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.
Rob and Jesse take stock of all the trends threatening to push up power bills.
In the next few years, the United States is going to see the fastest growth in electricity demand since the 1970s. And that’s only the beginning of the challenges that our power grid will face. When you step back, virtually every trend facing the power system — such as the coming surge in liquified natural gas exports or President Trump’s repeal of wind and solar tax credits — threatens to constrain the supply of new electricity.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk about why they’re increasingly worried about a surge in electricity prices. What’s setting us up for an electricity shortfall? What does the recent auction in the country’s largest electricity market tell us about what’s coming? And what would a power shock mean for utility customers, the economy, and decarbonization?
Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: None of these trends guarantee that electricity prices will go up, but suffice it to say, by the end of President Trump’s term, we could be exporting one fifth, right? 20%, 25%. And so that is a huge increase, and going to increase demand for U.S. natural gas supplies. How the supply side of U.S. natural gas responds is still an open question.
But even that isn’t the only trend. At the same time, the president’s tariffs, specifically on inputs to production — so copper, steel — have gone into effect. They’ve remained in effect. And what we’ve seen is that for these key ingredients and components to build more grid infrastructure, prices have gone up. I think steel prices have doubled, copper prices have increased. It doesn’t seem like those prices are coming down anytime soon.
And so just the raw ingredients that are required to produce, to expand the grid, and to increase electricity supply and electricity capacity are going to be more expensive in the world we’re living in than in the counterfactual world.
Jesse Jenkins: Yeah, I think if you go further upstream, too, there’s some — partly because of the tariffs, partly because of the uncertain trade environment, the uncertain macroeconomic environment, we’re not exactly seeing the oil and gas industry pouring capital into expanding natural gas supplies.
So, you could argue, and I’ve heard the folks from the American Gas Association argue this, that there’s no problem with expanding LNG exports as long as we expand supply to match that. And there’s some truth to that — except that we expect supply curves to be increasing, meaning the more we produce of something, in order to get incremental production up, we have to spend a little bit more per unit of energy we produce. That’s sort of characteristic of most markets.
So sure, we could increase our supply by 10% or 20%, but that would also require paying a higher cost per trillion cubic feet, or million cubic meters, or whatever unit you want of natural gas we get out of the ground in the U.S. And that alone would put upward pressure on prices. But if the U.S. is also not expanding supply at the same time that we’re expanding exports, then that just straight-up drives prices up.
We would see, basically, a delayed response from the market, from the supply side of the market, to those prices. This is partly why natural gas prices are so volatile. Prices spike — that sends a signal to add supply, but you can’t turn on the spigot overnight. You’ve got to drill new wells, identify them, get drill rigs out there, and open up production, and in some cases even expand pipelines to get that supply to market. All that takes several years. And so there’s a lag time there that often leads to these spikes in gas prices going quite a bit above what you would expect, the kind of marginal supply curve picture alone to reveal.
And I think if you look at the rig counts, declining rig counts, stagnating production, and sort of the secular decline of our conventional gas resources and oil resources, which are all on decline curves. As we pump more oil and gas out of the ground, the pressure falls and we get less and less from those wells. All that points to the potential for a relatively constrained supply of natural gas in the near term exactly at the same time that we’re ramping up LNG exports.
Mentioned:
Jesse on The Ezra Klein Show
From Rob: The Electricity Affordability Crisis Is Coming
U.S. power use to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, per EIA
Why the EIA expects natural gas prices to rise
The Messy Truth of America’s Natural Gas Exports
Governor Josh Shapiro’s legal action to constrain power prices
Jesse’s upshift; Rob’s downshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Gain real-world skills, build strong networks, and keep working while you learn. Explore the year-long Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Learn more here.
Join clean energy leaders at RE+ 25, September 8–11 in Las Vegas. Explore opportunities to meet rising energy demand with the latest in solar, storage, EVs, and more at North America’s largest energy event. Save 20% with code HEATMAP20 at re-plus.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
A conversation with Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman about life after the endangerment finding.
