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:
Here’s what the American Conservation Coalition hopes to hear at the first Republican debate.

After the first Republican presidential debate wraps up in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, the candidates will be invited to an unusual reception. The official afterparty has been sponsored by the American Conservation Coalition, a young conservative advocacy group that has made a name for itself advocating for Republican Party leaders to act on climate change.
The group was founded in 2017 by Benji Backer, a student at the University of Washington who wanted to see the party return to its Rooseveltian environmental roots, and was convinced that his peers felt the same. While polls consistently show that climate change is not a priority for Republican voters — many don’t even consider it a threat — the picture changes when broken down by age, with younger generations wanting the government to do more on the issue.
The ACC has since grown into a network of about 20,000 members and helped pass a handful of bipartisan bills under both the Trump and Biden administrations, including the Great Outdoors Act, which directed billions to the National Parks Service for deferred maintenance, and the Growing Climate Solutions Act, designed to help farmers engage in carbon markets. In general, the ACC wants to see the government invest more in innovation, conservation, and domestic energy production, and mostly get out of the market’s way. Most recently, it has been pushing for Congress to streamline environmental reviews to speed up energy development, an issue often summarized as “permitting reform.”
But the ACC has faced an uphill battle. Climate change is still polarizing in Congress, and solutions are increasingly framed by conservative officials and pundits in culture war terms. Now, gearing up for the first presidential election since the group’s founding, the ACC hopes to convince Republican candidates, who have been mostly reticent about the warming planet, to start talking about it. “Fewer than half of Americans believe that Biden's climate policies are taking the country in the right direction,” the ACC’s new president, Christopher Barnard, told me, citing a recent Pew survey. “That offers an incredible opportunity for Republicans to offer a more compelling alternative, and right now, we're not really doing that.”
I spoke to Barnard just after he landed in Milwaukee on Tuesday about the "electoral ticking time bomb" Republicans face, what questions he wants candidates to speak to at the debate, and the group's hopes for sponsoring the afterparty. Our conversation has been lightly edited for concision and clarity.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
What has the American Conservation Coalition been up to in 2023 so far?
The 118th Congress marks the first time in quite a while that we've had Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives. We've looked at that as an opportunity for Republicans to take a seat at the table when it comes to pushing for policy that can help tackle climate change, strengthen energy security, and reduce emissions. And so we've done a lot of engagement on Capitol Hill on things like permitting reform, nuclear energy, the farm bill, nature-based solutions, critical minerals.
We feel like we're in a really interesting moment right now, where, from our perspective, all of the top solutions to climate and energy problems are things that conservatives can not only get behind, but can actually lead on.
When you say the top solutions are things that Republicans can lead on, are you seeing that leadership in this Congress?
Yeah. Especially on the policy side of things, we saw how much McCarthy and Congressman Graves and Chairman Westerman have been pushing for permitting reform. We obviously got a taste of that in the debt ceiling negotiation. We would like to see much more and that's something that Republicans are still pushing for, which I think is the number one thing right now we can do to tackle climate change.
There is still a little bit of a disconnect between that and their rhetoric on the issue. When it comes to nuclear or critical minerals or permitting reform, there's really a huge opportunity for Republicans to retake the climate and environmental conversation and say, Look, these are conservative, limited-government, small market-based solutions, that would actually really help climate change more than say, the Green New Deal. And they're not really putting it that way. So while I've been pleased with some of the policy progress, we want to see Republicans be bolder and more ambitious and really start saying the things that are going to win them back the youth vote that they've lost.
What kinds of questions do you hope to see the presidential candidates asked about climate change tomorrow?
If I were to ask them a question, I would ask, what do you tell a young conservative, who loves America, who is also concerned about environmental and climate issues? What is your positive vision of the future to tackle this problem?
I think there's a tendency for questions around climate change to be loaded with words that are quite partisan. For example, the term climate crisis is incredibly unpopular with Americans in general and obviously Republicans don't respond very well to that. But asking about things like how do you tackle pollution? How do you make sure that we have a thriving planet for future generations? How do you ensure clean energy, all-of-the-above energy? Those are all things that Republicans are actually very on board with.
Also, what their plan is for American strength on the international stage. Battery technologies, EVs, wind and solar, critical minerals, all these crucial components of the clean energy future are being taken over by China because they see what's going to happen. They want to be the Saudi Arabia of clean energy, and we cannot allow that to happen. So any Republican answer on foreign policy should include, what are we going to do to be the most innovative country in the world? To have secure supply chains? To work with our allies? I think those are interconnected with other issues that Americans and Republicans care about, which is national security, energy security, etc.
What other climate-related messages or policies does the ACC want to hear the candidates talk about?
