just go, ‘It was hot.’” Droughts, not so much. For one thing, you have to define the time span you’re looking at. There are also different kinds of drought: meteorological, when there hasn’t been enough rain; hydrological, when rivers are low possibly because something else is diverting water from the natural cycle; and agricultural, when there is not enough water specifically for crops. Like flooding, many different infrastructural and physical factors go into exacerbating or even creating various kinds of droughts.
Drought as we mean it here, though, is a question of soil moisture, Barnes told me. “That’s really hard to get data on,” she said, “and we don’t necessarily understand the feedback mechanisms affecting that as well as we understand heat waves.” As recently as 2013, the IPCC had only low confidence that trends in drought could be attributed to climate change.
We have a better understanding of how drought and climate change interact now, including how higher temperatures drive evaporation and cut into snowpack, leading to less meltwater in rivers. The IPCC’s most recent report concluded that “even relatively small incremental increases in global warming (+0.5C) cause a worsening of droughts in some regions.” The IPCC also has high confidence that “more regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming.”
WWA’s attribution studies have, however, found examples of droughts that have no connection to climate change. The organization flags that it has the highest confidence in the climate affecting droughts in the Mediterranean, southern Africa, central and eastern Asia, southern Australia, and western North America and lower confidence in central and west Africa, western and central Europe, northeast South America, and New Zealand.
Did climate change do it? Maybe. Some droughts have a strong climate signal — California’s, for example. Still, researchers remain cautious about attribution for these complicated events due in part to their significant regional variability.
Tornadoes are extremely difficult to study. Compared to droughts, which can last years, tornadoes occupy a teeny tiny area and last for just a blip in time. They “wouldn’t even register” on the models WWA uses for its attribution studies, Barnes said. “It would probably look like a slightly raised average wind speed.” The IPCC, for its part, has only “low confidence” in a connection between climate change and “severe convective storms” like tornadoes, in part due to the “short length of high-quality data records.”
But we are learning more every day. This spring, researchers posited that Tornado Alley is moving east and “away from the warm season, especially the summer, and toward the cold season.” Though it’s not entirely clear why this is happening, one theory is that it relates to how climate change is affecting regional seasonality: winters and nights are becoming warmer in certain areas, and thus more conducive to tornado formation, while others are becoming too hot for storms to form during the normal season.
Did climate change do it? Researchers aren’t entirely sure but there doesn’t appear to be a correlation between tornado formation and climate change. Still, warmer temperatures potentially make certain areas more or less prone to tornadoes than they were in the past.
We say “it was a dark and stormy night” because “it was a severe convective storm” doesn’t have the same ring. But an SCS — which forms when warm, moist air rises into colder air — is the most common and most damaging weather phenomenon in the United States. You probably just call it a thunderstorm.
Severe convective storms cause many localized events that we think of as “weather,” including heavy rainfall, high winds, tornadoes, hail, thunder, and lightning. Because heat and moisture are necessary ingredients for these kinds of storms, and because the atmosphere is getting both warmer and wetter, climate models “consistently” and confidently predict an “increase in the frequency of severe thunderstorms,” the IPCC notes — but, “there is low confidencein the details of the projected increase.” Trends remain poorly studied and highly regionally dependent; in the United States, for example, there is still no evidence of a “significant increase in convective storms, and hail and severe thunderstorms.” Still, other research suggests that for every 1.8 degree F of warming, the conditions favorable to severe convective storms will increase in frequency by up to 20%.
Hail forms during severe convective storms when the hot, moist air rises to a region of the atmosphere where it is cold enough to freeze. Like thunderstorms more generally, data is fairly limited on hail, making it difficult to study long-term trends (most climate models also do not look directly at hail, studying convective storms more broadly instead). However, it’s been hypothesized that climate change could create larger and more destructive hail in the future; if thunderstorm updrafts grow stronger, as projected, then they could hold hail at freezing high altitudes for longer, allowing individual hailstones to grow larger before falling back to Earth. One study even suggested that with continued warming, there could be a 145% increase in “significant severe hail” measuring at least 2 inches in diameter — that is, a little smaller than a tennis ball.
Did climate change do it? Everything we know about thunderstorms suggests that a warmer, wetter atmosphere will mean severe convection storms become both more frequent and more intense. But there is still very little available data to track the long-term trends, so attributing any one storm to climate change would be nearly impossible.
Just as virtually all heat waves worldwide are worsened by climate change, “nearly every instance of extreme cold across the world has decreased in likelihood,” according to the WWA. While the organization has run attribution studies on “a few” heavy snowfall events, it has either found no link to climate change or has been unable to state a conclusion confidently. On the other hand, the loss of snow cover, permafrost, Arctic sea ice, and glaciers has a high-confidence link to human-caused climate change in the IPCC report.
