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:
And make a meaningful difference in the fight against climate change, while you’re at it.

Welcome to
Decarbonize Your Life, Heatmap’s special report that aims to help you make decisions in your own life that are better for the climate, better for you, and better for the world we all live in.
This is our attempt, in other words, to assist you in living something like a normal life while also making progress in the fight against climate change. That means making smarter and more informed decisions about how climate change affects your life — and about how your life affects climate change. The point is not what you shouldn’t do (although there is some of that). It’s about what you should do to exert the most leverage on the global economic system and, hopefully, nudge things toward decarbonization just a little bit faster.
We certainly think we’ve hit upon a better way to think about climate action, but you don’t have to take our word for it. Keep reading here for more on how (and why) we think about decarbonizing your life — or just skip ahead to our recommendations.
At this point, everyone knows that individual action won’t solve climate change. Didn’t BP invent the term “carbon footprint” in 2004 so as to distract from fossil fuel companies’ guilt and greed?
As the journalist Rachel Cohen has observed, around the 2010s it became unpopular to believe that individual action could help address any major social problem. And sure, it’s true that only collective action — achieved through something like the political system — will let us eventually manage climate change at the global level.
But at Heatmap, we believe that that isn’t quite the whole story. Just because politics and collective action are the only things that can solve climate change doesn’t mean they are the only things that can do something about climate change. What’s more, the problem of carbon emissions — and the stickiness of fossil fuels — emerges from a tight knot of chemical efficiency, political power, and logistical lock-in. If individual consumers can pry at that knot, can make it a little easier to imagine a post-fossil energy system, then they can realize a zero-carbon world a little sooner.
That way of thinking about climate change, however, requires us to think somewhat differently about how to take individual action in the first place. Often, when you read about how to fight climate change as a person or family, the advice assumes that you want to reduce your responsibility for climate change. You’re advised to turn down the thermostat in the winter (or turn it up in the summer), shut off the lights when you leave the room, and compost.
This advice assumes that the reader’s goal is to personally exculpate themselves or their family from global warming — and to assuage their own guilt for participating in a polluting system.
At its most sophisticated, this advice can be valuable insofar as it can help you cut your marginal carbon emissions. The most precise versions of these recommendations often speak in terms of emissions abatement: They might advise, say, that switching to a plant-based diet could save 0.8 tons of carbon emissions a year.
You’ll see some of that kind of recommendation in this project: It’s a valid way to think about individual actions, and it works especially well in some domains, such as food. But it’s not, in our view, the best way of thinking about individual action to fight climate change.
That’s because it is essentially impossible to exculpate yourself from climate change. That’s not being fatalistic. It’s just a fact. Simply by living in the year 2024, your life is enmeshed in a sprawling economic network that devours fossil fuels as its great lifestyle subsidy. Look out the nearest window — do you see cars, asphalt, power lines, sidewalks, buildings? Do you see steel-framed structures or a plane cutting its way across the sky? None of those things could exist without fossil fuels. And unless you’re looking into wild and unkempt wilderness (if so, lucky you!), then even the plants and grass out your window, the food in your pantry, grew up on fertilizer that was manufactured with fossil fuels. If you live in a rich or middle-income country, buy goods and clothes, eat food, use electricity, or even leave your house by any means other than walking, then you are responsible, to some degree, for climate change.
Trying to zero out your personal carbon footprint, in other words, is a fool’s errand. What you can do, however, is maximize the degree to which you’re building a new, post-fossil-fuel world.
To be clear, we don’t mean that in a woo-woo way. We’re not saying you should imagine a kumbaya world where we all hold hands and take public transit to the nearest all-volunteer renewable-powered co-op. We’re saying that there are real, already existing products and technologies that must become a bigger part of today’s built environment if we are to have any hope of solving climate change. What you can do — and what we recommend in this guide — is help take those technologies from the fringes into the center of everyday life. If you want to decarbonize the whole planet, you should think about decarbonizing your life.
What we have tried to do here is not focus on how to reduce your marginal emissions — the number of tons that you, personally, are responsible for pumping into the environment. Instead, we’re trying to help you understand how to focus on high-leverage actions — the kinds of choices that can drive change throughout the energy system. That’s why in this guide you’ll find advice on how to switch to an EV, buy zero-carbon electricity, make your home more energy-efficient, and electrify your appliances. We also recommend these in the order that we think they’ll be most effective — to learn more about how we reached that ranking, read about our methodology here.
