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 and Jesse get into the nitty gritty on China’s energy policy with Joanna Lewis and John Paul Helveston.

China’s industrial policy for clean energy has turned the country into a powerhouse of solar, wind, battery, and electric vehicle manufacturing.
But long before the country’s factories moved global markets — and invited Trump’s self-destructive tariffs — the country implemented energy and technology policy to level up its domestic industry. How did those policies work? Which tools worked best? And if the United States needs to rebuild in the wake of Trump’s tariffs, what should this country learn?
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with two scholars who have been studying Chinese industrial policy since the Great Recession. Joanna Lewis is the Provost’s Distinguished Associate Professor of Energy and Environment and Director of the Science, Technology and International Affairs Program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. She’s also the author of Green Innovation in China. John Paul Helveston is an assistant professor in engineering management and systems engineering at George Washington University. He studies consumer preferences and market demand for new technologies, as well as China’s longstanding gasoline car and EV industrial policy. 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.
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:
Robinson Meyer: One kind of classical hard problem about industrial policy is selecting the technology that is going to eventually be a winner. And there’s a few ways to get around this problem. One is to just make lots of bets.
One thing that’s been a little unclear to me about the set of technology bets that China has made is that it has seemed to pick a set of technologies that are now extremely competitive globally, and it did seem to pick up on those technologies before Western governments or firms really got to them. Is that entirely because China just made a bunch of technology bets and it happened that these are the ones that worked out? Is it because China could look ahead to the environmental needs of the world and the clean development needs of the world and say, well, there’s probably going to be a need for solar? There’s probably going to be a need for wind? There’s probably going to be a need for EVs? Or is it a third thing, which is that China’s domestic needs, its domestic energy security needs, just happen to align really well with the direction of development that the world is kind of interested in moving in anyway.
John Paul Helveston: All of the above. I don’t know — like, that’s the answer here. I’ll add one thing that’s a little bit nuanced: There’s been tremendous waste. I’ll just put that out there. There’s been all kinds of investments that did not pan out at all, like semiconductors for a long, long time. Just things that didn’t work.
I think where China has had a lot of success is in areas where … It’s like the inverse of what the United States innovation ecosystem does well. China’s ecosystem is really driven around production, and a lot of that is part of the way the government’s set up, that local provinces have a ton of power over how money gets spent, and often repurpose funds for export-oriented production. So that’s been a piece of the engine of China’s economic miracle, is mass producing everything.
But there’s a lot of knowledge that goes along with that. When you look at things like solar, that technology goes back many, many decades for, you know, satellites. But making it a mass produced product for energy applications requires production innovations. You need to get costs down. You need to figure out how to make the machine that makes the machine. And that is something that the Chinese ecosystem does very well.
So that’s one throughline across all of these things, is that the technology got to a certain level of maturity where production improvements and cost decreases were the bigger things that made them globally competitive. I don’t think anyone would be considering an EV if we were still looking at $1,000 a kilowatt hour — and we were there just 15 years ago. And so that’s the big thing. It’s just production. I don’t know if they’ve been exceptionally good at just picking winners, but they’re good at picking things that can be mass produced.
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.
This is what we’re tracking in energy and climate over the next four months — and beyond.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
We’re in the last third of 2026. In yesterday’s newsletter, I looked at the biggest planned upcoming events in climate and energy policy that we’re tracking at Heatmap for the rest of this year.
Today, I want to look at some of the biggest questions that I’m pondering for the rest of the year.
What will the AI backlash mean for data centers and energy demand?
In just the past 24 hours, existential concerns about artificial intelligence has gone mainstream. Even though AI engineers have warned that the technology could trigger some kind of mass fatality event — or even human extinction — for years, the resignation of Sam Coxon from Anthropic seems to have broken through into a new tier of public awareness. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Evan Hubinger, an Anthropic employee, posted on X after Coxon’s resignation broke.
It’s unscientific, but I’ve seen more celebrity Instagram posts, vertical videos, and concerned messages from friends about AI doom in the past day than I have in weeks. Senator Bernie Sanders is now holding a bipartisan meeting next week to discuss the “extraordinary dangers” posed by AI, according to Axios.
We already know that the public detests AI data centers. But so far the data center story has been somewhat severable from the AI story — voters, politicians, and journalists could talk about the AI infrastructure buildout separately from the tales of, say, AI allegedly solving century-old math problems. Will that remain the case? Or will the two stories merge? If that happens, will politicians and AI safety experts start to encourage (or even empower) the data center backlash because it might slow down AI’s overall development? What will that mean for the politics of infrastructure, electrification, and load growth — and will it cut greenhouse gas emissions?
