You’ve reached your free article limit
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:

If you’ve had the uneasy sense that winter weather isn’t what it used to be, you’re not alone — and you’re probably right. The everyday effects of climate change on the year’s coldest months are quickly becoming too blatant to dismiss.
As annual heat records continue to topple year after year — 2023, now officially the hottest year on record, came terrifyingly close to averaging 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures — winter weather is responding. In some places, it’s turning snowy days into rainy ones. In others, it’s turning cold days bitterly so.
So — what, exactly, is going on? Let’s start with the basics.
The main thing is that climate change is pushing winter temperatures higher. In fact, the average winter temperature is rising faster than that of any other season. Average temperatures in the lower 48 U.S. states from December through February rose by almost 3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1896 and 2021, compared to 2 degrees in spring and 1.5 degrees in summer and fall, federal data show.
The number of days below freezing each year is also on the decline across the country and across the planet. A decade ago, the U.S. was already seeing two weeks less snow cover, on average, than it did in 1972, according to federal data. And parts of the country, including cities in the Northeast and Northwest, are on track to lose over a month of freezing days by midcentury.
But in many places, daily highs and lows aren’t shifting at the same rate. Winter nights, for instance, are warming even faster than winter days — the total number of freezing nights has been dropping in the U.S. since the 1970s. Colder places are also warming more quickly, with the northern U.S. and especially the Northeast experiencing the most significant rise in average winter temperatures.
That dreary, muddy weather that most of the U.S. saw this past Christmas does, admittedly, happen sometimes for natural reasons. Same with the incessant rain that fell (and then turned to ice) across the Midwest and Northeast in mid-January. With every fraction of a degree the planet warms, however, events like these become more likely — or, at least, that’s what hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists concluded in the United Nations’ latest synthesis report on the state of the global climate.
Bingo.
Some evidence suggests that climate change is actually making cold shocks more likely by destabilizing the polar jet stream, which keeps the frigid air in the far northern hemisphere from moving too far southward (and keeps warm air in the tropics from moving too far northward). As a result, the polar vortex that’s normally confined to the Arctic is liable to stretch south and blast bitterly cold air into the contiguous U.S. That’s what happened in mid-January, when temperatures in Montana and the Dakotas dropped as low as -30 degrees Fahrenheit and the wind chill bottomed out at -60 degrees. Cold air from the same weather system blew all the way to Texas.
That said, this evidence is not rock solid. Whether or not it bears out in the long term, it’s important to remember that a warmer world doesn’t mean it will never be cold.
Recent experience notwithstanding, cold snaps — short periods of abnormally cold weather — are going away, too. Their average duration dropped by six days between 1970 and 2021, a Climate Central analysis found.
One of the most predictable consequences of climate change is that, as year-round temperatures soar, an increasing share of annual precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. That’s just what you get when it’s too warm for water vapor to freeze.
One of the less obvious consequences, it turns out, is that a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, enabling it to dump more precipitation — whether that comes as rain, snow, or wintry mix — during a single storm. As a result, even though climate change is making certain places drier, the biggest winter snowstorms are becoming, well, bigger.
This apparent contradiction had a major impact on the parched West in 2023. Drought is expected to become the norm there as the planet warms, fueling epic wildfires and straining already limited water supplies.
But a string of record snowstorms across the West last winter replenished the region’s dwindling snowpack, feeding mountain streams and helping keep drought conditions at bay (and creating a really good year for ski towns). In California, meanwhile, a barrage of atmospheric rivers drenched lower elevations and broke snowfall records in parts of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
California and its neighbors got off to another rainy (and snowy) start in 2024 — though the recent reprieve from years of severe drought isn’t expected to last.
The best answer we can give you today is to say that yes, snow will most likely still exist. But rising generations probably won’t be able to count on snow falling — and sticking — with the regularity it did when you were their age.
Climate scientists don’t have a perfect picture of how quickly the winters we grew up with will give way to a string of months that are rainy, slushy, and unpredictable, but that’s the direction the evidence is pointing. As global temperatures continue to rise, the trends we’ve seen in winter weather over the past couple of decades aren’t expected to reverse course anytime soon.
Many of the ways climate change affects winter are hard to miss. Snow falls later and less often, and when it does come, it doesn’t last as long. That comes with a few perks for the average American — such as fewer frigid winter days — and huge downsides for the communities, ecosystems, and industries that depend on winter being snowy and cold.
