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:
The contrasts may be quiet, but they’re also quite clear.
The United States Senate sits on a knife-edge. Democrats currently control the chamber by a 51-49 margin, but they are defending more seats than Republicans are in this election. In fact, with the retirement of Joe Manchin and the nearly inevitable passing of that West Virginia seat to a Republican, Democrats need to win almost every contested race in order to keep the chamber at 50-50, which would give them control if Kamala Harris wins the White House and Tim Walz is able to cast tie-breaking votes.
The consequences of a shift in control for climate policy could be enormous, not just in the legislation that will (or won’t) pass, but in the fate of nominees to key agencies. So how are Senate candidates confronting the climate issue? This roundup of the 10 most closely contested races shows that while the contrasts between the candidates are stark, for the most part, climate has been a secondary or even absent issue on the campaign trail.
The contrasts between the candidates are unmistakeable; to take just one example, every Democrat on this list who was in Congress at the time voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation in history, and every Republican opposed it. But with the exception of Pennsylvania, where fracking has been a major issue, and to a lesser extent in Arizona, where Ruben Gallego often brings up the toll of increasing temperatures, in none of these races is climate change anywhere near the forefront of the debate.
That’s mostly because Democrats have chosen not to elevate the issue. Though they might criticize their Republican opponents for opposing the IRA or ignoring climate altogether if you ask them, they haven’t put time and resources behind the criticism. You don’t see them discussing climate in their advertising, and in most cases you won’t even find it mentioned on their websites — or if it’s there, it merits only a brief statement of intentions and nothing more detailed.
Nevertheless, the contrast remains: All of these Democrats can be counted on to support most or all of a Harris administration’s climate initiatives, just as the Republicans will reliably oppose them, or support a second Trump administration’s efforts to roll back the measures the Biden administration has undertaken. Which is why so much depends on where the Senate falls after election day.
The candidates: Democrat Ruben Gallego vs. Republican Kari Lake
Gallego has been a particularly forceful advocate on one aspect of climate change: extreme heat. He told The Arizona Republic that “our state will become uninhabitable in the summer if we wait much longer to act,” has introduced multiple bills to address it, and criticized the Biden administration for not going far enough to confront the danger of rising temperatures. Lake, on the other hand, dismisses any such concern. Last summer she accused Gallego and Governor Katie Hobbs of “pushing mass hysteria in an effort to declare a climate emergency.” She told a podcast, “Newsflash, it’s hot in Arizona in the summer,” and said “don’t tell me that we’re in some sort of a weird heating trend … I don’t believe that for a minute.”
The candidates: Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the challenger vs. Republican Rick Scott, the incumbent
When he became Florida’s governor in 2011, Scott reportedly issued an informal ban on the use of the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in state communication. He denied the story and in recent years has softened his previous climate denial, but he was regularly criticized for inaction in a state unusually vulnerable to climate impacts and has been a consistent opponent of efforts to address warming. Mucarsel-Powell’s website says she “knows climate change is real and she is ready to take action to address the climate crisis that is impacting Floridians, their lives, and their property,” but she’s been quiet about it on the trail.
The candidates: Democrat Angela Alsobrooks vs. Republican Larry Hogan
Former Governor Hogan is the most moderate Republican on this list, and during his tenure in Annapolis he went farther on climate than most Republicans liked, but not as far as state Democrats wanted. He committed the state to reducing emissions, but grappled with Democrats in the legislature over a sweeping climate plan, eventually allowing a scaled-back version to become law without his signature. Alsobrooks calls climate change an “existential threat” and touts her climate efforts as Prince George’s County Executive, including obtaining funding for more electric buses and creating a composting program. She issued an executive order in 2022, setting a goal of making her country carbon-neutral by 2045.
The candidates: Republican Tim Sheehy, the challenger vs. Democrat Jon Tester, the incumbent
For a red-state Democrat, Tester talks a good deal about climate, not mincing words about the effects of global warming (which he says he witnesses as a working farmer) and regularly touting funding he has secured to mitigate climate effects in Montana; he gets a lifetime score of 89% from the League of Conservation Voters. But he favors carrots over sticks, objecting to some tougher pollution regulations and supporting continued fossil fuel production, including the Keystone XL pipeline. Sheehy is a full-on climate denier who rails against “the radical climate cult agenda” and the “woke crap” of ESG investing. Yet the company that made Sheehy rich markets its wildfire-fighting efforts as a response to climate change’s effects.
The candidates: Republican Mike Rogers vs. Democrat Elissa Slotkin
Slotkin, a current member of the House of Representatives, has portrayed herself as something of a climate moderate in Congress, cosponsoring bipartisan emissions legislation but declining to support the Green New Deal. Still, she often brings up her work preparing the Department of Defense to adapt to climate change, and has been supportive of the Biden administration’s climate initiatives. Rogers, on the other hand, was a consistent vote in the House, where he served from the aughts to the mid-2010s, against all kinds of environmental initiatives, and ridiculed DOD climate efforts: “When we dedicate scarce defense funding to global climate change, biofuel initiatives and social engineering experiments with military personnel, you can almost hear the cheers and laughter of our adversaries,” he wrote in 2021. While Slotkin has brought up climate on the campaign trail, neither candidate mentions it on their website.
