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:
Republicans are less supportive now than they were in April, according to Heatmap polling.

Climate has not exactly been the focus in this election cycle that it was in 2020 — but the political climate could still be polarizing public opinion on clean energy.
For the latest Heatmap News poll, Embold Research surveyed more than 5,000 registered voters over two weeks in early August. When asked whether they were in favor clean energy projects in either their state, their local area, or near their own property, a majority of respondents said they were at least somewhat supportive, with declining levels of enthusiasm as the projects got closer to their homes. The responses also followed a predictable partisan gradient: 81% of Democrats supported clean energy projects “on a property near yours” compared to 28% of Republicans. But this level of support was also slightly lower than what it was in April, when Embold fielded a similar Heatmap survey.
Support went up among members of both major parties as the hypothetical projects got further away from their homes, but across the board, the numbers were lower in August than they were in April. “We have seen a slight dip in voters’ support for various types of clean energy,” Embold analyst Ben Greenfield told me. As with any poll gyration, the dip could be a “statistical blip,” Greenfield said. But it’s also “possible that this is an election year phenomenon.”
“This is something we do occasionally see — that support for various types of policies and policy-related things can change in the heat of the an election year, even if they don’t seem on their face directly related to the election,” Greenfield added. While the opinions may be transitory, however, they can have long-lasting consequences.
Opposition to clean energy projects can manifest — and matter — at both the local and national level. A Republican congressional majority, for instance, if convinced that its constituents don’t see much value in wind and solar projects, may be more aggressive in unwinding parts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Likewise, a great deal of the clean energy development activity supported by tax policy that was beefed up and extended in the Inflation Reduction Act has occurred in Republican-controlled districts and states. To the extent that local communities turn against clean energy because of its association with Democrats, it could mean a slower and dirtier transition away from fossil fuels.
Other differences between Republicans’ and Democrats’ survey answers appear to reflect not just attitudes toward clean energy in general, but also the respondents’ own values and preferences for energy projects. Even when Republicans support clean energy projects, Greenfield noted, their reasons for doing so are different from what Democrats cite.
When asked what would be a “strong” benefit of a clean energy project, the most popular answer for Republicans, garnering 47% support, was the claim that it “reduces our dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas.” Among Democrats, meanwhile, 76% picked out “combats climate change” as a benefit of clean energy, compared to 39% of independents and only 13% of Republicans. “On that question, Democrats are kind of equally interested in the economic benefits and environmental benefits, whereas Republicans are almost entirely focused on economic benefits,” Greenfield said. Donald Trump has made a point of attacking clean energy policies on economic grounds, especially wind, electric boats, and depending on the day, electric cars.
“We see lower support for wind than solar — at least rooftop solar,” Greenfield said. That could be because rooftop solar is seen as a way to save money and increase one’s own personal resilience, as opposed to a more purely environmental choice like wind power.
“We found that there’s more support for incentives for clean power plants, home renovations, building of factories in the U.S.,” Greenfield also noted, suggesting that clean energy policies with a more obvious economic nexus may be more popular than ones that are seen as more purely to do with climate change.
While Trump modulates his views on EVs seemingly depending on how he feels about Elon Musk that day, there’s good evidence that one reason he attacked them in the past is that he knew his supporters would like to hear it. When asked whether they thought installing a variety of clean energy technologies in their home would improve or diminish their quality of life, more than half of Republicans said an electric car would make their quality of life “much worse,” compared to just 5% of Democrats; over 50% of Democrats said an electric car would make their quality of life better.
“Any time we talk about EVs, we see lower levels of support and stronger opposition among Republicans than you might expect people to have about a type of car,” Greenfield told me. “The big difference is the partisan difference on the environmental benefit and whether that is important. Clean energy tends to be a Democratic coded issue. That is clearly driving a lot of the partisan difference.”
The Heatmap poll of 5,202 American adults was conducted by Embold Research via online responses from August 3 to 16, 2024. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.4 percentage points.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The president of the Clean Economy Project calls for a new approach to advocacy — or as she calls it, a “third front.”
