You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
On the campaign, Biden promised “no more drilling on federal lands, period.” In office, he’s approved drilling leases faster than Donald Trump.

After hemming and hawing for weeks, the Biden administration has approved ConocoPhillips’ proposed Willow oil drilling project in northern Alaska. Once completed, the project will reportedly produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil per day.
It’s not as bad as it could have been. The lease area is 40 percent smaller than the company originally wanted, with three drilling sites instead of five. ConocoPhillips will also give up 68,000 acres of other leases in the area.
But this is still an enormous betrayal of Biden’s specific campaign promises and his climate goals.
Biden committed to reducing American greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, and part of that plan is a massive expansion of federal land leases for renewable energy projects. That is indeed happening, but as Jenny Rowland-Shea points out at the Center for American Progress, this one single project more than offsets all the climate benefits from those renewable leases, by a lot. If operated for 30 years as planned, burning the 600 million barrels of oil Willow is estimated to contain will create more than 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, or roughly what Spain produces in a year. As she writes, “allowing the Willow project to proceed would result in double the carbon pollution that all renewable progress on public lands and waters would save by 2030.”
The Willow area is also one of the last mostly untouched large pieces of wilderness in the country. Now it’s going to have hundreds of miles of roads, plus pollution-spewing and extremely loud equipment, scattered all over it (not to mention the risk of oil spills). As former Vice President Al Gore told The Guardian, the project “is incompatible with the ambition we need to achieve a net zero future. We don’t need to prop up the fossil fuel industry with new, multi-year projects that are a recipe for climate chaos.”
During the 2020 campaign, Biden specifically promised not to do this, saying “no more drilling on federal lands, period.” In office he’s actually approved drilling leases at a faster pace than Donald Trump.
It’s a grim irony that because northern Alaska is one of the places climate change is hitting worst, with warming roughly triple the world average causing widespread melting of the permafrost, ConocoPhillips is going to have to use “chillers” to keep the roads at the Willow project frozen. Hard to imagine a better metaphor for the damage our addiction to fossil fuels causes — like a junkie getting vein reconstruction surgery so he can shoot up more fentanyl.
It’s not hard to see why the Biden administration would approve this project, along with all the other drilling leases. The whole Alaskan congressional delegation was behind the project on the grounds of jobs and money. Even local native communities were split on the question. Americans are also extremely sensitive about the price of gasoline — particularly thanks to our habit, enabled by federal regulators, of driving colossal gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks —and tend to reflexively blame the president whenever it goes up.
ConocoPhillips has also owned these leases for decades now, and the administration would have been in for a legal battle had it denied the project. Given the right-wing infiltration of the courts, it wouldn’t have been an easy fight. The administration has already lost several similar legal battles, and has faced pressure from Congress to approve more drilling.
But these are pitiful excuses. Even such an enormous project will have little effect on the global price of oil — 180,000 barrels per day is only about 0.2 percent of total oil production. It will also take six years to bring any oil to market. Nobody filling up their Ford F-350 Super Duty will see a difference today and they’ll be hard pressed to notice 10 cents of savings when filling up their 34 gallon tank in the future.
And while it might have been a legal nightmare to block the project, it still would have been worth trying. As a rule, the court system is extremely expensive and takes forever to do anything, and every week of delay would given Biden more time to get his judges appointed, allowed the electric vehicle revolution to progress a bit further, and raised the chance of ConocoPhillips cutting its losses and giving up.
At any rate, this dismal story still underlines the case for transitioning away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Even politicians like Biden who seem to understand the climate crisis blanch at the prospect of shutting down carbon drilling while so many people and businesses depend on it. We saw this in Europe as well in the initial stages of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with Germany scrambling to turn on mothballed coal power plants to keep the lights on (though as I previously wrote, the continent has since stampeded towards renewable energy, in part because even coal is much more expensive than renewables now).
The sooner we can kick the carbon habit, the easier it will be to block drilling projects. Hopefully someday soon they won’t even make economic sense — maybe even before Willow’s 30 years is up.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There is a heat wave in Europe, the world’s fastest warming continent. And so, as you may have heard, a perennial topic of online climate discourse has returned: Why don’t more Europeans have air conditioning?
I’m partially convinced this is psy op, or at least a figment of how social media organizes attention. I have a hypothesis that various “For You” page algorithms, especially that of the social network X, began to reward content that performed unusually well across national borders a few years ago. Since then, the amount of America vs. Europe content has surged. (Of course, writers have been comparing American and European lifestyles for much longer than that.)
Suffice it to say, though: It’s a fraught topic. I’ve assumed that as extreme heat gets worse as the climate changes, Europeans will simply get on with it and install AC, much as Americans in the Pacific Northwest have done. Yet there are cultural and regulatory obstacles to AC’s growth in Europe.
I’m sure I’ll write about it in the future, but for now I want to get a grip on the facts themselves. And so as a Friday special, I present to you — the facts about European AC, as I understand it:
Thanks so much for reading, and talk soon.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.