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:

I won’t sugar coat this: The election of Donald Trump to a second term with a likely governing trifecta has dealt a devastating blow to U.S. efforts to cut climate-warming pollution.
I’ve spent the past four years analyzing the progress made under the Biden-Harris Administration as leader of the REPEAT Project, which uses energy systems models to rapidly assess the impact of federal energy and climate policies. In that time, the passage of landmark legislation — the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — and finalization of key federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas supply chains put the U.S. on track to more than double its pace of decarbonization and avoid about 6 billion tons of cumulative emissions through 2035. Though even that progress was not enough: Recent policies would do only about half the work required to bend U.S. emissions onto a net-zero pathway by 2035.
A President Harris would have fought to protect and build on the efforts of the past four years. Now that opportunity is lost. One notable climate scientist even declared a second Trump term “game over for the climate.”
With Trump once again ascendant and seemingly committed to dismantling the historic climate progress made by the United States over the past four years, one can be forgiven for feeling anguish about the opportunities we’ve lost, rage about the very real suffering that will result from further delay, or deep despair about the darker days ahead.
But only for a moment. Because the fight to defend that progress begins today, and there is no time to lose.
In 1992, the nations of the world established the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and pledged to "prevent dangerous human induced interference with the climate system." As the parties to the UNFCCC gather once again in Azerbaijan this December, one thing should be clear to all: We have failed in that task. This year is virtually certain to be the warmest on record and the first to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Wildfires and droughts, hurricanes and floods now seem to strike with alarming frequency and terrible ferocity.
Yet the best science tells us that climate change is not like an asteroid hurtling towards earth, an all-or-nothing battle for survival. Rather, scientists tell us that every billion tons of CO2 and every 10th of a degree of warming we prevent will save lives, prevent suffering, and avoid countless damage.
The fight cannot be surrendered, and the project of building a world where the lives and aspirations of 8-going-on-10 billion people can be powered by clean, abundant energy remains essential.
Indeed, I have been in this fight long enough to have experienced several gutting defeats before — and to have witnessed real, transformative progress.
When I began my career nearly two decades ago, a good onshore wind project cost $100 to $200 per megawatt-hour, two to five times the average cost of fossil power. Germany had just launched a subsidy program paying a lavish €400 to €500 per megawatt-hour for solar photovoltaics. And it would be several years still before the first Tesla Roadster would even hit the streets.
Today, either solar or wind power is the cheapest way to generate new electricity almost everywhere in the world, and the International Energy Agency expects solar to overtake nuclear, wind, hydro, gas, and, finally, coal, to become the largest source of electricity in the world by 2033. Here in the U.S., clean electricity and battery storage constitute virtually all of the more than 2.5 terawatts of projects requesting interconnection to our grids. Likewise, electric vehicles (whether two-, three-, or four-wheeled) are now the cheapest and fastest growing mobility solution for those in emerging economies and the rich world alike. One in five cars and trucks sold globally are now electric — in China, that figure is nearing 50%.
Annual U.S. emissions are more than a billion metric tons (or 16%) lower than their peak in 2007, even as the economy is 40% larger. The European Union has cut emissions by 37% from their peak, and by 8% in 2023 alone. Even China, the world’s top polluter, may have seen its emissions peak in 2023 — seven years ahead of schedule.
In sum, the trajectory of global emissions has been wrestled down from inexorable rise to plateau and impending peak. That may not be enough to prevent dangerous climate change, but it is sufficient to transform the outlook from a bleak world of around 4 degrees of warming and put a much more manageable world of 2 degrees within reach.
The truth is that Donald Trump can only slow, not stop the clean energy transition. The U.S. is only responsible for about a 10th of global emissions, and China, not America, is now the world’s largest market (by far) for cars and trucks, electricity, and industrial commodities like steel and cement. Trump cannot wind back the clock on technological innovation or dampen the appetite for EVs and clean energy in the rest of the world. Emerging climate technologies like decarbonized steel, cement and industrial heat can take root elsewhere, even if they face dimmer prospects in America. And a bipartisan consensus to advance technologies like geothermal, nuclear, and carbon capture in the U.S. remains.
