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:
A number of terms used by climate activists, politicians, and communicators are unfamiliar to the majority of Americans.

The biggest debates during the annual United Nations climate conference, underway this week in Dubai, always center around language.
The Paris Agreement, the 2015 treaty significant for uniting almost every country in the world in supporting a common strategy to address climate change, was almost scuttled by an argument over whether nations “should” cut emissions or “shall” do it. This year, delegates are at odds over whether the world should “phase down” or “phase out” fossil fuels, and whether to allow for “abated” fossil fuels, a euphemism for the use of carbon capture technologies that prevent emissions from entering the atmosphere.
To explain the significance of these debates, the media often points to the scientific consensus that the world must reach “net zero” to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. But does anyone know what we’re talking about?
Heatmap’s second Climate Poll, conducted in mid-November by Benenson Strategy Group, found that the “Paris Agreement,” “Net Zero,” and a number of other terms used by activists, politicians, and climate communicators, are still unfamiliar to the majority of Americans.
One thousand adults, ages 18 and up, were asked, “In the context of climate change, sustainability and environmental responsibility, how familiar are you with the following terms?”
The results are not exactly surprising. It makes sense that people would be far more familiar with mature technologies like solar, wind, and nuclear, than with terms like “green hydrogen” and “direct air capture,” which are much newer to the conversation and barely exist at scale in the real world yet.
When I ran the findings by Jonathon Schuldt, an associate professor at Cornell University who studies public opinion on health and environmental issues, he agreed that they reflect “the effect of time and exposure” to these terms among the public. “Solar, wind, and nuclear energy have been part of the mainstream discourse for many decades,” he said, “even before terms like global warming and climate change.” To prove it, Schuldt showed me the results of running the terms through the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which identifies their prevalence in books over time:

But now, the reality on the ground in the U.S. is changing rapidly. The Biden administration is pouring more than $10 billion dollars into deploying green hydrogen plants and direct air capture machines at various sites around the country as a result of two major climate packages passed in 2021 and 2022, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. Even as these two pieces of legislation have reshaped the energy and climate discussion in the U.S. in the last two years, public familiarity with green hydrogen and direct air capture appears to have remained static. Our findings line up very closely with a similar poll conducted by Data for Progress in May 2021. While both solutions hold a lot of promise to reduce climate change, they come with many more risks and trade-offs than solar or wind.
In general, we found that more Democrats were familiar with the terms on the list than Republicans. But slightly more Republicans expressed familiarity with “ESG” (40% vs 35%) “nuclear energy,” (71% vs 70%) “wind energy,” (77% vs 75%), “the IPCC 1.5C report” (22% vs 21%) and “Paris agreement” (38% vs 35%).
More men also expressed knowledge of the terms than women in every category.
There was also a significant gap between Americans below and above the age of 50, with younger generations far more likely to know terms like “environmental justice,” “carbon removal,” and “the IPCC 1.5C report.”
We also found a correlation between people who said that they had been personally affected by climate change and knowledge of key climate concepts. About three times as many people who had been affected by climate change knew what “green hydrogen” or a “direct air capture plant” was, compared with those who said they had not been affected by climate change.
“A key question is whether familiarity corresponds to support,” Schuldt told me. “Especially given COP28’s emphasis on the need to shift to renewable energy. On the other hand, that most respondents were unfamiliar with central terms like environmental justice and net zero suggests that the climate movement has more work to do when it comes to engaging the general public in these conversations.”
Well, Heatmap asked about support, too, for at least a few of these. And while solar and wind do have significant support, some of the results are a bit contradictory to the familiarity findings, because far more people said they would support the Paris Agreement and environmental justice than admitted they knew what these phrases meant. (The added context probably helped too.)
We went a lot deeper on some of these questions, especially around support for renewable energy, and will have more to share with you in the coming weeks.
The Heatmap Climate Poll of 1,000 American adults was conducted by Benenson Strategy Group via online panels from Nov. 6 to 13, 2023. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 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.
A new report from the Rhodium Group finds that the range of likely temperature outcomes has essentially not changed since 2023.
It’s that time of year when COP, the annual United Nations climate conference, draws near, and a flood of reports assess how much progress the world has made (or not made) to limit global warming. Given the sharp reversal in U.S. climate policy under President Trump, it may seem inevitable that the future will look bleaker than before. His administration has spent the past nine months dismantling nearly every bit of domestic climate policy implemented by its predecessor, and has even managed to thwart international efforts at climate cooperation.
The annual climate outlook from the Rhodium Group, a U.S. energy and climate research firm, offers a somewhat hopeful counterpoint to that narrative, however. It finds that the range of possible climate futures has essentially not changed in the past two years.
A full decade has passed since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change, and in that time the world has avoided the most catastrophic scientific projections. In 2015, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, projected that global average temperatures could increase by as much as 7.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century without significant shifts in policy and advancements in technology. Now, the Rhodium Group estimates that warming is highly unlikely to exceed 3.9 degrees by 2100, and could be limited to 2 degrees.
The numbers themselves are not hopeful. This is a vast range in terms of the potential impacts implied, and even 2 degrees of warming should not be considered “little.” The IPCC estimates that compared with a scenario that limits warming to 1.5 degrees, more than twice as many people would be exposed to severe heat at least once every five years in a world 2 degrees warmer; ice-free summers in the Arctic would occur 10 times more often; the number of plant, animal, and insect species that lose at least half their habitat would be two to three times larger; and crop yields and fisheries would suffer roughly twice the losses.
