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:
All American cities are at risk.

The fires that have swept greater Los Angeles over the past two weeks have shattered long-held assumptions about wildfire risk. Unlike many of the catastrophic, climate-intensified wildfires that have burned various swaths of California over the past decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires have blazed past the wildland-urban interface to devastate a wide variety of neighborhoods – some of the region’s oldest and some of its newest; gridded city blocks as well as winding mountainside subdivisions; apartments, duplexes, and bungalow courts as well as stand-alone suburban houses.
In other words, the places that have burned represent a far wider swath of the American urban landscape than most burn zones. Likewise, rebuilding these places is going to raise not only locally-specific questions of wildfire safety, adaptation, and retreat, but also universally-applicable questions about energy provision and decarbonization that every American city will eventually be forced to confront. In particular, greater Los Angeles’ burned neighborhoods are already revealing a looming natural gas crisis, decades before most American cities will face it.
In greater Los Angeles’ grim collection of leveled neighborhoods, gas meters protruding from the rubble serve as stark reminders of the elaborate buried pipeline network that powered homes and businesses. As communities begin to rebuild, California’s building code, state resiliency grants, and federal Inflation Reduction Act incentives together make it highly likely that the majority of new structures will go electric, cutting their dependence on the outmoded and dangerous gas connections that may have complicated firefighting efforts. This same transition to all-electric buildings is unfolding more slowly across the rest of the country, where many residents are just beginning to embrace the ease, efficiency, and quality of heat pumps and induction stoves, or to recognize the health risks of burning gas indoors.
In even the most thoroughly devastated neighborhoods, though, a few incongruous buildings have survived. As the rebuilding effort reaches its conclusion, these grizzled veterans will become solitary consumers of gas in a soon-to-be-electrified landscape. But the cost of maintaining the branching networks that provide gas won’t shrink along with the gas customer base. With maintenance costs fixed but revenue decimated, the gas system could begin to crumble. Remaining gas users could see their bills spiral higher as greater Los Angeles’ leading gas utility, SoCalGas, attempts to meet its costs and more customers flee the system. Worse still, declining revenue could pressure the utility to cut back on repairs, leading to neglected pipelines that leak, corrode, and even spark future fires.
A version of this crisis will come for every American neighborhood eventually. Gas networks only work economically and safely when costs are shared across a broad user base. Without coordination, maintaining the gas network in electrifying neighborhoods will rapidly become an unsustainable risk borne most by those least able to transition away from gas. The best solution to this approaching crisis is both bold and simple: act proactively. Prune back the branching gas pipeline network to protect both the system as a whole and the burned neighborhoods themselves.
Local government, state regulators, and our gas and electric utilities can together support the transition of burned neighborhoods’ remaining buildings off of gas so that entire branches of the system can be shut off, leaving safer and cleaner all-electric neighborhoods in their place. This is the only way Angelenos can begin to avoid the post-fire catastrophe of skyrocketing costs and collapsing safety.
By removing an entire branch of the gas distribution network, greater Los Angeles can simultaneously make the electric grid safer and more resilient. Over the past decade, overhead power lines have become famous as one of the leading causes of wildfire ignition – but burying them usually imposes an eye-watering cost that the electric system cannot afford. Much of that cost, though, stems from the need to dig by hand around existing gas lines. By shutting down their local gas networks for good, burned and high-fire-risk neighborhoods can eliminate the greatest risk and biggest expense of burying electric lines – and in some cases, might even be able to run electric lines through the decommissioned pipes themselves.
In one sweep, greater Los Angeles’ burn zones and high-fire-risk neighborhoods like them elsewhere can eliminate two major sources of fire danger and chart a path away from the looming threat of unmanaged gas system collapse. In the midst of the state’s intensifying insurance crisis, systematically reducing the risk of new fires at the neighborhood level would also offer insurers provable risk mitigation. Pulling off this transformation, though, will require quick action — before rebuilding begins. So far, state and local leaders have focused on promising the return of normalcy, in part by attempting to suspend all-electric building requirements. Given that all-electric construction is both faster and cheaper, this rollback makes little practical sense. At a broader level, these early rollbacks constitute an attempt to avoid the hard questions of how to rebuild more safely and resiliently – and when it has become too dangerous to rebuild at all. The win-win of systematic gas decommissioning and electric undergrounding offers an onramp to those more difficult conversations.