The candidates: Republican Sam Brown, the challenger vs. Democrat Jacky Rosen, the incumbent
Rosen has been more outspoken about climate change than many Democrats on this list, and has been a particularly strong booster of Nevada’s solar industry; she also attended COP26 in 2021. Brown’s website says, “We have been blessed with an abundance of natural resources, but we’ve also been plagued by politicians pushing extreme left energy agendas, like the Green New Deal, that raise prices and destroy jobs”; he has also criticized electric vehicles and incentives to increase EV sales.
The candidates: Democrat Sherrod Brown, the incumbent vs. Republican Bernie Moreno, the challenger
Senator Brown has used his chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee to draw attention to climate issues, including pressing the Federal Reserve to incorporate climate risks into its relationship with the banking industry. He has called climate “one of the greatest moral issues of our time,” and has long advocated clean energy as a vehicle to rebuild the country’s industrial base. But during this campaign, he has become increasingly wary of certain emissions regulations he fears will lead to job loss, saying “I’ve spent most of my career looking at trade or environment through the eyes of employment in my state.” Moreno wants to eliminate EV subsidies and has attacked “Biden’s radical Green New Deal agenda,” arguing that achieving “energy dominance” through fossil fuel production is vital to prosperity.
The candidates: Democrat Bob Casey, the incumbent vs. Republican Dave McCormick, the challenger
Though Casey has a strong environmental record, McCormick has succeeded in making fracking a central issue of the campaign, including falsely accusing Casey of supporting a ban on the technique, which is commonly used in Pennsylvania to extract natural gas. McCormick acknowledges that climate change is real, but nevertheless told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette he wants to “unlock oil and gas production here at home.” (The U.S. is already the world’s largest producer of both oil and natural gas.) In the midst of the fracking controversy, Casey seems to have quieted his prior climate advocacy somewhat (his website has no section on climate, but does have one on “Preserving Pennsylvania’s Energy Legacy”), but he hasn’t publicly disavowed any of his prior positions.
The candidates: Democrat Colin Allred, the challenger vs. Republican Ted Cruz, the incumbent
Cruz has long been one of Congress’ most prominent climate deniers and one of the top recipients of contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He blames the Green New Deal, a piece of legislation that was never voted on, for high electricity prices in Texas, and has attacked federal agencies for “fueling youth climate anxiety.” While Allred has supported climate action in the past, he has trod somewhat carefully on the issue during the campaign (he advocates “an all-of-the-above energy strategy” and has promoted liquified natural gas exports) and hasn’t made an issue of Cruz’s climate denial.
The candidates: Democrat Tammy Baldwin, the incumbent vs. Republican Eric Hovde, the challenger
Baldwin has been a consistent advocate for climate action, including co-sponsoring a bill to achieve net-zero emissions for the entire country by 2050. Hovde has spent a good deal of the campaign railing against EV subsidies and other green energy spending, calls efforts to phase out fossil fuels “delusional,” and instead promotes increased fossil fuel production.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.
The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.
More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.
In order to better understand how communities can build back smarter after — or, ideally, before — a catastrophic fire, I spoke with Efseaff about his work in Paradise and how other communities might be able to replicate it. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Do you live in Paradise? Were you there during the Camp Fire?
I actually live in Chico. We’ve lived here since the mid-‘90s, but I have a long connection to Paradise; I’ve worked for the district since 2017. I’m also a sea kayak instructor and during the Camp Fire, I was in South Carolina for a training. I was away from the phone until I got back at the end of the day and saw it blowing up with everything.
I have triplet daughters who were attending Butte College at the time, and they needed to be evacuated. There was a lot of uncertainty that day. But it gave me some perspective, because I couldn’t get back for two days. It gave me a chance to think, “Okay, what’s our response going to be?” Looking two days out, it was like: That would have been payroll, let’s get people together, and then let’s figure out what we’re going to do two weeks and two months from now.
It also got my mind thinking about what we would have done going backwards. If you’d had two weeks to prepare, you would have gotten your go-bag together, you’d have come up with your evacuation route — that type of thing. But when you run the movie backwards on what you would have done differently if you had two years or two decades, it would include prepping the landscape, making some safer community defensible space. That’s what got me started.
Was it your idea to buy up the high-risk properties in the burn scar?
I would say I adapted it. Everyone wants to say it was their idea, but I’ll tell you where it came from: Pre-fire, the thinking was that it would make sense for the town to have a perimeter trail from a recreation standpoint. But I was also trying to pitch it as a good idea from a fuel standpoint, so that if there was a wildfire, you could respond to it. Certainly, the idea took on a whole other dimension after the Camp Fire.
