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:
Rob preps for Giving Tuesday with Giving Green’s Dan Stein.

It’s been a tumultuous year for climate politics — and for climate nonprofits. The longtime activist group 350.org suspended its operations in the U.S. (at least temporarily), and Bill Gates, the world’s No. 1 climate funder, declared that the decarbonization movement should make a “strategic pivot” to poverty reduction. How should someone who wants to help the global climate navigate this moment?
Our guest has recommendations. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Dan Stein, the founder and executive director of Giving Green. Giving Green is a nonprofit that researches the most high-impact climate groups and helps people and companies donate to them. Stein talked about the top five climate groups Giving Green recommends this year, effective altruism and the future of climate philanthropy, and whether Bill Gates is right that climate activism has focused too much on emissions targets.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
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 our conversation:
Dan Stein: You can think of this set of solutions that’s very easily measurable, and to a first order approximation call that the carbon offset market. And so if you’re very obsessed about measurements and accountability, you’re playing in the offset market — which is okay, but I just think people can do better, right? Like, we need to change systems. We need to change laws. And you can’t do that with a carbon offset. So we sometimes advise companies, as well, and that’s what I tell them. I’m like, if you put yourself in this box of having to measure the amount of tons that you are reducing to solve your net zero goal, well then you’re extremely restrained in terms of the upside impact you can have.
Robinson Meyer: It seems like you’ve followed an arc that is not unrecognizable from other parts of life. Like, I think of what’s happened with effective altruism, which is kind of where GiveWell initially came out of — this idea that everyone could be saving more lives if they were way more thoughtful and exact and precise, and scrutinized their methods much better in picking which groups to give to. And that obviously has had some big successes, among them GiveWell, which is quite impressive, I think, in some ways, and has saved a lot of lives and changed how people think about development. But ultimately you do run into politics, at the end of it.
I even think in economics more broadly, there’s incredible attention given to small policy changes that can produce more or less growth and more or less equality or inequality. But then when you talk about these big picture questions like why do certain countries become rich, or why does development happen in some places and not others? Once you move past the basic geographic constraints, then as far as I can tell, the current economic answer is like, well, some places had histories that developed good institutions and some places didn’t. And if you have good institutions, you have economic growth.
And it feels like we’re hitting the institution question of climate tech, or of decarbonization. Like, yeah, your dollars could go a little farther on some sorts of carbon offsets than others. But if you really care about decarbonization, you’re actually back at this big set of very mushy questions at the intersection of society and technology and policy and politics.
Stein: Definitely. And I mean, not to get us too derailed — you know, I’m an economist, Rob. But anyway —
Meyer: That’s why I’ve intentionally driven this car into a ditch.
Stein: Development economics has also gone through waves of this. If you think of the 70s and 80s, like, early versions of the World Bank were all about institutions and getting the rules of the game, right? And then free markets will solve everything. And then you kind of get a reaction to that in the 90s and 2000s of more microdevelopment.
And now I actually think maybe the pendulum is swinging the other way, going more towards growth. Now you even see it for someone like GiveWell. They’re now making a ton of grants not just to these super measurable direct intervention orgs, but to more meta orgs that are trying to increase the total amount of aid or the quality of aid or health systems or whatever. It’s really hard to avoid these questions of policy and technology and markets if you’re trying to solve big problems.
Mentioned:
Giving Green’s top climate nonprofits for 2025:
The Giving Green regranting fund
Bill Gates’ memo on “three tough truths about climate”
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
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 that’s before we start talking about the tens of billions of dollars of investment required.
Donald Trump could not have been more clear about his intentions. Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro may be sitting in New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center on drugs and weapons charges, but the United States removed him from power — at least in part — because the Trump administration wants oil. And it wants American companies to get it.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said over the weekend in a press conference following Maduro’s removal from Venezuela.
The country’s claimed crude oil reserves are the largest in the world, according to OPEC data, standing at just over 300 billion barrels, compared to around 45 billion in the United States and 267 billion in Saudi Arabia.