Just how to negotiate an entire neighborhood’s simultaneous transition away from natural gas remains an unsolved problem of political will and neighborly cooperation, but greater Los Angeles’ burned zones are suddenly forcing the question. Creating a clear, affordable path to electrification for the surviving buildings will require pairing increased financial support with coordinated planning and clear deadlines to help homeowners and businesses understand the urgency of the switch.
Amidst the incalculable losses of these fires, greater Los Angeles is being confronted not only with the painful challenges of recovery, but also with the looming specter of new crises accelerated by the fires’ devastation. The risk of gas system collapse has come to greater Los Angeles decades before it will reach most other American communities. Confronting it before it becomes a disaster of its own can help secure the region’s devastated neighborhoods against future fires, while blazing a trail for other high-fire-risk neighborhoods across the country to follow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Heatmap’s latest poll adds urgency to one of the biggest questions facing the climate: Can the environmental movement come back?
Three years ago, I wrote a piece for this website about how I’d stopped openly describing myself as an environmentalist. Looking back at it now, it’s a bit of a head-scratcher: I love nature, conservation, and all things outdoorsy, and while I stand by my greater point — that we can’t let uncompromising ideals about the environment hold back renewable energy development — the truth is, I am absolutely an environmentalist. But saying so felt analogous to calling myself tender-hearted, naïve, and retrograde.
The truth is, most Americans are environmentalists, at least if you take a wide definition. In new polling and focus group research conducted by Heatmap News and Embold Research, nearly three in four registered voters (72%) told us “the environment” is extremely or very important to them personally. The environment, in fact, ranked a full 17 points higher than “climate change” in a battery of potential voter issues, despite the latter’s much more obvious existential threat. Even among the subset of people we labeled “skeptics,” for whom climate change was of minimal to no importance, a third (32%) still told us the environment matters to them greatly.
It’s no secret that “climate change” has fallen out of vogue; we’ve reported extensively on the rhetorical shift, including in coverage of our latest poll. But in a forced-choice test of three political messages, we also found voters preferred a hypothetical candidate who emphasized the environment while avoiding any words related to climate (38%, compared to 28% for a clean energy affordability message and 35% for an energy independence-focused message). Specifically, voters who picked our environmental message said they were drawn to its pitch for “cleaner air and a healthier environment for our families and communities.”
Given that the environment still seems to be a way for policymakers and communicators to reach people — including some of the most entrenched climate skeptics, who need the most convincing to back renewable energy — it appears to be a golden opportunity for a modern environmental movement to emerge and advance some of the overlapping goals of the climate movement.
But … where is it?
“As a movement, it’s semi-dormant,” John Reid, the founder of the Conservation Strategy Fund and the author of a recent Atlantic article on the decline of environmentalism in the United States, told me. The son of a Republican Senate aide who worked on the 1968 bill to establish California’s Redwood National Park, Reid stressed that environmentalism “was absolutely not a partisan issue in Congress” in the late 1960s and 1970s — what many consider the golden age of the movement, when clean air and water protections passed through Congress with conservative support. But the “trail started to go a little bit cold” under President Ronald Reagan, Reid added, calling him “the first president I’m aware of who put an anti-environmentalist in charge of the [Environmental Protection Agency]”: Anne Gorsuch.
When activists started paying attention to climate change and the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s, 2000s, and early 2010s, Reid said the movement began to shift away from its core themes of nature and conservation. “The kinds of solutions developed by free market enthusiasts isolated CO2 as a potentially investable, tradable commodity,” he said. “I think they got hyperfocused on carbon, and on the one hand it drew people who weren’t traditional environmentalists into the environmental debate — like Bill Gates and some pundits like Ezra Klein — but it’s also almost like they’ve never been on a hike before.”
The election of President Donald Trump, of course, added heretofore unimaginable headwinds to the environmental movement. Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University of Buffalo, called the current federal situation “hopeless,” and told me he’s even seen the retreat from large-scope environmental policy play out in his classroom. Every year, he assigns students in his Environmental Movements course to organize a hypothetical Earth Day-like event to inspire people to action. “Just in the last couple of years, none of my students anymore had ideas at all about anything that you might remotely call politics,” he told me. “The thing that they were most excited about was, ‘Well, we could organize community gardens. That has a direct positive impact, and it can be a kind of consciousness-raising activity.’”
