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:
Despite what some climate change apologists might have you think.

Does everything actually suck right now? Or is it just the end of January?
It can be difficult to tell. We’re officially in the thick of what Americans consider to be the worst time of year, when complaining about the weather is an acceptable salutation and feeling “blah” is the basic condition of being alive. Even setting aside seasonal affective disorder — a condition linked to limited daylight, and thus not directly affected by climate change — studies have shown that people have a lower quality diet in the winter, and body weight usually reaches its peak this time of year. Physical activity, which is also important for mental health, dips as the weather gets worse, and research has even shown that people with Alzheimer’s disease experience more severe symptoms when the planet is tilted away from the sun.
Some have taken these winter blues as an opportunity to question the basic premise that climate change is bad. “The chief benefits of global warming” include “fewer winter deaths” and lower heating bills, Matt Ridley argued in The Spectator in 2013. Former President Donald Trump even has a quasi-annual tradition of tweeting something like “Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!” during cold snaps this time of year.
Winter is, in fact, warming faster than any other season in the United States, with some parts of the country on track to lose over a month of freezing days as soon as 2050. Even if you do believe — correctly — that climate change is a global catastrophe, unless you’re a skier or snowboarder, this might sound like a good thing. So, as sacrilegious as it feels to ask, could a warmer planet make us healthier in the wintertime?
When I asked Leslie Davenport, a climate psychology educator at the California Institute of Integral Studies, if she expected milder winters to impact people psychologically, she answered immediately. “Oh, one hundred percent!,” she told me. That doesn’t mean she thinks the impact will be positive. She said she has heard people “who are a little more on the climate denial end of things” make comments like “this is great, it used to be so cold and now I can go golfing,” she told me, but “I can’t honestly call that an upside.”
Far more often, Davenport said she hears from people experiencing a sense of “unsettling” as they notice winter isn’t as cold or as snowy as they remember it being. Some might even express a feeling of “solastalgia,” a neologism that describes the sense of displacement or nostalgia that arises when a place changes environmentally. “Whether it’s the loss of snow, or areas that are drier or hotter or wetter, it is like, ‘Well, this is not the town I grew up in or the place I chose to move to because it has changed so much,’” Davenport said.
While there might be an abstract appeal to the Los Angelesification of winter nationwide, it would be a mistake to count on climate change making the season “better.” Quite the opposite, actually — warmer winters could make winter much worse, especially for those living in midlatitude cities like New York, London, or Amsterdam. “I have observed, in my travels and my research and in talking to people, that it is often much easier and more pleasant to cope with winter weather that is slightly below freezing consistently than weather that is slightly above freezing consistently,” Kari Leibowitz, a health psychologist who is working on a book about winter mindsets, told me.
Cold temperatures can actually improve our lives in several ways, Leibowitz argued. For one thing, snowfall “opens up a whole bunch of winter opportunities” like sledding, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and all those winter sports that get people out of the house. That helps combat some of the bluesiness that otherwise comes from moping around indoors when it’s too gray and rainy to do anything active. Frozen lakes offer opportunities for skating and hockey, plus “there’s also a lot of beauty and intrigue in ice — you know, icicles and frozen rainstorms,” Leibowitz went on.
Snow, meanwhile, “reflects the light, so it makes the darkness of winter feel much, much brighter,” Leibowitz said. “And most people think it’s really beautiful — it’s clean and fresh and it smells good.”
Of course, winter weather can be dangerous, too, but “places that are colder and have really frozen winters have good infrastructure for dealing with that, and houses tend to be better insulated and heated more efficiently,” Leibowitz said. Bad winter weather can also give us much-needed permission to rest.
While there are certain places further in the south, such as Atlanta, where winter might genuinely become more pleasant as the planet warms, “there are far more places where the end of winter is just going to mean places are dark and wet,” without the upsides that come with the snow and freezing temperatures, Leibowitz stressed.
Michael Varnum, the head of the Culture and Ecology Laboratory at Arizona State University and a specialist in seasonal psychology, did find one positive. “Nobody likes to feel down, or to look at their waistline and see it’s grown,” he told me. “So potentially, there could be some upsides there.”
Naturally, much of how you feel about winter will depend on the climate where you live. In general, though, “we are somewhat more insulated from the changes in temperature that come with the seasons than we were, say, 10,000 years ago or even a couple hundred years ago,” Varnum said. Feelings of climate anxiety and distress tend to be highest in Indigenous communities in or near the Arctic, where the cold weather is a part of cultural identity and inheritance. Likewise, Davenport told me, in “places where there tends to be a lot of snow” like Japan or Finland, “there’s talk about things like ‘winter grief,’” where a milder winter makes it so that “certain rituals or holidays that have been planned in the past can’t happen anymore or as consistently.”
Many Americans, too, lose a sense of themselves when winter gets milder. “It’s what a lot of us love about living here: our winters,” Erich Osterberg, a Dartmouth climate scientist, told The New Hampshire Bulletin in 2022. “It’s more than changes to the climate,” he added, “it’s changes to our livelihood and our culture.” I encountered similar comments from Minnesotans when I was looking into how an unseasonably dry winter is imperiling this year’s cross country ski season: “Spiritually, this is terrible,” Claire Wilson, the executive director of Minneapolis’ Loppet Foundation, recently told the Star Tribune.
Winter doesn’t have to be dreaded, Leibowitz said — much of one’s enjoyment of the season comes down to mindset. But it does seem to matter that winter is actually, well, wintery, too. Whether that’s a question of our evolutionary seasonal biology (winter appears to be an important trigger for the human reproductive cycle, for one thing), or a matter of our cultural practices, or something as simple as snow being more fun than rain, it’s hard to make the case that warming winters will leave us better off.
“If you want me to find the psychological upside of anything, I could maybe do it,” Leibowitz confessed. She added, though, that “a lot of people think, ‘I hate winter, I hate the cold, I would be happy if it was warmer all year round.’ But people underestimate how much there is to be lost in losing winter.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.