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.
Greenhouse gas pollution could drop by half a percent this year, according to a new analysis.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Back in March of last year, I coined the phrase “Degrowth Donald” to describe President Donald Trump’s accidental environmental impact.
Trump might say that climate change was a “hoax” or “scam,” I said. But when you looked at his actions, a different set of beliefs emerged.
He imposed a 10% tax on Canadian oil — a far more effective deterrent on consuming Albertan crude than a decade of protests against Keystone XL. He taxed foreign car imports and levied new tariffs on single-family-home building materials. You could say he had, I don’t know, rhubarb politics — a MAGA red stalk erupting in big green leaves.
Of course, Trump’s actual environmental politics are far more complicated. He has declared war on wind energy and gutted greenhouse gas rules. As you read in Heatmap AM this morning, the Trump administration announced today it would transform the Endangered Species Act to legalize a much broader range of animal killings.
But every so often, Degrowth Donald rides again. And so it is with the Iran war, which has gone on much longer than Trump initially envisioned, changed the global energy economy, and made China’s distinctive approach to energy security — which relies on electrification and large oil and mineral stockpiles — look more popular globally. It has triggered an energy crisis that is, at the moment, getting worse: Even in the United States, gasoline prices are surging again, and diesel is nearing its post-2022 inflation-adjusted record highs, according to Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. Energy prices are even higher in much of Europe.
One upshot of these higher prices, though? Emissions now seem to be going down. According to a new analysis from Carbon Brief, a U.K.-based nonprofit, global emissions from fossil fuels will fall by half a percent this year because of higher oil and natural gas prices caused by the Iran war and Strait of Hormuz closure. What’s interesting is that coal burning will actually increase — by more than 1% — but it will be swamped by declines from oil and gas consumption.
That’s a change from what authorities once expected. Last year, the International Energy Agency projected that global coal use would decline this year because of Chinese policies. But fuel switching will drive it up.
Of course, emissions declines caused by higher prices (or economic downturns) are the worst type of reductions. What we want to see, instead, is countries switching to lower-carbon forms of energy. But energy crises have a way of pushing every country’s energy policy in new directions. This year’s events have convinced Thailand, for instance, to reduce its liquified natural gas consumption and switch to renewables instead; they have caused Canada to open its market up to cheap Chinese electric vehicles and pursue an “associate membership” with the European Union. The 1970s oil crisis ultimately created the global energy regime of the 1980s and 1990s. What else countries might learn from this crisis is not too hard to guess.
The administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.
A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.
Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.
So, Trump is delaying key approvals even for wind projects on private land, a worst-case scenario for the industry during his presidency. With support from their respective trade groups, many project developers sued and in August won a preliminary injunction against this de-facto national wind energy freeze. The court ruling said federal law laid out clear deadlines for completing these airspace reviews and the administration was willfully missing them.
“[In] light of DoD’s review freeze that started a year ago and still has no end in sight, the wind developers would naturally look to the same deadlines for relief,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote, stating the administration’s pause violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Immergut also said the Trump administration potentially violated the law by reviewing projects under a new national security “methodology” that was defined by Congress.
But on Thursday, in its first update to the court since the ruling, the Justice Department laid out how essentially all projects remain at a standstill because they were adopting a new kind of comprehensive review process.
The administration claimed that “as a matter of policy” it had “resumed processing wind energy project applications,” but it only described a single instance where a company had heard from the military about moving forward. In addition, that company as well as all others affected by the freeze would still face a “new analytical methodology” for federal agencies reviewing height clearances for all projects, which appears to fly in the face of the ruling. The Justice Department did not provide any more detail about the methodology in its status update to the court.
Nicole Hughes, executive director of lead plaintiff Renewable Northwest, asserted in an interview Tuesday that the agency isn’t complying with the court order. “It appears to me they’re still stalling,” Hughes told me, adding the federal government’s reluctance to proceed is creating “a pretty high risk” for developers of any new wind projects in the United States. She said if nothing changes in the short term, they’re going to “have to go back to the judge and ask for further clarification as to what it means to comply with this order.”
“The lack of compliance by the administration does put into question the credibility [of the courts] and what pieces hold their feet to the fire? What remedies do we have? There’s never been a time an administration flaunts a judge’s orders the way the administration is.”
The Justice Department status update described a multitude of wind energy projects impacted by the freeze. At least 30 projects apparently already signed deals proposed by the military to mitigate radar impacts and were awaiting a counter-signature from the Department of Defense (which Trump calls the Department of War or DoW). Those previous legal agreements are now at risk of being thrown out, according to the Justice Department filing. The new pathway forward for them apparently is: “DoW will either (i) provide a notice that the project presents an unacceptable risk to national security, (ii) re-engage in negotiations with the developer to attempt to ameliorate any unacceptable risks, or (iii) circulate to the project proponent [a] new model mitigation agreement.”