While executive actions can be easily repealed, the legislative achievements of the past four years lower energy prices for American consumers and businesses, have sparked a long-promised American manufacturing renaissance, and direct substantial investment and job creation to Republican-represented districts and states. Texas, that paragon of conservatism, is now the undisputed king of clean energy. Factories producing batteries, EVs and solar panels are sprouting across Georgia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, and beyond. Clean energy is now big business, and influential companies stand to lose billions if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed. With Republicans securing razor-thin legislative majorities, these laws could thus prove surprisingly durable.
In times of struggle and defeat, those brave champions of civil rights would remind themselves that, though long, the arc of history bends towards justice. Today, it remains our collective task to continue to bend the arc of global emissions towards net zero.
Vice President Harris began her historic campaign by declaring, “When we fight, we win!” That isn’t always the case, but we can say with absolute certainty that if we give up the fight, we are guaranteed defeat.
There is no “game over” in the fight against climate change. The next battle begins today.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus three big announcements from the annual hullabaloo.
Now in its fourth year, San Francisco Climate Week is noticeably bigger and buzzier each time I go. When I first attended in 2024, everyone was trying to shoehorn generative artificial intelligence into climate solutions. Last year, founders and funders were struggling to figure out how to deploy capital and stay afloat after Trump took a hammer to Biden-era climate incentives.
This year — which reportedly saw double 2025’s attendance, with roughly 60,000 people choosing from more than 700 events — everyone was banking on the data center buildout, the speed-to-power race, and the broader effort to squeeze more capacity out of the existing grid to save climate tech. Given that the AI race is essentially keeping the U.S. economy afloat during a tumultuous year of tariffs, war, and ongoing energy price shocks, that doesn’t look like such a bad bet, at least for now.
But it wasn’t the only issue at play. Critical minerals were another hot topic, while conversations around adaptation and resilience are finally becoming a bigger part of the picture. I also moderated a surprisingly technical panel on distributed energy resources and virtual power plants, though that inevitably managed to touch on data centers and strategies for managing AI-driven load growth, too.
At Heatmap House, our day of conversations and roundtables with leading climate thinkers, one investor mentioned he had recently backed a lab-grown meat startup – a true contrarian investment if I’ve ever seen one. And my colleague Robinson Meyer hosted a fascinating pair of back-to-back conversations on a controversial geoengineering approach known as solar radiation management, which proposes using aerosolized chemicals to reflect sunlight away from Earth. He first spoke with the CEO of Stardust Solutions, a private company actively building this tech, followed by an advocate for research into solar engineering but certainly not near-term commercial deployment.
It’s impossible to capture the exact essence of a conference with hundreds of individual events — at some level, it’s always going to be what you make of it. But as I bopped around the city shaking hands, I picked up a range of interesting perspectives, along with three pieces of news that I thought were worth unpacking here — one related to funding for critical minerals, and two focused on bringing data centers online as quickly and cleanly as possible.
At a Climate Week event, Atana Elements CEO Thomas Wilson disclosed that the critical minerals exploration startup has quietly closed its seed round, which totals $27.5 million, according to an SEC filing. The round includes participation from Earthshot Ventures, as well as Lowercarbon Capital, and Hitachi Ventures. Last year Atana officially — but stealthily — spun out of Lilac Solutions, a startup developing a cleaner method of extracting lithium from saltwater brines.
But while Lilac is focused on commercializing its novel lithium extraction technology, Atana is tackling the broader upstream mineral discovery process. Its scope includes lithium, but extends to other so-called “flowing” critical minerals dissolved in brines, such as helium, hydrogen, and copper. In the years before the spinout, Atana compiled reams of historical geological datasets — think “Soviet-era oil and gas reports,” Wilson said. It used these to train predictive artificial intelligence models designed to identify previously overlooked mineral deposits.
“You can think of Atana as somewhat analogous to Kobald, but for flowing minerals such as lithium brines rather than hard rock resources,” said Matt Logan of Earthshot Ventures at the event, hosted by the nonprofit climate tech investor Elemental Impact. Kobald similarly uses AI for minerals discovery, and following a $537 million Series C round last year, is reportedly valued at nearly $3 billion.