Just because climate change makes extreme cold and snowstorms less likely does not mean they won’t happen. Research published in Nature earlier this year suggests climate change could bring more snow to certain places, as extremely cold parts of the world warm to snow-friendly temperatures, and increased precipitation from a warmer atmosphere results in more flurries. Parts of Siberia and the northern Great Plains are even experiencing a deepening snowpack.
Did climate change do it? Probably not — though there are notable exceptions.
An earthquake is usually caused by the release of energy when two tectonic plates suddenly slip past each other (though they can also be caused by fossil fuel extraction). But before you dismiss earthquakes as having no connection to climate change, there is one place where there could be a link: water.
As Emily Pontecorvo wrote for Heatmap this spring, “Changes in surface water, whether because of heavy rain, snow, or drought, could either increase or relieve stress on geologic faults, causing them to shift.” Admittedly, even if there is a relationship between climate change, water, and earthquakes, it appears to be small — so small that humans probably can’t feel any resulting quakes.
Did climate change do it? It’s highly unlikely.
Earlier this year, extreme turbulence on a Singapore-bound flight from London killed one person and injured at least 20 others. While such events remain rare — the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recorded just 101 serious injuries caused by turbulence on millions of flights between 2013 and 2022 — extreme turbulence appears to be increasing, potentially because of climate change.
According to one study, severe turbulence is up 55% between 1979 and 2020, seemingly due to an increase in wind shear at high altitudes caused by the temperature contrast between the equator and the North Pole. (This relationship is a little bit complicated, but essentially, at higher altitudes, the temperature over the pole has been declining due to rapid Arctic temperature changes even as it’s increased at the equator; lower in the troposphere, the opposite is happening). Other studies have similarly shown that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could increase moderate-to-severe turbulence by as much as 127%.
Data, however, is limited and fairly subjective, leading to some skepticism in the scientific community and inaccurate dismissals by climate-change deniers. As with many complex weather phenomena, our understanding of how climate change interacts with turbulence will likely grow in the coming years as the field of research develops.
Did climate change do it? Potentially in some cases, but there is still much to learn about the connection between the two.
Desertification differs from drought in that it describes a decline in soil fertility, water, and plant life to the point of total “land degradation.” (In contrast, land can become productive again after a drought.) Like other compound disasters, desertification results from natural processes, climatic conditions, and land management practices such as grazing and deforestation.
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, land degradation is “almost always” the result of these “multiple interacting causes,” and the warming climate certainly isn’t helping. Heat stress can kill off vegetation, making landscapes more prone to desertification, as well as drive aridification.
In the resulting drylands — which comprise about 46% of global land area — you can expect dust storms (also known as haboobs), and sand storms resulting from the wind kicking up loose soils. While there have always been sand storms, one study suggests that climate change is one of the critical drivers of global annual dust emissions increasing by 25% between the late 19th century and today.
However, “climate change impacts on dust and sand storm activity remain a critical gap,” writes the IPCC, and more research is desperately needed to address this. By the UN’s estimate, dust storms were associated with the deaths of 402,000 people in 2005. As many as 951 million people, mainly in South Asia, Central Asia, West Africa, and East Asia, could be vulnerable to the impacts of desertification if climate change continues.
Did climate change do it? It was potentially a factor, but we have lots more to learn.
Are locust swarms technically “weather”? Not really. But so long as we’re on the topic of weather events of Biblical proportions, locust swarms might as well be addressed, too.
And the answer may surprise you: Climate appears to be a driver of locust swarms, which threaten food security and exacerbate famines throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Locusts prefer “arid areas punched by extreme rainfall,” according to one study that looked at the connection between swarms and climate change, and while much of that pattern is fixed in the natural El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle, a warming climate will also “lead to widespread increases in locust outbreaks with emerging hotspots in west central Asia.” In particular, the research found that in a low-emissions scenario, locust habitat could increase by 5%, while in a high-emissions scenario, it could increase by 13% to 25% between 2065 and 2100.
Did climate change do it? It’d likely be tricky to attribute any one locust swarm to climate change, but as with many other natural phenomena, climate likely plays a compounding factor.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Israel and Iran, G7, and clean-energy jobs
Current conditions: Fairbanks will “cool” to 85 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday after NOAA issued the first heat advisory in Alaska’s history over the weekend • Nashville’s total rainfall for the year is 33.25 inches, making it the city’s wettest since 1979 • It could hit 124 degrees Fahrenheit in Ar Rabiyah, Kuwait, today, potentially setting a new hottest temperature of June so far.
