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:

For decades now analysts of various stripes have been predicting the end of America’s reign as the dominant world power. Some thought the war on terror, in which the U.S. spent on the order of $6 trillion turning half the Middle East into a Stygian wasteland, would crack it. Others thought the financial crisis of 2008 would sour the world on America-centered financial capitalism.
Yet nothing of the sort happened. America is simply so rich that it absorbed the burden of 20 years of war without even raising taxes. There was and is simply no alternative to the U.S. dollar for settling international transactions. The 2008 crash caused a run towards dollars, not away from them, and the U.S. Federal Reserve became the lender of last resort for half the planet — a role it replayed during the initial panic of the pandemic.
And under the Biden administration, American preeminence seemed to have gotten another lease on life. Thanks to his stimulus and industrial policy, the U.S. economy has recovered much faster than any other rich nation. The European Union is stagnating, struggling to escape from its lack of a coherent fiscal system and its decision to depend heavily on imported Russian fossil gas. China’s growth model has crashed into the middle income trap, as it struggles to pivot from an investment-driven model to a consumption-driven one.
That all changes with the second election of Donald Trump to the presidency. Him winning again, this time even the popular vote, has thrown radical uncertainty into America’s international standing — particularly when it comes to climate change and the green economy. It’s a golden opportunity for China, if it cares to seize it.
It has been obvious for years now that renewable energy and green industry are going to be the growth engines of the world economy for the rest of this century at least. Every fossil fuel power plant must be replaced with some combination of wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, or nuclear, and every power grid must be overhauled and upgraded to deal with the intermittency of renewables. All carbon-based industry and agriculture must be modified or replaced with electric-powered versions, requiring a lot more generation capacity.
It will be a transformation on par in significance with the original Industrial Revolution, requiring trillions in investment per year. Indeed, it is already happening around the world and, given the price trends of renewable energy, it is practically inevitable at this point.
China already has manifold advantages in this area. It is already the workshop of the world, accounting for almost a third of global manufacturing. It produces more than half of the world’s steel and two-thirds of its aluminum. It is also far ahead of anyone else in most green industry. It produces 80% of global solar panels, 80% of lithium-ion batteries, about 60% of wind turbines, and 58% of EVs. It also has installed more solar and wind, both onshore and offshore, than any other country by far.
Frankly, China was already positioned to more or less dominate the green energy and industry space. But under Biden, America has belatedly attempted to stand up a competing green manufacturing base, and it is working. Solar and battery investment is skyrocketing, as is manufacturing.
Trump has promised to flush all that down the toilet. He has promised to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, the keystone Biden climate law, and gut the entire environmental protection apparatus. It’s an open question whether or not he will go that far, but if markets are any judge, the stocks of many American renewable and green industry companies plunged on the news of his victory. If Republicans win the House (which is not yet counted at time of writing), then I suspect at least a partial repeal of Biden’s climate achievements. That is basically what Trump did during his last term.
It might not even take that much. As Robinson Meyer outlines, Trump already strangled an incipient transition to EVs among U.S. automakers during his first term simply with some regulatory adjustments. The ongoing transition has been rocky for some companies, particularly Ford, and it would not take much to tip them back towards traditional cars.
If that happens then China will not have even a potential peer competitor — it will own more or less the whole green economy going forward. European, Japanese, and Korean companies might carve out a modest niche, but Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia will by and large be decarbonized and powered by Chinese products.
China has an even bigger opportunity when it comes to diplomacy. The keystone of American dominance is its alliance system. Its relationships through NATO and with New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, and so on provides a public good of security in which those countries feel less need to spend hugely on defense, in return to submitting to U.S. control of global financial pipelines and other international institutions.
Electing a madman as president back in 2016 led many to question whether America was not too politically rotten to be trusted as world hegemon, and sure enough Trump, with his arrogant, erratic, and supremely transactional diplomacy, deeply alienated much of the EU, the most important ally. Biden successfully patched up the relationship, but a second Trump election could be the final straw. One election could be a fluke, but two is a pattern, and in any case Trump has suggested he might unilaterally tear up NATO. Frankly you’d be a fool to trust American diplomatic promises of any kind from now on, and a huge military buildup among jittery American allies is all but certain. As French President Emanuel Macron recently said at an EU summit, “We cannot delegate our security to the Americans forever.”
This in turn threatens international financial pipelines, either owned or regulated by the U.S. government, like Fedwire, CHIPS, Nacha, and SWIFT, that the U.S. uses for power projection. Sanctions against Russia, for instance, rely on other nations complying with American rules and surveillance on these systems.
Many, many countries are not going to be happy about the prospect of Donald Trump being able to set the rules and conditions on their international transactions. It will be a ripe opportunity for China to step in with an alternative system, and thereby knock out another pillar of American global power.
Let me emphasize that none of this is going to happen automatically. China, with its opaque and autocratic regime, has many serious domestic problems. As noted above, its domestic economy is struggling to rebalance towards consumption, and its population is rapidly aging. That said, the government recently announced a major stimulus package, which should boost consumption to some degree.
If China wanted to replace the dollar as reserve currency, it would have to give up capital controls and currency management, which would require even more wrenching reforms. Similarly, if it wants a lot of uptake on an alternative payments system, it would be well advised to not give in to its usual habit of totalitarian police state surveillance.
But the opportunity still remains. America has been one of the luckiest countries in world history — blessed in its geographic position, resource base, and with a 160-year record of not suffering major wars on its territory. But with sufficient stupidity, even the largest advantages can be canceled out. Electing one of the worst people in the country to the presidency, again, might just do 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.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.