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:
Who wants to go to the beach when the water feels like a hot tub?

There was room at the inn — just no way to get there.
A week before my trip to Vermont this month for a friend’s wedding, torrents flooded the Green Mountain State to a degree unseen since Hurricane Irene in 2011. As Vermonters endured and began to recover from the latest deluge, I refreshed the map of New England road closures, wondering when the only route to our hotel would open and when I might need to cut bait and secure alternative lodging.
The waters receded; the roadways opened. My family flew into Boston — this despite more intense storms causing airspace backups that led our flight to make an unexpected stop in Cincinnati (and led to many people sleeping on cots at baggage claim in Beantown). And we managed to navigate waterlogged New England in a rented Toyota Corolla, despite a few misgivings that I should’ve upgraded to an SUV before heading into the breach.
The trip turned into one of those summer vacations everyone has gone through, the one that nearly falls apart at multiple turns. Still, this experience was not an aberration or an accumulation of near misses, but a glimpse of summer vacations to come, when air or car travel is uncertain and the weather is so extreme that visitors can visit the Acropolis of Athens only in the morning and a swim at the beach feels like a dip in a hot tub.
Summer’s apologists have solidified its status as the season for travel and leisure. With kids out of school and no snow to be found, it has become a cultural imperative to take a road trip while blasting the “song of the summer” or lay out on the sand with one of the tomes vying to be this year’s top beach read. In a climate changed world, though, summer is swiftly being rebranded as a time of compounding calamity. The wildfire smoke that smothered the East Coast and Midwest this season will strike the West as its dry season rolls on. The climate in wetter places is trending toward more powerful storms with heavier rainfall totals. Summer in this century is fire and flood.
These two trend lines do not mix. Travel plans, especially with a family in tow, require weeks or months of preparation — only to be thrown into disarray by a summertime disaster that arrives in moments. Even the heightened risk of disaster dissuades the would-be wanderer. My family on multiple occasions delayed a summer road trip to far northern California and Oregon because so many huge wildfires filled the map of the region each year. When we reached Lassen Volcanic National Park last summer, a section near the entrance was a charred firescape.
It’s more than formerly once-in-a-generation events that have made summer vacation a nightmare. The ocean is boiling, and as the world suffers through heat wave after heat wave — adding up to the hottest year on record — it is, quite simply, unpleasant to be outside. As The Atlantic reports, it’s not clear exactly how hot is too hot for kids to enjoy the typical lineup of outdoor, summer camp activities, but the world is about to find out.
Summer travel will only get harder: Sizzling temperatures in the Southwest have led to a rash of broken-down cars that couldn’t stand the heat. Electric vehicles may do better, but their electricity demand as more people drive EVs could strain an electric grid already burdened by so many people running air conditioners to survive. It’s not clear what could replace carbon-spewing jet fuel to power the planes that fly us to our vanishing serenity. Given the increased risk of climate events with the potential to disrupt flights or highways, travelers will need a Plan B or C for how to spend summer vacation.
Many summer travel destinations, the very places we go to either escape the heat or bask in it, are vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. Islands, beaches, and waterfront districts will be the first affected by rising seas and storm surges, for example. Climate havens, the locales thought to be most insulated from the effects of climate change, tend to be locations like Western Pennsylvania and Vermont — not the first places that bring to mind frozen cocktails with little umbrellas in them. And as this year has shown, those places may not be so insulated after all.
It’s enough to ask: Should we give up on the summer vacation fantasy? The question is not to be considered lightly. Even ignoring the logistical nightmare of, say, moving the off-season for schools from summer to spring or autumn (or getting rid of it entirely), there is a rhythm to the calendar that drives the culture. We have our periods of supposed productivity in spring and fall balanced by the holiday season in winter and vacation season in summer. Although our lives don’t always reflect this strict definition, the idea of the seasons broadly defines the passage of the American year. June is for weddings, Halloween is for hayrides, and Christmas is for sledding and Hallmark movies about falling in love during a snowstorm — even if today’s world bears increasingly little resemblance to the climate of yesteryear that gave rise to those traditions.
Perhaps we should collectively move vacation season to fall and spring, and stay inside our temperature-controlled offices and schools during the blazing afternoons of July and August. But just as there is nowhere on Earth to hide from climate change, there is nowhere on the calendar, either. Winter travel activities are threatened by climate change, too. Our longer, hotter summers bleed over into the months that used to be reliably temperate.
Vacation travel is like the rest of life, then. We’re going to have to rethink our expectations rather than trying to force the rhythms of the past onto a changed planet.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation.What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.