But having reserves and exploiting them are very different things. Before oil producers can start pumping, both the Venezuelan government and the U.S. oil companies will have to traverse several geopolitical and financial steps. Some of these could take weeks; others may take years. The entire process will cost tens of billions of dollars, if not more, at a time when oil prices are low. And American oil companies may well be leery about investing in a country with a long history of instability when it comes to foreign investment.
Venezuela produced over 3 million barrels per day though the 1960s until the late 1990s. Then came nationalization, decades of underinvestment, and harsh sanctions imposed in Trump’s first term to pressure the Maduro government, and most recently, a U.S. naval blockade imposed in December. As of last year, production had fallen to around a million barrels per day.
About 120,000 barrels per day winds up at U.S. Gulf Coast refineries built to process its heavy sour crude, courtesy of a rare license to operate granted to Chevron. (Chevron shares were up in early trading Monday morning.) But “for the most part, the Venezuela oil story has been a small amount of production all going to China,” Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me.
To get a sense of where Venezuela’s oil production capacity sits in the international context, Texas alone has produced more oil every year since 2018 than Venezuela’s all-time peak production of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1970. Canada, which produces a comparably heavy and sour crude, produced over 5 million barrels per day in 2025.
The immediate question is whether the United States will lift its blockade and allow oil to flow more freely. Venezuela’s monthly exports dropped dramatically in December to 19 million barrels, down from 27 million the month before, according to S&P Global Commodities data.
“If that happens,” oil analyst Rory Johnston told me about the potential to lift the blockade, “those barrels will still largely go to China.”
But even that is in question.
When asked on Face the Nation how the United States would “run” Venezuela, as Trump indicated, without an active military presence in the country, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the blockade would be a key pressure point. “That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to,” he said. The blockade “remains in place,” Rubio added, “and that’s a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes.”
Even if the blockade were lifted, the next question over the medium to long term would be the lifting of U.S. sanctions, which have been in effect on Venezuela’s oil industry in their harshest form since 2019. With very few exceptions, these have prevented U.S. and other large oil companies from getting further involved with the country.
Sanctions are “why American companies either can’t or won’t buy Venezuela oil, and that keeps other buyers from not buying it as well,” Brew told me. “That’s another source of downward pressure on Venezuela oil exports.”
Even after it’s no longer literally illegal to work with Venezuela, however, there’s still the logistical and financial questions of long-term investments in Venezuela’s oil sector.
Venezuela would have to repair its connections to the international financial system, which have been strained by its defaults on tens of billions of debt. It would also likely have to overhaul its own laws around foreign investment in its oil industry that favor its state oil company PDVSA, according to Luisa Palacios, a former chairperson of Citgo, the (for now) majority-Venezuelan-owned energy company. Only then would U.S. oil companies likely have a plausible case to re-invest.
The next question is whether that investment would be worth it.
“Foreign companies are looking for an improvement in governance, the restoration of the rule of law, and an easing of U.S. oil sanctions,” Palacios wrote in a blog post for the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy. “If the Venezuelan government were to commit to these reforms in a serious way (and the United States was therefore prepared to remove sanctions), an increase in oil production of 500,000 b/d-1 million b/d within a 2-year horizon, while optimistic, seems plausible” — though nowhere near the country’s 3.7 million-barrel peak.
Jefferies analyst Alejando Anibal Demichelis came to a similar conclusion in a note to clients, adding that “further increases beyond that level could be much more complex and costly.”
To get from here to there would require extensive investment in an environment where oil is plentiful and cheap. Oil prices saw their largest one-year decline last year since the onset of COVID in 2020.
“This is a moment where there’s oversupply,” Johnston told me. “Prices are down. It’s not the moment that you’re like, I’m going to go on a lark and invest in Venezuela.”
Venezuela will need that confidence to generate the necessary investments. The country’s oil industry “desperately needs more operational and financial support,” according to analysts at the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, which has estimated that it would require some $15 billion to $20 billion of investment over a decade to get production from existing operations to increase by 500,000 barrels per day.
Within six months to a year, Brew told me, “the volume of exports that could realistically be expected to increase is 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day.” And that figure assumes “the stars align” in terms of the blockade, sanctions relief, and investment.
