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.
Wildfires in France and Spain — and a dire El Niño forecast — point to another era of public attention on disaster.
Wildfires and the Return of Climate Politics
Enormous wildfires are still burning in France and Spain. “We're facing a completely unprecedented fire,” French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday, comparing the situation to World War II. The main fire in Gironde, a southwestern department along the Atlantic coast, have consumed more than 100,000 acres and forced roughly 200,000 people to evacuate.
There’s little sign the fires are under control in either country. In France, the blazes created a pyrocumulonimbus cloud — a towering, thundering “fire storm” that sometimes forms in the western United States but is not often observed in western Europe. Some fires have come within several miles of Bordeaux, the country’s sixth-largest metropolitan area and a longtime center of the wine industry. In Spain, enormous wildfires near Madrid, Ávila, and Toledo have killed one and displaced roughly another 79,000 people.
Firefighters are working fast, in part because a heatwave is forecast for the continent later this week. But of course it is hot — it is high summer in the Northern Hemisphere, and we are having a particularly hot year. 2026 now looks likely to be the world’s second-warmest year ever, and it has a better than one-third chance of being the warmest.
In the near term, expect more climate-addled disasters. The Pacific Ocean has slipped into its El Niño phase, which will likely spin off more extreme storms, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires. Recent modeling suggests it could be the most intense El Niño ever measured. Writing for his newsletter “The Climate Brink,” the climate researcher (and Heatmap contributor) Zeke Hausfather recently warned: “It looks like this year’s El Niño is not only very likely to be the strongest event since reliable records began — it may end up the strongest by a truly mind-blowing margin.”
How do we know this next El Niño will be bad? The most intense El Niño on record occurred from late 2015 to 2016, when sea surface temperatures in a benchmark region of the Pacific Ocean were 2.75 degrees Celsius warmer than normal. (That’s nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit.) Those searing sea temperatures released huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere and eventually made 2016 the warmest year ever recorded. Today, a decade later, 2016 remains the fourth warmest year on record, coming in only under 2024, 2023, and 2025, per NOAA data.
But as Zeke writes, the middle 80% of modeled outcomes for this year’s El Niño are already projected to match or exceed that 2016 anomaly. The median forecast for this year’s event, in other words, would shatter the previous record. “The models are forecasting something outside the envelope of anything we have ever observed,” he writes. The National Weather Service agrees that there is an 81% chance of an event forming “that would rank among the largest El Niño events in the historical record going back to 1950,” and it says odds are better than 97% that the anomaly will stick around through spring 2027.
Scientists and activists once hoped that when global warming’s effects became unignorable, the public would take action. But disasters haven’t produced durable climate concern, and public attention has dissipated with every news cycle — and become ever more pessimistic. There are moments, however, when successive extremes can keep climate change more prominently in the public conversation. The years that followed the last mega-El Niño in 2016 made up one such period. If we are headed for another now, then experts should be ready with ideas not only for slowing and reversing the growth of heat-trapping emissions, but also for adapting our societies and infrastructure for our warming world. It’s clear we are going to need them.
This will be a big week for understanding the U.S. energy economy’s most important trend. A handful of tech companies driving the artificial intelligence boom — namely, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon — will report their quarterly earnings on Wednesday and Thursday. These companies are behind some of the country’s largest AI data center projects and therefore some of its most sizable planned power plants — clean and otherwise.
Last week, when Alphabet boosted its capital expenditure for this year by another $15 billion, the market rebelled and sent its shares tumbling. If investors’ interest in financing mega-scale data center projects is waning, then it could affect the electricity economy for years to come. In any case, we’ll know more soon. Rivian will also report its earnings this week.
Can AI help emergency managers make faster decisions when every second counts?
Meteorologists had nothing polite to say about Tropical Storm Bertha. The “weak, disorganized, and lopsided” system made initial landfall in Louisiana last week as a “hot, sheared mess,” one that forecasters doubted would reach Texas with much oomph at all. Still, the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District — the local flood mitigation and drainage management entity for the state’s most flood-prone county — had stood at the ready, posting updates on the storm’s progress to its Facebook feed in the lead-up.
There had been action behind the scenes, too. Since this spring, the county has relied on a new “AI-powered flood warning solution” pilot program to help local administrators identify the gaps in their understanding of the county’s flood risk and monitor rising water levels in real time. In a crisis, a chatbot could even advise them on when to issue an evacuation order.
“Imagine you’re an operator and you have to tell people to leave their homes because of floods coming in,” Todd Barr, the CEO of Axonis Decision Intelligence, which has partnered with the smart water-level sensor company Simplicity Integration in Texas’ Galveston County, told me. Axonis provides AI-assisted decision-making tools to clients in a number of time-sensitive industries, and in every case, “You want a paper trail of the data you used to make the decision — the reasoning and the model you used — and our platform does all of that,” Barr went on.
Issuing evacuation notices is a famously thorny business, and one that has resulted in high-profile and high-casualty failures, including in the Paradise, California, and Maui wildfires. Particularly noteworthy were the 2025 Kerr County floods that killed more than 100 people in Texas’ Hill Country after local officials took 90 minutes to send phone alerts once they became aware of the rising river.