I’m a restoration ecologist, so I’ve done a lot of river floodplain work. There are a lot of analogies there. The trend has been to give nature a little bit more room: You’re not going to stop a flood, but you can minimize damage to human infrastructure. Putting levees too close to the river makes them more prone to failing and puts people at risk — but if you can set the levee back a little bit, it gives the flood waters room to go through. That’s why I thought we need a little bit of a buffer in Paradise and some protection around the community. We need a transition between an area that is going to burn, and that we can let burn, but not in a way that is catastrophic.
How hard has it been to find willing sellers? Do most people in the area want to rebuild — or need to because of their mortgages?
Ironically, the biggest challenge for us is finding adequate funding. A lot of the property we have so far has been donated to us. It’s probably upwards of — oh, let’s see, at least half a dozen properties have been donated, probably close to 200 acres at this point.
We are applying for some federal grants right now, and we’ll see how that goes. What’s evolved quite a bit on this in recent years, though, is that — because we’ve done some modeling — instead of thinking of the buffer as areas that are managed uniformly around the community, we’re much more strategic. These fire events are wind-driven, and there are only a couple of directions where the wind blows sufficiently long enough and powerful enough for the other conditions to fall into play. That’s not to say other events couldn’t happen, but we’re going after the most likely events that would cause catastrophic fires, and that would be from the Diablo winds, or north winds, that come through our area. That was what happened in the Camp Fire scenario, and another one our models caught what sure looked a lot like the [2024] Park Fire.
One thing that I want to make clear is that some people think, “Oh, this is a fire break. It’s devoid of vegetation.” No, what we’re talking about is a well-managed habitat. These are shaded fuel breaks. You maintain the big trees, you get rid of the ladder fuels, and you get rid of the dead wood that’s on the ground. We have good examples with our partners, like the Butte Fire Safe Council, on how this works, and it looks like it helped protect the community of Cohasset during the Park Fire. They did some work on some strips there, and the fire essentially dropped to the ground before it came to Paradise Lake. You didn’t have an aerial tanker dropping retardant, you didn’t have a $2-million-per-day fire crew out there doing work. It was modest work done early and in the right place that actually changed the behavior of the fire.
Tell me a little more about the modeling you’ve been doing.
We looked at fire pathways with a group called XyloPlan out of the Bay Area. The concept is that you simulate a series of ignitions with certain wind conditions, terrain, and vegetation. The model looked very much like a Camp Fire scenario; it followed the same pathway, going towards the community in a little gulch that channeled high winds. You need to interrupt that pathway — and that doesn’t necessarily mean creating an area devoid of vegetation, but if you have these areas where the fire behavior changes and drops down to the ground, then it slows the travel. I found this hard to believe, but in the modeling results, in a scenario like the Camp Fire, it could buy you up to eight hours. With modern California firefighting, you could empty out the community in a systematic way in that time. You could have a vigorous fire response. You could have aircraft potentially ready. It’s a game-changing situation, rather than the 30 minutes Paradise had when the Camp Fire started.
How does this work when you’re dealing with private property owners, though? How do you convince them to move or donate their land?
We’re a Park and Recreation District so we don’t have regulatory authority. We are just trying to run with a good idea with the properties that we have so far — those from willing donors mostly, but there have been a couple of sales. If we’re unable to get federal funding or state support, though, I ultimately think this idea will still have to be here — whether it’s five, 10, 15, or 50 years from now. We have to manage this area in a comprehensive way.
Private property rights are very important, and we don’t want to impinge on that. And yet, what a person does on their property has a huge impact on the 30,000 people who may be downwind of them. It’s an unusual situation: In a hurricane, if you have a hurricane-rated roof and your neighbor doesn’t, and theirs blows off, you feel sorry for your neighbor but it’s probably not going to harm your property much. In a wildfire, what your neighbor has done with the wood, or how they treat vegetation, has a significant impact on your home and whether your family is going to survive. It’s a fundamentally different kind of event than some of the other disasters we look at.
Do you have any advice for community leaders who might want to consider creating buffer zones or something similar to what you’re doing in Paradise?
Start today. You have to think about these things with some urgency, but they’re not something people think about until it happens. Paradise, for many decades, did not have a single escaped wildfire make it into the community. Then, overnight, the community is essentially wiped out. But in so many places, these events are foreseeable; we’re just not wired to think about them or prepare for them.
Buffers around communities make a lot of sense, even from a road network standpoint. Even from a trash pickup standpoint. You don’t think about this, but if your community is really strung out, making it a little more thoughtfully laid out also makes it more economically viable to provide services to people. Some things we look for now are long roads that don’t have any connections — that were one-way in and no way out. I don’t think [the traffic jams and deaths in] Paradise would have happened with what we know now, but I kind of think [authorities] did know better beforehand. It just wasn’t economically viable at the time; they didn’t think it was a big deal, but they built the roads anyway. We can be doing a lot of things smarter.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.