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:
In 2025, it’s time for stern resolve and bold maneuvers.

This year has reshaped the political landscape of climate action in ways few could have predicted. From the European Parliament to the US presidency, elections have upended the alliances and leadership structures that have traditionally driven climate progress. A world that as recently as 12 months ago thought it could rely on Europe as the steady hand of global leadership now finds the continent politically fracturing. Across the Atlantic, the United States is once again charting an unpredictable course, although one that will certainly take it further from sensible climate policy, while China continues to lead through industrial dominance rather than diplomatic consensus. It is, to put it mildly, a less-than-ideal setting for tackling the most pressing issue of our time.
Europe’s political shifts may be the most concerning. On the surface it appears the continent’s commitment to climate has held, but underneath tensions are boiling. Once a bastion of ambitious climate policy, the European Union is now grappling with internal instability that risks derailing its leadership.
The EU Commission president’s centrist party remains in power after parliamentary elections, despite rising pressure from the far right and with its commitment to the Green Deal agenda intact. However populist forces — recently represented by farmer backlash to environmental policy — leaves them focused on defending Europe’s existing commitments, rather than driving its next iteration.
In the member states things look more challenging. Italy’s ruling government is openly challenging Europe’s commitment to electric vehicles. In France the spectre of a broad anti climate agenda headlined by once unthinkable notions like a power sector “Frexit” pushed by the country’s right wing was held at bay after parliamentary elections this summer that avoided a far right shift. But a recent no confidence vote on the coalition government’s short-lived prime minister Michel Barnier means that an anti climate agenda from one of the largest and most influential member states is a very real possibility.
And in Germany, the industrial heart of the European Union and its most influential member state, a populist backlash fueled by a stagnating economy included anger over heat pump mandates and has forced the ruling coalition to dissolve and bring elections forward to February. Most observers now believe it’s not a question of whether far-right climate-denying parties will increase in influence, but by how much.
These developments signal that Europe is at a crossroads, and while it may still have a seat on the climate train, it is no longer guaranteed to be in the conductor’s seat.
As Europe falters, attention inevitably shifts to China. The country’s transformation into a clean energy superpower is undeniable — it already dominates solar and battery manufacturing, and has now turned its focus to electric vehicles. Yet China is unlikely to fill Europe’s diplomatic void. Its approach to climate leadership is less about setting global standards and more about demonstrating what’s possible. This isn’t a case of "do as I say" but rather "do as I do.” While this may lead to trade wars and industrial rivalries, it could also send a powerful signal to the rest of the world: Clean energy isn’t just the future — it’s worth fighting for.
Ultimately, the geopolitical shifts of 2024 are a wake-up call for the climate community. What appeared to be lasting policy breakthroughs decades in the making now feel more tenuous. Populist backlash opens hard questions about how climate action can find a broader, more durable base of support. More existentially, the community is left wondering how we build those conditions on a vanishingly short time frame amidst the uncertainty political changes are unleashing.
What is clear is that the playbook that worked in the past will not suffice in this fractured, volatile world. Climate policy simply must become more resilient to political swings by broadening its base of support across the political spectrum in Europe and beyond. That not only makes policy more durable, it also isolates climate denial to the political fringe, and focuses debates on how — not if — we take action.
There is reason to hope such steps are possible. Recent U.S. examples, such as the 18 members of Congress who called for preserving certain investment provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, demonstrate that climate action can find firmer ground even in a hostile environment. That support was driven by economic opportunity that can defy the gravity of political polarization. There are now millions of people across the political spectrum who own a piece of the clean energy transition, be it a solar home system, an electric vehicle, or a job in a clean energy company. Organize that constituency across party lines, and the politics will follow.
At the same time, the clean energy industry must step up. For all its economic success, it remains politically underpowered. Researchers Robert Brulle and Christian Downie found that from 2008 to 2018, trade associations opposed to climate action outspent climate-positive industry groups by a ratio of 27 to 1. This is neither serious nor sustainable. If clean energy is to cement its place as the backbone of the global economy, it must take greater responsibility for its political future. Industries that shape policy don’t wait for others to speak on their behalf — they do it themselves.
And then there’s the culture. As much as policy matters, culture shapes what policies are possible. To win back the narrative, the climate movement must move beyond technical white papers and elite op-eds focused on rational persuasion to cultural elites. Instead, it needs to create stories that resonate deeply with people’s values and aspirations. Whether that’s through TikTok videos, podcasts, or new forms of media, the goal must be to inspire and connect, not just to educate.