In many cases, particularly in more rural counties, the teams making the evacuation decisions are small and lack sufficient training not only on when to make such a call, but even on how to word it. “The people who are put in the position of issuing the messages are doing 20 other things at the same time,” Jeannette Sutton, a researcher at the University at Albany’s Emergency and Risk Communication Message Testing Lab, told me when I reported on evacuation notices after the Los Angeles fires.
As for Galveston, “100%” of the buildings on the densely populated island are at flood risk, with modeling suggesting a worst-case-scenario hurricane could produce 26 feet of storm surge. Much of the city’s stormwater infrastructure additionally predates modern climate-change-intensified rainfall probabilities, with the district in the midst of a $54 million drainage project aimed at mitigating future flooding by building a pump station and enlarging sewer lines.
As part of the region’s ongoing resiliency work, the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District installed seven of Simplicity’s water-level sensors —the county’s first — at locations on the mainland. (There are no sensors currently on Galveston Island proper.) Simplicity’s Axonis-powered system, SI-Ai, also pulls in data from NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Houston’s Harris County to present residents of the entire region with a live flood-risk dashboard, complete with intuitive green-yellow-red indicators to evaluate their neighborhood hazard level in real time. Operators also have their own proprietary dashboard where they can monitor sensors and are prompted to ask questions to interpret readings and open “investigations” if something appears amiss.

“If I’m the municipality, I can say, ‘Okay, here’s what the forecast is looking like and what is potentially going to happen,” Alison Reese, the COO and co-founder of Simplicity, explained to me. “Then I could ask a question like, ‘Hey, what other locations in this watershed are at high risk for flash flooding?’”
That’s where Axonis, the artificial intelligence company, comes in. “Today you would have to be like, ‘Alright! Get the weather report, quick! What’s happening? What are the sensors saying? Okay Bill, now what’s the upstream sensor saying?’” Barr said, acting out the frantic scenario of trying to source data from multiple streams at once. “All of that is what we’re automating.” (Galveston’s Office of Emergency Management is “not the POC for the flood sensor operations,” a representative told me; the drainage district oversees the Axonis-Simplicity partnership, and did not return a request for an interview. The mayor of League City, a city 35-minutes north of Galveston that is also managed by the district, has publicly criticized the SI-Ai program as a separate sensor network that duplicates the work of the Harris County Flood Control District.)
Working from the assumption that emergency managers have to parse reams of data in short periods of time — flash floods can rise as much as 10 feet in an hour — Axonis provides what is essentially a chatbot for authorities to query potential decisions ranging from road closures to evacuation notices, based on feedback from the sensors. It stops short, however, of having a dialogue box that pops up to tell operators, EVACUATE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NOW.
When Barr demoed the program to me, he had the tool configured to create a credit risk review memo for a would-be banking client. (Axonis also has customers in the banking and defense sectors.) The dashboard essentially functioned the same as it would for Galveston County, though, and his investigation returned the kind of simplified, emoji-studded one-sheet that users of large language model-powered AI interfaces would immediately recognize. In this case, the tool identified a “🔴Risk Alert CANDIDATE” — Barr said that would be a particular sensor, in the case of Galveston — and followed it with a summary and bullet-pointed sections breaking down “⚠️Credit Risk Indicators” and “💧Liquidity Position.” (In a screenshot of an example flood report for Simplicity, shared with me, those sections were replaced by “📍Site Location” and “💧Water Level — Last 72 Hours.” I wondered what else was possible: “🌊Historic hydraulic risk”? “💀Vulnerable Populations”? )

The system then takes operators through a four-step decision-making model based on the OODA Loop, a common workflow in military contexts that involves justifying actions through evidence-based observations. “We always keep a human in the loop on these things, at least today in 2026 — though who knows in two or three years,” Barr said. He clarified in a later conversation with me, though, that “Axonis and [AI] tools should never tell you to evacuate now. It should tell you the information you need to make that decision.”
That was a point Barr stressed numerous times during our conversation: That Axonis’ chatbot is intended as a brainstorming tool or sounding board, and one that keeps a careful paper trail, “cryptographically sealing” any eventual decisions for review and attestation later. I likened it to a police body camera, and Barr didn’t dispute the similarities. “It’s an accountability tool,” he told me.
Of course, that means the burden of decision-making still falls on potentially fallible humans. I worried in particular that by sharing the responsibility with AI, human operators might get lazy or fail to properly question a decision the program might be leading them toward, particularly in an instance of hallucinated data. To the latter point, Barr told me that this is part of what Axonis is designed to address. “You can’t just take the sensor data and throw it into Claude and be like, ‘Alright, go make a decision for me.’ You need to set guard rails,” he said.
As to the former point, Barr told me the chat includes a disclaimer reminding its users that AI can make mistakes, and that the company trains its customers on how LLM technology works. “At the end of the day, it’s a tool, not a decider,” he said, although he allowed that it might be used to automatically trigger warning lights, sirens, or barriers, such as closing a flooded roadway.
