You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
What Florida Republicans have against cultivated meat

In the Free State of Florida, Republicans have banned woke public investments, woke racial education, and woke books in school libraries. Now they’re trying to ban woke meat.
Legislation that would criminalize the sale of cultivated meat grown from animal cells is wending its way through the state House and Senate, even though cultivated meat is not currently for sale anywhere in Florida — or, for that matter, anywhere else. Governor Ron DeSantis, eager to start owning libs again after his fiasco of a presidential campaign, has said he’s on board with banning the new technology, even though the federal government has already signed off on meat grown in fermenters rather than feedlots as safe.
So what’s the beef?
The cattle industry has always had outsized clout in Florida politics — the term “cracker” originated with whip-wielding Florida cattlemen — and some Republicans hope to curry favor with the state’s ranchers by strangling potential competition in the cradle. But the crusade against cultivated meat is mostly just the latest skirmish in the DeSantis culture war against what he considers a progressive plot to make Americans feel guilty about the status quo.
In his only public comments about cultivated meat — sometimes described as “lab-grown meat,” although the ultimate goal is to grow it in breweries — DeSantis made it clear that his main objection to the nascent industry is that its leaders hope to limit animal agriculture’s damage to the climate and the environment. To the governor, growing meat outside an animal is just like taking “environment-social-governance” considerations into account in investment decisions or teaching “critical race theory” in the classroom, a left-wing assault on tradition.
“They really want to go after agriculture because they blame agriculture for global warming,” DeSantis said. “You need meat, OK? Like, we’re gonna have fake meat? That doesn’t work. There’s a whole ideological agenda that’s coming after a lot of our society.”
Setting aside the merits of the governor’s anti-woke crusade against “ESG,” “CRT,” and gay-themed books in public libraries, the cultivated meat and seafood entrepreneurs trying to harness capitalism and technology to disrupt a trillion-dollar industry notorious for government influence-peddling don’t see what’s left-wing about innovation or competition. They don’t want to be part of any culture war, and as the legislative ban has been moving through Tallahassee on party-line votes, they’re trying to remind Republicans that they’re supposed to be against the nanny state.
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson, for instance, a key supporter of the ban, actually boasts on his website that he’s “stood up to politicians who treat Floridians like children incapable of making their own choices.”
“How does banning our products promote consumer choice?” Blue Nalu CEO Lou Cooperhouse, whose San Diego startup is cultivating bluefin tuna toro, told me. “It’s un-American and un-Floridian to stifle innovation and attack free-market principles.”
It is true that cultivated meat has extraordinary potential to limit the impacts of animal agriculture, which now uses one quarter of the land on Earth and is by far the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss. But even if you don’t care about the climate or the environment — or the looming public health crisis created by the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, or the tens of billions of animals who get slaughtered every year — there’s a compelling business proposition behind cultivated meat: Animal meat is inefficient. Why waste feed, land, water, energy and other resources helping livestock stay warm, poop, burp methane, have babies and do other things that don’t produce meat?
That’s why a part-time futurist named Winston Churchill, not usually considered a wokester, predicted in a 1931 essay titled “50 Years Hence” that “we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing.” But it’s now 93 years hence, and while more than 150 startups around the world have begun growing chicken cutlets, burgers, pork meatballs, salmon nigiri and even woolly mammoth meat from cells, they’re not yet doing it inexpensively enough to compete with conventional meat and seafood.
Last year, the Bay Area startups Upside Foods and Good Meat served America’s first cultivated chicken to restaurant patrons in San Francisco and Washington, but only for a limited time to a very limited number of diners. (Some journalists have tried it, too, and I can report that both companies make chicken that tastes like chicken.) For now, you can’t buy cultivated meat anywhere on Earth, and while its costs have plunged more than 99% in a decade, many skeptics doubt that it will ever get cheap enough to make a dent in the 350 million tons of animal meat that the world consumes every year. In the past few months, Wired, Bloomberg, and The New York Times have all published quasi-obituaries for the industry.
Plant-based meat, hailed five years ago as the next big thing in food, is also struggling mightily. Global sales have stopped soaring and are actually declining, and industry darling Beyond Meat’s stock price is down more than 95% from its peak. Meat substitutes have faced a flurry of attacks — some from meat-industry water-carriers, some from natural-food ideologues, and some reflecting genuine discomfort with the idea of eating so much technology — as “ultra-processed foods” with long ingredient lists.
But the problems meat substitutes are designed to address are not going away. Cattle burps (and, to a lesser extent, farts) produce methane, while manure is a major source of nitrous oxide and water pollution, and the world is on track to deforest another two Indias worth of land by 2050 to satiate humanity’s meat tooth. DeSantis may think it’s silly to blame agriculture for global warming, but overall, it generates a fourth of global greenhouse gas emissions, most of them from livestock. It’s not yet as big a problem as fossil fuels, but it is a big problem. And since meat consumption is expected to rise at least 50% by 2050, the problem is getting worse.
