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.
Current conditions: Days after atmospheric rivers deluged the Pacific Northwest, similar precipitation is headed for Northern California, albeit with less than an inch of rain expected in the foothills of the Bay Area • Australia is facing a heatwave, temperatures hovering around 90 degrees Fahrenheit this week • Heavy rains threaten flash floods in Ghana, Togo, Benin, and southern Nigeria.
Three Senate Democrats considered top progressives announced Tuesday a probe into whether and how data centers are driving up residential electricity bills. In letters sent Monday to Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and three other companies, the lawmakers accused the server farms powering artificial intelligence software of “forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to upgrade the power grid,” expenses then passed on to Americans “through the rates they charge all users of electricity,” The New York Times wrote. The senators — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — warned that ratepayers will be left holding the bag when the AI bubble bursts, a possibility Friday’s stock plunge (which Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin covered) has made investors all too aware of.
Opposing data centers is emerging as a touchstone political test on the left. On Tuesday afternoon, Senator Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist independent from Vermont, posted a video on his X account in which he argued that “a moratorium” on building new data centers nationwide “will give democracy a chance to catch up, and ensure that the benefits of technology work for all of us, not just the 1%.” Polling suggests the political issue has populist appeal. Just 44% of Americans said they would support a data center built nearby in a September survey from Heatmap Pro.
The House of Representatives voted 215-209 Tuesday to advance the bipartisan permitting reform bill known as the SPEED Act, despite mounting opposition from Republicans to provisions meant to protect already-licensed projects from the type of legal assault the Trump administration has unleashed on offshore wind. Republican critics of the bill, including Maryland Congressman Andy Harris and New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew, vowed to vote against any legislation that included measures that might defend offshore turbine developers from Trump’s “total war on wind.”
Yet, “while the bill is alive for now, the outcome casts a pall over the prospects for any permitting deal this Congress,” as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote last night, because “there is little shot of a grand deal on NEPA reform without exactly the sort of executive power restrictions Republican objectors feared.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The nationwide transformer shortage is getting worse as extreme weather destroys the existing grid and data centers demand the buildout of power infrastructure at a rate not seen in decades. A new Wall Street Journal feature on the manufacturers racing to churn out the big transformers featured a fresh statistic from the consultancy Wood Mackenzie that illustrates just how bad the problem has become. Orders for large transformers exceeded supply by about 14,000 units so far this year. The Biden administration made the transformer crisis worse by proposing — then revoking — a regulation to increase the energy efficiency of the equipment at the cost of requiring manufacturers to decide between investing in compliant assembly lines by 2027 or additional output to match today’s demand. The Trump administration has made the problem worse still by imposing strict trade tariffs on the very material transformers need most, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote.

In the race to build the nation’s first small modular reactor, there are startups that developed designs based on less-powerful models of existing light water reactors and startups that are pursuing next-generation technologies shrunken down to a tiny fraction of a normal atomic power plant’s size. Washington, D.C.-based Last Energy is doing both. The company, founded by the entrepreneur and nuclear podcaster Bret Kugelmass, started out by proposing to build 20-megawatt light water reactors in Europe, before embarking on a U.S. project after the Trump administration vowed to ease the way for new nuclear reactors. On Tuesday, in a sign of investors’ confidence in the new trans-Atlantic direction, Last Energy announced a $100 million fundraising round. “For the first half a decade that I was telling people I was doing nuclear, I had to convince them, ‘Hey, here’s why nuclear is important,’” Kugelmass told TechCrunch. “Now everyone just comes to us saying, ‘Oh yeah, of course nuclear is a key part of the solution.’ I’m like, okay, great, I’m glad everyone’s caught up now.” The company is among the 10 startups in the Department of Energy’s reactor pilot program, meant to speed up deployments of new technologies by bringing at least three to the atom-splitting phase of development by next July 4.
The fundraising news came as the Trump administration took yet another stake in a private minerals company. On Tuesday, the military announced a deal to take a 40% share of the nearly $8 billion mineral processing plant the South Korean industrial company Korea Zinc promised to build in Tennessee.
