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:
GOP lawmakers know climate change is real. But they lack political incentives to do anything about it.
Two former defense officials argue that Rivian may be as important to America’s national security as SpaceX.
A longtime energy analyst argues that there are no solutions to the hyperscale problem, only tradeoffs.
A climate scientist goes back to the numbers to argue that we’re overestimating the cost of the energy transition.
A group of energy researchers have a three-part prescription for Washington, D.C.’s exploding energy costs.
The founder of one-time sustainable apparel company Zady argues that policy is the only that can push the industry toward more responsible practices.
Invest in Our Future’s Peter Colavito on why funders and advocates should pay more attention to the solar farm down the road.
Up until last September, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission had gone 14 years without approving a large-scale wind project. But when they met to review the 456 public comments submitted for Badger Hollow, a 118-megawatt project that would straddle Iowa and Grant counties, they found overwhelming support for the proposal. Approval followed.
This wasn’t by chance. For months, groups like the Rural Climate Partnership, Greenlight America, Farm-to-Power, Clean Wisconsin, CivicIQ, and Healthy Climate Wisconsin worked together to build support. They held roundtables with farmers and shot digital ads with testimonials from residents that ran online and at gas stations. They emphasized the nearly $600,000 the project would generate for cash-strapped towns and counties every year to fund things like roads, bridges, and emergency services. And they empowered trusted local voices to make a case grounded in their communities’ values.
The breakthrough in Wisconsin shows how investing in local interventions can accelerate the energy transition — and points the way forward for clean energy advocates trying to navigate federal headwinds.
As skyrocketing electricity demand and soaring costs draw attention to our power systems, clean energy offers a formidable solution. Wind, solar, and storage technologies have matured enough that they can be built quickly and cheaply virtually anywhere, for anyone, at any scale. And now, as the world contends with yet another conflict roiling fossil fuel markets, these energy sources offer a shield from volatility.
Given these clear advantages, it’s worth asking, “Why aren’t clean energy projects moving forward faster in more places?”
Our team at Invest in Our Future has learned a lot in the past three years about the answer.
Invest in Our Future’s creation marked a departure from philanthropy’s longstanding approach to climate and clean energy, which often focused on developing and passing policy to spur reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. Instead, with the Inflation Reduction Act on the books, my organization was formed with a singular focus: maximize the reach and impact of federal clean energy investments in the face of on-the-ground constraints.
Our remit was to ensure this ambitious policy advancing commercially-ready technology resulted in actual projects getting built and benefiting people. That meant mobilizing organizations to raise awareness of IRA programs and incentives and help communities access IRA dollars. It also meant finding a way around the significant barriers that stood in the way of deployment, even with historic levels of government support.
First, utility-scale projects were hit with organized, vocal opposition upset by the prospect of rapid changes to the local landscape and skeptical of out-of-town developers. That resistance often seized on siting and permitting processes to delay or altogether stop projects from being built. And too infrequently did countervailing forces try to speak to their concerns or organize support.
There were also funding problems for more community-oriented projects. In many cases, neither private investors nor public officials fully understood the opportunity or potential returns for projects like rooftop solar for schools, microgrids for hospitals and health centers, or electrified buses that double as mobile batteries during blackouts, leaving a sizable project pipeline struggling to pencil out.
Clean energy employers also struggled to hire, and workers couldn’t see a career path in the sector.
And as media habits changed, and national leaders spread disinformation, clean energy got more polarized.
For some, there was a political logic behind the IRA that suggested new projects would set off a self-reinforcing cycle of support for federal clean energy policy. But building support and real champions takes time. Consider that utility-scale solar projects, for example, need 24 months at minimum just to reach operational status. The work of connecting projects and benefits in the public mind extends further still. With barriers slowing deployment, the advantages of new projects needed time to take root.
Still, where projects did move forward, Invest in Our Future cultivated local validators who could share authentic stories about how clean energy improved their lives. When we mobilized local champions to engage with decisionmakers last year, they left a big impression. But we needed more of them — from more places, drawing value from more projects.
So after Congress repealed much of the IRA last summer, we developed new, interlocking strategies to address the major barriers to deployment and push as many projects forward in as many communities as possible.