What will happen in Iran, how high can oil go, and what will it mean for the energy system?
President Donald Trump has never been “looking for long term” in Iran, yet his war continues to drag on without an obvious or easy resolution. It has dragged energy prices up with it.
The global crude benchmark has now edged above $100. Gasoline costs more than $4.20 a gallon on average in the United States (and far more in Europe), and diesel is even more expensive. According to an ongoing estimate from Brown University researchers, the war has now cost Americans more than $100 billion due to energy inflation since it began. Hostilities have seemed to intensify in the past few days; Iran fired missiles at U.S. Navy ships and the United States responded by destroying oil tankers.
This has been generally bad for European economies, which are to some degree still recovering from the triple shock of Covid, energy inflation from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and China’s ongoing export boom. At the same time, the Iran war has broadly vindicated China’s energy strategy, which has used electrified technology, strategic stockpiling, and a coal, solar, and battery-dependent power grid to reduce economic dependence on seaborne liquid fuels. (China’s greenhouse gas emissions actually fell in the second quarter because of a drop in the country’s oil consumption.)
The most urgent question here, of course, is whether President Trump will find a way to end the war that he began earlier this year — and how expensive oil and liquified natural gas will get in the interim.
But an end to the war will trigger another set of questions about what this energy shock will mean for energy, climate, and industrial policy going forward. Shocks like these tend to dominate national strategy for years or decades after they happen; Thailand’s government announced last month that it’s backing off LNG imports in favor of renewables. Will we start to see a wider set of countries do the same? Will more countries build strategic oil stockpiles, driving up oil demand in the short term? And will more middle- and low-income countries embrace Chinese-made electric cars in the name of boosting energy security and cutting their oil dependence?
Will the U.S. get bipartisan permitting reform?
The most important political question this year — if you are a normal person — is whether Democrats will take over the House of Representatives and even the Senate in the upcoming midterm election. But we aren’t normal people here at Heatmap. And the midterm elections will, for us, only commence the year’s most interesting political moment.
Right now, lawmakers from both parties say they are trying to reach a deal on bipartisan permitting reform. Such a bill would make it easier to build transmission lines, renewable energy, and some fossil fuel infrastructure, as well as presumably restraining the president’s extralegal war on solar and wind. It could even make it easier for the government to build public infrastructure of all sorts.
We haven’t seen the text of such a deal yet — although my Shift Key interview with Daniel Palken, a permitting expert at Arnold Ventures, offers a lot of clues to its potential content. So it remains an open question whether lawmakers can reach a deal in November and shepherd it through a lame-duck Congress before the end of the year.
If they can, it could enable a future president to conduct a faster and more aggressive clean energy or infrastructure buildout than was previously imaginable. If they can’t, then it will be hard to imagine when such a deal might ever come together, as it has failed to congeal under almost every partisan combination of a president and Congress.
Will 2026 be the hottest year ever?
Back in the spring, climate scientists assigned low odds to the probability that 2026 would become the hottest year ever measured. Since then, though, a monstrous El Niño has clawed out of the Pacific Ocean, nudging up global temperatures and contributing to America’s record-breaking summer.
2026 now has a greater than 33% chance of eclipsing 2024’s hottest-year-on-record title, according to a late July estimate from Carbon Brief; the odds have probably risen further since then. Either way, 2026 will probably come in about 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average — and 2027 is very likely to be even hotter.
Are we entering a post-Trump, post-2010s energy and climate era — and what will it look like?
President Donald Trump is about as unpopular as he has ever been, and on a range of issues, he seems to be losing touch with the American public. Simply by dint of being the country’s most prominent political figure for most of the past 10 years, he has become an establishment politician. He now champions AI, data centers, and the Iran War, for instance, while Americans seem skeptical of all three (at best).
In the next several months, these trends are all likely to intensify: Trump is likely to lose control of Congress — at least according to the polls and the betting markets — and a new presidential election will begin, one in which he will probably not be running.
Which isn’t to say that Trump will lose his grip on the Republican Party or its voters — nor that his actions in the coming years will be lawful, or even Constitutional. But nevertheless if you squint, you can begin to imagine what a post-Trump political era might look like, and it is quite different from the epoch that we have just lived through. It is an era where voters will likely be more worried about inflation and the cost of living than unemployment and economic growth. It is an era where Democrats will be looking to play up economic populism and where the federal deficit might matter again. It is an era where Millennials will be in their prime earning years, where politicians will fear a backlash to industrial policy and infrastructure buildout, and where America’s role in the world will remain unsettled.
