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:
“Temperature blankets” are the new hot crafting craze.

Trina Messer knew the weather in Dallas-Forth Worth had been unusually warm this year, but she hadn’t anticipated needing her clay-colored yarn in February. “Today we are expecting a high in the 90s!!!,” she marveled in a Facebook update last week, adding regretfully, “I was hoping for more blues, but it is what it is.”
Messer, a retired educator of 30 years, started crocheting in 2022, the natural evolution of a knitting habit she’d picked up while bored during the pandemic. So far, she has made several scarves and hats, a big cardigan “almost like a coat,” and even a couple of throw blankets. Then, in January, she began work on her biggest project yet: a temperature blanket.
Temperature blankets aren’t always blankets — they can be scarves, shawls, and even crocheted snakes. The basic premise, though, is the same: Over the course of a year, knitters, crocheters, and embroiderers add a new row, stitch, or square to their project every day, with the color of yarn corresponding to the temperature of the location where they live. In recent years, this community has grown massive, in essence creating a de facto visual record of climate change for thousands of locations around the world. “From December 1 until today, I’ve had over 26,000 people join,” Sarah Moerdyk, the creator and moderator of Facebook’s largest temperature blanket group, told me in February. For most of its existence, beginning in 2017, the group wasn’t “super active,” hovering around a few hundred members. “In a matter of three months, it’s really blown up.”
Messer chose to break her earth-toned palette into 10-degree intervals, ranging from a white yarn that represents temperatures below 19 degrees Fahrenheit to “chili red” for days over 110. She even has a special yarn, “silver sparkle,” to log days with snowfall. Thankfully, she’d already purchased the clay-colored yarn she’d designated for temperatures between 90 and 99 degrees, even though she hadn’t expected to need it until late March or April.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the contiguous United States just concluded its warmest meteorological winter in recorded history. Across the country, temperatures were 5.4 degrees above average; in some states, like Wisconsin, it was nearly 10 degrees above what it should have been for the period between December and February. “This is not normal,” Messer told me a couple weeks ago, when her phone showed it was 91 degrees near Dallas. “Don’t think it’s like this all the time.”
Despite temperature blankets’ resemblance to climatologist Ed Hawkins’ famous warming stripes, the concept predates his 2018 graphics. Perhaps more surprisingly, it wasn’t initially conceived as a commentary on climate change. As far as I — and others — have been able to gather, Kristen Cooper, a craftsperson and beekeeper living in northern British Columbia, was the first to come up with the concept that evolved into the modern temperature blanket challenge when she described a similar scarf pattern in a 2013 blog post. “You record the day’s highest temperature by knitting one row in the color designated for each temperature,” she wrote. By the end of the year, “you will have a visual, colorful graph of the temperatures of your area.”
Cooper told me she, in turn, had been inspired by knitter and author Lea Redmond’s “sky scarf,” a project from 2008 (and later, a book) that involved knitting a row a day in a color that “best captures the essence of the sky out your window.” Redmond was slightly skeptical of the idea that she could be the temperature blanket’s progenitor. Her project tried to capture “the embodied experience of looking at this beauty of the sky every day,” she told me. Temperature projects, by contrast, rely on numbers that people retrieve from a thermometer in their kitchen — or, “I’m guessing, a lot of people just check the internet.”

Internet data doesn’t have the immediacy of events unfolding in real-time, outside your window. But representing temperature data at all requires a level of emotional remove that Redmond, personally, was a little wary of: For example, when wildfires turned day to night in California in 2020, “temperature-wise, that would not have shown up in a temperature scarf, but in a sky scarf, that stripe would have looked like shit.”
Cooper, for her part, never finished the first temperature scarf because she realized that if she missed a day, she couldn’t accurately make it up — her rural town didn’t have its own weather station — which would defeat the whole point of the project. But while she eventually moved on, swept up by life with a new baby, the knitting world took the concept and ran with it. “I hadn’t really been following along, but every now and then, a completely random post by strangers on Facebook or Instagram will pop up showing a temperature blanket,” Cooper told me. “And I’m always so amazed at how far the concept has traveled.”
