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:
On China’s Paris pact with Europe, Trump’s mineral geopolitics, and Google’s CO2 battery bet

Current conditions: The record-setting heat roasting more than 100 million Americans in the central U.S. is now headed for the densely populated Northeast • The American Samoan capital of Pago Pago faces “imminent” flash flooding on Friday amid days of rain • China just set a record for the highest number of hot days since March in its history.

Three years after the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan became the country’s last atomic power station to permanently close, the facility is set to become the first in U.S. history to reopen after a final shutdown. On Thursday afternoon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its formal approval for the plant’s operating license, putting the single-reactor station on track to restart later this year, the plant’s owner, Holtec International, told me. With just 11 days to go before its license expired, Palisades’ previous owner opted to close down May 2022 rather than make necessary upgrades to continue operations. The Biden-era Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy put up more than $1.5 to fund the effort. Despite freezing funding for other projects, the Trump administration shelled out the money to Holtec.
The project still faces obstacles. Holtec still needs to finalize repairs at the plant, which are subject to another NRC review. Anti-nuclear activists, meanwhile, vowed to appeal the NRC license. Still, Holtec’s President Kelly Trice said the NRC approval “represents an unprecedented milestone in U.S. nuclear energy.”
As the U.S. seeks to dismantle its climate regulations, China and the European Union signed a pledge Thursday to work together on cutting emissions. The document, dubbed “the way forward” following the 10-year anniversary of the Paris climate accords, called the 2015 pact brokered in the French capital “the cornerstone of international climate cooperation” that “all parties” should implement “in a comprehensive, good-faith and effective manner.” The two global powers also reached a deal for the emergency export of rare earth metals from China, which dominates their global trade, to European factories facing shortages of the materials, according to The New York Times.
The diplomatic communique comes as the U.S. goes through the process to quit the Paris Agreement for the second time. In 2017, Trump waited weeks to initiate the exit, and the protocol completed around the time of the 2020 election. That allowed then-President-elect Joe Biden to signal his plans to rejoin immediately, rendering the American withdrawal a brief hiccup. This time, however, the rules allow the U.S. to leave in about a year, and Trump started the process on his first day in office.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Just over a week after the Pentagon made a landmark investment in the United States’ only rare earths mine, President Donald Trump elevated his minerals adviser to the Nation Security Council. While the Trump administration did not confirm what Copley’s new position would entail, an industry source told E&E News the job change was a promotion for the military veteran and former mining executive, who would now serve as “both the White House mineral and supply chain czar.”
The move comes as China has sought to leverage its grip over global supplies of minerals such as rare earth metals and graphite by tightening export restrictions. While Trump’s military investment into California rare earth producer MP Materials may mirror China’s strategy of government funding for critical materials, Beijing has another thing going for it: Strong demand from electric vehicles. Therein lies what Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin recently called the “paradox” of Trump’s mineral policy: He’s making it easier to mine but eliminating the demand pull of electric vehicles and wind turbines.
Google has invested in small modular reactors, nuclear fusion, and even old-fashioned hydropower to shore up a steady supply of electricity for its reactors. This morning, the tech giant announced a strategic investment into carbon dioxide batteries, as I reported earlier today over at Latitude Media. The startup Energy Dome houses its technology in white, inflatable shelters similar to what you see over the courts at professional tennis tournaments. But inside is equipment that compresses and liquefies CO2, stores it in carbon steel tanks, then turns the liquid back into pressurized gas when energy is needed. Once reheated, the carbon dioxide is pumped through turbines to generate electricity for up to 24 hours at a time.
Headquartered in Milan, Energy Dome already had a deal for pilot plants in Wisconsin, Sardinia, and India, about eight hours west of Hyderabad. But Google said it plans to deploy the technology across the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
Maine is speeding up approvals for nearly 1,600 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy to make sure projects can tap into federal tax credits before the Trump administration cracks down, Canary Media's Sarah Shemkus reported. State regulators gave developers a July 25 deadline to take part in the fast-tracking program. The state is seeking enough bids to meet about 13% of its annual electricity demand. The program will give preference to projects sited on property where water or soil is contaminated by toxic PFAS, the cancer-causing substances known as “forever chemicals.”
Not all states are as welcoming of renewables. In Ohio, as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported yesterday, 26 out of 88 counties have “established restricted areas where wind or solar are prohibited.” The key to getting around local opposition is early community outreach and building a base of support for a project.