ACC has a platform called the Climate Commitment with six big ideas to tackle climate change rooted in limited government, market-based, conservative ideals. Some of those that I think would make perfect sense for a Republican candidate to bring up would be the importance of unleashing all American energy. So it's not just fossil fuels, but it’s unleashing nuclear energy, unleashing wind and solar, getting the government-imposed barriers out of the way of these energy sources and allowing them all to thrive and compete in the marketplace.
I think another one is how America's rural communities, farmers, ranchers, hunters, can be part of tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Those are super conservative, red parts of the country that actually have a huge role to play, whether it's farmers implementing sustainable practices on their land that reduces emissions, or rural communities hosting clean energy sites. There's so much that rural communities can do to be part of the solution.
What does it mean for ACC to be sponsoring the afterparty for the debate? What are you hoping to get out of it?
It’s to show that Republicans take this issue seriously now. They understand that they have a huge electoral ticking time bomb if they don't talk about it. We've seen already in the last few months how some of the impacts of climate change, whether it's heat waves, or whatever else it might be— people are realizing the importance of this.
ACC hosting this shows that it's entirely possible to be both an environmentalist and a conservative. They are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin. That's really the message that we want to bring to this, and to push Republicans, especially those standing up on the stage, to come up with a compelling vision of how they're going to tackle this issue that young conservatives can get excited about.
What did you mean when you said they have an electoral ticking time bomb?
If you look at demographic numbers, by 2028, millennials and Gen Z will be a majority of potential voters. By next decade, they will be over 60% of potential voters. Polling routinely shows that climate and environment are the top three, top five issues for them.
And young people are increasingly swinging elections. We saw in the midterms that in all the key Senate races that Republicans lost, young people showed out in historic numbers and overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. If Republicans don't regain the trust of young people on this issue, they face losing an entire generation of voters that are increasingly prioritizing this.
At this after-party, if you're coming face to face with the candidates, and you're trying to convince them why they should make climate change a bigger part of their campaign, what’s your argument? When right now, the majority of the Republican Party does not see it as a priority?
We know that this is an issue that matters enormously in general elections, whether it's trying to peel off independent voters, whether it's suburban moms, whether it's young voters. In some districts, it's just a few thousand votes that can make the difference. So I would tell them you need to, at the very least, have a bit of a platform to go off if you were to get to a general. I think DeSantis is really well-positioned for this, because he can point to his strong conservation track record in Florida in his time as governor — a lot of work on clean air, clean water, healthy communities. Base voters won't be upset about that, but that also allows him a jumping off point for a general election.
There's plenty of examples around the country of red states where governors have embraced things like EVs or wind and solar because they're creating jobs in their state. Wind and solar are much more popular with Republicans than people might think. And so I think there's ways that you can talk about this issue that don't evoke a negative reaction.
Which candidates are you most looking forward to hearing from tomorrow night?
I'm interested in seeing what DeSantis has to say after his campaign faltering, and seeing if he can stage a comeback and what that might look like. And in the past, ACC has been impressed by things that Tim Scott has said and done. I'll be interested to see what his “happy warrior” approach will look like in the debate. We did a video with Nikki Haley about what the conservative alternative to the green New Deal looks like, and so I’m interested to see what she's going to bring to the table.
What does it say to you that Donald Trump has decided not to participate in the debate tomorrow?
I was honestly very disappointed by it. Because my general sense is that if you want to have the American people vote for you, you should be willing to stand on stage and make that case why they should vote for you.
Read more about the Republican primary:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Why local governments are getting an earful about “infrasound”
As the data center boom pressures counties, cities, and towns into fights over noise, the trickiest tone local officials are starting to hear complaints about is one they can’t even hear – a low-frequency rumble known as infrasound.
Infrasound is a phenomenon best described as sounds so low, they’re inaudible. These are the sorts of vibrations and pressure at the heart of earthquakes and volcanic activity. Infrasound can be anything from the waves shot out from a sonic boom or an explosion to very minute changes in air pressure around HVAC systems or refrigerators.
Knowing some of these facilities also have the capacity to produce significant audible noise, growing segments of the population’s more tech-skeptical and health-anxious corners are fretting some data centers could be making a lot of infrasound, too. The whizzing of so many large computational machines combined with cooling fans and other large devices creating so many new columns of air flow. Add onto that any rotational onsite power generation – think natural gas turbines, for example – and you get quite a lot of movement that could potentially produce what they say is infrasound.
Some of the virality of this chatter about infrasound and data centers comes from a video about infrasound created by audio engineer and researcher Benn Jordan. Currently sitting at more than 1 million views, this short YouTube film documents claims that some data centers are operating like “acoustic weapons” through infrasound and harming people. Andy Masley, an “effective altruist” writer, has become the chief critic of the Jordan video, getting into a back-and-forth that’s raised the issue to Internet discourse territory.