An Israeli strike on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran.Stringer/Getty Images
Oil analysts and investors are bracing for further escalation after Israel and Iran’s attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure this weekend. On Saturday, Iran reported that Israel had struck its natural gas processing facility near the South Pars field, as well the main fuel depot in Tehran — targets that “suggest Israel is attempting to weaken and disrupt Iran’s domestic gas and fuel supply chains to cause shortages, rather than pursuing the country’s oil and gas production or exports, which would rock the markets,” the Financial Times writes. Iran responded on Saturday by hitting an Israeli refinery and damaging pipelines north of Tel Aviv. Israel preemptively cut off the natural-gas flow from its oil fields in case those pipelines become additional targets, with Egypt and Jordan reporting they’ve already seen disruptions to their supplies as a result, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest crude oil reserves in the world, and is the third-largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The country has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a major transit route for a third of the world’s oil, although many analysts are skeptical of such a threat, given that it would also cut off Iran’s own export route to its biggest customer, China, Bloomberg reports. While some analysts expect President Trump to call on OPEC+ to increase its production capacity if the global oil supply is disrupted, “it’s unclear whether the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries could offset a severe and prolonged outage in Iran, which pumps around 3.4 million barrels a day,” Bloomberg adds. Brent crude rose 5.5% to $78.32 a barrel at the start of trading on Monday morning, after gaining 7% on Friday — the most in three years.
The Group of Seven summit begins today in western Alberta, but in a break with precedent, climate policy will not be on the agenda. Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Britain will reportedly take pains to avoid “riling” President Trump at the meeting in Kananaskis, The Washington Post reports, while Bloomberg notes that “other G7 leaders won’t even try for a statement of unity on matters such as Ukraine or climate change.” Since 1975, the group has “dedicated an average of 5% of its declarations to climate change at each summit,” The Global Governance Project reports, and it has made “496 climate commitments, taking 6% of the total on all subjects.” But despite the hesitancy to contradict the U.S., certain climate policies will be “integrated into the agenda, a senior government official told a briefing this week, pointing to an effort to improve the international joint response to the growing global forest fire threat,” per the BBC.
The Republican budget bill could potentially threaten 2 million jobs, a new report by BlueGreen Alliance found. In addition to 300,000 direct manufacturing jobs that may be lost if the GOP follows through on eliminating the corresponding tax credits, the report also found that a million indirect jobs (like “supply chain jobs, providing parts for auto or clean energy manufacturing”) and 643,000 induced jobs (like “restaurant workers, store clerks, and the other types of jobs you’d see when an area increases in population or has more money to spend”) are also at risk of evaporating, Electrek notes. Georgia alone could lose 258,000 jobs. “Every bit of data shows clearly that repealing these credits will hurt working Americans,” Ted Fertik, the vice president of manufacturing and industrial policy at BlueGreen Alliance, said in a statement. “We hope the Senate will see reason and reverse these damaging provisions.”
The European Commission, which is set to propose a cut-off date for the European Union’s imports of Russian gas, will not propose similar limits on the nation’s nuclear fuel, Reuters reported Monday. Russia currently supplies the bloc with 38% of its enriched uranium and 23% of its raw uranium, and five EU countries use Russian-designed reactors intended to run on Russian fuel. “The question about nuclear is, of course, complicated, because we need to be very sure that we are not putting countries in a situation where they do not have the security of supply,” EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen said. Though the announcement was a reversal from the Commission’s statement in June that it would target Russian enriched uranium, Jorgensen added that “we’re working as fast as we can to also make that a part of the proposal.”
In case you missed it, late last week Meta announced a deal with XGS Energy to add 150 megawatts of geothermal electricity in New Mexico to help the company power its local expansion into artificial intelligence. XGS specifically uses a closed-loop system to prevent water from escaping as it extracts geothermal energy from the rock, which is “especially crucial in a drought-prone state like New Mexico,” The Verge writes. The goal is for the facility to be operational by 2030.
Though the deal between Meta and XGS is no larger than a separate geothermal deal the tech company struck with Sage Geosystems last year, the proposal would still “represent about 4% of total U.S. geothermal production,” Reuters reports. Meta also announced a nuclear agreement with Constellation Energy earlier this month. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin has more on the tech clean-power buying spree, which you can read about here.