By educating local decision-makers early and mobilizing active, vocal support from a wide range of perspectives — farmers and faith leaders, landowners and labor, educators and entrepreneurs — we can boost the number of projects that secure siting and permitting approvals.
By identifying high-potential, commercial-scale community projects with local lenders, packaging them into aggregated investments, and demonstrating low risk and reliable returns, we can draw institutional investors and lower-cost capital toward an otherwise underfunded but important segment.
Setting high and consistent job quality standards across clean energy industries will counter real and perceived concerns around safety, benefits, and wages, helping attract more workers who can go on to serve as advocates for new projects.
And deepening investment in storytelling by local champions will build the credibility of — and, in turn, support for — clean energy projects from the ground up.
Market forces are increasingly and irreversibly favoring clean energy. Influential allies of the president are coming around on solar, and longtime critics of renewables acknowledge that the transition is inevitable. What’s needed most now is a push from the ground up.
Our grantees are delivering it. Their work on siting and permitting, for example, helped gain approval for nearly 20 gigawatts of clean capacity in 2025. That included projects like Wisconsin’s Badger Hollow wind farm and Illinois’s 210-megawatt Glacier Moraine solar project — which was initially denied a permit but triumphed in a reconsideration vote after more than a dozen local residents mobilized to sway public opinion. Greenlight America and their partners managed to win eight permitting campaigns over one week last December alone.
Yet funding for these efforts is limited. Climate solutions receive less than 2% of total giving. Most funding within that segment has long flowed to regulatory and policy-focused work, which made sense while clean energy needed policy support to compete on economics. But today, with clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the country, there’s a real gap between our goals and on-the-ground success that we can bridge by focusing more on getting projects built.
Deploying clean energy at the community level happens to be one of our most effective tools for drawing down greenhouse gas pollution — with the added advantage of helping to lower costs, strengthen economic growth and community resilience, and generate good jobs. Through Invest in Our Future, I’ve met leaders driving progress often in the most challenging places in the country. Despite all the setbacks and discouraging headlines last year brought, these leaders have not lost their sense of urgency, or their resolve to build clean energy. That resolve — and their track record of success — should give us all hope. We should give them our support in return.
The CEO of Climeworks argues that the buildout of technology to suck greenhouse gas from the air should be considered part of the cost of artificial intelligence.
Somewhere in Virginia, Texas, or Arizona, a data center is being commissioned this month that will draw more power than a small city. The server racks inside will train and run artificial intelligence models for years to come. And the electrons feeding it will, in all likelihood, come partly from natural gas — because that is what can be built fast enough to meet the demand.
AI is driving a major new wave of data center construction, and with it, a surge in demand for power and infrastructure. The International Energy Agency projects that the electricity consumption of global data centers could more than double to around 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, comparable to Japan’s entire electricity demand today.
That matters because much of the new electricity demand from data centers is still likely to be met by power sources where natural gas plays a central role. The backlog for new combined-cycle gas turbines — the more efficient type of gas plant, which generates electricity from both a gas turbine and the heat it produces — already stretches to five years. As a result, some data centers are turning instead to single-cycle gas turbines, which can be deployed more quickly but are even more carbon-intensive. In any case, that means fossil-fuel use for this generation of digital infrastructure is already largely locked in. Some of the emissions that follow can be reduced through efficiency and grid decarbonization, but a significant share will persist for years to come. I believe that closing this gap must be the job of carbon removal.
Carbon removal is the process of physically taking carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere. At Climeworks, we have spent the past 17 years developing and deploying direct air capture technology that removes CO2 from the air and stores it in the ground for thousands of years. More recently, we launched our Climeworks Solutions business that works with third-party providers of other technology and nature-based carbon removal methods, such as reforestation, to help customers access a broader range of approaches and price points.
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon removal will be necessary if the world is to come close to meeting its climate goals, even alongside deep emissions cuts. For companies building and using digital infrastructure, the question this raises is simple: What do they do about the emissions they cannot yet eliminate?
The strongest near-term answer is to treat carbon removal as part of the cost of digital infrastructure — not as a substitute for clean energy, but as a complement to it. Trying to pair every data center directly with a direct air capture plant may sound attractive, especially because data centers have power, land and waste heat. But in practice, that kind of integration is still highly site-specific and not yet an easy model to repeat at scale. A more realistic solution is to treat carbon removal as part of the cost of cloud and AI products, where it can be built into existing pricing and contracts. In other words, carbon removal should be built into the cost of the digital product itself, rather than physically attached to every data center site.