Roughly 50,000 people are in Brazil this week for COP30, the annual United Nations climate summit. If history is any guide, they will return home feeling disappointed. After 30 years of negotiations, we have yet to see these summits deliver the kind of global economic transformation we need. Instead, they’ve devolved into rituals of hand-wringing and half measures.
The United States has shown considerable inertia and episodic hostility through each decade of climate talks. The core problem isn’t politics. It’s perspective. America has been treating climate as a moral challenge when the real stakes are economic prosperity.
I’ve spent my career advancing the moral case from inside the environmental movement. Over the decades we succeeded at rallying the faithful, but we failed to deliver change at the scale and speed required. We passed regulations only to watch them be repealed. We pledged to cut emissions and missed the mark, again and again.
People think of climate change as a crisis to contain when it’s really a competition to win. We need to build what’s next, not stop what’s bad. And what’s at stake isn’t just emissions; it’s whether America leads or lags in the next era of global economic growth.
That calls for a new approach to climate action — a third front.
In the early 1900s, the first front focused on conservation — protecting forests, nature, and wildlife. The second front, in the 1960s and 70s, tackled pollution — cleaning up our air and water, regulating toxins, and safeguarding public health. Both were about “stopping” harm. They worked because they aimed at industries where slowing down made sense.
But energy doesn’t fit that mold. International pledges and national regulations to “stop” carbon emissions are destined to fail without affordable and accessible fossil-fuel replacements. Why? Because low-cost energy makes people’s lives better. Longer life expectancies, better health care, lower infant mortality, and higher literacy follow in its wake. Energy is foundational for prosperity, powering nearly every part of our modern lives.
No high-income country has low energy consumption. Prosperity depends on abundant energy. Global energy demand will keep rising, as poor countries install more refrigerators and air conditioning, and rich countries build more data centers and advanced manufacturing. Today, fossil fuels provide 80% of primary energy because they are cheap and easy to move around. That’s why the tools of “stopping harm” that we used to protect rivers and forests will not win the race. Innovation, not limits, leads to progress.
The third front is not about blocking fossil fuels; it’s about beating them. Stopping fossil fuels doesn’t fix the electric grid or reinvent steelmaking. By contrast, lowering the cost of clean technologies will spur economic growth, create jobs in rural counties, and lower electricity bills for working families.
Yet clean energy projects in the U.S. are routinely delayed by red tape, outdated rules, and policy whiplash. A transmission line often takes more than a decade to plan, permit, and construct. Meanwhile, China has added more than 8,000 miles of ultra‑high‑voltage transmission in just four years, compared with fewer than 400 miles here at home. American entrepreneurs are ready to build but our systems and rules haven’t caught up.
And the urgency to fix the problem is mounting. Electricity prices and energy demand are surging, while terawatts of clean energy projects pile up in the interconnection queue. We are struggling to build a 21st century economy on 20th century infrastructure.
The third front of climate action starts with building faster and smarter. That responsibility lies with policymakers at every level. In the U.S., Congress and federal agencies must treat energy infrastructure as economic competitiveness, not just environmental policy. State and local regulators must expedite permitting. Regional grid operators must speed up interconnection and integration of new technologies.
But government’s role is to clear the path, not dictate the outcome. The private sector — entrepreneurs pioneering technologies from long-duration storage to advanced geothermal to next-generation nuclear — is ready to build. What they need is for policymakers to remove the obstacles. We can use public policy not to command markets, but rather to unlock them, reward innovation, and create certainty that encourages investment.
The same logic applies globally. The multilateral climate system has focused on negotiating emission limits, but we need a renewed effort toward lowering the cost of clean energy so it can outcompete fossil fuels in every market, from the richest economies to the poorest. Whether through the UN, the G-20, or the Clean Energy Ministerial, the international community must play a role in that shift — not through collating new pledges, but by taking action on cost reduction, technology deployment, and removing barriers to scale. Through economic cooperation and competition, both, domestic policies around the world need to align toward making clean energy win on economics, backed by private capital and innovation.