The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal on Tuesday to reverse its own conclusion that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare. Known as the “endangerment finding,” this 2009 determination initially compelled the agency to regulate carbon emissions from vehicles under the Clean Air Act. But the agency has since used it as the basis for many of its efforts to tackle climate change, including emissions limits on power plants, oil and gas operations, and aviation.
If the reversal is finalized as written — and survives court challenges — the EPA will no longer have the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide from the tailpipes of cars or trucks, invalidating the vehicle standards issued by the Biden administration last year.
While other greenhouse gas regulations wouldn’t automatically disappear, the agency could easily use the same arguments to repeal them. Indeed, the agency said that it has already initiated or intends to initiate “separate rulemakings that will address any overlapping issues” related to other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as power plants.
EPA’s primary justification for reversing course, detailed in a 302-page document, is that the Clean Air Act is designed to target air pollution that endangers public health “through local or regional exposure,” and therefore that it cannot be used to rein in greenhouse gases “based on global climate change concerns.” Richard Revesz, a professor of law at New York University and former Biden official, told me this was “breathtakingly broad,” and said that it was “inconsistent with 55 years of regulation under the Clean Air Act. That limitation was never understood to be there.”
The EPA also put forth a host of other legal and scientific arguments, “basically throwing the kitchen sink at this issue,” Revesz said. The proposal asserts that the EPA should have considered the downstream costs of making the finding, as well as weighed the potential benefits of a warmer climate. In a section entitled “Alternative Rationale for Proposed Rescission,” the agency attempts to poke holes in the scientific evidence that climate change is a threat to public health, concluding that the research is uncertain. It cites a report from the Department of Energy, also released Tuesday, that says the warming caused by greenhouse gases is not as bad for the economy as people once thought, and that regulating such emissions will have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate.”
The proposal cherry-picks data and misinterprets scientific findings. For example, it says that recent evidence suggests that the temperature projections EPA used to make the endangerment finding were “unduly pessimistic,” citing a 2020 paper by climate scientist Zeke Hausfather. But Hausfather has already posted on social media that this is wrong — his paper supported the EPA’s 2009 temperature projections.
My inbox is currently full of statements from legal experts, scientists, and activists adamant that the administration’s arguments are baseless. The agency will be taking public comments on the proposal through September 21, and hold at least two public hearings on August 19 and 20. To get a sense of what to expect over the coming months and years as a result of this move, I called up Jody Freeman, the director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard and a former White House counsel for the Obama administration. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
What will EPA have to do in order to finalize this proposal?
What they do is put it out for public comment. There’ll be a huge reaction to this, and so they’ll have a very big set of comments that they’re going to have to go through, which then will take them several months at a minimum. And they’re not necessarily going to be in a rush, right? At a minimum, we’re going to be getting into 2026 before we’d see a final rule. And then the lawsuits would start.
Other than just responding to the public comments, are there certain things that they would have to demonstrate to finalize this determination?
The normal process is you have to respond to the most serious and relevant comments. So if the comment says, The claims you’re making about the science are wrong, they’d have to respond to that. The normal course is they come back with a final rule that explains why they’re doing what they’re doing, and why they either didn’t agree with the comments, or they do agree with some of them, and they’ve adapted the proposal.
And as you said, then the lawsuits would start.
It doesn’t take effect for 30 days after it’s final. But yes, at that point, they get sued. These rules go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because that’s what the Clean Air Act says, and usually it would take about a year or so for a D.C. Circuit decision to happen. So now you’re in 2027. You can see the timeline on this stretching out. And if you ultimately think this could go to the Supreme Court, you can imagine that’s another year away. So basically, for the rest of President Trump’s term, you really shouldn’t expect to see enforcement or action on federal climate rules.
Even if the EPA hadn’t taken this step, wouldn’t that still have been the case, since the Trump administration is fighting the power plant rules and the vehicle emissions rules?