Consider the lobster, but listen to the shrimp. A new study in the journal Royal Society Open Science found that listening to the high-frequency sounds snapping shrimp produce “can be used as a real indicator of coral resilience,” Xavier Raick, postdoctoral fellow in bioacoustics at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, said in a press release. “Snapping shrimp’s abundance is a mirror of coral cover. So if you have more corals, especially very big colonies, you have more snapping shrimps, and then you can use their sound as a proxy for the reef, structure, and health.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Holly Jean Buck, author of a buzzy story about Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a national data center moratorium.
This week’s conversation is with Holly Jean Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and former official in the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Buck got into the thicket of the data center siting debate this past week after authoring a polemic epistemology of sorts in Jacobin arguing against a national data center ban. In the piece, she called a moratorium on AI data centers “a massive strategic blunder for the left, and we should think through the global justice implications and follow-on effects.” It argued that environmental and climate activists would be better suited not courting a left-right coalition that doesn’t seem to have shared goals in the long term.
Her article was praised by more Abundance-leaning thinkers like Matthew Yglesias and pilloried by some of the more influential people in the anti-data center organizing space, such as Ben Inskeep of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana. So I wanted to chat with her about the discourse around her piece. She humbly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So my first question is kind of a broad one and perhaps a suitable polemic to open with: are data center moratoria (bans) “slopulism”?
Haha, oh no. I don’t know if I have a working definition of that term.
“Slopulism” is colloquially known as low-effort or performative populism slop that is focused on emotional gratification and elite resentment instead of substantive policy.
I think, sometimes? Moratoria have been proposed at a lot of different levels in a lot of different forms. With the national moratorium, as written in the AI Data Center Moratorium Act [proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], I thought from a rhetorical and textual standpoint it was a pretty amazing document. I just don’t think it’s a great policy proposal, so maybe that’s a little bit closer, but I don’t think people working on that theory of change would see it as slopulism. They’re thinking of this as a negotiating tactic and thinking, how do we leverage this moment and make it clear to the tech industry they don’t have social license?
I wouldn’t personally call it slopulism. I just don’t think it’ll work. I don’t think it's effective but I'm not big on labels.
Personally, I come down sort of where you’re at on the yes-and-no kind of tack. There’s definitely some vibes based stuff going on, which you address in your piece, but historically there’s a pretty long legacy of advocacy campaigns for, well, let’s ban this until we’ve finished regulating it.
You write part of why a moratoria push can be a dead end is that the right and left coalitions pushing to stop data centers have different interests on other issues and that it may not follow that stopping data centers will result in a clean energy buildout, or the social policies to address job displacement.
When you talk about the left-right coalition, help me understand what’s driving the opposition and why you think it’s happening the way it is?
I think there’s a lot of layers here. It’s pretty complex. It’s well established there are left-right coalitions. I don’t think we have a great body of social science research but I think that is a solid working assumption. So I think the people who are a part of this, it’s easy for them to come together and stop a thing that’s happening near them. But I don’t think they’re going to agree on how we build a decarbonized, resilient grid. The people in that coalition are going to have vastly different perspectives on whether we want to decarbonize, what measures are feasible and worth paying for to get there. Same thing when it comes to the thornier questions about AI governance. The solution set is just not something the members of that coalition are going to agree on.
So it feels maybe on the ground like this really cool moment about rising up against these big forces. It’s cool. I get it. I was actually very much on board with that a while ago. And my views on that have shifted. I don’t think it’s going to be productive unless it’s coupled with a lot of very real coalition building work I don’t see happening.
I’ve had conversations with environmental activists about that issue. I did a Q&A with someone from Public Citizen about this particular issue right after the national data center moratoria was introduced with Senator Sanders. I asked, do you have any concerns about pushing for a moratoria on new tech infrastructure when this tool is also used by those trying to stop solar, wind and batteries? Is there any concern that in some communities it’ll go from data centers to renewables?
I wondered reading your piece if this is part of what you’re getting at here, that this backlash doesn’t necessarily seem to be rooted as much in a transition away from fossil fuels or building lots of new renewable energy.
I think in the absence of systematic research, it’s one of these things where people can see it the way they want, through their own lens.
I’ve been following this in a few different places in the country, especially through online Facebook groups, and there is a noticeable overlap between some of those Facebook groups and the content and many of the anti-renewable groups I follow. Some of the themes remind me of this piece I wrote about para-environmentalism. There’s a lot of places where it dips into conspiracy and fears about new technology, electro-magnetic radiation, sorts of places where a data center is mundane but can take on creepy, supernatural overtones in some of these groups. Before I was studying para-environmentalism more generally I was thinking we really need this left-right coalition to rise up against these companies. Now I’m much more cautious about where it’ll lead.