It’s time to measure progress not only by tons of carbon avoided, but also by how much new energy capacity we add, how quickly clean projects come online, and how much private capital moves into clean industries.
There is a cure for the fatigue induced from 30 years of climate summits and setbacks. It’s a new playbook built on economic growth and shared prosperity. The goal is not only to reduce emissions. We must build a system where clean energy is so affordable, abundant, and reliable that it becomes the obvious choice. Not because people are told to use it, but because it is better.
On Trump's global gas up, a Garden State wind flub, and Colorado coal
Current conditions: From Cleveland to Syracuse, cities on the Great Lakes are bracing for heavy snowfall • Rainfall in Northern California could top 6 inches today • Thousands evacuated in the last few hours in Taiwan as Typhoon Fung-wong makes landfall.
The bill that would fund the government through the end of the year and end the nation’s longest federal shutdown eliminates support for the Department of Agriculture’s climate hubs. The proposed compromise to reopen the government would slash funding for USDA’s 10 climate hubs, which E&E News described as producing “regional research and data on extreme weather, natural disasters and droughts to help farmers make informed decisions.”
There were, however, some green shoots. A $730 million line item in the military’s budget could go to microgrids, renewables, or nuclear reactors. The bill also contains millions of dollars for the cleanup of so-called forever chemicals, which had stalled under the Trump administration. Still, the damage from the shutdown was severe. As Heatmap reported throughout the record-breaking funding lapse, the administration slashed funding for a backup energy storage system at a children’s hospital, major infrastructure projects in New York City, and droves of grants for clean energy.

Call it American exceptionalism. The effects of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act and America’s world-leading artificial intelligence development “have meaningfully altered” the International Energy Agency’s forecasts of global fossil fuel usage and emissions, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote this morning. The trajectory of global temperature rise may be, as I have written in this newsletter, so far largely unaffected by the new American administration’s policies. But multiple scenarios outlined in the Paris-based IEA’s 2025 World Energy Outlook predict “gas demand continues growing into the 2030s, due mainly to changes in U.S. policies and lower gas prices.”
That stands in contrast to China, a comparison that was inevitable this week as the world gathers for the United Nations climate summit in Belém, Brazil — the first that Washington is all but ignoring as the Trump administration moves to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. As I wrote here yesterday, China's emissions remained flat in the last quarter, extending a streak that began in March 2024.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Heatmap’s Jael Holzman had a big scoop last night: Yet another offshore wind project on the East Coast is kaput. The lawyers representing the Leading Light Wind offshore project filed a letter on November 7 to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities informing the regulator it “no longer sees any way to complete construction and wants to pull the plug,” Jael wrote. “The Board is well aware that the offshore wind industry has experienced economic and regulatory conditions that have made the development of new offshore wind projects extremely difficult,” counsel Colleen Foley wrote in the letter, a copy of which Jael got her hands on. The project was meant to be built 35 miles off New Jersey’s coast, and was expected to provide about 2.4 gigawatts of electricity to the power-starved state.
It’s the latest casualty of Trump’s “total war on wind,” and comes as other projects in Maryland and New England are fighting to retain permits amid the administration’s multi-agency onslaught.
Xcel Energy proposed extending the life of its Comanche 2 coal-fired power plant for 12 months past its shutdown date in December. The utility giant, backed by state officials and consumer advocates, told the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Monday that maintaining power production from the 50-year-old unit was important as the power plant scrambled to maintain enough power generation following the breakdown of the coal plant's third unit. The 335-megawatt Comanche 2 generator in Pueblo is expected to get approval to keep running. “We need it for resource adequacy and reliability, underlining that need for reliability and resource adequacy are central issues,” Robert Kenney, CEO of Xcel Energy’s Colorado subsidiary, told The Colorado Sun. The move comes as Trump’s Department of Energy is ordering coal plants in states such as Michigan to keep operating months past closure deadlines at the cost of millions of dollars per month to ratepayers, as I have previously written.