Regardless of the strategic pivots we make, the hard truth is that climate politics may get worse before they get better. Feedback loops — both environmental and political — can drive crises in unexpected ways. Populist backlashes and extreme weather could force governments to retreat into short-termism with key elections looming, making it more difficult to focus on the long view. Or they could combine to give the climate conversation a political salience it has never before had to exploit.
The climate movement has faced existential challenges before and emerged stronger. But no outcome is inevitable, making the strategic choices before us now truly pivotal when the stakes couldn’t be higher. Now is the time to make some bold ones, because our future depends on it.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The seed-stage startup is eyeing a Series A after successfully enriching lithium and hydrogen isotopes.
While most coverage of the buzzy fusion energy industry — including my own — tends to focus on the startups promising to build commercial reactors within the next decade, a whole host of supporting industries will also need to mature in order to make that long-held scientific dream a reality. Isotope production is one of the biggest. No matter a company’s technical approach to fusion, it likely demands hydrogen and lithium isotopes — the former to fuel reactors, and the latter to breed more of that fuel.
That’s where Marathon Fusion comes in. The San Francisco-based seed-stage startup is developing isotope separation technology for two key purposes: recycling tritium — an extremely rare hydrogen isotope — from reactor exhaust so it can be reused as fusion fuel, and enriching lithium-6, which is needed to breed new tritium. On Thursday, the company announced that it succeeded in using its plasma centrifuge technology to enrich lithium-6 and hydrogen isotopes in the lab. (It can’t yet test the tech on actual tritium, which is expensive, radioactive, and tightly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so Marathon is validating its separation physics using the non-radioactive proxies deuterium and protium.) Marathon now plans to raise a Series A based on the results.
“People have wondered for a very long time when fusion is going to come, and everyone’s waiting on the big scientific announcements,” Marathon’s CEO Kyle Schiller told me. But while the industry waits for those breakthroughs, he argued, it’s high time to start commercializing the infrastructure fusion will need to become an actual commercial industry. “Ultimately, what we’re doing is reactor agnostic. Everyone’s going to need it.”
In the near term at least, most fusion companies plan to use deuterium-tritium plasmas to power the fusion reaction. But the process is inherently inefficient — only a small fraction of the fuel actually fuses in the reaction, while the rest gets expelled, even though it still contains valuable, unburned tritium that can be captured and reused.
Today, neither tritium nor the lithium-6 needed to make more of it are produced at anything close to the scale even a single commercial fusion reactor would require to get up and running. And existing isotope separation technologies — largely designed for small-volume defense programs and experimental reactors — aren’t sufficient to bridge the gap.
“When you have a single fusion power plant, that’s going to need about 1,000 times more lithium than anyone is producing today in any country,” Schiller told me, referring to lithium-6. “It would be totally prohibitive to build a fusion power plant at those economics.”
And while it’s at least possible to produce enough of this isotope to supply a future fusion industry by enriching lithium mined from rock, tritium presents a more fundamental problem. Because it’s radioactive and decays relatively quickly, it doesn’t occur naturally in meaningful quantities. Today it’s produced commercially as a byproduct of some fission reactors, but that supply amounts to just a few kilograms per year. A single 1-gigawatt commercial fusion reactor, by contrast, would need an estimated 56 kilograms annually. Meeting that demand will require fusion companies to breed their own tritium inside the reactor, a process that involves fusion-generated neutrons hitting lithium-6 nuclei, splitting them into tritium and helium.
It will also necessitate recycling the substantial amount of tritium that passes through the reactor without burning up. That’s where Marathon’s plasma centrifuge comes in. Centrifuges themselves are nothing new — engineers have used them for decades to separate uranium isotopes for nuclear fuel, spinning the gas at such high speeds that isotopes with different masses separate. Plasma centrifuges work on the same principle and have been studied since the Manhattan Project, but no one has yet successfully commercialized the approach for lithium and hydrogen.
Part of the reason is that, until recently, there simply wasn’t much demand for these isotopes. But the raw materials also present a physics challenge: Lithium and hydrogen isotopes have very similar masses. Separating them thus requires spinning the plasma so rapidly that, historically, the resulting heat has undermined the separation process itself. To address this, Marathon’s proprietary centrifuge tech uses a “partially ionized” plasma, in which some atoms have been stripped of their electrons while others remain neutral. The company says this configuration allows the centrifuge to operate at lower temperatures.
The materials testing lab Covalent has certified Marathon’s lithium-6 enrichment. The company hasn’t had its hydrogen separation results independently verified, though an MIT nuclear engineering professor has reviewed the device’s design. As a participant in ARPA-E’s Vision OPEN program, which solicits and supports ambitious energy projects, Marathon has also presented its hydrogen separation methodology and results at the ARPA-E fusion programs meeting in June.