Meat alternatives made from plants, fungi, or animal cells can use far less land and generate far fewer emissions than meat made from slaughtered animals, which is why supporters see them as the agricultural equivalent of solar, wind, and other clean-energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Cleaner meat should receive the kind of public support that governments have long provided to cleaner energy, they argue — which has started to happen in the European Union, China and even the United States, which provided $10 million for a cultivated meat research center at Tufts University early in the Biden Administration.
Obviously, it isn’t happening in Florida. Cultivated meat lobbyists have been passing around a clip from a Chinese newspaper gloating about the Sunshine State’s restrictions, saying they will help ensure Chinese domination of the new industry. Rini Greenfield, who runs an ag-tech venture fund called Rethink Food in Miami, told me the ban would send “a clear message to technology companies to take their operations elsewhere.” In fact, every venture that testified against the bill was based in California, the state DeSantis constantly cites as the epitome of woke.
But culture wars are bad for business, no matter where you’re headquartered. The industry doesn’t want to be making Bidenburgers any more than the electric vehicle industry wanted to manufacture Obamamobiles. Today, they’re not selling to anyone, but someday, they want to sell to everyone.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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: Typhoon Champi swept past Taiwan, leaving one dead and 500 injured as the weakened storm slams into South Korea and Japan • Hurricane Vance is churning off Mexico, bombarding the coast with waves up to 13 feet tall • Tropical Storm In-Fa could strengthen into a powerful storm as it heads toward the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has secured an unprecedented fourth term, winning 51% of votes in Sunday’s run-off election with far-right challenger Flávio Bolsonaro. The photogenic son of the imprisoned former president Lula defeated in 2022, Bolsonaro, 45, had promised to cut taxes, slash government spending on things like environmental enforcement, and bring South America’s largest economy in closer alignment with President Donald Trump. His message, which resonated in the Amazon’s frontier boomtowns, secured Bolsonaro more votes in the first round of the election on October 4. Lula’s win makes history twice over. He’s the first since democracy returned to Brazil in 1988 to pull ahead and defeat the first-round winner in the runoff. He’s also the first president elected to four terms, with his first two served between 2003 and 2011. On energy, the differences between the candidates are primarily over the role of government in the market, with the conservative Bolsonaro advocating more privatization and Lula seeking to strengthen the role of state-backed enterprises in generating income for the government and carrying out industrial policy.
On actual energy technologies, however, the discrepancy is relatively small, at least compared to the partisan divides in U.S. politics. Brazil’s grid is overwhelmingly clean, powered primarily by hydroelectricity. And Lula, an octogenarian leftist, has ramped up production of oil and gas through Brazil’s state-backed Petrobras. Lula’s signature since he first won the presidency in 2002 has been growing the economy and shrinking poverty while reducing deforestation of the Amazon. Bolsonaro, by contrast, had promised to strip away protections for the world’s largest tropical rainforest. The Amazon is currently seeing a surge of fires as ranchers look to clear woodlands to make way for more cattle pastures. Folha de S.Paulo, Brazil’s newspaper of record, wrote that Trump would now be Lula’s chief foreign challenge.

Brazil’s election wasn’t the only political earthquake on Sunday. Serbian voters booted out former President Aleksandar Vučić, a pro-Russian figure widely described as a “strongman” in the Western press, in a student-led movement that the Associated Press said heralded a “seismic shift” in the Balkan country’s politics. The victorious Student List party had formed adjacent to protests against what would have been Europe’s largest lithium mine, Rio Tinto’s so-called Jadar. Amid increasingly fierce protests, the Anglo-Australian mining giant mothballed the project last year. Vučić had championed the mine as a way to improve his country’s ties to the West as European battery makers look for sources of the metal outside of China. His defeat signals little hope of the project’s return. Serbia’s other energy megaproject, its planned first nuclear power station, now faces new uncertainty. The Student List has not, from what I can tell, made any statements for or against atomic energy. But the previous government had been in talks with Russia’s Rosatom and the Chinese government to build its first reactors. That decision on whether and with whom to move forward on the plant will now fall to the new government.