The “best case scenario,” Brew told me, is that tens of billions of dollars of U.S. investment flows into Venezuela as the blockade is lifted, sanctions are removed, and Venezuela reforms its laws to allow more foreign investment.
“Even there, I think realistically, it takes two years to get production from 1 million to 2 million barrels a day, and it costs a lot of money in a period amidst price conditions that are expected to be fairly soft,” he said.
As a rough guideline for what’s feasible over the long term, Iraq’s oil production rose from about 2 million barrels per day in 2002 to 4.7 million barrels by the end of the next decade, according to Wood Mackenzie. But that was at a time when oil prices were generally rising.
In any case, more oil is more oil, and it’s hard to see how Venezuela’s exports could get much lower. Industry analysts largely concluded that the operation to remove Maduro and put the United States in the driver’s seat would exert at least a mild downward pressure on oil prices.
But do major American oil companies want to get involved in the first place? “We’ve been expropriated from Venezuela two different times,” ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods told Bloomberg last year. Both Exxon and ConocoPhillips left the country in 2007 rather than accept new contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company.
Brew is pessimistic. “I don’t see much of an upside in the short term,” he told me. That’s because the potential profits from reinvesting could be meager. When Maduro came to power in 2013, U.S. oil prices were over $90 a barrel, compared to around $60 today.
“But apart from commercial incentives, there is the incentive of, Okay the president wants us to do this. We can do it,” Brew said, but he cautioned, “I don’t think he’s in a position to leverage major US oil companies to go into Venezuela, simply by his own personal inclinations,” Brew said. “They’re going to need to see it make commercial sense. And right now it simply doesn’t.”
On Venezuela’s oil, South Korean nuclear, and Berlin militants’ grid attack
Current conditions: Juneau, Alaska, is blanketed under a record 80 inches of snow, equal to six-and-a-half feet • A heat wave stretching across southern Australia is sending temperatures as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit • Arctic air prompted Ireland’s weather service to put out a nationwide warning as temperatures plunge below freezing.
When The Wall Street Journal asked Chevron CEO Mike Wirth about his oil giant’s investments in Venezuela back in November, he said, “We play a long game.” Then came President Donald Trump’s Saturday morning raid on Caracas, which ended in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and appeared to bring the country’s vast crude resources under the U.S.’s political influence. Unlike the light crude pumped out of the ground in places like the Permian Basin in western Texas, Venezuela’s oil is mostly heavy crude. That makes it particularly desirable to American refineries along the Gulf Coast, which can juice more profit out of making fuels from heavy crude than from lighter grades. Still, don’t expect America’s No. 2 oil producer to declare victory just yet. Shares in Chevron inched up by just a few percentage points over the weekend.
“Saturday’s operation didn’t hinge on nuanced assessments of crude grades or the U.S. refining sector’s appetite for heavy supply,” according to Landon Derentz, the energy chief on the White House’s National Security Council during Trump’s first term. In a blog post for the Atlantic Council, where he now serves as the think tank’s vice president of energy and infrastructure, Derentz called it “misguided” to claim that the military intervention was predicated on access to oil. “Venezuelan oil supply is unlikely to move global energy markets meaningfully in the near term. For now, the country remains under an oil embargo imposed by the Trump administration. Even under optimistic assumptions, it will take years to rehabilitate the country’s energy sector and achieve a sizable increase in oil exports.” Oil access was an “enabler” for Trump’s policy of hemispheric domination, he wrote, “not the prize” in itself. And as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote in June, when the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran, oil prices shrugged off the possibility of prolonged geopolitical crisis crippling the shipment of fuel.
In my final newsletter of 2025, I told you about Trump’s December 22 order to halt construction on all offshore wind projects in the U.S., including those that had hitherto been spared the administration’s “total war on wind,” on supposed national security grounds. Last week, Orsted filed a court order to challenge Trump’s suspension of its lease, calling the move illegal. The Danish wind giant has been here before. Trump first yanked the permits for Revolution Wind, a joint venture between Orsted and the private equity-owned Skyborn Renewables, back in August, when construction was nearly 80% complete. Orsted fought back. By the end of September, a federal judge lifted Trump’s stop-work order. And as I reported exclusively in this newsletter at the time, New England trade unions signed an historic agreement guaranteeing organized labor jobs in maintaining offshore turbines.