Atana formed as a team within Lilac back in 2019, benefiting from the more mature startup’s relatively long and well-funded runway — Lilac has raised about $315 million to date. “We have found some of the biggest deposits in the world, and we’ve drilled 19 exploration wells across three continents,” Wilson said. “Around 2% to 3%of the world’s new minerals have been found by this particular team.” That’s a huge number for a startup that’s yet to even formally launch.
To date, Atana has identified a high-grade lithium brine resource in an Argentinean salt flat and secured 1.5 million acres across Germany and Poland, where it’s conducting exploration for lithium brine deposits. While lithium is likely to remain a core market, Wilson said he’s looking forward to broadening Atana’s ambition, asking “now that we’ve been released from the Lilac lithium play, what can we do in copper, helium, hydrogen, and where can we do that in other parts of the world?”
Data center-driven load growth, speed-to-power, and grid flexibility dominated the conversation at SF Climate Week, and the much-hyped data center management platform Emerald AI came prepared with a fitting announcement: It’s partnering with Silicon Valley Power, Santa Clara’s municipally owned utility, not only to demonstrate the benefits of flexible data centers for the grid, but to actually attempt to implement a program that expedites grid interconnection for data centers with flexible loads.
The latter objective differentiates this from Emerald AI’s earlier utility pilots, which were primarily technical demonstrations of its software — proving it can slow, pause, or reroute AI workloads during periods of peak demand without disrupting critical operations, which research shows could unlock nearly 100 gigawatts of grid capacity. This new pilot appears to go a step further by explicitly linking that flexibility to interconnection outcomes. As Emerald AI’s business development lead Daniel Padilla confirmed at a panel, data centers operating flexibly in Silicon Valley Power’s territory “will get material acceleration in time-to-power.”
Santa Clara, which sits about 45 miles south of San Francisco, is a major West Coast data center hub, with roughly 58 facilities packed into 19 square miles, according to Chris Karwick, Silicon Valley Power’s assistant director of utility operations, who spoke later at the same event. Karwick confirmed that the pilot with Emerald includes a “flexible load interconnection program,” and noted that while utilities broadly recognize the need for solutions to rising data center load growth, few are eager to be first movers. “We’re the electric utility for a city. We’re not known for being innovative — we’re usually followers. So this is big for us,” he explained.
Since emerging from stealth last summer, Emerald AI has already raised $67.5 million, and is now working with Nvidia to develop a 96-megawatt flexible data center facility in Virginia called Aurora, which Padilla said is expected to come online in October.
As Heatmap’s end-of-year survey revealed, experts widely consider Meta to be among of the worst hyperscalers when it comes to its climate impact and sustainability efforts. But the company nevertheless maintains a net-zero by 2030 target, even as it continues to bring plenty of new natural gas capacity online to power its AI expansion. Now, however, the company is throwing its weight behind a markedly greener — and less proven — technology, the ultra-long duration energy storage startup Noon Energy.
Meta announced this week that it has reserved 100 gigawatt-hours of storage capacity from Noon, which completed a successful demonstration of its 100-plus-hour carbon-oxygen battery earlier this year. Noon’s system charges by breaking down CO2 and discharges by recombining it using a technology known as a reversible solid-oxide fuel cell, and is certainly one of the earliest-stage data center power technologies that Meta has supported.
“There’s an urgency now that I don’t think existed before,” Carolyn Campbell, head of clean technology innovation at Meta said at a Climate Week panel, referring to the need to deploy emerging energy tech to meet the surge in data-center driven electricity demand. She added that Meta is evaluating how its procurement strategy can help commercialize early-stage climate tech — an area it so far hasn’t backed as extensively as its peers Google and Microsoft.
“When we sign a partnership agreement with a new company, does that help them with their next financing round because their investors see a different level of interest in the technology than they would have otherwise?” Campbell speculated. “Can we provide some upfront development capital to support a pilot that was maybe conceptual — going from concept to reality? So I think that’s one of the things that I’m really excited about with the Noon partnership.”
As I reported earlier this year, Noon CEO Chris Graves expects initial commercial deployments to begin as soon as next year, with early systems installed onsite to allow data centers or other large loads to draw power directly from Noon’s batteries rather than interconnecting to the grid itself. The startup’s collaboration with Meta will kick off with a 2.5-gigawatt-hour project, scheduled for completion by 2028.