Well, you could see them dragging their feet enforcing these standards. Of course, they would get sued if they weren’t enforcing vehicle emission standards against the auto industry. There would be efforts to force them to enforce. But it’s more serious and more long term damage for them to try to rescind the underlying endangerment finding because depending on what the Supreme Court does with that, it could knock out a future administration from trying to bring it back. Now that would be the nuclear option. That would be their best case scenario. I don’t think that’s likely, but it’s possible.
At a minimum, let’s say they don’t win everything, but the court says they can do this for now — they have the discretion, the flexibility not to make this finding. Another administration can come back and make it and restore the rules. But that would take, again, several years. So even if they lose, they win.
If they do finalize this, would the other lawsuits that are going on around the power plant rules and the vehicle emissions rules automatically be dropped?
There are a few lawsuits that were challenging the Biden-era rules, but the Trump administration asked the courts to hold them in abeyance because they said, We’re going to go revisit all those rules and replace them. So those lawsuits aren’t moving forward anyway at the moment. It would probably be true that the administration, in taking this action, wants to set up a situation where it can go back into court and say, Well, now all these challenges are moot. We don’t have any authority to regulate anyway. But for now, they’re all on hold.
Are there other regulations this will affect besides those for vehicles and power plants?
The methane rule for oil and gas facilities is more of a question mark because they don’t seem to be announcing they’ll eliminate it. It’s possible they push off compliance. It’s possible they make the rule weaker. But there are a couple reasons why they might not rescind that.
One is that there’s a very complicated history of this rule. Congress disapproved of a weaker methane rule the first time around in the Trump administration, and because of that congressional action, there’s a barrier there. They can’t easily just rescind that methane rule. They’ve got more legal hurdles to jump through.
The other reason is there are some good reasons to regulate methane that have to do with ozone pollution and pollution that isn’t just about climate change. And the third reason is the oil and gas industry might actually want a methane rule. They might want a weak one, but they might want one federally. So that’s a bit separate, and you have to be on the lookout for them handling methane differently.
Could a future EPA just develop stronger pollution standards for other pollutants that would indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
It’s true that when you set toxics standards, for example, for power plants to control their toxic pollution, a side benefit is those power plants become more efficient, and that means they control their carbon pollution, too. But this is more around the margins. This is not taking big bites out of power plant greenhouse gas emissions or big bites out of car and truck emissions. It would be a much, much, much weaker version of what you can do with the endangerment finding.
So if the endangerment finding is reversed, is the only path for future regulation for Congress to explicitly tell EPA that it must regulate greenhouse gases?
That’s one option, but it may not necessarily be the only one. It depends on where this lands after it moves through the courts. If the Supreme Court said, You, Trump EPA, you can rescind this finding, but another administration could bring it back, then another administration can say, Well, we think the science is clear, and we’re going to make the finding again and issue these rules. So it all depends on how far the court goes. If it’s going to agree with EPA, how much will it agree? But if the court were to essentially say, this agency has no authority now and forever to make this finding, well then yes, you need new law.
Will the overturning of the Chevron doctrine also play into this?
That’s another interesting one. So what they have to do now is argue that greenhouse gases might be pollutants, but we don’t have to regulate them. And when they argue that we don’t have to regulate them, they’re going to be asking for a lot of deference. And so in that sense, they’re kind of asking for what Chevron used to give you — deference. But they don’t have Chevron anymore, so they’re going to have to say to the court, You should agree with our reading of this law. This is the best reading of this law, that we don’t have to regulate. They no longer can just say, you ought to defer to us under Chevron.
In that scenario, is it left to the court to decide?
It’s left to the court to say, your reading of the law is right. You have flexibility here, and you can decide you don’t need to regulate. The court would have to agree with their reading of the Clean Air Act.
Isn’t the endangerment finding more of a scientific question than a legal one?
Well, in making that scientific decision about what constitutes a danger to human health, there’s a lot of judgment in there. How do we interpret the science? Is it okay for us to say, well, there are a lot of good things that happen because of climate change? This is what they might do, right? They might say, The EPA, long ago, they ignored all the good stuff about climate change, and we think that’s really important. They might say some ludicrous stuff that leading scientists would think is completely wrong. But there’s some discretion in there about how you count the science and what you weigh, and they’re going to try to get the court to agree that they have a lot of flexibility in what method they use. That means the court will have to agree with them on how they read the law.