Orsted isn’t the only developer pushing back. On Friday, Bloomberg reported that Norwegian developer Equinor was “engaging with U.S. authorities over security concerns.” Even if Trump’s latest push is overturned in court, the move will come at costs. During an appearance on Bloomberg TV last month, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont warned that the delay in building new turbines was “blowing a hole in our efforts to bring down the price of electricity.” At least one key turbine-equipment manufacturer remains bullish on the future of wind. The Financial Times reported that German hardware producer Siemens Energy had fended off calls from activist investors to spin out its wind division.
The Department of Energy asked Santa for more coal last month. On the day before Christmas Eve, the agency ordered two coal-fired plants in Indiana to postpone retirement. The orders directing the R.M. Schahfer and F.B. Culley generating stations to continue operating past their closure dates at the end of December mark what E&E News clocked as the third and fourth times, respectively, that the Trump administration has used its emergency powers to prevent coal plants from shutting down. “Keeping these coal plants online has the potential to save lives and is just common sense,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement. “Americans deserve reliable power regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining during extreme winter conditions.” While it’s true that coal plants boast a higher capacity factor than many cleaner generating sources, that depends on the units actually running. As Matthew wrote in November, American coal plants keep breaking down.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
South Korea’s nuclear regulator approved a license for the long-delayed Saeul-3 reactor in Busan. The country emerged in recent years as the democratic world’s leading nuclear exporter after successfully building the United Arab Emirates’ first plant largely on time and on budget. But in 2017, then-President Moon Jae-in of the center-left Democratic Party adopted a national plan to dismantle the nuclear industry, prompting delays on Saeul-3. His conservative successor, Yoon Suk Yeol, reversed the phaseout policy. Since President Lee Jae Myung won back the Blue House for the Democrats last year, questions have swirled over whether his administration would revive the anti-nuclear effort. The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission’s decision last week to license the new reactor, a state-of-the-art APR1400 like the ones the Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power built in Abu Dhabi, marked nearly 10 years since the Saeul-3 received its initial construction permit, according to The Chosun Ilbo, the country’s newspaper of record.
All the new reactors underway across North America, Europe, South Korea, and Japan, combined would still fall far short of what China is building. In its latest tally, the trade publication NucNet pegged the total number of reactors under construction in People’s Republic at 35.

A left-wing militant group whose 2024 arson attack halted production at the Tesla Gigafactory in Germany has claimed responsibility for setting fire Sunday to equipment near high-voltage power in Berlin. The attack, which the head of Germany’s Senate called an act of “terrorism,” triggered a blackout across more than 35,000 households and nearly 2,000 businesses in the German capital that could last days, Der Tagesspiegel reported. In a 2,500-word manifesto that The Guardian confirmed with police, the Vulkangruppe, or Volcano Group, condemned a “greed for energy” produced from fossil fuels, calling the attack an “act of self-defense and international solidarity with all those who protect the earth and life.” A previous arson attack by the same group knocked out power in southeastern Berlin for nearly three days in September, marking the longest outage since World War II.
A parched stretch of farmland is set to produce something new: Solar power. The board of California’s Westlands Water District that serves the San Joaquin Valley has adopted a plan that would add 21 gigawatts of solar power on land fallowed by water shortages. The infrastructure strategy document called for a “major land-repurposing initiative” across the nation’s largest agricultural water district, which spans 1,000 miles and provides freshwater to 700 farms near Fresno. Legislation passed in California’s big climate package last fall (Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo has a good writeup here) gave water districts the power to develop, construct, and own solar generation, batteries, and transmission facilities.
This was the year of the fire sale. With the $7,500 federal electric vehicle tax credit expiring at the end of September, buyers raced to get good deals on EVs and made sales numbers shoot up. Then, predictably, sales fell off a cliff at the end of the year, when those offers-you-can’t-refuse disappeared.
Now that a new year has arrived, the word might be “uncertain.” Tariffs and the loss of federal incentives have tossed a heavy dose of chaos into the EV industry, causing many automakers to reconsider their plans for what electric cars they’re going to build and where they’re going to make them. And yet, at the same time, some of the most anticipated new electric models we’ve seen in years are supposed to be coming to America next year. Here’s what to know.