Now, Schiller told me, the challenge is scaling up the technology’s core systems. “We need bigger magnets, better cooling, bigger power systems, and so that’s a buildout that’s going to take time and more capital,” he said. “But as far as the science is concerned, we feel like it’s at the point where we’re ready to make those kinds of commitments.”
Marathon is now looking to raise capital to build its first commercial pilot facility, with the goal of reaching full-scale production by 2029. Schiller told me the company expects its first full-scale facility to produce tens of tons of lithium-6 per year — enough, he says, to fuel a new gigawatt-scale fusion plant roughly every two years. Marathon also plans to recover and repurpose about 560 kilograms of tritium annually — roughly the amount that cycles through a 1-gigawatt reactor’s fuel system each year, most of which exits in the reactor’s exhaust without ever fusing.
Once fusion reactors are operating at scale, Marathon has a few other tricks up its sleeve. The startup also plans to build an “isotope production” business, using the copious volume of high-energy neutrons generated by fusion to manufacture valuable isotopes. The company made headlines last year with its claim that fusion-generated neutrons could transmute mercury into an unstable isotope that eventually decays into gold — potentially doubling a fusion reactor’s economic output (and proving the old alchemists right). But that work is still theoretical, based on computer simulations rather than peer-reviewed or experimentally validated work.
Marathon certainly has plenty to keep it busy in the near term, though. “There is a really amazing opportunity right now to say, look, the fusion supply chain is ready to go. We can start scaling up,” Schiller told me. “The science will progress in parallel, and we really want to land this together — not wait another 10 years after scientific results come in.”
Current conditions: Temperatures in Sicily and southern Italy are approaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit as a heat dome settles over the north-central Mediterranean • After pounding Okinawa and injuring two people on Japan’s remote southern islands, Typhoon Saudel is barreling west toward China • A geomagnetic storm known as a coronal hole could create a visible aurora from New York to Idaho, causing minor disruptions to technological devices such as GPS.

It’s like something out of an apocalyptic disaster film. From a camera situated on a cliffside overlooking the Rasuwagadhi border checkpoint in a valley between Nepal and Tibet, you watch as several — then dozens — of people start running away from the building. Birds fly across the screen in the same direction. Finally, after a few seconds, you see what they’re trying to escape: A giant wall of gray, muddy water crashing into the roughly six-story building like an ocean wave against a sand castle. In other videos, cars, trees, and homes disappear under the roar of a river of mud and rocks. Goliath boulders roll like basketballs. Men run for their lives. An avalanche on the Chinese side of the border “triggered a wall of water with no warning,” wrote The Kathmandu Post, an English-language daily in the Nepali capital, declaring this “one of Nepal’s deadliest disasters in decades.” By Thursday morning, the death toll counted at least 332, with hundreds more people still missing. Nepal’s disaster authority told the Indian broadcaster NDTV that a “chunk of snow and rock broke off near a glacier zone” on the border and either “fell into a glacial lake or blocked the river channel” resulting in a surge that swelled into a wave of glacial ice, meltwater, and debris. While initial reports suggested the avalanche started with an earthquake, a U.S. Geological Survey analysis found that the avalanche itself set off a magnitude 5.2 landslide.
Last month the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of new types of foreign-made inverters, the equipment needed to patch solar panels and batteries onto the grid, citing the need to protect the U.S. artificial intelligence buildout from Chinese sabotage. Now the White House is stepping in to block foreign imports of yet more types of grid equipment. In an executive order Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that “continued United States reliance on foreign sources of bulk-power system electric equipment with these potential national security vulnerabilities also creates a supply chain vulnerability that could eliminate the supply of these products in the United States as a result of disruptions in international trade.” In particular, the order will affect transformers, which are facing a years-long backlog as manufacturers struggle to keep up with demand from both the data center buildout and repairs to the grid after extreme weather mangles power equipment. The Biden administration had sought to increase the energy efficiency standards for transformers, paralyzing manufacturers who opposed the regulation and could not make investments into new assembly lines to meet surging demand until the fate of the rule was resolved. The Biden-era Department of Energy ultimately withdrew its proposal. While the Trump administration policy now will further protect those domestic factories, the import restrictions could, in the meantime, make obtaining the equipment primarily made overseas more difficult.
The Trump administration is set to speed up permitting reviews for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. On Wednesday, Public Domain broke news that the Department of the Interior is planning to publish a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act “that would make it easier for the oil and gas industry to conduct seismic surveys, obtain rights of way, and drill new exploration wells” in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, a nearly 36,000-square-mile area on the continent’s northern Arctic Ocean coast.