It is, in short, not at all like the era that gave us the Green New Deal or the other energy and climate policy of the early 2020s; even if a recession hits and employment becomes a major concern once again, then the resulting political environment might look more like 1992 (or even 1937) than 2008. We are, in short, entering a new era — one we’re excited to watch, develop, and cover here at Heatmap.
Current conditions: Hurricane Lowell came within 40 miles of making landfall over Hawaii, knocking out power in much of Kaua’i • The Atlantic hurricane season, which hit its climatological peak this week, is now trending toward a record low amount of storm activity • After months of heat, an unusual cold front is arriving in Central Europe, threatening flooding from the temperature whiplash.

Back in 1986, the writer Marc Reisner painted a bleak picture of the future of the reservoirs that helped fulfill America’s Manifest Destiny, spread Anglo civilization westward, and quench the thirst of farms, people, and their lawns. His classic Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water predicted that the hydrological system would be thrown into disarray as sediment filled in reservoirs, leaving croplands parched and water scarce. A startling new Bloomberg analysis of scant federal reservoir data suggests that future is fast approaching. Compiling 140 sediment surveys from the Bureau of Reclamation of 105 unique dams, the newswire found that nearly one in three are more than 10% full of sediment. That’s only an average. Montana’s Fresno Reservoir is roughly 29% full of sediment, “displacing enough water to last nearly one-third of the state’s residents for a year.” Wyoming’s Buffalo Bill Dam, meanwhile, “has lost most of its hydroelectric generating capacity due to sediment.” An engineer who oversaw sediment work at the Bureau of Reclamation estimated that the U.S. has already lost up to 44% of its per capita water storage since a peak in the 1970s. “People back in the ’60s and ’70s figured, ‘Well, the next generation can figure that out,’” Randle told the publication. “But now, fast-forward to the present, there aren’t any great solutions.”
The finding comes just months after the Western U.S. suffered what my colleague Jeva Lange called “a once-in-a-4,433-year heat wave” with consequences that “will linger well past the high temperatures.”
In 2020, when activists sought to block individual gas or oil pipelines as a way to spur decarbonization, then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo bowed to months of protests by blocking the state’s approval of water permits for a major gas pipeline under New York Bay. The project, known as the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline, would have carried gas from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania to the nation’s most densely populated and increasingly energy-starved region. In the meantime, demand for gas has soared, particularly as New York and Massachusetts shut down major nuclear stations and the offshore wind buildout began stalling even before President Donald Trump launched what my colleagues have repeatedly described as a “war” on turbines. When Trump returned to office, now-New York Governor Kathy Hochul compromised with the new administration by agreeing to work together to move forward with the mothballed pipeline plans. Last November, New Jersey followed suit by approving the water permits for the project on the same day New York did. Williams broke ground in April.
But bipartisan consensus is no guarantee against this nation’s process rules for environmental permitting. On Tuesday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s water certifications. Prior to the decision last year, New Jersey’s state agency held only one public hearing, prompting a lawsuit from a coalition of green groups. NJ Sierra Club, one of the leading litigants, hailed Tuesday’s ruling as “a massive victory over the fossil fuel industry.” The decision “tells us what we already knew, the DEP couldn’t prove that NESE will not harm our water quality and waterways,” Anjuli Ramos-Busot, NJ Sierra Club’s director, said in a statement. When I emailed Williams to ask about the ruling last night, spokesperson Cherice Corley told me the company was “reviewing the court’s decision.”
It’s a big week for carbon capture and sequestration in Europe. On Monday, the continent’s largest CCS facility officially opened at the fertilizer company Yara International’s Sluiskil plant in the Netherlands. At full capacity, the facility will capture and liquify up to 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide annual from an ammonia production plant. Yara said the facility “proves that large-scale industrial decarbonization is possible today.” The European Union’s climate commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra, said “this is exactly the kind of project Europe needs to combine climate ambition with a strong and resilient industrial base.”
That same day, the British startup Cool Planet Technologies christened its 10,000-ton-per-year CCS plant at building material maker Holcim’s cement plant in Lower Saxony, Germany. “We are relying on leading European technology and drawing on the engineering expertise of our technology partners,” Holcim Germany CEO Stephan Hinrichs told the Carbon Herald. “Together in Lower Saxony, we are proving that climate protection and industrial competitiveness can go hand in hand.” Someone may want to tell the incoming far-right rulers of neighboring Saxony-Anhalt.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
If bipartisan consensus on gas infrastructure bows to environmental lawfare in blue states, bipartisan consensus on transmission lines seems equally vulnerable to not-in-my-backyard-ism in states of any color. But there’s at least some bipartisan consensus on doing something about that. On Tuesday, Representatives Scott Peters, a California Democrat, and Gabe Evans, a Colorado Republican, introduced the Certainty in Litigation for Electric Asset Reliability, or CLEAR Act, to “resolve ambiguity in current law so that Department of Energy-coordinated transmission projects follow clear standards.”