Pennsylvania, meanwhile, may be preparing to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the cap-and-trade market in which much of the Northeast’s biggest states partake. A state budget deal described by Spotlight PA reporter Stephen Caruso on X would remove the commonwealth from the market.
Germany and Spain vowed to give $100 million to the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, a $13 billion multilateral financing pool to help poor countries deal with the effects of climate change. The funding, announced Monday at an event at the U.N.’s Cop30 summit in Brazil, is “an opportunity too large to ignore,” Tariye Gbadegesin, chief executive officer of Climate Investment Funds, said in a statement. While mitigation work has long held priority in international lending, adaptation work to give some relief to the countries that contributed the least to climate change but pay the highest tolls from extreme weather has often received scant support. In his controversial memo calling for a sober, new direction for global funding, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates called on countries to take adaptation more seriously. For more on what he said, read the rundown Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote.
Right in time for the region’s most iconic season, when even celebrants in farflung parts of this country think of the old Puritan lands during Halloween and Thanksgiving, I bring to you what might be the most New England story ever. A blade broke off a wind turbine near Plymouth, Massachusetts, last week and landed in — get ready for it — a cranberry bog. The roughly 90-foot blade left behind debris, but “no one was hurt, and the turbine automatically shut itself down as designed,” the local fire chief said.
Rob and Jesse unpack one of the key questions of the global fight against climate change with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air’s Lauri Myllyvirta.
Robinson Meyer and Jesse Jenkins are off this week. Please enjoy this selection from the Shift Key archive.
China’s greenhouse gas emissions were essentially flat in 2024 — or they recorded a tiny increase, according to a November report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, or CREA. A third of experts surveyed by the report believe that its coal emissions have peaked. Has the world’s No. 1 emitter of carbon pollution now turned a corner on climate change?
Lauri Myllyvirta is the co-founder and lead analyst at CREA, an independent research organization focused on air pollution and headquartered in Finland. Myllyvirta has worked on climate policy, pollution, and energy issues in Asia for the past decade, and he lived in Beijing from 2015 to 2019.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with Lauri about whether China’s emissions have peaked, why the country is still building so much coal power (along with gobs of solar and wind), and the energy-intensive shift that its economy has taken in the past five years. 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: When we think about Chinese demand emissions going forward, it sounds like — somewhat to my surprise, perhaps — this is increasingly a power sector story, which is … is that wrong? Is it an industrial story? Is it a …
Lauri Myllyvirta: I want to emphasize the steel sector besides power. So if you simply look at what the China Steel Association is projecting, which is a gradual, gentle decline in total output and the increase in the availability of scrap. If you use that to replace coal-based with electricity-based steelmaking, you can achieve an about 40% reduction in steelmaking emissions over the next decade.
Of course, some of that is going to shift to electricity, so you need the clean electricity as well to realize it. But that’s at least as large an opportunity as there is on the power sector, so that’s what I’m telling everyone — that if you want to understand what China can accomplish over the next decade, it’s these two sectors, first and foremost.
Jesse Jenkins: Yeah. I mean, there’s some positive overall trends, right? If you look at the arc that we’re seeing in each sector, with renewables growth starting to outpace demand growth in electricity and eat into coal in absolute terms, not just market share, with the transition in the steel industry — which is sort of a story that we’ve seen in multiple countries as they move through different phases, right? As you’re building out your primary infrastructure, the first time you don’t have enough scrap, but as the infrastructure and rate of car recycling and things like that goes up, you now have a much larger supply. And that’s the case in the U.S., where the vast majority of our steel now comes from scrap.
And then, you know, the slowdown in the construction boom — China’s built an enormous amount of infrastructure and housing, and there’s only so much more that they need. And so the pace of that construction is likely to fall, as well. And then finally, the big shift to EVs in the transportation sector. So you’ve got your four largest-emitting sources on a very positive trajectory when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Mentioned:
CREA’s reports on China’s emissions trajectory
Chinese EV companies beat their own targets in 2024
How China Created an EV Juggernaut
Jeremy Wallace: China Can’t Decide if It Wants to Be the World’s First ‘Electrostate’
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.