The ramifications of warming winters across the U.S. also extend far beyond the end of the season. Accelerated snowmelt causes plants to green and bloom earlier, which can have cascading effects on soil moisture and drought, as well as on the wildlife that depend on these plants for food and habitat. If snowpack fails to accumulate or melts too early, streams will run dry during the hottest months of the year, when animals, plants, and people need them most.
Traditional strains of some fruit crops — like blueberries, cherries and peaches, for example — don’t grow properly in the spring and summer if the preceding winter was too warm. The increasing volatility of winter weather is also affecting the success rate of wintertime crops, especially in the South. By some estimates, the agriculture sector’s biggest companies could lose tens of billions of dollars in value by 2030 because of climate change.
And pests like ticks and mosquitoes are not only expanding northward, they’re also surviving the winter more easily in their historical range, causing their populations to grow and rates of disease transmission to climb.
Unfortunately, that’s one question we can’t answer — not for every instance of unseasonably warm temperatures everywhere in the world. What we do know for sure is that warmer average temperatures make unseasonable and extreme weather more likely. So in that sense, yes, odds are very good that climate change is playing a role in that thermometer reading.
But also, events rarely have just one cause. Climate change could be exacerbating a natural weather phenomenon, or you might just have gotten a brief winter reprieve. Whether one sultry February day is “because of climate change” isn’t really the point. The point is that, unless and until we stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and start pulling them out, the weather will just keep getting weirder. There is no new normal.
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 Taiwan’s LNG investment, Chinese solar job cuts, and molten chloride fast reactors
Current conditions: Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are climbing up to the mid 80s Fahrenheit today before taking a double-digit plunge as cold air blows in this weekend • California’s biggest utility has warned of looming blackouts as the southern part of the state braces for a potential wildfire • Tropical Storm Trudy is strengthening in the Pacific off the coast of Mexico into what could become a major hurricane.
The Houthis sent a clear signal this week: We are coming for Saudi Arabia’s oil industry. Days after striking Riyadh and scaring Western oil executives away from an industry summit in the Saudi capital, the Iran-backed rebels hit the headquarters of the kingdom’s state energy behemoth, Aramco. Official reports on Tuesday initially downplayed the impact on the sweeping complex in Dhahran, in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich east. On Wednesday, however, Reuters reported that the missile attack had caused “extensive damage,” including “with a fire spreading across several floors.” Saudi Arabia has at other points during the conflict after proven resilient. After Houthi missiles pulverized a key node on the East-West Pipeline that serves as the main conduit to get oil from the Persian Gulf coast to the Red Sea shore, crews quickly created a workaround to restore the flow of crude. Following a brief uptick, the prices of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and the U.S.-centric West Texas Intermediate both fell on Wednesday. Maybe not for long: The Houthis vowed yesterday to continue targeting oil facilities.
Since shutting down its nuclear plants, Taiwan has become dependent on natural gas for at least half its electricity generation. But the self-governing island democracy doesn’t drill any of the fuel. It’s dependent on imports at a moment when, thanks to the war in Iran, anyone who isn’t producing their own is looking for a cheap, steady supply of liquified natural gas. Taipei has found a supplier. In a Wednesday post on his Truth Social platform, President Donald Trump said Taiwan agreed to buy 30% of the LNG shipped from the proposed $55 billion megaproject to build a gas pipeline from Alaska’s Arctic coast to an export terminal south of Anchorage. As part of the 20-year deal, Trump said the Taiwanese government would pay $4.4 billion for an equity stake in the project. Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs confirmed the deal and said it would work out the details later.
The pledged investment for the long-delayed project comes days after the Environmental Defense Fund released a new analysis showing that utilities and developers are cooling on clean power and once again pumping money into fossil fuel infrastructure at a rate that could see gas and even coal regain “a market share not seen since the early 2010s.” Amid all this investment, the national average retail price of electricity fell year over year from 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in September 2025 to 19.6 cents per kilowatt-hour last month, according to the freshest data on Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. “Great news, right?” my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday. “Not really.” He explains further: “While this is the first year-over-year decline in average prices since September 2023, it’s mostly due to California moving around its Climate Credit to the late summer months of August and September, historically among the highest-demand periods on the grid. The state previously delivered the credits in April and October. But while this is a nice thing for California ratepayers, it does less to tell us about nationwide electricity price trends.”