I also posed the concern about complacency to Ali Mostafavi, a professor who supervises the UrbanResilience.AL Lab at Texas A&M, which researches, among other things, how artificial intelligence might be utilized in emergency contexts. Mostafavi agreed that there is always a risk in cognitive outsourcing, but that there is a “counter-argument that is also valid — that without these technologies, we have seen what can happen. We had the catastrophic floods last year in Kerr County, and if a similar technology had existed back then, an automated system could have identified the flash flood, and many young children would be alive today.”
Still, Barr told me he isn’t aware of Axonis advising in an actual evacuation order yet. While it is operational, the predictive model remains untested against its highest-stakes use case: the extremes of a climate-changed world, where formerly unthinkable outcomes may be one storm away.
“The more we can stress-test these technologies in real operational settings and use that feedback loop to improve the technologies, the better,” Mostafavi said. “But that’s easier said than done, because to have a technology implemented in an operational setting it should already be stress-tested, right?”
Bertha, though, was not that reckoning; the gusty squalls blew through Galveston last week without even disturbing the dinner reservations at the marina. But although it was already back to 90 and sunny by Monday morning on the Texas Gulf, the drainage in Galveston County, as in many places around the country, remains outdated and easily overwhelmed. One day, inevitably, the water will come. Hopefully when it does, someone or something will be watching.
The large renewables developer changes tack “in response to federal energy objectives.”
Trump’s solar freeze is now so tough that at least one renewable energy developer has asked his administration to turn their permitting application into a data center and gas-fired power plant instead.
Renew Development HoldCo – an LLC created by Clearway Energy Group – wrote the Bureau of Land Management in April asking if they could amend their 2021 application to build the Amber solar project, a 500-megawatt solar project in the Nevada desert that would require building on federal land. Their requested change? “[T]o formally remove the proposed solar facility and replace it with the development of a proposed data center and natural gas facility,” according to a copy of the letter I obtained.
“This amendment is the result of a shift in our internal development priorities and an updated assessment of project timing, in order to better align with the goals of our Administration,” reads the letter, which is dated April 3 and signed by Clearway’s chief development officer John Woody. “The data center concept is in exploratory early stages and as such has a longer and more flexible development horizon, and we believe its schedule will better align with the Bureau’s current workload and staffing plans.”
Now, this swap is somewhat shocking but shouldn’t exactly be a surprise. Companies with federal energy leases are struggling to get their renewable projects permitted by a hostile Trump administration. We’ve already seen some offshore wind developers ditch their leases in favor of payouts and commitments to build more fossil infrastructure. Clearway Energy Group is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners and TotalEnergies, the latter of which struck such a deal in March.
But this does appear to represent an aberration for Clearway, one of the nation’s largest operators of renewable energy projects and whose marketing materials primarily focus on “clean energy.” Nearly all of the company’s portfolio is carbon-free power or energy storage generation sans a handful of “flexible generation” energy projects in California, according to an online map of their project pipeline. The company did not disclose in the documents I reviewed if the gas plant itself would power the data center, provide power to the wider grid, or both.
Candidly, I’ve been watching like a hawk to see if Trump’s chokehold on solar and wind permits would lead to more gas infrastructure and data centers on federal property instead. And companies are getting data center permits when they ask to swap out their solar farm for AI infrastructure. On Friday, I reported that a joint venture involving renewables developer Arevon and energy trader Bill Perkins got permission from BLM to switch an environmental permit tied to a solar farm for one allowing a new data center. Environmentalists plan to legally challenge BLM’s determination as they say it’s a test case for the future of federal land policy.
It’s unclear if Clearway would be the one to build and construct this hypothetical data center and power plant. I for one can’t find any evidence of Clearway developing data centers before. My best guess is that if they do move forward with this, it would look like the joint venture I covered on Friday, where Arevon distanced itself from the actual day-to-day operations of the development and a new firm specializing in data centers came in. But that’s just a hunch and there’s a saying about assumptions.
Nevertheless, Clearway is clearly handling the permitting side. Attached to the Clearway letter was an application also sent to BLM for constructing utility and telecommunications facilities on federal lands, a document technically known as an SF299. The application states Clearway considered using solar energy for the data center as well as using private land, but their alternative designs weren’t selected because they had “higher environmental and stakeholder conflicts.”
Also, in a section of the document requesting Clearway provide a “statement of need for the project,” the developer said it was submitting this proposal “in response to federal energy objectives” and specifically cited Trump’s Day 1 executive order which the company said “encourage[d] development of reliable energy projects on federal lands.”
I reached out to Clearway asking for more information on the letter and application. In response, the company claimed the solar project wasn’t being killed – it simply was moved to private land. They also declined to comment on the data center and gas project. Instead, I was provided a statement attributable to an unnamed spokesperson that “while we do not comment on any individual application while it moves through federal approval processes, we are pleased to be advancing more than 4 GW of solar and battery resources in Nevada on private and public lands and expect those projects to deliver tremendous economic benefits to the communities where they’re built.”
“Clearway values its strong working partnership with the BLM, its Southern Nevada office, and also with state and local interests in Nevada. Across all of these relationships, we continuously assess how best to develop and deliver infrastructure that meets needs and aligns with local and national policies and goals.”