The proposal, which the Interior Department confirmed, comes as a particularly devastating blow to the Native Village of Nuiqsut, which had brokered a deal with the Biden administration to create a nearly million-acre caribou reserve to foster a herd on which the indigenous residents have long depended. But former Nuiqsut Mayor Rosemary Ahtuangaruak told the public-lands-focused investigative site that new drilling activity around the village has already changed the herd’s migration patterns. “All of the contractual agreements that were supposed to guide how development is going to occur have been ripped out of the books,” she said. “We feel that it doesn’t matter that we have a unique DNA, a small community of 500 people, that are just being totally disregarded and sacrificed for the greed of development.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Back in May, I told you about Otovo, the new startup from the former chief executive of defunct rooftop solar giant Sunnova. Instead of installing solar panels, the new company repairs rooftop photovoltaic units, in addition to batteries and generators — a sort of AAA for home energy equipment. Otovo started in Norway, targeting millions of homeowners across Europe with solar panels from installers that went out of business and left customers without maintenance service. The company has mounted a global expansion into the United States by buying smaller solar companies and maintenance providers. On Thursday, Otovo plans to announce two deals to make its latest acquisitions: Oahu-based PV Hawaii and Mr. Elektro in Norway and Sweden. The combined value of the deals — which are being reported first in this newsletter — is about $4.6 million. “PV Hawaii and Mr. Elektro bring licensed, experienced local teams that strengthen how we serve customers, and they extend our platform into Hawaii for the first time while deepening our reach across Norway and Sweden,” Otovo CEO John Berger told me in a statement.

You read that right. Unless you (like, uh, some people…) are familiar with late 20th century Melanesian geopolitics, you may not know the story of Bougainville. The island province off Papua New Guinea long had a troubled history. Ethnically, its people are related to those of the Solomon Islands, but German colonial borders hemmed the mineral-rich isle into the territory controlled by Port Moresby. In the 1970s, Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto built the Panguna mine in the center of the island. Pollution and labor violations plagued the open-pit copper and gold mine, ultimately fueling a separatist rebellion. A conflict, known as the Bougainvillean Civil War, erupted in 1988 and lasted for 10 years, only ending with a peace accord that allowed for a referendum on independence. In 2019, the autonomous province voted nearly unanimously in favor of breaking away from Papua New Guinea. The non-binding vote has yet to be ratified by the parliament in Port Moresby. But the leaders of Bougainville expect to become the world’s newest country by 2030.
To fund its sovereignty, the island wants to reopen Panguna. Last November, Ishmael Toroama, the president of Bougainville, signed a memorandum of understanding with Lloyds Metals and Energy. The Indian iron-ore miner won the deal “despite warnings from Bougainville’s majority state-owned mining company, Bougainville Copper, that Lloyds lacked the technical and financial capacity of rival bidders,” the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project reported in a major new investigation. Just a month earlier, Toroama confirmed to OCCRP, “he accepted an offer from Lloyds’ managing director Balasubramanian Prabhakaran to arrange for his wife to travel to India and have a life-saving kidney operation at no cost to the president.” Toroama told OCCRP that the gift did not weigh on his decision to select the Mumbai-based Lloyds for the project.
The first step in the Department of Energy’s effort to propel new reactor technologies to market was a pair of pilot programs to speed up development of projects from both power and fuel producers. The next step is the “nuclear launch pad” initiative at the Idaho National Laboratory’s National Reactor Innovation Center. This week, the agency announced the first 12 companies to participate in the new program, which bills itself as providing “flexible technical and regulatory frameworks designed to fast-track paths from concept to deployment.” The list includes microreactor developers Antares Nuclear, Atlas Atomics, Oklo, Valar Atomics, Scaled Atomics, and two projects from Deployable Energy; fuel makers Forge Atomics, Hexium, Lightbridge Corporation, Raven-Flint Nuclear, and Sublime Nuclear; and medical isotope startup Nusano. “These selections show a strong and growing interest from developers ready to move their technologies forward,” Brad Tomer, the director of the National Reactor Innovation Center, said in a statement. Meanwhile, another startup spinning out from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced a big initial funding round. Apollo Atomics — which aims to build next-generation pressurized water reactors, the type of reactor that makes up the bulk of the global fleet — announced a $31 million seed financing round, NucNet reported.
Rob talks with Amanda Levin, head of climate science and policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, about why we shouldn’t give up on renewable subsidies just yet.