The world’s biggest sand battery is now operating in the small municipality of Pornainen, Finland. The nearly 50-foot wide, 43-foot-tall tank is filled with sand that is capable of storing 1 megawatt of thermal power from excess solar and wind electricity, and which can be used to meet one month of Pornainen’s heat demands in the summer or a week of its demands in the winter, per its owner, Polar Night Energy.
How the perpetually almost-there technology could get shut out of the Inflation Reduction Act’s surviving nuclear tax credits.
The House offered a last minute olive branch to the increasingly bipartisan nuclear industry when it passed its version of the budget reconciliation bill now working its way through the Senate, opting to preserve tax credit eligibility for so-called “advanced nuclear facilities” that start construction by 2029. That deadline will be difficult for many nuclear companies to meet, regardless of their technological approach or reactor size. But one much anticipated, potentially world-changing technology won’t even have a shot: nuclear fusion.
That’s not because fusion is so futuristic that the 2029 deadline would be categorically unworkable. As I keep hearing, the tech is finally, possibly, actually on the verge of commercialization, and some industry leaders such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems could probably break ground on a commercial reactor by then.
Fusion won’t have a shot simply because, as defined by Congress and the IRS, it does not fall within the category of an “advanced nuclear facility.” Instead, it’s defined and regulated as a separate class of zero-emission technology, thus excluding it from the nuclear carve out in the budget bill. That distinction was made clear in January, when the IRS released its final regulations for the Inflation Reduction Act, Julien Barber, an investor in multiple fusion technologies at Emerson Collective, told me. That separation happened because “we wanted to regulate them differently,” he said.
Fusion reactors can’t melt down and don’t produce the kind of highly radioactive nuclear waste that fission does, meaning that many of the safety constraints on conventional nuclear don’t apply to fusion. In 2023, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided to regulate fusion reactors more like particle accelerators, which are typically licensed at the state level, have fewer siting constraints, less stringent security requirements, and are often exempt from full environmental review. Last year, a bipartisan group of senators worked together to pass the Fusion Energy Act, which confirmed the NRC’s decision to separate the regulatory processes.
If the Senate approves the House’s version of the clean energy investment and production tax credits, fusion energy will be subject to the same tight restrictions as other clean energy solutions. The timeline for credit eligibility requires energy projects to begin construction a mere 60 days after the bill’s passage, and be placed in service by 2029. That, Barber said, is “essentially impossible for any of the fusion companies out there.” Brian Berzin, CEO of the fusion startup Thea Energy, agreed. “Most private fusion companies will be left unable to benefit from these financial incentives,” he wrote in an emailed statement.
There’s confusion, however, around whether this fusion exclusion was a deliberate decision from the House or simply an oversight. Barber is betting on the latter.
“This was happening quickly,” Barber told me. “There was some push by some of the companies in the [Fusion Industry Association] to review the language, but they just didn’t have time to review the language in time to write comments, and it just kind of got pushed through as is.”
The bill’s final language also took the CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, Andrew Holland, by surprise. “We had heard that fusion would be part of the carve out too, but then it wasn’t,” Holland told me.
A more pessimistic interpretation is also possible, Barber conceded. “There’s the idea that people don’t think fusion is ever going to be the case,” he told me. Certainly for some both in and out of government, fusion represents a dream perpetually deferred.
What Barber thinks many people fail to realize, though, is that some fusion industry leaders are operating on timelines similar to fission companies building small modular reactors. “If you talk to CFS, they’re going to say, We’re going to be putting our first power plant on the grid by the early 2030s, which is the same timeline as [small modular reactor company] X-energy, right?”
Until this moment, the distinction that top governing bodies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have made between fusion and fission has been nothing but a positive for fusion companies and advocates alike. When the Fusion Energy Act passed, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Republican John Cornyn of Texas, said that “fusion energy is a promising clean and safe power source that could help address America’s growing energy demands.” Another co-sponser, Republican Todd Young of Indiana, said that fusion “has the potential to usher in a new era of energy production in America.”
But whether generalized Republican support for fusion will extend beyond easing regulations to actively include subsidies for the technology remains to be seen. And for now, most of the companies themselves are staying quiet. As of publication time, CFS, Zap Energy, Type One Energy, and Xcimer Energy all either said they could not comment or else did not respond to my request for comment.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comments from the Fusion Industry Association.
Regardless of who’s eligible for what and when, strict “foreign entity of concern” provisions could make clean energy incentives impossible to take advantage of.
The word of the moment in renewable energy is “unworkable.” That’s how the chief executives of two major renewables developers — John Ketchum of NextEra and Jim Murphy of Invenergy — described new requirements inserted into clean energy tax credits by congressional Republicans in recent weeks.
