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.
Chatting about win-win solutions with the Abundance Institute’s Ryan Norris.
This week’s conversation is with Ryan Norris, senior fellow for energy policy at the Abundance Institute. The libertarian-leaning institute — whose name cleverly shortens to AI — is a new-ish entity with increasing relevance in energy and tech spaces. As Norris and I discussed, it’s starting to help shape policy on data center development and the generation that’ll power it all, especially in Republican circles. Norris himself previously worked with Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing political organization. I reached out to him and asked if we could chat because I wanted to know more about the institute’s work within the energy space. He wound up saying a lot more than I expected. So let’s dive into it.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
So let’s start with what you’re working on. What’s on your desk these days?
Here at Abundance, we sit at the juncture of emerging technology and the energy they need to bring that new technology to bear to impact life positively. We are always in a constant state of learning and researching what the latest thoughts and feelings are around certain policies, particularly around AI and data centers, and then energy technology. How do they feel about nuclear? Geothermal? Solar and battery arrays?
A lot of what I’m working on is Project Gigawatt, a body of policy that fits into permitting, generation, the grid, transmission, and then market and demand. Policies that we believe will generate more, transmit more, and as much of a free market approach as possible. Knowing that a lot of states have regulated utilities, when the state utility can’t produce what the state can potentially actually generate or would need to in order to accommodate large loads, we think there needs to be other opportunities to either bring that power or purchase it in a different way.
When it comes to this policy set, how are you taking into account the intensifying backlash to data center and AI infrastructure, as well as the energy attached to it?
As everyone can sense, things are moving rapidly, and there is a natural inclination to question how fast we’re going. I think these concerns need to be addressed seriously and respectfully. You can’t just say negative things about people who care about water quality or impacts to their local economies. Those are valid. I’ve lived through those. I come from a rural place in Arkansas that had oil and gas plays. And I’ve seen there needs to be conversations with people living in those areas too.
We cannot discount the backlash. When you take the legitimate concerns and pair them with the opportunities coming, I think there’s actually a chance to set up win-win solutions. It shouldn’t be a win-lose scenario here. They have skepticism about AI in the short and long term — that’s a natural inclination and not a negative, per se. But educating people and policymakers about data centers, that’s important.
What is your approach to the rise in land use regulation around data centers and energy infrastructure, moratoria and restrictive ordinances?
As much as possible, you want the infrastructure and cost allocation to be borne by the business causing it. That’s the motivation behind a lot of colocation partnerships happening right now, like the Kilby project in Texas, with natural gas powering a Microsoft hyperscale.
To us, it’s about setting up the opportunity for private property owners to sell to those hyperscalers and those generating the energy. Setting up situations where you’re not stopping people from benefiting. A lot of the “bring your own power” concept, we really like that. Maybe having it where power purchase agreements are more in the mix, things along those lines. That’s where I see things.
The energy increases to our utility bills, people are concerned about it, and that’s a bread and butter issue. That’s the approach: We know we need grid upgrades and want to have the most cost effective versions of those as possible, but you want those needing the power paying for it and not putting it on the backs of residents.
I’m curious, what’s you and your organization’s approach to the rise of gas infrastructure built for AI and the potential impacts that could have on climate change?
I don’t discount the issue of climate change.
Let’s say we’re not able to decarbonize enough to reverse the effects of warmth. We know we’ll have to create energy. We know we have other options for energy that need to be in the mix — more nuclear, which now even some of those who are climate-minded understand is an abundant energy source. I’m also interested in new technologies in geothermal where it can be viable in more places than we thought. You can drill down and tap hot rocks, a basin of water, turn a turbine, and that’s more acceptable for those who care about the climate. And states are looking at it, including my state of Arkansas. I bring these up because I also care about sources that provide firm, consistently available power.