BlackRock’s retreat from sustainable investing has cost the world’s largest asset manager the business of at least two European pension funds. On Tuesday, the PME group, which manages more than $69 billion in retirement savings for Dutch workers in the metal and technologies sectors, said it had “decided to end our relationship with BlackRock,” the Financial Times reported. The move comes after the Dutch healthcare workers pension group PFZW withdrew about more than $16 billion from the financial giant, though its money-market funds are still under BlackRock’s management. It’s not just BlackRock facing backlash for its softening position on emissions. In February, the United Kingdom-based People’s Pension yanked nearly $38 billion from State Street, saying it was prioritizing “sustainability, active stewardship, and long-term value creation.”
For penguins, bad weather is good news. In a new study in Nature Geoscience, researchers from the University of Gothenburg showed that storms in the Southern Ocean that encircles Antarctica regulate the Earth’s climate by moving heat, carbon, and nutrients out in the world’s oceans. The effect amounts to what scientists called “a critical climate service” marked by “absorbing 75% of the excess heat generated by humans globally.”
Rob and Jesse catch up with Mark Fitzgerald, CEO of the closed-loop geothermal startup Eavor.
Over the past decade, the oil and gas industry has sharpened its drilling skills, extracting fossil fuels at greater depths — and with more precision — than ever before. What if there was a way to tap those advances to generate zero-carbon energy?
The Canadian company Eavor (pronounced “ever”) says it can do so. Its closed-loop geothermal system is already producing heat at competitive prices in Europe, and it says it will soon be able to drill deep enough to fuel the electricity system, too. It just opened a first-of-its-kind demonstration facility in Germany, which is successfully heating and powering the small hamlet of Geretsreid, Bavaria.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse chat with Mark Fitzgerald, the president and CEO of Eavor, about how its new technology works, how it differs from other forms of advanced geothermal, and why Europe is a good test bed for heat-generating projects. We also chat about what Mark, who previously ran Petronas Canada, learned in his 35 years in the oil industry.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, 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:
Jesse Jenkins: So at the surface, this is a very limited footprint, right? It’s a fairly small power plant, and then underground, you’ve got this kilometer-scale heat exchanger effectively that you’ve built without fracturing, but with a lot of drilling involved, right? So the key, I think, for making that work is to continually advance the economics of drilling.
What is Eavor’s strategy there for bringing down the cost of drilling these closed loops so that they become cost competitive despite the large amount of total miles drilled that you have to — or kilometers drilled that you have to put down?
Mark Fitzgerald: That’s a great point, Jesse, and I would reinforce that drilling technology, or drilling efficiency, has been something that’s been talked about and understood across the globe for a hundred-plus years. So we are not creating a new method of drilling. We are not looking for something that hasn’t been already done across any of the unconventional players in North America, any of the big drilling or service companies or operators around the globe.
What we are doing is changing the trajectory, and changing the application of that drilling methodology to create the underground radiator, as you would talk about. My background — I spent 36 years in oil and gas, a great proportion of that in the unconventional space before I had this amazing opportunity to join Eavor. And so I understand how, through sound engineering, sound geoscience, proper modeling, that cost compression will occur. One of the best examples that I point to is, we completed six laterals — so six of these horizontal wells, or these forks, at a time, connected them in Geretsreid, our first facility in Germany. The fourth and fifth laterals were done at 50% of the cost of the first two. And so already, in moving from lateral one to lateral six, we’ve seen a reduction of 50% in the cost structure.
The second is that in terms of pace of drilling, the faster you drill the lower costs you incur. The pace of drilling for us on those fifth and six laterals was three times what it was on lateral one and two.
Mentioned:
Previously on Shift Key: Why Geothermal Is So Hot Right Now
Jesse’s upshift; Rob’s downshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
The tension between the two GOP energy philosophies — one admitting renewables, the other firmly rejecting — could tank a permitting reform deal.
The fate of a House GOP permitting deal stands on a knife’s edge.
During a dramatic vote on the House floor Tuesday, far-right Republicans and opponents of the offshore wind industry joined with Democrats in a nearly-successful attempt to defeat a procedural vote on the SPEED Act, a bill to streamline implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Speaking with reporters off the House floor, GOP lawmakers said that the bill — which has the backing of both the oil and gas sector and some large trade groups that represent renewables companies — faced opposition from a handful of Republicans over language that would block the federal government from rescinding previously-issued permits for energy projects. The tactic is one Trump has used repeatedly to stymie offshore wind projects. Republican hardliners feared that a future version of the deal would take that language further, restricting the president’s power to stall solar and wind permit applications through extralegal bureaucratic delays.