Climate tech investors talk investing in moonshots at SF Climate Week.
Three climate investors walked onto a boat.
That’s not the start of a joke — it’s a description of a panel at Heatmap House, a day of conversations and roundtables with leading policymakers, executives, and investors at San Francisco Climate Week (at the Klamath, a venue made out of an old ship).
Heatmap’s Katie Brigham moderated the roundtable conversation with Prelude Ventures Managing Director Gabriel Kra, Azolla Ventures co-founder Matthew Nordan, and Toba Capital Partner Susan Su. Many of their investments are in moonshot climate technologies that other financial players might avoid.
“Things that look contrarian is kind of what we do,” said Kra. “Occasionally, there’s an idea that looks bad that’s actually a good idea.”
Prelude Ventures funds early-stage climate companies that are “weird, or non-consensus, or counter cyclical, or just ahead of the curve,” according to Kra.
Nordan, for instance, said he backs cultivated meat despite some doubts that the category will achieve widespread popularity.
“I’m presently leading an investment in a company called Pythag Technologies,” said Nordan, talking about the generative AI company focused on lab-grown meat. “It’s actually a really interesting time to invest counter-cyclically in a field like that.”
Like Nordan, Su described her firm as one that is open to unconventional choices.
“We are very weird in that we invest across lots of different categories and lots of different stages,” said Su.
One of her personal investments is in Xeno. “This company does electric motorbikes for commercial drivers, as well as swapping and energy networks in emerging markets, starting in East Africa,” she explained.
The panelists told Katie that opting for less popular investments can be rewarding because they may help fund a major breakthrough.
“We placed a couple of bets on fusion before this current melée occurred that sort of had everybody thinking that, you know, fusion was the next hot thing,” said Kra (who claimed that he intended the pun).
Nordan emphasized the gap that venture can fill, left by larger institutional investors who may shy away from high-risk technologies.
“If there are true breakthroughs out there that just may not be investable by mainstream finance at the earliest stages,” Nordan said, “not because people don’t think they’re really good ideas, but they may be crazy early-stage or kind of weird, or non-consensus, or counter-cyclical, or just ahead of the curve, it would be a real shame.”
Noise ordinances won’t necessarily stop a multi-resonant whine from permeating the area.
What did you do for Earth Day this year? I spent mine visiting a notoriously loud artificial intelligence campus in Virginia’s Data Center Alley. The experience brought home to me just how big a problem noise can be for the communities adjacent to these tech campuses – and how much further local officials have to go in learning how to deal with them.
The morning of April 22, I jumped into a Toyota Highlander and drove it out to the Vantage VA2 data center campus in Sterling, Virginia, smack dab in the middle of a large residential community. The sensation when I got out of the car was unignorable – imagine an all-encompassing, monotonous whoosh accompanied by a low rumble you can feel in your body. It sounds like a jet engine that never stops running or a household vacuum amplified to 11 running at all hours. It was rainy the day I visited and planes from nearby Dulles International Airport were soaring overhead, but neither sound could remotely eclipse the thudding, multi-resonant hum.
If you want to hear the sound for yourself, this video accurately sums it up.
After parking nearby I walked to one of the residential enclaves adjacent to VA2. One resident of a home across the street, who declined to give me her name, said she moved there before the project was completed. When asked how she felt about the noise, she told me, “It’s not as bad as it could be on the other side [of the data center], where all the equipment is.” (While the sound does get louder on the other side, I could clearly hear VA2 from her driveway.)
VA2’s noise has been causing problems for months, as documented by numerous social media posts, local news clips, and a feature published in Politico. It’s doubtful many of those living near the data center wanted it there. The project was built quite quickly – so quickly that Google Earth still shows undeveloped woodlands on the site. Per public filings, Vantage first proposed the facility in 2022 under the county’s fast-track commercial incentive program, an expedited permitting process for specific preferred industries. It was under construction as recently as October 2024, according to images captured by Google Street View.