We attended the American Legislative Exchange Council, and one of the things we do, we’re voting members on the energy, environment, and agriculture task force. We’re pro letting the market decide what they need. So we took opposite stances from what people typically consider normal standards on the center-right about banning “net-zero” for local governments. It did pass as model legislation but if we believe “all of the above” is the approach, we also want to be principally correct to ourselves that it doesn’t mean banning wind or solar where it’s viable.
My last question: What’s your thought on the future of politics around AI infrastructure and energy generation for it?
There’s definitely headwinds to those in that industry. I think the sense is, they understood what they wanted and didn’t see any barriers to the way they’d go about it. That’s causing ripple effects in our politics at the local level, including here in Arkansas, where I live in Pulaski County. I think it’ll stay important particularly as it connects to affordability concerns around energy. We know we need more energy, but we want it at the lowest cost possible to the residential side. If people are feeling like data centers are driving the demand for the energy and aren’t on the hook for it, that’s going to position them to be more negative towards the technology.
But we have to expand the conversation. There are folks out there talking about 3D printing for homes, using proprietary cement mixes to build homes in a few weeks when they took months. Agriculture is using robotics in lieu of pesticides and herbicides. Advanced manufacturing is improving the quality of medical equipment. No one completely understands the end goal of new energy to fuel the data centers and AI to get us where there’s a net benefit to them.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Shelby County, Alabama — The Trump administration’s widening effort to intervene in rural energy project fights is facing an early test: What happens if companies don’t take it seriously?
2. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin — Speaking of walls, we just saw the political power of the data center resistance hit one in the Badger State.
3. Everywhere in Texas — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is getting a lot of love for his data center standards, with major developers rolling out press statements claiming they’ll comply.
4. Herkimer County, New York — Something weird is going on in upstate New York with a monastery, a wind farm, and the Trump administration. I’m not sure what to make of it yet.
Renewable and pipeline companies alike have come out against the administration’s attempt to leverage an obscure Cold War-era law.
The Trump administration is considering changing its interpretation of an obscure law related to farmland ownership to transform it into a national security instrument with profound impacts for U.S. renewables projects — and fossil fuels. U.S. energy developers and their trade groups are ringing alarms about the plan, arguing that Trump may be about to undermine their relationships with international investors in allied nations.
For the past week, I’ve been hearing anxious rumbling from contacts in D.C. about a proposed regulation from the Agriculture Department published on June 26. The plan has gotten little attention so far outside of energy trade publications and wonk analysis. Pay no mind to the relative quiet — anyone working in energy development needs to know what’s at stake. Explaining why this is sending D.C. energy lobbyists into a tizzy gets complicated quickly, so bear with me. But the easiest way to sum it up is a fear of death by a thousand cuts.
The administration’s proposal would morph USDA’s approach to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, often referred to in legal circles by the acronym AFIDA. This Cold War-era statute created a system for collecting information on farmland owned by people or entities born, headquartered, or otherwise governed by laws outside of the United States, requiring people or companies labeled “foreign persons” to disclose land holdings and transactions to the federal government.
As I reported Monday, Senate Democrats claim the department is proposing to expand the definition of “agricultural land” to include all solar and wind projects, as well as pipelines. I’ve since confirmed this is true, as stated in a supplemental document released by USDA. But there’s a lot more causing companies headaches. The plan would drastically expand the pool of entities and people required to report to USDA by lowering the minimum foreign investment threshold for reporting, compel information on rights of ways when it wasn’t asked for before, and force companies to do detailed geospatial mapping of farmland.
You may not have heard of AFIDA, but security hawks in D.C. and the most affected multi-national companies have been agitating to reform the law for years. Their concerns have focused primarily on Chinese firms and the agriculture sector. In 2022, Republicans in Congress anxious about Chinese companies purchasing farmland near military bases requested an independent Government Accountability Office audit of AFIDA compliance. Two years later, the watchdog office found the law was falling significantly short of its stated objective to track relevant land transactions.
Representatives from the energy sector tell me the actual proposed changes would create a severe red tape headache for developers of all stripes.