Helium may seem like a pretty casual commodity, the sort of thing you can buy a tank of in Costco to fill party balloons. But the gas, which has the lowest boiling point of any element, has a wide range of industrial applications. It’s used to make semiconductors, as a tool to detect leaks in natural gas pipelines, and as a coolant in a next-generation class of high temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors. Now the Department of Energy has anointed helium with a special strategic status. On Friday, the agency designated helium as the latest critical material, a key step toward directing more federal funding toward domestic production of the gas. The U.S. is already among the top three suppliers of helium in the world. But global supplies took a hit this year when Iran closed off the Strait of Hormuz, preventing Qatar’s vast helium exports from reaching the market. “Helium is essential to producing the semiconductors and advanced technologies that power our economy,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement. “By designating helium as a critical material, we are taking another step toward securing our supply chains, creating American jobs, and ensuring the United States leads the world in energy and technological innovation.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Russian energy giant Novatek is “secretly controlling” Polar Train LNG, the Trump-linked company developing a liquified natural gas export terminal on Alaska’s North Slope, the Financial Times reported. The venture — launched in March by Gentry Beach, an investor with ties to the Trump family, to repurpose work the Russians had done on a facility in Alaska — had “featured in high-level negotiations between Washington and Moscow over potential business deals that could help secure an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine,” the newspaper reported. Polar has been awaiting permission from the Trump administration to circumvent U.S. sanctions to negotiate with Russia. Now Polar LNG’s American chief executive, Joel Riddle, told the FT “that he discovered Novatek was already financing the venture and directing operations before the necessary approvals were obtained.” He resigned from his post last month, along with most of the executive leadership team. “I resigned as chief executive of Polar LNG because I felt uncomfortable that the Russian company Novatek was financing and ultimately controlling the strategic direction of the company,” Riddle said. “Building an LNG facility in Alaska is a very strategic project for the U.S. and as a patriot I feel this needs to be developed using US technology and funded by U.S. investors, not a Russian company.”
Unlike other kinds of intermittent renewable power sources, tidal energy promises almost guaranteed predictability. The problem, however, is that it’s geographically limited. A lot of the most advanced projects attempting to make the technology work are in Canada or Europe. Yet renewable technologies have, in recent decades, found commercial viability after sorting out the details of their hardware in Asia. That’s what makes tidal energy developer Minesto’s project in Indonesia so interesting. It’s in one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies, with an archipelagic geography that offers a lot of potential for tidal. Last week, the trade magazine International Water Power & Dam Construction reported that the company had been chosen to participate in the Sweden-Indonesia Sustainability Partnership, a Swedish government-backed program backing clean energy projects in Indonesia. “Indonesia has significant untapped potential in ocean and hydropower resources, which can play an important role in diversifying the country’s renewable energy mix,” said Johan Lennefalk, the acting country manager for Indonesia at Business Sweden, the government agency that promotes Swedish companies overseas. “Minesto’s technology offers a particularly promising solution by harnessing tidal currents that have previously been difficult to utilise, providing predictable renewable electricity that complements other hydropower and ocean energy solutions.”
Remember when solar panels were exclusively large, rooftop rigs? The commodification of the solar panel in recent years has begun making photovoltaics almost ubiquitous, a reality set to expand as more countries legalize plug-in solar that can work on a balcony like a satellite dish. Chinese panels are now so cheap that Europeans have started using them to build garden fences. Now, in Nigeria, solar panels are the must-have wedding gift du jour. Bloomberg reports that solar panels, batteries, and inverters “are turning up on wedding registries, alongside more traditional gifts such as bed linen and microwaves.”
Talking with Leah Qusba, the CEO of GoodPower.
This week’s conversation is with Leah Qusba, CEO of GoodPower, which recently released a survey experiment you need to read. Conducted with Data for Progress, the project, published Monday, takes a unique approach to asking people why they opposed data centers for artificial intelligence and whether constructing renewable energy instead of gas power moves the needle at all in their support for AI infrastructure near them. Instead of just asking polling questions, they posed various hypothetical project designs to people — and the results were eye-popping. Turning to solar instead of gas? Might not be a panacea for gaining approval at the local level. Protecting electricity rates from going sky-high? Now that’s a way to get buy-in.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Before we jump into the survey, is the data center boom changing the trajectory for renewable energy development in the U.S.?
If you look back over the last decade and a half, the largest global procurer of decarbonized electricity has been the Big Tech industry. I think we’re still seeing the trendlines of that today. The speed and scale of data center development is driving a lot of incremental clean energy growth.
I think we’re really at a crossroads right now because of the speed to meet rising demand and because, as people are scrambling to find electrons, commitments previously around purchasing and procuring decarbonized electricity have slid a little bit. We’ve seen proposals over the last six months or so have roughly doubled for combined cycle gas. We’re at this crossroads: Are we going to leverage this moment to drive incremental clean and protect ratepayers in the process? That’s the only way we’re going to be able to build this infrastructure.
Or are we going to go another path where we’re locking in decades of combined cycle gas?