I know Twitter isn’t real life, but the discourse around your work – those who have criticized it – are saying, why can’t we do both? Why can’t we go after the data center sector without potentially heading towards that form of politics you’re afraid of?
I don’t think it's the moratoria necessarily but the left-right blocking approach.
There’s a couple things I want to make discernments about. I want to make a discernment between people who want to stop a data center and a moratorium that’s more of a blanket, larger regional or national thing. I do think there are data centers being sited in really bad places, under really bad agreements. They shouldn’t move forward.
There’s bad data centers and there’s okay data centers and we need to be discerning between them. There’s also normal processes in this country for siting large facilities, whether they’re county level zoning commissions and something else.
But to your question of why can’t we do both, we could have a viable left-right anti-tech organizing that makes real demand for how we go about the lithium and AI age if people were investing in the social infrastructure necessary to make that happen. We’re very far from it because the framing of stopping a thing… We need people who are convening real conversations about what to do. I think they’re focused on stopping a thing.
I don’t know if they’re focused on whether we need universal basic income, a public wealth fund or something else, in a way that’s across the aisle. That would be a whole movement building infrastructure and it’s one we need if we’re going to decarbonize.
But that’s not what I am seeing – I’m seeing NGOs funded by wealthy and non-transparent donor-advised funds focused on some parts of the country and not others. We’re not getting to having those conversations happening or even having a shared media reality.
Can you go a bit deeper on how a situation where there is a national moratoria results in equity concerns? How are those less fortunate hurt by that?
There are three things I am concerned about. The first thing is that people who are better organized because they have more resources say we need a national moratoria which pushes development to regions with weaker organizing. Maybe they have weaker environmental and social regulations. I’m concerned about that because there’s a huge history of that happening across different regions and industries.
The second thing I am concerned about is driving up the cost of computation in ways that would make AI less affordable and accessible for people who may be able to use it for a variety of things. I realize that’s controversial for the segment of the population who thinks AI is useless but I think it’s tremendously valuable and I want a world where everybody has access to these capabilities and I think it’s made less likely by making computation less expensive.
The third thing, which I didn’t have room in my piece to address, is to what extent this moment is about the data centers. This is a new focus for the climate movement, which is understandable because there’s been a sideshift away from climate and the Trump administration has put everything in such a dire place that they need wins to hold on to. I’m worried about whether that displaces energy and funding away from other environmental issues. Are we taking space away from other priority areas? I’m not saying we know about those things but these are concerns we need to focus on. And if they’re not concerns, that’s good news. But we should think of them.
On that note, on the bigger question, do you believe artificial intelligence and these data centers are a net positive or a net negative for the effort to solve for climate change?
I think it’s too soon to say what the net effect will be and that net effect will be indirect. We can count the carbon emissions from these and say, great we have a whole new industrial sector to contend with among all these other industries we’re trying to decarbonize. And it’s bad from that point of view.
Then you have efficiencies that AI might discover. I have no clue about the extent of that.
Then you have AI impacting the information ecosystem, what they want to believe and what they want to do. Maybe the greatest impacts of AI will be it causes people to take climate more seriously. Or ways through social media that convince people it is a hoax.
It’s hard to measure all these factors and speculations against each other. So I have no idea what the net effect will be on climate and I don’t believe anyone who says they know what it’ll be at this point.
But the data centers – from your perspective, is this boom helping or hurting?
I think it’s definitely a setback. But if I look at the whole picture of climate change I think this is more tractable than some of the challenges we have with decarbonization. Number one, we know how to decarbonize data centers. It’s a lot harder than something like cement where we don’t know how to stop the emissions themselves. I think agriculture is really challenging to decarbonize – it’s mixed up in what people eat and land use. Data centers is a problem. But it seems tractable because of that.
We also have all these people working on this. All of these climate professionals who’ve pivoted to framing their work into being about AI. I think we have the knowledge and the personnel to do it. If I compare data centers to other parts of decarbonization, it’s not on the top of my list of things I’m worried about. But it is tough – we knew we had this many tonnes to deal with and now we’re adding things. It’s a challenge but I want to have perspective about the challenge.
Can I close on a fun question?
Sure.
What’s the last song you listened to?