China’s top five solar manufacturers cut nearly 41,000 jobs last year as Beijing cracks down on the overcapacity that made exports so cheap Europeans started building fences out of panels. A new Reuters analysis of company filing shows that Longi Green Energy, Trina Solar, Jinko Solar, JA Solar, and Tongwei employed 40,589 fewer people than a year earlier. That 21% drop followed a 31% decline last year. The job cuts represent what the newswire called a “paradox,” in that the solar sales are booming as the world seeks alternatives to Middle Eastern hydrocarbons, yet the biggest manufacturers built too many factories and now no one can make any money.
The shift in China comes as the U.S. scrambles to rebuild its solar manufacturing capacity. Tariffs that Trump implemented, former President Joe Biden maintained, and Trump doubled down on have already set the stage for what my colleague Emily Pontecorvo reported may or may not be a manufacturing resurgence in the U.S. In August, we reported the Department of Commerce’s new trade restrictions were the administration’s lifeline to solar manufacturers that lost a key incentive when federal tax credits went away, taking with them the bonus for buying domestically-produced panels.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The world has seen experimental reactors that use molten salt as a coolant for a fission reaction fueled by uranium or plutonium. Several startups, including Bill Gates’ TerraPower, are now seeking to commercialize a version of that technology. Recently, the startup partnered with the utility giant Southern Company to examine a whole new possibility: A molten chloride fast reactor that uses liquid salts as both a coolant and a fuel. If that could work, it would be the first in the world. The advantages of the technology, in theory, would be limited enrichment needs, no fuel assemblies of uranium pellets, and a more flexible reactor that can ramp up and down to meet the grid’s needs. On Wednesday, the Department of Energy backed the effort to validate the science behind so-called MCFR reactors. The research will take place at the Idaho National Laboratory and has support from Southern and Core Power, a startup looking to harness fission to power cargo ships.
Is quantum computing a climate technology? Despite overlapping investors, it’s a difficult case to make, my colleague Katie Brigham wrote earlier this year. But the ways in which the technology develops certainly could be a model for other energy breakthroughs. On Wednesday, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled a deal with New York University whereby City Hall will support the construction of a quantum computing lab in exchange for 15% of any proceeds from selling intellectual property developed at the facility. “In the first deal of its kind in NYC history, the public is investing $30 million in a quantum lab — in exchange for three board seats and 15% of the revenue generated from technology it creates,” Lina Khan, the chair of the board of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, wrote in a post on X. “And if any firm coming out of the lab merges, gets acquired, or IPOs, the city gets a payout.”
When the solution to Indonesia’s very modern smog problems was invented, the archipelago nation remained under Dutch colonial rule and the planet was about 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, cooler than it is today. To ease the thick haze in Jakarta and other cities from forest fires the country the country is repurposing a weather-modification technique first invented in the 1940s. Per Bloomberg: “Aircraft will disperse pellets of dry ice above South Sumatra province in an experimental approach that authorities hope will reduce the hazardous smoke that’s blanketed the region for weeks, disrupting economic activity and damaging public health.” The first trial run starts today.
Energy costs remain high — and early voting has begun.
The national average retail price of electricity has fallen year over year from 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in September 2025 to 19.6 cents per kilowatt-hour in September of this year, or about 2%, according to the latest update to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
Great news, right?
Not really.
While this is the first year-over-year decline in average prices since September 2023, it’s mostly due to California moving around its Climate Credit to the late summer months of August and September, historically among the highest-demand periods on the grid. The state previously delivered the credits in April and October.
But while this is a nice thing for California ratepayers, it does less to tell us about nationwide electricity price trends. Excluding the credit, average prices would have been roughly flat, according to the MIT researchers. And even with the credit, bills are still rising year over year, at around $180 per month, up from $173 a year ago (though down from this year’s all-time high of $217 in July). Forty-five states and Washington, D.C., have seen their average bills go up over the last year.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recently released inflation figures showed electricity prices rising 0.2% in September from August and 4.4% over the last year, while overall prices rose 0.6% and 3.7%, trends largely driven by increases in the price of gasoline.
As we’ve written about several times before, some of the biggest electricity price increases are in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. In New York, prices in September were 31.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, up from 30 cents in August and 27 cents in September of last year.