I think voters across the political spectrum think this is a very important issue, and people are thinking about this as we move closer to November.
Walk my readers through the survey experiment you ran with Data for Progress.
The impetus was that we wanted to demonstrate to any stakeholder in the world — a data center developer, a household concerned with their rising electricity bills, policymakers trying to meet this new energy moment — what Americans want, which is guarantees from data centers that their electric bills won’t increase. They want strong electricity grid upgrades. They want home energy upgrades like rooftop solar, heat pumps, storage systems, or battery walls.
We wanted to make the case. We’ve seen surveys recently that if you say you’ll power them with renewable energy, favorability will increase. We wanted to go a step further and set up an experiment to see the difference between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do. Often there’s a difference when they’re faced with a real-life situation. Even when renewable energy support is high — even Republicans favor large-scale solar — then why do we have NIMBYism? Why do we have public opposition? Why are projects being phased out or canceled entirely because of protests? That’s because of a gap between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do.
The first part of the experiment was a typical poll asking people how they felt and measuring what they said they would do. What people indicated was similar to other polls circulated widely and picked up by the press, that when you say a data center is powered by solar, people say they’ll be more favorable. But then we put them in a setting where we told them a data center in their community was going to be powered by either gas or renewables, and we had other treatment conditions that would be manipulated. We told them, for example, that there would be a rate-binding guarantee, that 100% of their costs would be paid for by the data center and their electricity rates would not go up. We also gave them conditions where they’d get residential solutions.
When we compared what people said they would do with what they actually would do, what we found was pretty definitive. Really, Americans indicated a strong preference that data center developers guarantee stable electricity rates or provide them with meaningful residential or community benefits. Those are really the only two things in a real-life situation that moved support for data centers.
What we didn’t see, actually, is that renewable energy powering the data centers alone was enough. It didn’t have enough statistical significance to improve data centers’ support on its own.
Now, connecting the solar to stable electricity rates or ratepayer protections, that’s helpful. Could we do that? Absolutely, and that’s a strong recommendation to think about centering communities because they want affordability. But the technology alone — solar versus gas — had a null effect.
It’s great to talk about solar, especially because there’s high favorability for solar. Connecting affordability to clean energy is a great strategy, and we hope tech companies take this to heart! The only way we’re going to build social permission for these technologies is to do it in a community-centric way that guarantees rates won’t increase and guarantees community benefits. We want to make sure people ask for all this in negotiations and that policymakers think about all this, especially federally as we think about permitting reform.
What’s the relationship to permitting reform?
I think it’s important that it preserves maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs. Thinking about that, as well as bringing-your-own-clean-energy, or BYONCE, is in great parallel with the findings. If we can deliver that through federal legislation, it’s something that would be supported by the data we gathered through this experiment.
Why was there no statistically significant difference between solar and gas?
I don’t think it’s a question of why people were agnostic about technology. I think it all just boils down to pocketbook-kitchen-table issues. We live in a cost of living crisis where upwards of 65% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. The cost of everything from gas prices at the pump to groceries … When we look at the data and inflation and what it takes to build a home, its very clear the message the American electorate is sending is that affordability is the queen issue right now.
Until we meet demand in a community centered way and a ratepayer centered way, with maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs for these companies, we’re going to see incredible polarization across America where these data centers are being built.
What’s next, from a research perspective?
I think there were a few surprising things we found in the data we want to dig into.
For example, there’s been talk of spillover opposition — that by associating solar with data centers, we might pollute public opinion around solar. We actually asked questions in the survey experiment about this and so far, solar hasn’t been tarnished by data centers. It showed zero spillover. It does not drag down favorability for solar.
We also found that Americans trust renewable energy developers second only to consumer watchdogs, which we found to be fascinating. By contrast, they trust data center developers the least. In other words, choose to pay for a decarbonized electron if you can because associating yourself with clean, fast-to-power electrons has a true positive association there. It’s in the data.
One last one: Artificial intelligence and public opinion about AI was the top driver of opposition to data centers. It was feelings about AI as a technology superseding personal ideology and backgrounds, even if they cared about climate change. Skepticism about AI and data centers isn’t a partisan issue. Anti-AI sentiment sits evenly across Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Umatilla County, Oregon – A small town in Oregon this week declared a state of emergency over fears that a statewide pause on data center permits will harm its economy.
2. Saratoga County, New York – Is Trump’s country music superstar-turned-power-project combatant John Rich preparing to debut a new song about solar farms, or something more?
3. Eau Claire County, Wisconsin – There’s now a must-watch race to see who is more anti-transmission in the race for Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional seat.
4. Adams County, Colorado – Here’s the chaser you needed: the largest solar farm approved in the Rocky Mountains.