The kind of shifts we advise in this guide, to be clear, won’t solve climate change on their own. But they will help you alter the systems in which you’re enmeshed, and they’ll make you a smarter climate citizen.
Flying is maybe the trickiest climate question. Although it makes up a relatively small share of both global and U.S. emissions — about 2% each — it is among the most climate-polluting activities many Americans will do on a minute-to-minute basis. (Although if you live in a dense and walkable city like New York, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C., but travel frequently, then flying may make up a large share of your emissions.) It is probably also the most difficult “everyday” activity to decarbonize.
There is no practical substitute for long-distance or transcontinental flying. Today, only one ocean liner regularly makes the journey from New York to London, and it departs from each city only once a month. And unless you hitch a ride on a container ship, there is literally no slow boat to China. If you want to travel abroad, then you must fly. Even within the United States, there is essentially no substitute for long-distance flights. Europeans and East Asians can rely on superior long-distance rail systems, but America’s extensive road network, unusually high infrastructure costs, sclerotic rail agency, and chronic lack of transit investment mean that Americans are stuck with flying or driving.
Commercial aviation is a miracle of the modern world: It facilitates a level of global connectedness and international communication that earlier generations could only dream of. Affordable and long-distance passenger flight is, in many ways, the crowning achievement of our highly technical society, and it allows for the amount of global immigration and mass tourism that defines the modern world. (If you have a private jet, of course, stop using it. Because so few people take each flight, private jets are uniquely destructive for the climate, emitting every seven hours what the average American emits all year.)
Fossil fuels’ weight and energy density is ideal for flying. There is, right now, no drop-in replacement for jet fuel that is being produced at scale. So while we have some advice about how to mitigate your climate pollution from flying, it won’t make up a large part of this guide. Reduce the number of flights you take if you can, sure, and take more direct flights if possible. But the truth is that for now, there are smarter and more high-leverage decisions that you can make.
Only decarbonization can get us closer to tackling climate change once and for all. Our belief at Heatmap is that if you care about climate change, then decarbonization — and not mere emissions reductions — should be your guiding star. If you want to follow that star, then read on.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
“We will not cease exports of U.S. diesel,” the Secretary of Energy told us at Heatmap House.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright threw cold water on a potential diesel export ban, telling Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer that the president “didn’t endorse it.”
“We are open to any ideas to lower energy prices for Americans,” Wright said at our Heatmap House event at New York Climate Week. “We have a continual, thoughtful dialog based on the facts on the ground of what are the most practical steps moving forward, and it looks like right now we do need to grow the diesel supply in the United States.”
There could be some adjustments to the diesel industry, Wright told Rob, saying there may “be some tweak in where diesel flows out of U.S. refineries.” About a full-scale ban, however, he was unequivocal. “We will not cease exports of U.S. diesel.”
That stands in contrast to President Trump’s remarks Tuesday, when he told reporters, “I’ve said, ‘Let’s not send out the diesel.’ I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people.” Politico reported Wednesday afternoon that the administration is “preparing” a 90-day export ban.
When asked if a diesel export ban would hurt America’s reputation as an energy superpower, Wright told Heatmap, “It certainly would have impacts.” But, he added, “I don’t think there’s serious consideration, although there’s always been a dialogue. I don’t think you will see a blanket ban on diesel. And yes, of course, we want to be the energy superpower supplying the whole world.”
Some Republicans in Congress have called for a diesel export ban, including Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who represents agriculture-heavy Iowa. High diesel prices impose a particularly large cost on two groups: farmers and New Englanders. Farmers need diesel to fuel equipment to harvest crops and trucks to move their goods, while millions of New Englanders rely on heating oil — which is virtually interchangeable with diesel — to heat their homes in the winter. Bills for heating oil may exceed $2,000 this winter, according to Mark Wolfe, the executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association
Diesel prices today are sitting at just over $6.50 per gallon, according to AAA, up from $3.69 a year ago and $5.60 just a month ago.
The former vice president joined us at Heatmap House at New York Climate Week to talk about electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and why clean energy will ultimately win.
In front of a packed room at Heatmap House on Wednesday morning, former Vice President Al Gore made the case for optimism on climate change.
“There is a possibility we will look back on this year of 2026 as the positive tipping point on climate,” he said.
