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.
Activists are suing for records on three projects in Wyoming.
Three wind projects in Wyoming are stuck in the middle of a widening legal battle between local wildlife conservation activists and the Trump administration over eagle death records.
The rural Wyoming bird advocacy group Albany County Conservancy filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking to compel the government to release reams of information about how it records deaths from three facilities owned and operated by the utility PacifiCorp: Dunlap Wind, Ekola Flats, and Seven Mile Hill. The group filed its lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the national public records disclosure law, and accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of unlawfully withholding evidence related to whether the three wind farms were fully compliant with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I’m eyeing this case closely because it suggests these wind farms may fall under future scrutiny from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either for prospective fines or far worse, as the agency continues a sweeping review of wind projects’ compliance with BGEPA, a statute anti-wind advocates have made clear they seek to use as a cudgel against operating facilities. It’s especially noteworthy that a year into Trump’s term, his promises to go after wind projects have not really touched onshore, primarily offshore. (The exception, of course, being Lava Ridge.)
Violating the eagle protection statute has significant penalties. For each eagle death beyond what FWS has permitted, a company is subject to at least $100,000 in fines or a year in prison. These penalties go up if a company is knowingly violating the law repeatedly. In August, the Service sent letters to wind developers and utilities across the country requesting records demonstrating compliance with BGEPA as part of a crackdown on wind energy writ large.
This brings us back to the lawsuit. Crucial to this case is the work of a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Lockhart, whom intrepid readers of The Fight may remember for telling me that he’s been submitting evidence of excessive golden eagle deaths to Fish and Wildlife for years. Along with its legal complaint, the Conservancy filed a detailed breakdown of its back-and-forth with Fish and Wildlife over an initial public records request. Per those records, the agency has failed to produce any evidence that it received Lockhart’s proof of bird deaths – ones that he asserts occurred because of these wind farms.
“By refusing to even identify, let alone disclose, obviously responsive but nonexempt records the Conservancy knows to be in the Department’s possession and/or control, the Department leaves open serious questions about the integrity of its administration of BGEPA,” the lawsuit alleges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to a request for comment on the case, though it’s worth noting that agencies rarely comment on pending litigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request either. I will keep you posted as this progresses.
Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewable energy.
1. York County, Nebraska – A county commissioner in this rural corner of Nebraska appears to have lost his job after greenlighting a solar project.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Down goes another data center!
3. Maricopa County, Arizona – I’m looking at the city of Mesa to see whether it’ll establish new rules that make battery storage development incredibly challenging.
4. Imperial County, California – Solar is going to have a much harder time in this agricultural area now that there’s a cap on utility-scale projects.
5. Converse County, Wyoming – The Pronghorn 2 hydrogen project is losing its best shot at operating: the wind.
6. Grundy County, Illinois – Another noteworthy court ruling came this week as a state circuit court ruled against the small city of Morris, which had sued the county seeking to block permits for an ECA Solar utility-scale project.
A conversation with Public Citizen’s Deanna Noel.
This week’s conversation is with Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director for the advocacy group Public Citizen. I reached out to Deanna because last week Public Citizen became one of the first major environmental groups I’ve seen call for localities and states to institute full-on moratoria against any future data center development. The exhortation was part of a broader guide for more progressive policymakers on data centers, but I found this proposal to be an especially radical one as some communities institute data center moratoria that also restrict renewable energy. I wanted to know, how do progressive political organizations talk about data center bans without inadvertently helping opponents of solar and wind projects?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you recommending we ban data centers until we have regulations?
The point of us putting this out was to give policymakers a roadmap and a starting point at all levels of government, putting in guardrails to start reeling in Big Tech. Because the reality is they’re writing their own rules with how they’d like to roll out these massive data centers.
A big reason for a moratorium at the state and local level is to put in place requirements to ensure any more development that is happening is not just stepping on local communities, undermining our climate goals, impacting water resources or having adverse societal impacts like incessant noise. Big Tech is often hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and tying the hands of local officials behind NDAs while they’re negotiating deals for their data centers, which then becomes a gag order blocking officials and the public from understanding what is happening. And so our guide set out to provide a policy roadmap and a starting point is to say, let’s put a pause on this.
Do you see any cities or states doing this now? I’m trying to get a better understanding of where this came from.
It’s happening at the local level. There was a moratorium in Prince George’s County [in Maryland], where I live, until a task force can be developed and make sure local residents’ concerns are addressed. In Georgia, localities have done this, too.
The idea on its own is simple: States and localities have the authority and should be the ones to implement these moratoriums that no data centers should go forward until baseline protections are in place. There are many protections we go through in our guide, but No. 1, Big Tech should be forced to pay their way. These are some of the most wealthy corporations on the planet, and yet they’re bending backwards to negotiate deals with local utilities and governments to ensure they’re paying as little as possible for the cost of their power infrastructure. Those costs are being put on ratepayers.
The idea of a moratorium is there’s a tension in a data center buildout without any regulations.
Do you have any concerns about pushing for blanket moratoria on new technological infrastructure? We’re seeing this policy thrown at solar and wind and batteries now. Is there any concern it’ll go from data centers to renewables next in some places?
First off, you’re right, and the Trump administration wants to fast-track an expansion that’ll rely on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. We’re in a climate crisis, and we’d be better off if these data centers relied entirely on renewable energy.
It’s incredibly important for policymakers to be clear when they’re setting moratoria that they’re not inadvertently halting clean, cheap energy like wind and solar. This is about the unfettered expansion of the data center industry to feed the AI machine. That’s what the focus needs to be on.
Yes, but there’s also this land use techlash going on, and I’m a little concerned advocacy for a moratorium on data centers will help those fighting to institute moratoria on solar and wind. I’m talking about Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Are you at all concerned about a horseshoe phenomenon here, where people are opposing data centers for the same reasons they’re fighting renewable energy projects? What should folks in the advocacy space do to make sure those things aren’t tethered to one another?
That’s a great question. I think it comes down to clear messaging for the public.
People are opportunistic — they want to get their passion projects no matter what. We as advocates need to consistently message that renewable energy is not only the energy of tomorrow, but of today. It’s where the rest of the world is headed and the U.S. is going backwards under the Trump administration.
The data center issue is separate. Data centers are using way more land – these massive hyperscaler data center campuses – are using more land than solar and wind. We can be creative with those energies in a way we can’t with the data center expansion.
We need to make it absolutely clear: This is about corporate expansion at the expense of everyone else in a way that solar and wind aren’t. Those bring costs down and don’t have anywhere near as much of an environmental impact.