Only recently have artists started using conceptual knitting and crocheting projects as explicit commentaries on climate change. In 2017, after the inauguration of President Trump, yarn shop owner Emily McNeil and data scientist Asy Connelly launched the Tempestry Project — which uses standardized colors and ranges to create historic temperature records — half as a joke and half out of real anxiety over the possibility of climate information disappearing from government websites. “We weren’t really thinking about temperature blankets,” McNeil told me. “I guess I knew that they existed, but it wasn’t really on my radar when we started it.”

Admittedly, sifting through all that climate data can take an emotional toll during the hours or days it takes to complete a tapestry. In addition to tapestries representing individual years, which rely on historical data rather than real-time observations, the Tempestry Project also facilitates multi-year “New Normal” tapestries that are directly inspired by Hawkins’ warming stripes. “The first one that I knit had me in tears as the colder colors just fade out, and you are never going to get those again,” McNeil said. (When I asked how they deal with the feelings brought up by the project, McNeil and Connelly told me dryly, “A lot of wine.”)
Temperature blanket knitters and crocheters can similarly feel alarmed by what’s unfolding in their hands. Moerdyk told me the warm weather in the northern hemisphere has been a big topic in the Facebook group, with some people having to quick-order summer colors or make special trips to the store to accommodate the winter heat in their projects. Perversely, the weirdness becomes kind of thrilling. “It’s fun to hear people say, ‘My colors are going nuts right now,’” Moerdyk said. Especially this early in the year, “to put all of a sudden this really warm temperature color in — it’s memorable. You’ll look back and say, ‘Oh my gosh, remember that time in February we had a 70-degree day? That was crazy.’”
The result is that temperature blankets become an accessible way of discussing climate change, without any of the political baggage. Moerdyk originally started the Facebook group for her friends but has since recorded participants from 1,114 different locations, including every state and over a dozen countries. She said the community has remained surprisingly civil despite all that diversity — some of it surely ideological. But temperature blankets are “not really a controversial topic,” Moerdyk said. “No matter what you believe in, temperature changes.”

For the thousands of hobbyists who’ve taken on temperature blanket projects, the craft becomes a way to witness the immediate changes in their environment that aren’t necessarily wholly negative. “If you’re looking at temperature blankets as a climate marker, that can get heavy,” Heather Walpole, the owner of Ewe Ewe Yarns, which sells temperature blanket starter bundles, told me. “But we’re still living our lives and we have a desire to create.”
Redmond, the sky scarf creator, finds this kind of creative intentionality to be the key. “It’s not like I invented stripes having meaning,” she joked. “But I do think most stripes on most garments in most stores in the United States today are meaningless. That just seems like such a missed opportunity.” It’s not that having a throw blanket or a scarf with weather-coordinated stripes will change the world. But displaying or wearing a beautiful object inspires others to ask questions: Where did you get that? Did you make it yourself? “They’re story sparks,” Redmond said. “They’re excuses to tell your story.”
This already weirdly warm year is still in its relatively chilly opening chapters, but the savviest knitters are already hurrying to stock up on yarns for June and July. As Messer, the Texas-based knitter, told me, “If this summer is anything like last summer,” then her blanket will have “a whole lot of burnt orange and red.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Emails raise questions about who knew what and when leading up to the administration’s agreement with TotalEnergies.
The Trump administration justified its nearly $1 billion settlement agreement with TotalEnergies to effectively buy back the French company’s U.S. offshore wind leases by citing national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense. Emails obtained by House Democrats and viewed by Heatmap, however, seem to conflict with that story.
California Representative Jared Huffman introduced the documents into the congressional record on Wednesday during a hearing held by the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“The national security justification appears to be totally fabricated, and fabricated after the fact,” Huffman said during the hearing. “DOI committed to paying Total nearly a billion dollars before it had concocted its justification of a national security issue.”
The email exchange Huffman cited took place in mid-November among officials at the Department of the Interior. On November 13, 2025, Christopher Danley, the deputy solicitor for energy and mineral resources, emailed colleagues in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the secretary’s office an attachment with the name “DRAFT_Memorandum_of_Understanding.docx.”