The incentive is simple: As companies come under growing pressure to account for the emissions linked to the digital infrastructure they rely on, data center providers that offer a credible lower-emissions product will have an advantage.
One criticism of using carbon removal in this context is that it could prolong the use of fossil fuels. That concern deserves to be taken seriously, but it also needs a nuanced answer. There is an important difference between using carbon removal to justify new fossil infrastructure, and using it to address residual emissions that cannot yet be avoided. The latter is the role that serious climate frameworks assign to carbon removal.
Data center operators are not turning to natural gas because carbon removal exists. They are doing so because natural gas can provide the speed required by the current pace of compute growth. Carbon removal should therefore not be seen as a substitute for decarbonization, but as a way to manage a real constraint in an energy system that cannot decarbonize instantly.
The relevant comparison is not carbon removal versus renewables. It is unabated fossil-powered data center expansion versus expansion in which some of the resulting emissions are credibly and durably addressed. In that sense, the growth of AI infrastructure also creates an opportunity for carbon removal: It can bring larger volumes into the market, support scale-up, and help drive down costs over time.
The economics of integrating carbon removal into AI infrastructure are more feasible than one might assume. In December, Julio Friedmann, one of the best-known experts on carbon management and carbon removal, wrote in a Substack article that a gigawatt of advanced data center capacity can generate around $10 billion to $12 billion in annual revenues. Against that scale of value creation, the cost of addressing residual emissions through carbon removal becomes more manageable.
The emissions associated with that computing power depend heavily on how it is supplied. Based on our own calculations, assuming the current U.S. grid mix and utilization rates of around 85% to 100%, a gigawatt of data center capacity would emit approximately 3 million to 4 million tons of CO2 per year. Behind-the-meter natural gas generation would produce a similar level of emissions. Renewable power can reduce those emissions significantly, while nuclear power could reduce them further.
In practice, not every gigawatt of data center compute will be powered in the same way. But assuming roughly half is supplied by renewable or nuclear power, average residual emissions would still be around 2 million tons of CO2 per year for each gigawatt of compute. That is a substantial volume — and exactly the kind of residual emissions gap that carbon removal can help address.
A portfolio of carbon removal solutions, which can directly mitigate these emissions, only costs a few hundred dollars per ton. While that is a meaningful cost, it is manageable given the economics of AI products. It is affordable enough to make a start, especially for companies that want to offer a credible lower-emissions digital product.
So, who pays? In the near term, the most likely model is that cloud and AI service providers procure carbon removal and build the cost into their products, while customers create the commercial pressure and ultimately support that cost through procurement. Even if companies are speaking more cautiously about net zero than they were a few years ago, the underlying need for credible value-chain emissions data has not disappeared. Organizations still face growing pressure to account for scope 3 emissions through disclosure rules, investor-facing reporting frameworks and supplier requirements. As their use of cloud and AI grows, they will increasingly ask providers a simple question: What emissions come with this compute, and what are you doing about them? Once buyers start routinely asking that question, carbon removal moves from being a climate nice-to-have to a product feature.
Climeworks has reduced the cost of direct air capture significantly since our first plant came online, and that trajectory will continue as the market grows. But cost curves do not come down on their own. They come down when buyers decide that a cleaner product is worth paying for. The cost of solar electricity fell around 90% between 2010 and 2023, driven not just by technology but also by early procurement commitments from the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Amazon that gave manufacturers the confidence to invest at scale.
Carbon removal is approaching a similar inflection point. In April, Climeworks signed an agreement with NTT Data — one of the world’s largest digital and IT service providers — to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as part of its commitment to net zero.
The business case, then, is simple. The AI boom is creating enormous economic value. But it is also creating residual carbon emissions that cannot be avoided only by clean power and increased efficiency. The solution is not to wait for a perfect zero-carbon grid, and it is not to force a bespoke carbon removal engineering solution onto every data center site. I believe the solution is to integrate carbon removal into the digital infrastructure offer now, and let customers choose it. That’s how lower-emissions compute becomes real and scalable. And that is why carbon removal needs to become an essential part of responsible AI growth.