“Our grid is too old and too slow to meet our skyrocketing energy demand,” Peters said in a press release. “We can’t wait years for badly needed infrastructure to be built. The CLEAR Act would accelerate the review process for large energy infrastructure projects and establish clear rules for stalled transmission projects.” While permitting reform may bring down the cost of transmission lines, and bring more renewables and other new generation onto the grid, it won’t do much to deal with oil prices, now soaring again as the Iran War drags on. Brent crude — the main European and global metric for oil prices — surpassed $100 per barrel again yesterday. West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for the U.S. supply, hovered just below $96.
The Department of the Interior is planning to “significantly reorganize” the National Park Service and other bureaus in the agency as part of what The Washington Sun called “the second major shake-up of the nation’s public lands infrastructure” since Trump’s return to office. While the leaked document the publication obtained suggested the agency would avoid layoffs “in the short term,” talking points told officials to “avoid categorical promises; explain notification process” if asked about job cuts.
“We want to reorganize. We want to make things more efficient. You know what? We can do all those things, but how is that actually helping us be a leader and setting an example of how we protect our nation’s natural and cultural resources?” Russell Galipeau, who served as superintendent of Channel Islands National Park for 15 years, told the publication.
The summer of 2023 marked Quebec’s worst wildfire season on record, burning some 4.5 million hectares of boreal forests and darkening the skies of cities such as New York with toxic smoke. A new study by Concordia University researchers is among the first to quantify how the smoke affected wildlife. The research looked at lepidoptera — moths and butterflies — and concluded that the smoke exposure during the larval stage caused significantly higher rates of wing deformities in spruce budworm and forest tent caterpillar moths. “These insects are important because they are considered pests, meaning they have outbreak seasons, where the population density becomes very high,” Rosa Alicia Castillo Salazar, the study’s co-author, said in a statement. “We do not yet know how forest fires and climate change will affect them in the long term. However, there was no significant change in their population the following year.”
Rob goes back to school with Princeton University’s Jesse Jenkins on the basics of energy and power.
As we catch up from summer vacation, we’re bringing you a favorite from the Shift Key archive. We’ll be back in your feed with more fresh episodes starting next week.
What is the difference between energy and power? How does the power grid work? And what’s the difference between a megawatt and a megawatt-hour?
On this week’s episode, we answer those questions and many, many more. This was the start of Shift Key Summer School, a series of introductory “lecture conversations” meant to cover the basics of energy and the power grid for listeners of every experience level and background. In less than an hour, Rob and former Shift Key co-host Jesse Jenkins, a professor of systems engineering at Princeton University, try to get you up to speed on how to think about energy, power, horsepower, volts, amps, and what uses (approximately) 1 watt-hour, 1 kilowatt-hour, 1 megawatt-hour, and 1 gigawatt-hour.
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, YouTube, 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:
Robinson Meyer: I’m raising my hand.
Jesse Jenkins: Yeah, okay. Robinson has a question. Yes, Robinson.
Meyer: Okay, so I have a few questions. The first is, I think it is kind of important to establish, like, energy here — the joule — what that changes about a substance — and I realize this is high school physics, physics 101 — is the acceleration, not the velocity. We sometimes think of energy as a property of velocity, but it’s actually the ability to change velocity. That is what energy does.
Jenkins: Right. Yeah, that’s right. I think about the basic Newtonian mechanics, right? If you have an object in a vacuum with no friction, or no forces working against it, it will continue at the same velocity and the same trajectory forever. And so what it requires energy is to change that direction or velocity, which requires acceleration or the application of force to some mass.
Meyer: You just kind of said this, but what is the difference between energy and power?
Jenkins: So energy is the actual thing that ... it’s the quantity of the thing that’s doing work, right? So it’s the amount of fuel we burned, or the number of calories we had to eat to run our bodies over the course of a day, or the amount of electricity we had to generate to run our lights or our computer. Power is the rate at which that energy is consumed or supplied or transported or transformed. And so it is not itself a unit of quantity. You don’t use power. You use energy. Power is the rate at which you’re using energy.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Verse’s software platform Aria helps data centers connect to the grid faster and optimize power operations in real time. Learn more at verse.inc.
RE+ 26 is the largest clean energy event in North America, happening November 16th through 19th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Register at re-plus.com and use code SHIFTKEY20 to save 20% off a Full Conference pass.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.