According to Huffman’s office, the file was a document entitled “Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Interior and TotalEnergies Renewables USA, LLC on Offshore Wind Lease OCS-A 0545,” which refers to the company’s Carolina Long Bay lease. (The office said it could not share the document itself due to confidentiality issues.)
While the emails do not discuss the document further, the November date is notable. It suggests that the Interior Department had been negotiating a deal with Total before BOEM officials were briefed on the DOD’s classified national security concerns about offshore wind development.
Two Interior officials, Matthew Giacona, the acting director of BOEM, and Jacob Tyner, the deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, have testified in federal court that they reviewed a classified offshore wind assessment produced by the Department of Defense on November 26, 2025, and then were briefed on it again by department officials in early December. They submitted this testimony as part of a separate court case over a stop work order the agency issued to the Coastal Virginia Offshore wind project in December.
“After my review of DOW’s classified material with a secret designation,” Giacona wrote, “I determined that CVOW Project’s activities did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests,” leading to his decision to suspend ongoing activities on the lease.
Giacona and Tyner are copied on the emails Huffman presented on Wednesday, indicating that the memorandum of understanding between Total and the Interior Department had been drafted and distributed prior to their reviewing the classified assessment.
The final agreement both parties signed on March 23, however, justifies the decision by citing a series of events that it portrays as taking place after officials learned of the DOD’s national security concerns.
The Interior Department paid Total out of the Judgment Fund, a permanently appropriated fund overseen by the Treasury Department with no congressional oversight that’s set aside to settle litigation or impending litigation. The final agreement describes the background for the settlement, beginning by stating that the Interior Department was going to suspend Total’s leases indefinitely based on the DOD’s classified findings, which “would have” led Total to file a legal claim for breach of contract. Rather than fight it out in court, Interior decided to settle this supposedly impending litigation, paying Total nearly $1 billion, in exchange for the company investing an equivalent amount into U.S. oil and gas projects.
But if the agency had been negotiating a deal with Total prior to being briefed on the national security assessment, it suggests that the deal was not predicated on a threat of litigation. During the hearing, Eddie Ahn, an attorney and the executive director of an environmental group called Brightline Defense, told Huffman that this opens the possibility for a legal challenge to the deal.
I should note one hiccup in this line of reasoning. Even though Interior officials testified that they were briefed on the Department of Defense’s assessment on November 26, this is not the first time the agency raised national security concerns about offshore wind. When BOEM issued a stop work order on Revolution Wind in August of last year, it said it was seeking to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.”
During the hearing, Huffman called out additional concerns his office had about the settlement. He said the amount the Interior Department paid Total — a full reimbursement of the company’s original lease payment — has no basis in the law. “Federal law sets a specific formula for the compensation a company can get when the government cancels an offshore lease,” he said, adding that the settlement was for “far more.” He also challenged a clause in the agreement that purports to protect both parties from legal liability.
Huffman and several of his fellow Democrats also highlighted the Trump administration’s latest use of the Judgment Fund — to create a new $1.8 billion legal fund to issue “monetary relief” to citizens who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration, such as those charged in connection with the January 6 riot.
“Now we know that that was just the beginning,” Maxine Dexter of Oregon said. “This president’s fraudulent use of the judgment fund is the most consequential and damning abuse of taxpayer funds happening right now.”
The effort brings together leaders of four Mountain West states with nonprofit policy expertise to help speed financing and permitting for development.
Geothermal is so hot right now. And bipartisan.
Long regarded as the one form of electricity generation everyone in Washington can agree on (it’s both carbon-free and borrows techniques, equipment, and personnel from the oil and gas industry), the technology got yet another shot in the arm last week when leading next-generation geothermal company Fervo raised almost $2 billion by selling shares in an initial public offering.
Now, a coalition of western states and nonprofits is coming together to work on the policy and economics of fostering more successful geothermal projects.
Governor Jared Polis of Colorado and Governor Spencer Cox of Utah will announce the formation of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium this afternoon at a press conference in Salt Lake City.
The consortium brings together governors, regulators, and energy policy staffers from those two states and their Mountain West neighbors Arizona and New Mexico, along with staffing and organizational help from two nonprofits, the Center for Public Enterprise and Constructive, both of which employ former Department of Energy staffers.