He started with some high water marks in renewable energy and electric vehicles. Last year was the first year that the production of energy from renewable sources exceeded the overall increase in global energy demand, for example. Whereas 20 years ago, when Gore’s landmark climate change film An Inconvenient Truth premiered, there were virtually no electric vehicles on the road, by the end of this year about 30% of all new cars sold globally will be EVs.
On top of that, he later added, “the war in Iran marks the second time in four years that the fossil fuel supply chain has been disrupted, and price volatility has returned, and people around the world have reacted to this and in a really dramatic way.” Just in the past six months, EV sales reached record levels in 50 countries; Korea’s president committed to speed its transition off fossil fuels; Thailand announced a shift from liquified natural gas to renewables; and solar is booming in Africa.
“These are signs that this thing is really moving into high gear,” he said. “The fossil fuel industry is losing, they know they’re losing, and they’re trying to slow down how quickly they lose.”
Gore was also surprisingly hopeful about artificial intelligence, arguing that data centers were a cause for concern but “not a justification for panic.” He’s not convinced that the carbon emissions from powering artificial intelligence will have a decisive impact on our climate trajectory, and is far more worried about “cognitive atrophy and the emergence of an intelligence that makes us no longer the apex intelligence on the planet.”
The conversation with Gore followed an interview with one of his climate champion descendents, so to speak. Mikie Sherrill, the governor of New Jersey, showed off her energy bona fides in a conversation about her approach to affordability and data centers. She talked up her administration’s swift approvals of solar and battery projects to ensure they made the deadline for federal tax credits, lifting the state’s moratorium on nuclear, and implementation of virtual power plants.
“There is a crisis going on, so you cannot simply say to people, ‘Sorry, your bills are just going to keep skyrocketing,’” she said. “That is not the answer, which is why we’ve acted so aggressively.”
Sherrill also criticized data center developers for the way they have frequently come into the state without engaging with communities. “I told a data center, I said, ‘You guys have been horrible at it. I’m just telling you, nobody knows what a data center is, and you need to explain why it's even important. Are you curing cancer? What are you doing? Why is this a societal benefit?’”
She encouraged future Democratic candidates for public office to make sure they have a deep understanding of the specific energy circumstances of their state, and to speak to that on the campaign trail. “The can has been kicked down the road on too many different issues, and if you were going to try to duck your head and say some mealy-mouthed thing like, ‘We’re going to do all of the above’ and ‘Everyone's welcome and we like business,’ that’s not going to cut it.”
On offshore wind lawsuits, transmission woes, and a nuclear IPO
Current conditions: A potential nor’easter is barreling toward New York City, potentially hitting the five boroughs just as world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly get set to fly home • Hurricane Polo has rapidly strengthened into a Category 5 storm off Mexico’s Pacific coast, threatening flooding, winds, and storm surge • Yet another tropical storm is forming off the coast of Hawaii, risking mudslides and flooding.
The air is crisp here in Manhattan. UN representatives are grandstanding. And many of the biggest names in energy and climate are gathering alongside my colleagues at Heatmap House, our day-long summit for New York Climate Week. Some of the talks today include:
You can join the waitlist to come in person by registering here. And you can register to watch the livestream here.

In his opening address to the annual gathering of nearly all the world’s nations in New York, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called for an end to what he desscribed as “the most profound intergenerational power imbalance of all.” Climate change, he said, has led to “one group profiting, while those least responsible suffer first and worst.” The former Portuguese prime minister from the Iberian country’s leading center-left party highlighted last month’s catastrophic flood in Nepal as an example of the unfair toll global warming is taking. “As tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated. Now we face a near certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity,” he said. “The dangers are real. But so is the hope.”
President Donald Trump struck a decidedly different tone in his remarks to the assembly. In a characteristically fiery speech defending the U.S. war with Iran, he vowed to “annihilate the Islamic Republic “ or “drive them into hell with no chance of survival” if Tehran doesn’t agree to a peace deal with Washington soon — and that doing so would bring down oil prices. “If we stand united, we will soon see a world free of the last 51-year menace of Iranian terror,” Trump said. “And oil prices will come plummeting down even lower than they were at the start of the conflict. And they were very low in the United States. They were really low. With courage and resolve, anything is possible.” As an example, he pointed to what he called the largest oil deal in history with Venezuela last month. “When you add the United States and Venezuela together, we have more than 60% of the oil in the world,” Trump said. “So it’s perhaps the biggest deal. It was a war, but it’s perhaps the biggest deal ever made. To the victor belong the spoils.” Among the other spoils the president sees: Tuesday’s signing of his updated deal with Greenland to permanently bar Russian, Chinese, and other adversaries from making large-scale investments or setting up military outposts on the Danish-controlled Arctic island.