Over the past week, almost every major industry trade group in renewables and fossil fuels has filed a comment excoriating the plan, with even some oil and gas allies such as the Western Energy Alliance calling for it to be thrown onto the trash heap. The American Petroleum Institute and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America told the USDA that the plan would “chill foreign investment in U.S. energy infrastructure and increase the cost of capital for pipeline projects with no benefit to national security.”
Meanwhile, renewable energy industry representatives seemed particularly frightened by the proposal given existing financial relationships with investors, parent companies, and business partners in U.S.-aligned nations. American Clean Power said it would burden “good faith, low-risk filers from allied countries,” while the Solar Energy Industries Association said the proposal warranted “a full withdrawal” as it had “unintended national security consequences and [would] unnecessarily expose business sensitive information.”
So far, only one large publicly-traded renewables company has commented with criticisms of the proposal: EDP Renewables North America, a subsidiary of a Portuguese company. “We respectfully urge USDA to carefully weigh the compliance burdens imposed by each proposed change against the incremental national security benefit it provides,” wrote Tom LoTurco, an executive vice president for EDP Renewables North America.
Those calling for reform have wanted to streamline the filing process, not add even more bureaucracy. “Solar and wind, they’ve long been considered agricultural land users. But under this rule, costs are going to go way up,” Jeff Hunter, an attorney with Kelley Drye and Warren LLP, told me. “It’s going from a manageable material cost to something that’s going to have a meaningful effect on the bottom line.” Hunter represents the AFIDA Modernization Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of companies that routinely file under the law. Hunter said the coalition includes founders Invenergy and Doral Renewables, both of which have substantial renewables investments in the U.S. as well as investment originating from other countries.
“It’s going from a manageable material cost to something that’s going to have a meaningful effect on the bottom line.”
Many large renewable energy companies have substantial foreign investment because of the European trend towards ESG-minded financing practices, Hunter added. The law was already on developers’ radars, but this proposal presents a wholly different regime.
As Trump re-entered office, it was reasonable to expect his administration would attempt to “protect farmland” from renewable energy development given the issue’s salience in deep red rural pockets of his supporter base. Still, when the Agriculture Department last May released a “National Farm Security Action Plan” stating that it would change AFIDA regulations, I didn’t think much of it. The plan didn’t mention the energy sector at all.
In December USDA solicited public comments on ways to change the rules, but it was a sleepy affair with little conflict involving renewables or anything else. Even the Center for Regulatory Freedom, a conservative policy shop created by the political organization CPAC, sought changes while emphasizing the “United States benefits from foreign capital in agriculture, renewable energy, and rural development, and AFIDA should not become a blunt instrument that discourages lawful and economically beneficial transactions.”
All this is to say, nobody seemed to anticipate the bomb USDA suddenly dropped on the energy industry.
The plan may change between proposal and implementation. But so far only one organization I know of is focused on ensuring that solar and wind are targeted under the new rulemaking: the America First Policy Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank co-founded by Brooke Rollins, the current Secretary of Agriculture. In comments filed by AFPI’s Adam Savit, the conservative think tank recommended the government preserve “the inclusion of solar and wind generation on agricultural land” because it “prevents the conversion of reportable land into unreportable land through a change in use.” The group’s comments did not address the rule’s references to pipelines.
I asked AFPI to ask if it had any additional comment on the rulemaking, and specifically if it had any view on the new definition for agricultural land. In a statement provided by the think tank, its senior director for China policy Piero Tozzi told me that “the proposed change is necessary to address who owns the land and what control it gives the owner.”
“The current reporting framework for foreign acquisition of American farmland before land was understood as a potential strategic perch for foreign adversaries,” Tozzi said.
The Agriculture Department rarely comments on public input received on proposed rulemakings and did not respond to a request for comment for this story. On Monday, the agency sent me the following statement in response to the Senate Democrats’ claims: “As Secretary Rollins has noted before, the regulations governing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 are extremely outdated and need to be updated to better reflect today’s conditions. USDA looks forward to considering all public comments before finalizing the rule.”