At least 110 projects were in the middle of discussions with the federal government about mitigating airspace impacts when the injunction came down, according to the DOJ filing, which says none of them have heard from officials since the injunction. “As of this filing, developer re-engagements have yet to begin because such discussions need to be informed by the analytical results. Given the number of projects in this category, DoW has been assessing how to resume review and engagement with the developers.”
The DOJ said another 50 projects awaiting initial meetings with the federal government about airspace risk will begin once the administration “finishes with those” 110 projects that were in the middle of the process. That waiting list will also include another at least 40 projects the Justice Department said received “presumed risk” airspace notices from the federal government.
We’ve seen the Trump administration use extralegal means to delay wind energy before, but never to this extent or after a judge ruled against them. The Interior Department had been freezing wind and solar projects on federal lands under a policy requiring Secretary Doug Burgum sign off on routine approvals, but those typical government processes seem like they’ve resumed after a different federal court ruling enjoining that policy.
American Clean Power, the largest utility-scale solar and wind energy trade group, declined to comment. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.
CleanCounts is announcing new hourly matching credits, among other “enhancements.”
Renewable energy certificates, or RECS — the credits that companies buy in order to make claims that their operations “run on renewable energy” — are getting more sophisticated.
CleanCounts, a nonprofit that runs one of the biggest registries for RECs in North America, announced on Wednesday that it now has the capability to issue certificates tied to the exact hour the renewable energy was produced, opening the door to more reality-based clean energy claims. For companies that want to match their renewable energy purchases to the hours when their factories and stores are actually consuming power, “that was a critical piece of infrastructure that was missing,” Benjamin Gerber, the CEO of CleanCounts, told me.
The company also announced “additional enhancements” to its registry that will enable a wider range of new REC products, from certificates tied to “pollinator-friendly solar,” to projects owned by indigenous Tribes, to “low-impact hydropower” projects that mitigate harm to fish. Gerber said he thinks having a system to track and verify these benefits will help companies tell a different story about the infrastructure they are building, and in so doing help turn the tide of public support.
Traditionally, a REC represents a megawatt-hour of electricity that has been generated by a renewable energy source such as wind, solar, geothermal, or moving water. The generator records every megawatt-hour it produces with a registry like CleanCounts, which issues certificates; companies then buy these certificates, either in advance under power purchase agreements or after the fact in the spot market. The registry then “retires” the certificates once the REC buyer chooses to “use” it to make a clean energy claim. Registries ensure that nobody is counting the same megawatt-hour more than once.
Today, a lot of corporations simply match their annual energy consumption with certificates. If they anticipate consuming 100 megawatts, they might buy 100 megawatts of solar RECs — even if their factories operate at night — and then claim they “run on 100% renewable energy.” Critics argue these types of claims mislead the public and tip the scales toward the cheapest renewable sources — i.e. solar and wind — rather than those that can generate energy in the off-hours, such as batteries, geothermal, and nuclear. Many clean energy advocates want to see companies move toward making more specific claims about the number of hours they run on renewable energy.
Google got behind this idea several years ago, pledging to match its consumption with clean energy on a 24/7 basis. CleanCounts piloted a method with Google to issue the company hourly RECs, but to do so it had to basically reverse engineer the certificates, embedding data regarding the time the energy was produced after the fact. That made it complicated to true up a company’s energy consumption data with its REC purchases and say, “we covered X number of hours with clean energy.”
Now, CleanCounts will be able to specifically issue a credit for “1 megawatt-hour produced Wednesday, September 16, at 9:00 a.m.,” for example, making it far easier for companies to adopt an hourly matching strategy.
“Instead of breaking it apart, they're basically issuing it as an already granularized tradable certificate,” Alex Piper, the head of policy at EnergyTag, a nonprofit that advocates for hourly matching, told me. “Which is what is new and exciting, and opens the door for more liquid transactions and a broader and more impactful marketplace.”
Hourly matching is not exactly popular in the corporate sustainability world. A lot of companies and sustainability consultants argue that accounting for their energy on an hourly basis will be too complicated, too expensive, and ultimately crater the corporate clean energy market. Corporations are in a showdown with EnergyTag and other proponents of hourly matching to convince the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that sets standards for corporate carbon accounting, of their case.
The new CleanCounts product solves at least one of those challenges, making hourly clean energy procurement much simpler.
That might also reap benefits in the form of consumer trust. New polling from EnergyTag and YouGov found that Americans tend to agree that companies shouldn’t claim to use solar at night. When asked, “When should a company count as a clean energy user?” 45% of respondents selected “only when their clean energy supply matches the hours they actually use electricity,” while 22% chose “when their clean energy averages out over the year (i.e. daytime solar covering nighttime usage.)” Just under a third of the 1,292 respondents selected “don’t know.”
Even if companies start buying hourly RECs, however, another challenge will be figuring out how to tell their customers, most of whom have no idea what a REC is. For years, companies have simply advertised that they are 100% renewable. What will it take to convince customers that actually, “We use clean energy about half the time we operate” is a more laudable claim?