“The way they’re drafted, they’re unworkable,” Ketchum said of the requirements at a Politico summit held earlier this week. He was referring specifically to a new set of provisions in the House budget reconciliation bill which say that to qualify for the credits, companies must divest their supply chains from “foreign entities of concern,” a group of countries comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. But really, the rules are about China.
Around 80% of the global solar panel supply chain runs through China, according to the International Energy Agency. The batteries used in many stationary storage systems are almost entirely made in China, to name just a couple isolated examples. Starting in 2026, the bill mandates that developers seeking to claim the clean energy production or investment tax credits may not receive “material assistance” from China. That refers to any component or subcomponent (including critical minerals) that was “extracted, processed, recycled, manufactured, or assembled” by a “prohibited foreign entity,” defined as a company with at least 25% Chinese ownership or 10% Chinese debt holdings, according to a memo by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. The rules become even more strict in 2028. Similar strictures were also added to the 45X advanced manufacturing tax credit.
A small modular reactor has at least 10,000 component parts, Ketchum told the Politico audience. “We come to find out that one of the screws in the bolts, used by one of the suppliers five layers down … was actually sourcing the bolt and the screw from China. Guess what happens? You’re disqualified, all your tax credits for that small modular reactor go away,” Ketchum said.
“How in the world are you going to trace five layers down to a subcontractor who’s buying a bolt and a screw?”
Murphy, the Invenergy CEO, put it more succinctly at an industry conference last week. “The supply chain can not support that, and won’t be able to support that for several years. It’s just an unworkable provision.”
While these may sound like the exaggerations of executives eager to avoid paperwork or costly new investments, analysts who have looked at the bill’s language have similarly concluded that the language is both so vague and so broad that determining whether a company has complied would be almost impossible.
Analysts at the investment bank Evercore wrote in a note to clients last week that while the new FEOC framework “ostensibly aims to keep China out of U.S. energy supply chains, it would likely bury companies and their suppliers in such onerous paperwork and diligence that the remaining tax credits are rendered largely unusable.”
Foreign entity of concern rules are not new — versions of them appear in the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act’s electric vehicle tax credits. The FEOC rules in the One Big, Beautiful Bill are far more extensive, however.
The Senate may look to loosen the rules, according to Axios, andseveral House Republicans have signed (yet another) letter, this one referring to the restrictions as “highly restrictive and onerous” and “overly prescriptive and risk undermining U.S. competitiveness.”
Should the FEOC provisions become law, their exact implementation will be up to the IRS. In the case of EVs, the tax agency came out with proposed guidelines in the months after the Inflation Reduction Act was enacted, but didn’t finalize them until 2024. Even complying with those required a “Herculean” effort from the EV and battery industry, Albert Gore, head of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me.
Gore also questioned whether the rules would be “workable” as written. To determine whether compliance would be worth it, Gore said, you have to evaluate how close an industry is to complying in the present, and the value of complying in the future, and the cost to get there.
Given that the clean energy and manufacturing credits sunset after 2031 (except for wind components, which sunset earlier), that calculation may very well come out negative. And then there’s the deadline to even qualify for the clean energy tax credits in the first place, starting construction two months after the bill passes, according to the House language.
The EV rules did ultimately support U.S. manufacturing, Gore told me. “It was a pretty efficient investment in American manufacturing, kind of disguised as a consumer EV credit,” he said. “But it was a very, very stringent credit.”
Xan Fishman, senior managing director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, was skeptical that the FEOC provisions in the budget reconciliation bill would do anything to bolster U.S. manufacturing. “Intricate and complicated doesn’t make it more effective,” he told me.
“You would have a disallowance of credit if you are a foreign entity of concern, or you are a foreign influenced entity of concern, which might mean that one of your suppliers is a foreign entity of concern, or one of your supplier’s board members is from China or they have a family member that’s from China that runs a foreign entity of concern, or that family member has some business transaction involving debt with a foreign entity of concern, and their suppliers actually might have board members who have family members who have some debt arrangement with the foreign entity of concern,” Fishman elaborated.
This is where workability really comes in.
“If the result of this is we have less U.S. manufacturing, we won’t have achieved the goal” of raising America’s global competitiveness. “Nor will we have been tough on China,” Fishman said.
The ironies of the legislation abound. “There's sort of that double whammy in there with the start of construction deadline, which to some extent, makes the FEOC moot,” Murphy, the Invenergy CEO, said at the conference. “If you don't start construction by the deadline, who cares about it?”
Ironically, if the Senate put in a more relaxed deadline to qualify for the credits, “then we have to really address those foreign entity of concern provisions,” Murphy added.