In Maine, which sits at the end of the sparse New England natural gas network, prices have been rising sharply. In September, prices were just under 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 37 cents in August and 31 cents a year ago. Maine’s public advocate has blamed years of price hikes on natural gas prices, distribution costs — especially repairing infrastructure damaged by storms —and, to a lesser extent, subsidies for renewables.
Maine is just one of several midterm battlegrounds where energy costs have taken center stage, especially since the war in Iran spiked oil prices.
In Ohio, where Sherrod Brown is seeking to return to the Senate by defeating Jon Husted, electricity prices stand at just over 20 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 18 cents last September, while bills have risen from about $129 a month to $162. Brown leads Husted in the polls by about 4 percentage points, according to Nate Silver’s polling average. Ohio started early voting earlier this month.
Fossil fuels are the real October surprise.
This is Heatmap Daily, an evening news digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
At this point, the real October surprise may be the lack of one — because little seems set to change in the U.S. energy economy between now and the midterm elections on November 3.
Inflation certainly isn’t budging. Prices rose 3.7% over the past year, and 0.6% in September alone, according to today’s new government inflation report. That reading was hot — a tenth of a percent above what economists expected.
Surging gasoline and especially diesel fuel prices were to blame. Gasoline prices rose 9.1% last month, which pushed up prices above the economy: Transportation services, a category that includes airfare and Uber rides, increased by 0.6%, while food prices rose by 0.6%. (Read my colleague Matthew Zeitlin on how rising diesel costs can jack up food prices.) Staggeringly, fuel oil prices rose 15.3% — an eye-popping reading for a report where figures are usually in the tenth of a percent.
President Trump seems to be running out of time to repair the U.S. energy economy before Americans elect the last Congress of his presidency. His last-minute deal to free up 2.25 millions barrels of oil from Russia this month — with another 11 million or so to come afterward — seems unlikely to lower diesel prices, given that it represents only a few days of U.S. demand. (The deal has already succeeded in undermining Ukraine, however, and led six Republican senators to rebuke him this week.) Meanwhile, Election Day is in 20 days, and Americans are already voting in 20 states.
This is not how the Trump administration was supposed to play out — at least not according to its proponents. Trump in 2024 ran on taming the energy inflation that had plagued President Biden’s last two years in office. He vowed to “drill, baby, drill” and end Biden’s ambitious climate policies, which he called a “Green New Scam.” He even promised to do the bidding of oil company CEOs if they only steered $1 billion to his campaign.
This flagrant offer of quid pro quo may have mortified some in the industry, but it was coherent with the rest of Trump’s pitch: For more than a decade, he has essentially argued that only by surrendering to the fossil fuel industry, by giving oil and gas companies as much regulatory relief as they can stand, can voters finally escape high energy prices. Trump, of course, cemented this pitch in a typically over-the-top and ill-considered proposal, pledging to cut energy prices in half by 2026 or so. That was never going to happen, and its failure to happen has blown up for the president. But the underlying idea was consistent.
The Trump administration has spent the past two years executing this energy agenda. It repealed large swaths of the Inflation Reduction Act, ending incentives to build new solar and wind farms and terminating consumer-side subsidies for electric vehicles. It rolled back fines and rules restricting wasteful methane pollution. It has effectively eliminated fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. And it has declared an extralegal war on the wind industry.
And what has happened? Prices have gone up anyway. Gasoline and diesel are more expensive on an inflation-adjusted basis than they were on the day Trump took office. Now, you might argue that this surge is unrelated to the underlying policy, and that gasoline and diesel prices have surged because of the fallout from Trump’s war in Iran — not his domestic energy policy.
But the Iran crisis reveals the problem that Trump would have faced in any event: Oil prices are set on the global market, and neither the domestic oil industry nor the federal government possess the capacity to swing America’s production or consumption enough to affect those prices. Trump’s presidency, in other words, would always have been held hostage by the global energy markets — just as Biden’s was before him.
There is a deeper lesson here: The fossil fuel industry cannot guarantee low prices for consumers in the enduring way that Trump has promised — even if you give it all the regulatory relief that it demands. Nor can the oil, gasoline, and diesel markets deliver the deep energy security or economic stability that American policymakers want — or that voters desire. Trump’s war on Iran has continually been undermined by the American economy’s exposure to crude oil prices; the president is now compromising Ukraine’s defense in order to secure a dubiously small amount of crude. Fossil fuels remain America’s soft underbelly. Policymakers will keep getting poked until the country diversifies its energy system.