Back in June, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed what my colleague Emily Pontecorvo clocked as the first major state lawsuit challenging any of the Trump administration’s series of deals to pay offshore wind developers to abandon their projects. The lawsuit zeroed in on TotalEnergies and the $1 billion the Department of the Interior offered for the French giant to walk away from two proposed projects. On Tuesday, Albany announced two more lawsuits seeking to block deals with the developers Bluepoint Wind and Invenergy that, combined, would equal “$1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars in exchange for canceling four critical offshore wind projects.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who joined the lawsuit, admonished “the Trump administration’s unlawful pay-to-not-play scheme to pressure companies to forgo planned offshore wind projects in America,” which she called “an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars that hurts our ability to meet our energy needs.”
That same day, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the Interior Department’s deal with Invenergy to kill off what would have been one of the first major offshore wind projects on the West Coast. “At a time when we need more reliable, clean energy, President Trump is trying to send $111 million dollars to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab,” Bonta said in a press release. “This outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars will damage the offshore wind industry and create unnecessary obstacles to clean and reliable energy powering our homes and economies.” Both states explicitly tied the timing of the lawsuits to New York Climate Week, the five-day series of events around Manhattan that are tied to the UN General Assembly and seen as the aperitif for November’s global climate talks in Turkey.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
A 190-mile transmission line stretching across Wisconsin is drawing blowback from Democrats and Republicans. The state’s congressional delegation is increasingly aligned. Representative Mark Pocan, a Democrat, said Midcontinent Grid Solutions’ outreach to residents on the power line “does not match the scale of the project’s impact on their land, their livelihoods, and their communities,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Senator Tammy Baldwin, another Democrat, called for a “slowdown” of the development process. On the other side of the aisle, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden has backed a full moratorium on the project.
Coincidentally, Trump has signaled he’s willing to ease the administration’s blockade on renewables in a bid to secure a federal permitting deal with Democrats, Politico reported Tuesday. Two unnamed sources told the outlet that Trump has agreed to direct the Department of Defense to start clearing its queue of long-delayed onshore wind projects. My colleague Jael Holzman reported last week that, despite a court ruling ordering the military to resume its reviews, the administration hasn’t yet.
It was a bullish time for nuclear, it was a bearish time for nuclear. Billions of dollars are flowing into projects and ideas for reactors are proliferating as has not been seen since the mid-20th century atomic power buildout in North America, Europe, and East Asia. But startups debuting on the stock market are falling far short of expectations. Fuel maker Standard Nuclear went public in July in what Bloomberg called “a downsized U.S. IPO,” while the Amazon-backed next-generation reactor company X-Energy has fallen nearly 40% below its IPO price. America’s nuclear champion, Westinghouse, is still eyeing a $50 billion valuation ahead of a potential IPO. But it remains unclear whether that deal will ultimately go through. The market uncertainty isn’t stopping one of Europe’s most advanced nuclear startups from going public in the U.S. On Tuesday, Newcleo listed on the Nasdaq after completing a $247 million deal with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, essentially a cheat code for a swift IPO that involves merging with an already-traded black-check company and thus allowing the firm to avoid the months of due diligence with investment bankers that typically precedes a stock market debut. Newcleo CEO Stefano Buono called the deal “a new steppingstone that sets up” the company “for long-term success.”
For fusion no longer to be “the energy source of tomorrow that always will be,” as the old joke goes, the startups promising to bring about the so-called holy grail of clean power need to scale up supply chains. Inertia, the fusion startup that formed with much of the team of U.S. government scientists that pulled off the historic 2022 breakthrough that made fusion energy a possibility, is now laying the groundwork for commercialization. On Tuesday, the company, led by former Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson (yes, the same one that’ll be at Heatmap House), announced what it called “close collaborations” with three companies to begin manufacturing the lasers needed for Inertia’s fusion power plants at scale. “These are the first of many industrial collaborations we will coordinate to bring the scale of mass manufacturing to industrialize the laser fusion energy supply chain,” the company said.