So they might say, We have flexibility to interpret the science, and the court might say, No, you don’t, the science is really clear. Then they might say, Okay, well even so, the U.S. contribution is so infinitesimally small that we don’t consider it a contribution to the problem. Now there, the court might say, Okay, you have discretion there. So it’s a little bit of a moving target, where at every opportunity they’re going to say, We have flexibility, don’t you agree?, and hope the court bites on one of those.
More than $30 billion of clean energy investments are now on ice since Trump took office, according to new data from Wellesley College’s Big Green Machine.
America’s EV factory building boom is beginning to falter.
Since President Donald Trump took office, at least 34 factories or mineral refineries — totaling more than $30 billion in investment — have been paused, delayed, or canceled, according to a new report from researchers at Wellesley College who track the country’s clean energy manufacturing base.
“When you look at the projects that are slowing down, it’s all up and down the supply chain,” Jay Turner, an environmental studies professor who leads the database, told me.
Electric vehicle manufacturing projects are now being delayed or canceled at six times the rate that they were during the same period last year, he said.
The database, called the Big Green Machine, has data on EV and mineral factory activity going back to 2010, and has been actively tracking investment in the EV supply chain since 2022.
The news is not entirely bleak for the EV buildout, however. Another 68 projects have progressed in the past six months, according to Turner’s data. Those projects represent $24 billion in investment and more than 33,000 jobs.
At the same time, more than two dozen new projects have been announced in the past six months, but they are of a much smaller scale, the report finds. Taken together, the projects in this new wave add up to only $3 billion in investment — one-tenth of the $30 billion in projects that have been paused, delayed, or cancelled.
The Big Green Machine
The new data likely does not capture recent setbacks for the EV industry. Earlier this month, President Trump signed Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, which will terminate all tax credits for buying or leasing an electric vehicle on September 30.
Turner told me that the slowdown was the predictable outcome of the Trump administration’s turn away from electric cars.
“In some ways, it’s exactly what we expected,” he said. “As concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law began last fall, we started to see projects slowing down. Since Trump was elected, those closures, cancellations, and delays have just ballooned.”
Particularly hard hit are projects located in distressed or fossil-fuel-dependent communities, as defined by the terms set out in the Inflation Reduction Act, he added. Facilities that depended on some kind of federal support or loan guarantee have also been especially likely to pause, he added.
The slowdowns have struck across the EV supply chain. Some battery factories have switched from producing lithium ion cells for vehicles to making large-scale batteries for the power grid. The new budget law, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, maintained tax incentives for installing grid-scale battery storage.
Mineral producers have also been affected. Li-Cycle paused work on mineral recycling plants in April, Turner said. A Canadian rare earth processing facility — one of the few such factories in North America — scaled back its ambitions this month. (“The data in our report is just the U.S., but when you add in Canada it’s more shocking how sharp the downturn has been,” Turner said.)
That follows other delays from last year. The Chicago-based company Anovion has continued to pause work on an $800 million facility in southwest Georgia that was slated to make synthetic graphite, which is essential for lithium ion battery anodes.
Last year, the chemicals company Albemarle delayed $1.3 billion in plans to build the country’s largest lithium refinery in South Carolina. “The economics just aren't there to build that plant,” Kent Masters, Albemarle’s CEO, told Reuters in May. China controls roughly three-quarters of the world’s lithium and synthetic graphite supply chains.
Despite its antagonism toward electric cars, the Trump administration has sought to prioritize some mineral projects. Earlier this month, the Pentagon announced a complex deal to invest in — and guarantee a buyer for the output of — a rare earths mine and processing facility on the California-Nevada border.
Whatever the cause of the slowdown, it isn’t limited to just electric cars. Total private manufacturing investment in the United States has leveled off and slightly fallen since October 2024.