Just as changes in federal policy threaten to make electric cars more expensive — at a moment when Americans are clearly tiring of out-of-control car prices — here comes a new batch of long-overdue affordable EVs. Among the most important is the Chevy Bolt, a fan favorite from the previous generation of electric vehicles that ended its first run in 2023. With the basic version starting at $29,000 for a car with 250-plus miles of range, the little Chevy might inspire a new legion of fans — perhaps one large enough to convince General Motors to extend what they’re calling a limited Bolt resurrection into a car that’s on sale for good.
The Nissan Leaf, another name from a bygone era, is also coming back to the States. The Leaf, you may recall, was arguably the car that started this electric era, hitting the market ahead of the much-more-beloved Tesla Model S. The second version of the Leaf that came out in the mid-2010s was a pretty darn good hatchback, but one that lasted too long without an update and paled in comparison to the better models that came along this decade. Nissan as a company has been adrift the past several years, but it built a winner in the new Leaf 3.0, an attractive small crossover set to arrive in 2026.
Next year also should see heel-draggers Toyota and Subaru finally coming to market with winning EVs. The uninspired Toyota bZ4x/Subaru Solterra, which the two Japanese brands developed together, had been their only pure EVs. In 2026, however, Subaru is set to launch the Outback EV and Toyota the electrified version of the C-HR small crossover, putting all-electric power into some of their well-known gasoline nameplates.
Battery-powered adventure vehicles make up some of the most exciting EVs for 2026. Perhaps the most-anticipated arrival is the Rivian R2, poised to be not only the model that brings that brand to the masses, with its $45,000 starting price, but also serve as the launchpad for Rivan’s aspirations in autonomous driving and AI. It’ll face new competition in the form of the Jeep Recon, that iconic brand’s first all-electric SUV, and of the Range Rover Electric, which seeks to win back some of the drivers who ditched their Range Rovers for the Rivian R1.
The electric pickup market, by comparison, has gone cold. Rivian, which launched its all-electric company with a pickup trick, isn’t planning a truck version for the smaller R2 platform. Ford, amidst yet another upheaval in its EV plans, is killing the all-electric version of the F-150 Lightning and plans to produce a 700-mile extended range hybrid in its place (though it says plans for the mid-sized EV truck due in 2027 will go on).
The great truck hope for EVs in 2026 is the much-awaited launch of Slate, the truly compact electric truck backed by Jeff Bezos, among others. Slate’s pitch is affordability via personalization: The bare-bones, doesn’t-even-have-power-windows version is supposed to start in the mid-$20,000s, on par with the cheapest new gasoline cars you can buy in America. Buyers can spend as much as they want to add bells and whistles.
Of the new high-end EVs coming to America, the most compelling may be the BMW i3. The last car to bear that name was the little urban future cube the German automaker sold in decent numbers back in the 2010s, despite that older vehicle having just 150 miles of range. The new i3 is a fully realized electrified version of the best-selling BMW 3 Series, one of the icons of the auto industry.
Despite the arrival of new and affordable EVs, the industry still has a big affordability problem. Too many electric cars are still too expensive and not competitive price-wise with their gasoline counterparts. Meanwhile, Americans are getting fed up with out-of-control car prices.
A consequence of this, industry insiders say, could be that 2026 is the year of the used EV. Tons of electric cars that were leased under very favorable terms during the Biden years will be coming back to dealerships as those leases end, ready to become very affordable used cars. With batteries having markedly improved since the 2010s, those three-year-old electric cars should have decent driving ranges to go with their low sticker prices.
The other big question mark is the promise of the autonomous age. Tesla, still the EV market leader in America, hasn’t offered an entirely new one since the disastrous launch of the Cybertruck. This year, though, Elon Musk says he will start building Cybercab, the supposedly fully autonomous car that will never be driven by its human occupants. Maybe it will upend the entire automotive industry as drivers say goodbye to the act of driving. Or maybe, like most Tesla endeavors, it will come in behind schedule and not work quite as well as Musk promises.