When Rome told me this, it felt drained of ambition — Really? Community gardens? But when I spoke to organizers at some of the country’s most prominent and historically influential environmental and climate groups about the state of the modern environmental movement, they framed it differently. Holly Bender, the chief program officer of the Sierra Club, told me that what inspires people and makes them feel agency is “not as much climate decisions” — which may feel far off or nebulous — “but this idea that the environment is close to home.”
Amy Moas, the climate director at Greenpeace USA, pointed specifically to how data center fights have become a new nexus of environmental action at the community level. “People are seeing the impact of environmental choices in their backyard, they’re seeing how it impacts their lived experiences, and they’re willing to stand up and fight for it.”
Kidus Girma, the campaign director at Sunrise Movement, told me that the youth activist network is now focused on finding “the most immediate and pressing thing” in people’s lives and “clarifying how it’s a climate issue.” He pointed to community resistance to data centers, which has risen in response to the idea that “a couple of tech billionaires [who are] able to radically reshape the American energy market in a couple of years, and what degree of local control folks should have about energy production,” but which people also oppose due to concerns about electricity and water use.
Girma sees the climate and environmental movements as deeply intertwined but ultimately separate — however, each can be considered the umbrella under which the other nests. If anything, though, the modern environmental movement has only gotten wider: After seeming to reach its peak of influence in 2021 and 2022, the Sunrise Movement has since reassembled to take on the Trump administration more explicitly, including patrolling for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers in Minnesota.
“Environmentalists understand that the forces in the federal government that are sending troops out to arrest and deport innocent people are the same forces that are destroying the environment and making climate change worse,” Aaron Sachs, an environmental historian at Cornell University and the author of the forthcoming book The Earth Is Ours, Not Mine: A History of Environmental Justice, told me. He added that the environmental movement at large is “so much more aware of intersectionality now,” and that organizers “don’t make the kinds of distinctions that older people might be tempted to make, which I think is a good thing.”
If our polling found the possibility of a cross-spectrum coalition under the banner of the environment, Girma has seen it in person in local data center fights. “We’re at the point where MAGA voters and lefty Sunrisers are strategizing together on how to get their county to make a different decision,” he told me. But others told me that part of the reason the environmental movement may seem absent from people’s minds right now is that “there are so many crises happening at the same time,” as Moas, the climate director at Greenpeace USA, said. Election corruption, concerns about AI, the Iran War, immigration — “there are too many issues for any one to be center stage,” she went on. “There are multiple ‘top priority’ issues.”
But to Reid of the Conservation Strategy Fund, it’s exactly this dilution of focus that is the core obstacle for the modern environmental movement. “It’s like a Christmas tree dynamic, where people get to come and hang whatever liberal cause they care about and act as if right-minded people should all be on the same side of all of these issues,” he said. He told me that strange bedfellows can come together on specific issues and make a change — like how onX, a popular mapping software among hunters, is currently galvanizing its members to oppose the rollback of the Roadless Rule. “If you think of alliances as Venn diagrams, insisting on near-total overlap will limit your allies to a number too small to make a movement,” he later wrote me in an email.
Whatever is holding back the modern environmental movement, it does not appear to be its ultimate underlying aim of protecting the planet. “If you drop the label ‘environmentalism’ and just ask people: Will my kids’ water be safe, or is the air going to make my family sick? — you get resonance from that,” Marc Yaggi, the CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance, told me. “I think that’s because people have learned to distrust the process, but not the goal.”
Our data seemed to back his view. When we asked voters why they haven’t done more to support clean energy, for example, just 7% (and only 16% of climate skeptics) said it was b ecause “I don’t believe in the goal.” Distrust in politicians and advocacy groups, the futility of the current political environment, and competing priorities (“other issues matter more to me”) all ranked higher.
“I really believe there is a whole lot of love and affection for nature and concern for environmental quality out there in the general public,” Reid said. “It may be quiet, it may be latent, it may get silenced by more immediate concerns that people have. But I do believe it’s out there.”
This new report is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how American voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
Current conditions: The Atlantic set a record on Saturday for the longest stretch of the hurricane season since the advent of satellites without a major named storm • Argentina is bracing for severe Zonda winds, a type of intense downslope gust unique to the eastern side of the Andes Mountains • While the wildfires darkening skies over Indonesia have receded, blazes are still raging across the southern shores of Sumatra, Borneo, and West Papua.