The consortium will help coordinate permitting, financing, and offtake agreements for geothermal projects. This could include assistance with permitting on state-level issues like water usage, attracting public dollars to geothermal projects, and upgrading geophysical data to guide geothermal development.
Michael O’Connor, a former DOE staffer who worked on the department’s geothermal programs, is the director of the consortium. He told me that the organization has done financial and geotechnical modeling to entice funding for earlier stage geothermal development that traditional project finance investors have seen as too high-risk.
“We think that the public sector should be a part of the capital stack, and so what we’re trying to do is build investment programs that leverage the state’s ability to provide the early concessionary capital and match that with private sector capital,” O’Connor said. “The consortium has done a whole bunch of financial modeling around this, and we’re now working with energy offices to build that into actual programs where they can start funding.”
The consortium is also trying to make it easier for utilities to agree to purchase power from new geothermal developments, O’Connor said. This includes helping utilities model the performance of geothermal resources over time so that they can be included more easily in utilities’ integrated resource plans.
“Most Western utilities either have no data to incorporate geothermal into their IRPs, or the data they’re using is generalized and 15 years old,” O’Connor told me. This type of data is easy to find for, say, natural gas or solar, but has not existed until recently for geothermal.
“Offtakers want the same kind of assurance that infrastructure investors want,” O’Connor said. “Everyone wants a guaranteed asset, and it takes a little bit more time and effort.”
The third area the consortium is working on is permitting. Many geothermal projects are located on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and therefore have to go through a federal permitting process. There are also state-specific permitting issues, most notably around water, a perennially contentious and complicated issue in the West.
How water is regulated for drilling projects varies state by state, creating an obstacle course that can be difficult for individual firms to navigate as they expand across the thermally rich intermountain west. “You’re always working with this sort of cross-jurisdictional permitting landscape,” Fervo policy chief Ben Serrurier told me. “Anytime you’re going to introduce a new technology to that picture, it raises questions about how well it fits and what needs to be updated and changed.”
Fervo — which sited its flagship commercial geothermal plant in Cape Station, Utah — has plenty of experience with these issues, and has signed on as an advisor to the consortium. “How do we work with states across the West who are all very eager to have geothermal development but, aren’t really sure about how to go about supporting and embracing, encouraging this new resource?” Serrurier asked. “This is policymakers and regulators in the West, at the state level, working together towards a much broader industry transformation.”
The Center for Public Enterprise, a consortium member think tank that works on public sector capacity-building, released a paper in April sketching out the idea for the group and arguing that coordinated state policy could bring forward projects that have already demonstrated technological feasibility. The paper called for states to “create new tools to support catalytic public investment in and financing for next-generation geothermal.”
Like many geothermal policy efforts, the geothermal consortium is a bipartisan affair that builds on a record of western politicians collaborating across party lines to advance geothermal development.
“There is sort of this idea that the West is an area that we collectively are still building, and there is still this idea of collaboration against challenging elements and solving unique problems,” Serrurier said.
Cox, a Republican, told Heatmap in a statement: “Utah is working to double power production over the next decade and build the energy capacity our state will need for generations. Geothermal energy is a crucial part of that future, and Utah is proud to be a founding member of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium.”
Polis, a Democrat, said, “Colorado is a national leader in renewable energy, and geothermal can provide always-on, clean, domestic energy to power our future. Colorado is proud to partner on a bipartisan basis with states across the region to found the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium.”
O’Connor concurred with Fervo’s Serrurier. “Western states are better at working together on ’purple issues’ than most states,” he told me.
In this moment, O’Connor said, the issue at hand is largely one of coordinating and harmonizing across states, utilities, and developers. “Several pieces of good timing have fallen upon the industry at this moment, which has led to a positive news cycle,” he told me. “Making sure that gets to scale now means we have to solve thorny or bigger dollar problems — and that’s why we’re here.
“We’re not an R&D organization,” he added, referring to the consortium. “We’re here to get over the hurdles of financing and of offtake and of regulatory reform.”
The founder of one-time sustainable apparel company Zady argues that policy is the only that can push the industry toward more responsible practices.
Everlane’s reported sale to Shein has left many shocked and saddened. How could the millennial “radical transparency” fashion brand be absorbed by the company that has become shorthand for ultra-fast fashion? While I feel for the team within the company that cares about impact reduction, I am not surprised by the news.