Oh, gee. It was some terrible ‘80s song because my kind is really into that kind of music right now. The one that sticks out is “Sunglasses At Night,” which is always playing in the Buffalo airport.
Current conditions: The storms soaking the American South with as much as 10 inches of rain are tamping down the region’s wildfire risk • Cavite, the Philippine port city on a peninsula at the southern lip of Manila Bay, is facing its eighth straight day of temperatures nearing 110 degrees Fahrenheit • North Korean state media just issued a warning of a “severe” and “unusual” drought, killing off crops and threatening food shortages in the infamously famine-afflicted hermit kingdom.

Belgium has long ranked as the world’s No. 4 biggest user of nuclear energy as a percentage of its electricity mix, generating nearly half its power from fission. But the country passed a nuclear phaseout law in 2003. Since 2022, when Brussels started to weigh delaying the shutdowns, the European Union’s capital nation has closed five of its seven commercial reactors. The policy divided the government, with liberals fighting to preserve the reactors and Green Party officials, including former Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten, who previously worked at a private law firm that counted Russian gas giant Gazprom as one of its biggest clients, pushing for a full atomic exit. Now Belgium is halting the decommissioning of its last two reactors and nationalizing its nuclear plants in a bid to save the industry. In a Thursday post on X, Prime Minister Bart De Wever said his government had reached an agreement with the French utility giant Engie to “initiate the necessary studies for a full takeover” of Belgium’s nuclear industry. Engie owns all seven nuclear plants in the country. “This government chooses safe, affordable, and sustainable energy,” De Wever wrote, “with less dependence on fossil imports and more control over our own supply.”
France, which generates more of its power from fission than any other nation, followed a similar approach, fully nationalizing the utility Électricité de France in 2023 as part of a plan to shore up and expand the reactor fleet. Last month, EDF, as the French giant is known, announced a $117 million investment in a factory to build parts for France’s flagship nuclear reactor, the EPR2. On Wednesday, meanwhile, the Canadian government put out a statement vowing to develop “a transformative” new national nuclear strategy on Wednesday that would focus on the country’s natively-designed CANDU technology and burgeoning uranium mining sector.
America’s solar boom may look slightly dimmer since the Trump administration cracked down on permitting and eliminated key tax credits. But construction has begun on the 140-megawatt Iron Spur Solar project in Snyder, Texas, ensuring that the facility locks in tax credits before the phase-out in July, I can exclusively report for this newsletter. It’s the biggest U.S. project yet funded by Energea, a solar financing startup that allows investors to buy shares in networks of solar farms in the U.S., Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa. Iron Spur is expected to start producing electricity in 2029. Now that the company is looking for offtakers to buy the electricity, co-founder and managing partner Mike Silvestrini said “something has changed.”
“In the past, it was an ass-kissing process of communicating with guys at these big IT companies,” he told me. “It’s turned. All of a sudden, having the power production abilities gives us the upper hand, and we’re able to negotiate from higher ground than we ever have before. It’s a noticeable change. That’s going to continue.” With the tax credit going away, he said, “the cheapest source of new power generation is about to get more expensive. That pretty much guarantees that domestic energy rates go up after July 5, as there are no longer projects with that tax credit available.” In fact, he added, Energea is better off waiting to negotiate a power purchase agreement, offering some insight into how the solar market could change if Republicans don’t manage to pass legislation to salvage the tax credits. “It behooves companies like ours and projects like Iron Spur to be patient and see how markets respond to a now-finite number of investment tax credit projects,” he said.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
As I told you at the start of the week, the Trump administration is replicating the $1 billion deal it made with TotalEnergies to convince the French energy giant to abandon its two offshore wind projects in the U.S. Reporting by Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo later showed that the legal justification for the federal government’s cash offer was shaky at best, and that the actual text of the agreement contained no definite assurances that the company would invest any more than it had already planned to. Now Congress is getting involved. On Wednesday, as Emily reported, two House Democrats sent a letter to Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné announcing that they have opened a formal investigation into the deal. “We’re going to get every document, every email, every last receipt on this deal, and every person who had a hand in this is going to answer for it,” Jared Huffman, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee from California, said in a press release. “What I have to say to TotalEnergies is this: Consider yourself on notice, we’re coming for you.”