The Jordan-Masley infrasound debate is honestly a bit of a mess. So I want to be clear: I’m not going to get into the science of whether or not infrasound poses any kind of public health risk in this article. We can get to that later. It’s worth saying that this subject may need more study and that work is ongoing. Also, talking about infrasound at all can make you honestly sound a little wacky (see: this study blaming people seeing ghosts on infrasound). It might also remind you of another panic in the Electric Age: electromagnetic fields, also known as EMFs. Developers of transmission lines and solar projects have long had to deal with people worried about transmission lines and large electrical equipment potentially glowing with invisible, unhealthy radiation.
In late 2024, I wrote about how an RFK Jr. supporter worried about this form of electrical emission was helping lead the fight against a transmission line in New Jersey for offshore wind. Maybe that’s why it didn’t surprise me one bit when the Health and Human Services secretary himself told a U.S. Senate Committee last week that he was asking the Surgeon General’s office to “do either meta reviews” or “base studies” on noise pollution and EMF radiation from data centers “so we can better inform the American public.”
“There’s a range of injuries that are very, very well documented. They’re neurological – very, very grave neurological injuries, cancer risk,” Kennedy Jr. told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on April 22 in response to a request from Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri to study the issue. “The risks, to me, are tremendous.”
There’s also the unfortunate reality that infrasound impacts have previously been a cudgel to slow down renewable energy deployment. Wind turbines create infrasound because of the subharmonic frequencies created when one turbine rotates at a slightly different pace than another, producing a slightly dissonant low frequency noise. Groups like the Heartland Institute proudly list this infrasound as one of the reasons wind energy “menaces man and nature.”
But regardless of merit, this concern is already impacting local government decisions around data center projects, much like how one Michigan county sought to restrict solar energy on the same basis.
In February Adrian Shelley, the Texas director for environmental group Public Citizen, implored the city of Red Rock to study changing their noise ordinance to take into account infrasound. “It has effects on sleep patterns, on stress, on cardiovascular health, and it is potentially a very serious concern,” Shelley said at a February 11 city council discussion on data center rules. “It will not be covered by the city’s noise ordinance, which only deals with audible sound.”
Earlier this month in Calvert County, Maryland, a volunteer for their environmental commission recently told the county government that infrasound needs to be factored into their future data center planning. “It will have significant impacts on our region and the Chesapeake and the Patuxent because infrasound isn’t stopped by walls,” commission member Janette Wysocki, a proud land conservationist, said at an April 15 hearing. “It will keep going, it will move through anything. It’s a very long wavelength. So we need to protect our ecosystem.” Wysocki implored the county to consider whether to adjust its noise regulations.
Around the same time, similar concerns were raised in Lebanon, a small city in east-central Pennsylvania. “It permeates through concrete walls, it permeates through the ground,” Thomas Dompier, an associate professor at Lebanon Valley College, said at an April 16 Lebanon County commission hearing on data centers.
Lastly, last week I explained how Loudon County wants to rethink its noise ordinance to deal with low-frequency “hums” from data centers – a concern echoing those who fret infrasound.
Ethan Bourdeau, executive director of standards at Quiet Parks Intentional and a career acoustician and building standards writer, told me that what makes data centers unique is the “constant drone” of noise that could potentially carry subharmonic frequencies. Bourdeau said cities or counties could possibly factor concerns about infrasound into noise ordinances to address those who are most concerned. One way they could do it is by changing how decibels are weighted in the government’s measurements. A-weighting decibel meters are a common form of sound measurement geared toward perceptible noise. Using different systems, like C-weighting or G-weighting, would avoid ways that A-weighting can filter out sub-hearing frequencies.
“These are reporting and weighting systems where a sound level meter taking background noise receives all the unweighted sound and then you apply all these filters afterwards, like an EQ curve,” Bourdeau said.
So I guess if those most concerned about infrasound have their way, a lot of country commissioners and local elected leaders will be heading to the mixing booth.
And more on the week’s top fights around project development.
1. King County, Washington – The Moss Landing battery backlash is alive and well more than a year after the fiery disaster, fomenting an opposition stampede that threatens to delay a massive energy storage project two dozen miles east of Seattle.
2. Prince Williams County, Virginia – It was a big week for data center troubles. Let’s start with Data Center Alley, which started to show cracks this week as data center developer Compass announced it was pulling out of the controversial Digital Gateway mega-project.
3. Washtenaw County, Michigan – Turning to Michigan, real estate firm Sansone abandoned plans to purchase land owned by Toyota to build a hyperscale data center campus after the local township instituted a 6-month moratoria.
4. Okeechobee County, Florida – The backlash to data centers is killing projects in deep-red Florida too, as this county’s commission decides to kill a 205-acre prospective data center campus led by a state college.
.
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.