The United States is preparing to eliminate any cap on the amount of planet-warming pollution from burning coal or gas that power plants can spew into the atmosphere. On Sunday night, The New York Times reported that the Environmental Protection Agency planned to announce a final repeal of climate rules on the power sector at this week’s summit in Houston of energy ministers from the Group of 20 nations. The EPA already moved to remove the entire legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases at any level by gutting its endangerment finding, which my colleagues Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo explained last winter. In March, as I told you at the time, almost half of all U.S. states sued to block the administration from rescinding the finding. The EPA went on to scrap standards on climate-heating emissions for car tailpipes and loosened rules on heat-trapping chemicals used in refrigerators and air conditioners. Under the new proposal, which the Times noted would come out Monday, power plants would still face limits on mercury, arsenic, and other contaminants, “though the EPA has already loosened restrictions on how much mercury they can emit.”
Nearly a year ago, I told you about the legal challenges already mounting for President Donald Trump’s order to keep a Michigan coal-fired station open past its planned retirement date on the grounds that the broader grid system is under an “emergency” level of stress. Maintaining the J.H. Campbell coal station for just three months past its previously-agreed closure cost the utility Consumers Energy nearly $30 million. And all that was to fulfill an illegal order, a federal court just decided. On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers to force the plant to stay open. The court found that the Department of Energy illegally invoked Section 202(c), the emergency authority of the Federal Power Act, to override the long-term planning process through which Consumers, Michigan, and the Energy Department had agreed to terminate power production at the 1.4-gigawatt plant. The agency has since used the same statute to order coal plants in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Washington to remain open. “The DOE needs to stay in its lane and use its emergency powers only in actual emergencies,” Michael Lenoff, Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “Preventing the market-driven retirements of coal plants to advance a coal-friendly agenda is not a proper use of emergency powers.” In July, Washington State announced a deal with utility TransAlta to convert the state’s only remaining coal plant to run on natural gas. But that same day, the Energy Department renewed its directive to keep TransAlta’s Centralia coal plant running for at least another three months. “America needs more reliable power, not less, and today’s order will help ensure reliable electricity generation remains available to help address periods of peak demand,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement at the same time. “The Trump administration remains committed to reversing the misguided energy subtraction policies it inherited from past leaders.”
The White House, meanwhile, is considering using the Defense Production Act to expand U.S. oil refining capacity. The proposal, reported by Reuters, came up during a meeting between Trump and a dozen U.S. refiners, who told the president that federal money “would be better directed toward making refineries more efficient or expanding existing plants rather than financing an entirely new refinery,” which would cost more and take years to complete.
A surge of utility-scale solar projects racing to completion before the federal tax credits expires in July added 11.4 gigawatts of capacity to the U.S. in the second quarter of this year, representing a 45% increase. That’s according to a PV Tech analysis of the latest Solar Energy Industries Association report I told you about on Thursday. Rooftop solar was a mixed bag in the second three-month stretch of 2026. Residential solar installations fell 12% year over year and community solar declined 14%, but corporate and industrial projects grew by 11%. Utility-scale projects, on the other hand, soared by 61% year over year. “The concentration on utility-scale developments was a direct response to the Trump administration’s phaseout of tax credits for renewable energy deployments from July 4, 2026 and the ‘safe harbor’ period that requires projects are placed in service,” PV Tech wrote.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney instructed his special envoy to Europe to “scope out the most ambitious possibilities short of full membership” in the European Union or its common market, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The details, the newspaper noted, “are still being sketched by technical working groups for what the prime minister has told his aides will be the reorienting of an economy and a society that for half a century has been dominated by the U.S.” If successful, the pivot to Brussels would reshape the energy and resource profile of both continents, pairing Europe’s wealth and vast population with Canada’s vast supply of oil, gas, and minerals. “In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada and our European partners are moving ever closer,” Carney said in a statement over the weekend. “Our shared values, complementary strengths, and common interests serve as the strong foundation on which we can build a stronger future. Together, Canada and our European partners have the ambition and strength to create a more just, stable, and universally prosperous world.”