Noise is one of the most common issues associated with data centers. At least a third of all conflicts over data centers are over noise complaints, and noise is the number one reason for opposition in cases where projects were ultimately canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
This issue goes back almost a decade. In 2019, residents of the Phoenix ex-urb Chandler, Arizona, became irate after a loud monotonous hmmmm began emanating from a CyrusOne data center. In that case, CyrusOne traced the noise back to chilling fans, and the company reduced the sound with muffling devices.
Chandler wound up adopting a new ordinance in 2023 requiring sound mitigation measures to prevent companies from exceeding certain ambient noise levels in the surrounding areas. That did nothing to improve the mood of the people who live there, however. Now Chandler, once known as a potential data center development hub, is now firmly in the anti- camp. The city council unanimously rejected a proposed $2.5 billion data center campus in December over noise concerns, despite an expensive lobbying push backed by former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
As data centers spread across the U.S., noise is becoming an ever-more-common complaint. You can hear the familiar hum at a DataOne data center project in Vineland, New Jersey. DataOne told us they “understand concerns about ambient noise in the area” and are operating within the limits of local noise ordinances.
The hum is also in Dowegiac, Michigan, where people living nearby are calling their new Hyperscale Data facility a “noise trap,” with little explanation to date for the issue. Hyperscale Data did not respond to a request for comment.
And the hum is in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where the sound from a new Microsoft data center campus rises above any din from rain. The hyperscaling giant is doing more to mitigate the issue than I’m used to seeing from data center developers, however.
On April 15, the company published an update on its own internal investigations into noise complaints. “Although the facility noise levels meet the requirements set by local ordinance, we take this feedback seriously and understand the impact this has had on our neighbors,” the update read. “We anticipated that our systems would need adjustments and create some noise as part of the datacenter startup, but we did not expect the tonal quality of the sound to travel as far as it has.”
To address the noise, Microsoft said it was “manually adjusting the cooling fans” to reduce noise, and that “we expect this change to address community concerns about the tonal humming.” On top of that, the company said it will install “additional sound reduction components” to “provide even further reductions in measured sound levels.” A Microsoft spokesperson told me in an email: “We’ve identified the source of the noise concerns and have implemented changes to significantly reduce sound from our facility.”
It isn’t cooling fans causing the noise at Vantage’s VA2 in Virginia, however. The sound, according to media reports, is coming from gas turbines powering the data center.
VA2 is one of the first in Virginia to function entirely off-grid, a design companies are adopting in order to avoid lengthy grid connection processes. Company spokesman Mark Freeman told me the facility is “fully compliant with all local noise ordinances, and this has been verified by third-party sound studies.”
“Additionally, in line with our commitment, we are actively working with third-party engineers to explore additional sound mitigation options,” Freeman continued. Freeman said “Our goal is to further reduce noise levels where possible and continue to foster a positive environment for everyone.”
Here’s the thing, though: I visited the Vantage campus after initially hearing from the company, and it was loud. Very loud.
I did not bring a decibel meter with me, so I cannot know whether they were operating within legal limits that day. What I do know is that noise ordinances struggle to properly capture sounds in multiple frequency ranges, making high and low frequencies challenging to regulate, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan non-profit think tank. Officials representing Loudon County, where VA2 is located, have acknowledged that the local ordinance may need to change in order to address the most distressing frequencies from the data center campus.
“We can change the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance,” Loudon County supervisor Mike Turner told local TV station WUSA9 last week. “Noise can be mitigated. I just don’t believe that the noise problem cannot be solved.”
I wrote Freeman, the Vantage spokesman, to tell him I had visited the VA2 campus and found the noise to be “quite foul.” He replied soon after, telling me that Vantage is going “above and beyond what is required in order to address concerns from nearby residents.” The company is using “targeted enhancements to turbine-related equipment such as dampening equipment, enclosure inlets and enclosure exhausts.” These measures “represent meaningful progress and will help us better evaluate the effectiveness of the broader solutions under consideration.” Freeman also said the company is “actively assessing additional options” focused on “targeted frequency ranges.”
As we continue to track local regulation of data centers, I’m we’ll see many more cases like VA2, in which obtrusive sound prompts forms of regulation we may have never seen before.
Or, people will just hear these noises and say no to more data centers.