Everlane was built around a theory of change that was always too small for the problem it claimed to address — that better brands and more conscientious consumers could redirect a coal-powered, chemically intensive, globally fragmented industry.
The theory had real appeal, but it was wrong. Yes, it created some better products, but it was never going to remake the fashion industry on its own.
This is the tension at the center of sustainable fashion: Consumer demand can create a niche, even a meaningful one, but it cannot reconfigure the economics of global supply chains. What is needed are common sense laws that require all significant players to play by the same basic rules: reduce emissions, ban toxic chemicals, and maintain basic labor standards.
A company I used to run, Zady, was an early competitor to Everlane, and we were part of the same cultural and commercial moment. When we raised money, we told investors that while our Boomer parents may have thought that changing the world meant marching on the streets, we knew better. Change was going to happen through business.
The problem was that, while our market was growing, fast fashion was growing faster. There was a small but passionate group of consumers trying to buy better, but the overall system drove companies to produce more — more units, more emissions, more chemicals, and more waste.
The truth is that brands do not have direct control over the environmental impacts of their products. Most of the emissions and applications of chemicals are not happening at the brand level, but are instead in fiber production, textile mills, dyehouses, finishing facilities, and laundries, all of which the brands do not own. These factories operate on the thinnest of margins, and the open secret is that brands share these suppliers. No one brand wants to pay the cost for their shared factories to make the necessary upgrades to address their impacts. It’s a classic collective action problem.
Everlane’s capital story matters here, too. Unless a founder arrives with substantial personal wealth, outside investment is often the only path to scale. A company can remain small, independent, and slow-growing, but then it will likely be more expensive, more limited in reach, and less able to influence factories.
Everlane chose the other path. It took institutional growth capital from storied venture firms more closely associated with the digital revolution (including some that also fund clean energy technologies) and became a recognizable national brand. This obligated the company to operate inside a financial structure that leads inexorably toward some kind of exit, whether through a sale, an initial public offering, or some other liquidity event. Once that is the operating system, sustainability can remain a real and important goal, but it is not the final governing logic — investor return is.
“Radical transparency” was never enough to solve the fashion industry’s or venture capital model’s structural problems. Naming a factory is not the same as knowing what happens inside it. Publishing a supplier list does not tell us whether the facility runs on coal, whether wastewater is treated before being released back into the ecosystem, or whether restricted substances are present in dyes, finishes, trims, or coatings.
We already have many forms of transparency in American capitalism. Public companies, for example, are required to disclose executive compensation and the average pay of their workers; this transparency has done exactly nothing to close the pay gap. A disclosure is not the same thing as a legal standard.
So what does this mean for all of us? We don’t know exactly how Shein will absorb Everlane. I could guess that this is a Quince play for Shein, a way to access higher-end consumers that would otherwise never go on the Shein site.
What this tragicomedy reveals is that the idea born from Obama-era optimism, that the arc of history naturally bends toward justice and sustainability, was ephemeral.
The work to make this coal-powered industry sustainable will come from regulation. The technology to decarbonize is there, and unlike with aviation, for instance, it would cost the apparel industry a mere 2 cents per cotton t-shirt to get it done. But unlike with aviation, there are no requirements or incentives that these investments be made, so they are not.
The electric vehicle industry got a head start through direct subsidies and fuel efficiency standards. Apparel needs the same.
If you’re disappointed or angry about this turn of events, I ask you to channel those feelings into citizenship. Help pass the New York or California Fashion Acts that would require all large fashion companies that sell into the states to reduce their emissions and ban toxic chemicals. It’s currently legal to have lead on adult clothing, and Shein is consistently found to have it on their products. The industry is pushing back through their trade associations, so people power is needed so that legislators know it needs to be their priority.
But if you want to shop sustainably, you don’t need a brand. What is most helpful is understanding your own style and lifestyle — that’s how we know what we actually need and what we don’t. There are apps to help on that front. (I love Indyx, for instance, but there are others.)
The only way forward is together, and that means political solutions — emissions requirements, chemical requirements, labor requirements — not just consumer ones.