Canada boasts the world’s second-biggest output of uranium, a potential boon to Europe’s nuclear sector. But with Kazakhstan, the world’s top supplier, cautioning that more of its supply could end up going to China and other new buyers, Australia — the world’s No. 4 supplier — is looking for a bigger stake in the world’s third-place producer, Namibia. A pair of Australian companies are pushing ahead with plans to build new projects in the southwest African nation, Bloomberg reported last week. Bannerman Energy and Deep Yellow are both based in the Western Australian mining hub of Perth. Bannerman is considering a joint venture with China National Nuclear Corporation in which Beijing’s state-owned reactor operator would buy a 45% stake in a mine and agree to buy 60% of its output once the project is commissioned in 2028. Deep Yellow’s nearby Tumas project is, per the newswire, “a little less advanced but targeting a final investment decision toward the end of the year.”
China’s wind turbine champion, Goldwind, is getting into another green sector. The world’s largest turbine manufacturer shipped its first batch of green methanol from a 160-megawatt project in Inner Mongolia to South Korea, where it’s expected to be shipped to a buyer in the EU, Hydrogen Insight reported. It’s yet another sign of how China is stepping up to meet the EU’s carbon tariff.
Even the hardiest are shivering at the price of heating oil.
As leaves begin to turn from green to autumn hues of amber, gold, and brown, New England is preparing for an expensive winter.
While most of the country heats their homes with natural gas or electricity, about 5 million households — overwhelmingly located in the Northeast — use oil. Like diesel and gasoline (both of which have set price records recently) home heating oil is distilled from crude oil, which is currently trading at prices not seen since the early months of the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Benchmark oil prices are over $100 for the first time since the spring as the Iran War grinds forward with no end in sight. Houthi attacks on Saudi oil tankers and infrastructure in and around the Red Sea and continued Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries have put added pressure on U.S. facilities to supply the world with gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel, raising prices domestically. Russia’s own fuel imports reached a record 172,000 metric tons in August, according to an analysis from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, mostly from South Korea and India, putting further strain on the global market (the country was once the largest exporter of refined products).
The effects have trickled downstream to the distillate market, as well. Diesel prices surged past $6 per gallon on Friday, while retail home heating oil prices in Maine, one of the Northeastern states most dependent on oil to heat homes, are around $5.39, their highest since April. Making matters worse, stocks of distillate fuel oil, which includes heating oil, are at their lowest level for this time of year since the Energy Information Administration started keeping records. The EIA released a new forecast this week projecting that “global production of distillate fuel will remain below last year’s levels in the coming months, contributing to low U.S. diesel inventories and high diesel prices.”
For Mainers and others across New England, that adds up to a hard winter to come.
“As the most heating oil reliant state in the country, Mainers are uniquely impacted by rising and volatile oil prices,” Acting Commissioner of the Maine Department of Energy Resources Celina Cunningham told me in an emailed statement. About half of the state’s residents “still rely on oil as their primary heating fuel,” she told me, even as outgoing Governor Janet Mills has encouraged heat pump adoption. “The cost of heating oil is already more than 60% higher than it was at this time last year,” Cunningham added, “putting added pressure on Maine households as we head into the winter heating season.”
Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, told me that the total cost of heating a home exclusively on oil will jump from $1,740 to $2,297 this winter. “Families using heating oil will get hit twice — first from gasoline, and then heating oil,” he said.
The price of home heating oil has long been a hot button issue in New England politics, and this year’s slate of Congressional races is no exception. Matt Dunlap, the state auditor and Democratic nominee in Maine’s Trump-voting 2nd Congressional District, told reporters earlier this week while standing in front of a heating oil delivery truck that “right now, families across this district are sitting at their kitchen tables signing their heating oil contracts for the winter and staring at numbers they simply cannot afford.” In keeping with Trump’s recent admonition to pretend he’s on the ballot, Dunlap used the occasion to criticize the president’s foreign policy. The Iran War, Dunlap said, “is not an abstract foreign policy debate. That’s the reason your heating bill this winter could be hundreds of dollars higher than it was last year.”
Susan Collins, the Republican senator running for re-election in Maine, regularly highlights her role in bringing in funding from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for Mainers, even as staff in charge of administering the program were laid off early in the Trump administration.
To the extent New Englanders can expect any relief, it likely won’t come from the supply dynamics of heating oil — the EIA has upped its price forecast for both this year and 2027. They may, however, simply need less. Thanks to what could be an historically strong El Niño, New England may be in for a warmer (albeit wetter) winter than usual.