You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
Why America’s environmental institutions should embrace a solutions mindset

Innovation has always been core to the American story — and now, it is core to any story that successfully addresses climate. The International Energy Agency estimates that 35% to 46% of the emissions reductions we’ll need by 2050 will come from technologies that still require innovation in order to scale.
Yet there’s a gap between what society urgently needs and what our institutions are built to do. Environmentalism, especially, must evolve from a movement that merely protects to a movement that also builds and innovates.
As an environmentalist, I am profoundly grateful for the hard-won battles of the environmental movement over the past 50 years; fighting pollution, toxicity, deforestation, and community harm has been essential to the health of our families and ecosystems. Yet in this moment, we need to complement these efforts by cultivating a new generation of environmental organizations who have the drive to build in their DNA.
Today’s environmental leaders can drive innovation forward, or they can stand in its way.
I founded Elemental Impact 15 years ago to invest in bold entrepreneurs who are building and scaling the next generation of critical technologies. As a nonprofit investor, we pair catalytic capital with deep expertise to create lasting environmental and local impact, supported by philanthropic and government funders. We recycle any returns back into our nonprofit to invest in future companies.
We’ve seen a common pattern in many discussions where philanthropic and environmental priorities are being set: Most nonprofit organizations remain structurally oriented toward preventing harm — not innovating on solutions. The world needs vigorous efforts to speed and spread clean energy technology, and we must find a way to do this in partnership with traditional environmental protection.
Here’s an example of how the dynamics often play out today: One entrepreneur we know is building a carbon dioxide removal facility, and we’ve been partnering with her on community engagement. While she has seen strong support from local businesses, policymakers, and labor leaders, she has also encountered early resistance from one unexpected group: environmental advocates. “This experience has been eye-opening and disheartening,” the entrepreneur told me over gingerbread cookies. “I became an entrepreneur to change the world — and now I’m facing a barrier I didn’t expect.”
We see this story again and again as entrepreneurs trying to deploy new technologies face pushback from those with largely the same goal: to slow down and ultimately reverse global climate change while supporting human health and well-being.
For instance, my team recently engaged in a planning session with large environmental philanthropies to talk about the future of data centers. With global investments in data centers expected to reach nearly $7 trillion by 2030, we know that meeting their energy, water, and material needs — and the needs of the communities they’re in — will be essential. Yet the conversation focused solely on how to stop data centers from being built. Building new infrastructure at this scale requires solving for numerous complexities, and we need a strategy for community and company engagement that is just as nuanced — one that prioritizes local benefits and leverages the market momentum to accelerate clean energy and sustainable materials faster than would otherwise be possible.
This dynamic also shows up in policy designs that operate too slowly to keep up with the race to address climate change. At times, we see the environmental policy agenda working against environmental innovation. This has real consequences, in some cases doubling the cost of the very solutions we need to build.
There are many ways technological innovation can provide tangible benefits across both communities and the environment. Elemental’s investment in a geothermal company helped support a local university in creating an apprenticeship program in rural Utah, leading to good jobs and economic development while also providing clean power. This is an example of philanthropy, through our nonprofit investor model, working in concert with technology in a way that is highly catalytic.
Philanthropy has often stepped in to seed new movements, empower new leadership, and provide risk capital when there are market or policy challenges. However many funders we talk to are not yet leveraging philanthropic capital to shape markets, which is exactly what’s required to accelerate climate innovation.
The research backs this up. More than 90% of philanthropic leaders believe climate change will negatively affect the people and places they serve, according to a 2022 study by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. But less than 2% of foundation dollars have gone to advance climate solutions, per a separate analysis last year by Climateworks Foundation. And based on our conversations with researchers and funders in the space, we estimate that only a fraction of that goes to organizations that are focused on accelerating new technologies.
It’s important to remember that solar, batteries, and electric vehicles were once considered risky, untested, and controversial. Now they’re proven to be better, cheaper, and faster than their alternatives in large part due to philanthropic and government support in their early days. But to address today’s environmental challenges, those solutions are not enough. New breakthroughs in critical minerals, fertilizers, wildfire management, industrial efficiency, carbon utilization, next-generation energy systems, and so many more need the same catalytic support.
“Enhanced geothermal is only where it is today because of backing from philanthropy-funded initiatives that took risks where others didn’t,” Tim Latimer, the CEO of next-generation geothermal company Fervo Energy, an Elemental portfolio company, told us. This capital is particularly essential now, when government funding has been ripped away and hundreds of critical technologies are seeing their financing gap widen as they attempt to scale.
At Elemental, we work with influential philanthropists and foundations that are leading the way by funding innovation and new technology deployment. These organizations and others like them are the ones pushing the art of what’s possible with philanthropic capital and showing entrepreneurs that they are the solution — not the problem.
We know market interventions from philanthropy work. With catalytic capital, Elemental companies are 2.5x more likely to scale from early to late stage, and for every dollar we invest, our companies unlock an additional $100 of follow-on capital. Working every day with entrepreneurs, we have unique visibility into how innovations succeed, fail, or get blocked.
In the age of artificial intelligence, unprecedented technological change, and an affordability challenge brewing in the U.S. energy sector, we need leaders who understand the leverage points in technology and are finding creative opportunities to make the biggest environmental and social impact. We know that new technologies carry risk, and not all will drive social progress. But the way forward is to help shape and accelerate the ones that will contribute the most to the communities where they operate. That includes being a responsible participant in our changing climate.
This is the best time in history to have a front row seat to innovation. Magic can happen when entrepreneurs, philanthropy, government, corporate leaders, and communities come together to drive speed, scale, and impact. Let’s be bold and build.
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 proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.