The vote to consider SPEED ultimately passed with a margin of 215 to 209 votes, with two Republicans — Representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Christopher Smith — voting no. Though the bill is alive for now, the outcome casts a pall over the prospects for any permitting deal this Congress because, as Heatmap’s reporting has made clear, there is little shot of a grand deal on NEPA reform without exactly the sort of executive power restrictions Republican objectors feared.
That the bill nearly came up short also illustrates a shift in the GOP’s thinking on energy policy that has gone largely unnoticed. Vestiges of the party remain committed to the philosophy of “all of the above,” but the new generation of lawmakers is more likely to be anti-renewables at all costs. Combined with today’s hyper-partisan environment and narrow majorities in both chambers, that tension makes legislating on energy almost impossible.
Republicans used to approach energy policy in a laissez faire, let-a-thousand-flowers bloom fashion. This fuel-type agnosticism characterized Republicans’ approach to energy policy under the first Trump administration, as well as during the Biden era. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy repeated the “all of the above” mantra to nudge his party closer to anything resembling a climate policy, and subscribed to the idea that any permitting deal would have to benefit all types of energy projects.
The SPEED Act closely resembles a McCarthy-era approach to energy policy: just make everything go faster.
It is true that the bill would bind the hands of the executive in some ways, requiring them to get consent from the project developer in order to voluntarily vacate a previously-issued NEPA approval. If someone sued the government because they believed a NEPA approval was invalid and got a federal court to agree, the judge overseeing the case would be barred from immediately vacating the approval or issuing an injunction on construction. This is a big reason why the oil and gas industry supports the bill, as it’s a way to shield the sector from environmentalists filing lawsuits against fossil-based extraction and fuel transportation projects (e.g. pipelines).
But there’s a small irony in the SPEED Act spinning out over offshore wind concerns, which is that if it were enacted today, not even its supporters think it would actually stop the administration from messing with wind projects. As pro-fossil pundit Alex Epstein noted on X, the bill would only limit the president’s authority to revoke approvals under NEPA. It would do nothing to erode presidential power under any other statute, including another one of the administration’s favorite tools against offshore wind, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
I spoke with two separate energy industry attorneys who confirmed this interpretation. “It would be welcome for whatever the next administration would look like,” Peter Whitfield, a partner at Sidley Austin who works on energy projects, told me of the SPEED Act. “It might not be helpful now.” The bill’s clean energy backers are looking at the legislation as a “long range” play, he said: “They’re not looking at year one, two, three — they’re looking at years eight and after. I think that’s why there is so much enthusiasm in the renewable energy space for reform.”
Another attorney, who requested anonymity because they did not have permission from their firm, confirmed that the bill would stop the Trump administration from exploiting NEPA in the future, but said that nothing in the legislation requires agencies to move forward on energy projects.
It’s that eight-years-from-now future that seems to have the anti-renewables conservative wing in Congress worried. The House is expected to vote on the SPEED Act as soon as tomorrow, but lawmakers will first consider amendments offered by the Republicans who nearly killed the bill, including one that would explicitly bar offshore wind projects from benefiting under any of its NEPA changes.
If those amendments fail, the odds of final House passage are uncertain, although some Democrats who voted against the procedural motion may wind up voting for the final bill. If they succeed and the bill moves to the Senate, Democrats aim to add new ideas on transmission and the renewables permitting freeze that may upset frazzled Republicans even more.
“We would expect that senators wouldn’t endorse a House product,” Frank Macchiarola, chief advocacy officer for American Clean Power, told me in an interview last week. Macchiarola said the language in the House bill “goes a long way towards addressing the problem” of Trump’s war on renewables permits, but that it is “not a perfect product,” though he declined to speak on the record about what would get it closer to ideal. If I had to guess, I’d say that senators will try to provide new avenues for companies to compel an end to the review process, whether through legal challenges or other means of protest.
In other words, grab your popcorn — more drama is coming.