Two years ago, Donald Trump made an outlandish campaign promise: He would cut Americans’ power bills in half.
It was a ridiculous, impossible pledge — but even so, the affordability problem didn’t need to get this bad. A new report, out this week from the Natural Resources Defense Council, looks at the economic, environmental, and public health costs of Trump’s regulatory and legislative clean energy policies, including his rollback of the wind and solar tax credits.
The report’s author, Amanda Levin, joins Rob on this episode of Shift Key. Levin is a Director of Policy Analysis at the NRDC’s Science Office. They discuss why Trump’s repeal will have long-term effects, the underrated public health impacts of the rollback, and why Levin believes the credits should be restored.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So you’ve said that we should have tax credits that buy down the cost of technologies while we’re installing them. We had Lily Bermel on Shift Key a few weeks ago with her report, and she looked at a different set of questions here, and I think it’s worth kind of talking about them in a second. But her view of the data — which I would say I’ve also heard now from some solar developers, who obviously represent the interests of their industry — but her view of the data was like, look, there’s a lot of solar and batteries that are about to get built as developers rush to hit a deadline, rush to hit the deadline in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Her view is, if you look at this from an emissions perspective, you don’t need wind and solar tax credits. So really ,money would be better spent elsewhere. It would be better spent buying down the cost of clean firm technologies like advanced geothermal, like fusion, perhaps, that can run 24/7 and start to push gas out of the system.
You’ve written an op-ed for Heatmap kind of taking issue with some of those claims, and I want to actually lean into that disagreement. Why should the U.S. restore wind and solar tax credits? Because I would say we’ve learned one thing, actually, in the past month since Lily was on the show. It is that deficit concerns are going to be even more pressing for lawmakers, it seems like, in 2029, even in 2027, than they were in 2024 or 2022, because interest rates are going to be high. They seem to be getting higher. Among the crises that Democrats will have promised to solve is this deficit crisis that is of Trump’s own creation. And so why should a scarce dollar go to wind and solar tax credits?
Amanda Levin: I think it’s important to remember that renewables have a lot of benefits, and not all of them are reflected in the decisions that a utility might make on behalf of its customers. Renewables both lower pollution, which can help reduce the costs and the burden that we have both from public health pollution as well as from climate pollution. They also can enhance energy security and increase economic opportunities.
But I think importantly, it’s a recognition of, one, we need to build a lot of energy fast, and we want to build it clean, as well. And that is going to take quite a bit of money up front. Even if wind and solar are some of the cheapest, lowest cost options over the life of their investment, when looking at something more simplistic, like a levelized cost of energy, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have large upfront costs that need to then be recovered from someone. And in the structure of many of our states, that someone is going to be ratepayers. And often the way that we recover money through electricity bills and rates is not progressive. It’s pretty regressive. So I think the way that we see the kind of tax credits playing into this is it’s an essential part of ensuring that as we transition towards a cleaner system, it remains affordable for everyone by moving costs off of ratepayers, who are going to be much more regressively taxed, and putting them onto the federal government, when we know that we need to be spending more on clean energy to meet our growing load, and also just to invest in our grid that is, in many cases, reaching the end of its life for certain investments.
And so I think to that kind of question of what are we trying to solve here? Obviously, wind and solar, we still see that they are being built, and they make up the bulk of anything that’s going to be built in the next decade. But we’re definitely not building enough.
There was a paper that I was part of at the beginning of 2025 that found that in order to meet our climate commitments, we would need to quadruple the amount of wind, solar, and battery storage that was being added to the system compared to recent day records. The IRA got us basically halfway there. And if you look at where we are now with Trump, we’ve basically lost that halfway there. But what we know is, if we want to actually tackle our societal challenges — climate, health, everything — and affordability, we’re going to both need to build a lot of clean energy, but also we can’t put that on the backs of ratepayers. We need to explore other ways to mitigate the near-term affordability shock that will come from just having to invest in our system.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Amanda Levin’s new report: An Affordability Crisis of Trump’s Own Making
A ‘Glass Half Full’ Isn’t Enough to Fight Climate Change
Previously on Shift Key: The New Paper Arguing Biden’s Power Sector Emissions Cuts Are Largely Intact — Even Under Trump
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Discover the Yale Clean and Equitable Energy Development online certificate program at the Yale Center for Business and the Environment. In this fully online, 5-month program, you’ll learn from leading experts, develop practical skills, and grow a powerful network. Visit cbey.yale.edu to learn more and apply.
Verse's software platform Aria helps data centers connect to the grid faster and optimize power operations in real time. Learn more at verse.inc.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.