A former official at the Department of the Interior told Utility Dive this week that the deals set a new precedent that could be abused: “You wouldn’t want to create a situation where you are allowing companies, for instance, to buy up leases for anti-competitive purposes and just not do anything on them for a period of time and then give them back and get their money back.” In Virginia, where Dominion Energy just started up its first offshore wind farm, Governor Abigail Spanberger signed legislation this week meant to support training and expansion of the new energy sector’s workforce, per offshoreWIND.biz. Total, for its part, isn’t eschewing renewables everywhere. The company just started construction on a 440-megawatt solar farm in the Philippines, PV Tech reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
More than 50 countries have agreed to work on trade measures to cut demand for fossil fuels. The pact came out of the Santa Marta climate summit in Colombia, in what the nonprofit Covering Climate Now called “a game-changing moment.” Climate scientist Johan Rockstrom told delegates at the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels: “You are a light in the tunnel of darkness.” For all the reversals of decarbonization policies we’ve seen over the past two years, however, the world is rapidly looking for alternatives to fossil fuels as the war in Iran drives up prices. “We decided that the transition away from fossil fuels could no longer remain a slogan but must become a concrete political and collective endeavor,” Irene Vélez Torres, environment minister of Colombia, told the Financial Times. Notably, the six-day confab did not include the world’s biggest emitters: China, the U.S., and India, who are responsible for more than 40% of current emissions.
Rivian is set to produce up to 300,000 vehicles at its Georgia factory, up 50% from its initial estimate. The electric automaker announced the news Thursday as part of its first-quarter earnings call. The company said it had reworked a loan deal with the Department of Energy to borrow just $4.5 billion of the original $6.6 billion awarded under the Biden administration, TechCrunch reported. Overall, Rivan’s earnings beat analysts’ expectations, according to Sherwood.
Genetically modified crops are widely considered to be essential to feeding a growing human population on a planet with a rapidly changing climate. That’s especially true now with the Iran War causing fertilizer shortages at the start of the growing season. Now the EU, long a bastion of GMO policy, is authorizing four more genetically engineered crops for import and use in food and animal feed. The approval, per Fertilizer Daily, is for one new soybean variety and renewed approvals for one maize and two cotton products.
Rob chats with Ember’s Nicholas Fulghum about the think tank’s newest report.
Here’s some good news: Clean power met all electricity demand growth last year for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s according to a new report on global electricity trends from Ember, a U.K. think tank that tracks energy data from around the world. The new review suggests that solar and batteries are continuing to remake the global power system — and outcompeting gas and coal in some of the world’s fastest growing economies.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Nicholas Fulghum, the lead author of Ember’s new report and an energy and climate data analyst at the think tank. They discuss why solar keeps breaking records, whether India’s energy development trajectory has changed, and how the Iran War could change this year’s numbers.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Nicholas Fulghum: It’s not just the absolute growth there. It’s just also the speed of growth that we’re not really expecting from sources in the past. Usually when a source scales to this level, where you have a maturing technology that is dominating parts of the market, the growth rates come down. But with solar, what we’ve seen is that actually 2025 had the highest growth rate, with 30%, that we’ve seen in eight years. And that’s quite unusual for something that’s really reached scale.
Robinson Meyer: Why is it dominating now? Because you’re absolutely right, we’ve been talking about the story for so many years in a row. This is the one thing we’ve come to expect about the electricity system globally, is that we’re just going to add all this solar every year. So why did it accelerate last year?
Nicholas Fulghum: The solar story as a whole is essentially a story of technology, and the learning curve that solar has been on hasn’t really stopped. So we’re still seeing cost declines. And they are really accelerating the deployment further.
If you think about where the cost has come from, we have a decline of about 90% over the last decade. It really just completely changes the use cases and where solar is applicable. We now have seen rapid solar buildout in so many different contexts. We’ve seen it in big utility installations in the U.S. We’ve seen the sort of hybrid deployment that we see in Australia, where it’s both utility-scale and distributed. Same, very similar approach in Germany, as well, a mix between utility and distributed. But we’ve also seen the very grassroots, not very organized but equally rapid deployment in countries like Pakistan. And this versatility is not something that is applicable to any other electricity source — not just now, but in history.
You can find a complete transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Ember’s Global Electricity Review 2026
Previously on Shift Key: Nobody in the West Knows How to Respond to the ‘Electrotech Revolution’
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Salesforce is the No. 1 AI CRM, where humans with agents drive success together. We invest in bold climate technologies and leverage agentic AI to accelerate nature-based solutions that benefit people and the planet. Learn more. You can also learn more about Salesforce's investments in watersheds here.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.