Putting those dire projections aside, what’s interesting is that this 2- to 3.9-degree range is about the same as what the Rhodium Group forecast when it published its first Climate Outlook report in 2023. Also relatively unchanged: a finding that global power sector emissions will peak within the next decade, and that total emissions will likely remain constant or subtly decline through 2060, but then go up again as Global South countries see more rapid economic development in the latter half of the century.
The reason the numbers haven’t changed much, despite some seemingly dramatic policy changes that have occurred in the interim, has to do with Rhodium’s unique approach to projecting the future.
Many of the reports that come out around this time, such as the UN’s annual Emissions Gap Report, try to assess where the world is headed based on currently enacted policies as well as pledges, such as the “nationally determined contributions” that countries submit to the UN. Those might include promises like, “We’ll build X quantity of renewable energy by 2030,” or “We’ll protect X amount of our forests.” The models assume that these policies and pledges are fixed. They do not contemplate future ramp-ups or potential reversals. They also use fixed assumptions about GDP and population growth, oil prices, technology costs, etc.
A recent report by Wood Mackenzie, for example, estimates that temperatures will climb to 2.6 degrees by 2060, and then models a few other potential discrete scenarios, including one that shows what it would take to limit warming to 2 degrees.
The limitation of this approach is that the trajectory for each variable these models use is deeply uncertain, Hannah Pitt, one of the authors of the Rhodium report, told me. “Even a small change in GDP growth can have really big implications for emissions — likewise for oil prices and renewable costs and all that,” she said. “We try to take into consideration the wide range of uncertainty we have in the future of those core drivers of emissions.” That requires modeling thousands of scenarios with different combinations of how those underlying drivers might evolve.
Then, rather than assuming that policies on the books today remain static, Rhodium uses data on how climate and energy policy has historically responded to economic inputs like oil prices and GDP growth, in different parts of the world to project how policy might change going forward, using a carbon price as a proxy for policy ambition.
This approach takes into account such a wide range of possibilities that the results aren’t likely to change much year to year. Both in 2023 and now, the modeling incorporated the prospect that a Trump administration or something like it could reverse some progress, and that energy demand could soar. “We are looking at the long-term evolution of policy, not the administration fluctuations,” Pitt explained. It would take a true step-change in policy or a major technological breakthrough to produce a noticeable change in the trajectory, she said.
What are those breakthroughs? At this point, they aren’t a mystery. Cheaper clean firm power — like advanced nuclear, fusion, or geothermal — would be a huge help. Solutions for decarbonizing flying and shipping are also on the list. We also need to make it affordable to produce iron, steel, cement, and petrochemicals with far fewer emissions.
On the policy side, bending the curve might mean something like stricter electric vehicle requirements. As mentioned earlier, economic development in the Global South is expected to shift emissions back upward later this century — in part because if policy evolves the way it has historically, and if more and more people around the world are buying cars, the cars may not be 100% electric, and emissions from transport will go up.
None of this is to say that the Trump administration’s actions will have no effect on warming. Recall the report’s expansive range of future warming scenarios of 2 to 3.9 degrees — it’s very possible that policies enacted today will push the world closer to one or the other. A separate recent Rhodium study that dives into the specifics of U.S. policies found that emissions in 2035 could be 0.8 to 1.2 gigatonnes higher than what the group projected in the same report last year, largely due to Trump’s policies.
It should be comforting that one administration can’t veer the world too far off course — although by that same logic, we can’t expect a single administration to shift projections in a positive direction, either. A "breakthrough" in something like decarbonized cement will likely happen over years, through a feedback loop of sustained policy support and technological development.
There is no “too late” when it comes to addressing the technology and policy gaps the report highlights, Pitt said “Of course, the sooner the better,” she said. “But the difference between a 2.8-degree future and a 2.5-degree future saves lives. So the effort to drive these technology costs down is worthwhile, even if it doesn’t happen on the timeline that we would hope.”
Utilities are bending over backward to convince even their own investors that ratepayers won’t be on the hook for the cost of AI.
Utilities want you to know how little data centers will cost anyone.
With electricity prices rising faster than inflation and public backlash against data centers brewing, developers and the utilities that serve them are trying to convince the public that increasing numbers of gargantuan new projects won’t lead to higher bills. Case in point is the latest project from OpenAI’s Stargate, a $7-plus-billion, more-than-1-gigawatt data center due to be built outside Detroit.
The project was announced Thursday by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who focused heavily on the projected economic benefits of the projects while attempting to head off criticism that it would lead to higher costs. In the first sentence of her press release, she said that the project will “create more than 2,500 union construction jobs, more than 450 jobs on site and 1,500 more across the county.” Also, it “will be one of the most advanced AI infrastructure facilities in the U.S., especially when it comes to its efficient use of land, water, and power.” Oh, and it “will not require any additional power generation to operate.”
The utility set to power the project, DTE Energy, released its quarterly earnings Thursday, as well, which described a 1.4-gigawatt project it had already executed. In a presentation for analysts and investors, DTE said that the new data center would pay for “required storage through a 15-year energy storage contract,” and that it would “support affordability for existing customers as excess capacity is sold.”
On a call with analysts, DTE Energy chief executive Joi Harris further asserted that the project has “meaningful affordability benefits to our existing customers.” As the data center ramps up, she explained, it can use existing excess capacity on the grid. By the time it reaches full strength, it will enjoy the benefits of “nearly $2 billion of incremental energy storage investments and additional tolling agreements to support this data center load.”
Who will pay for energy storage and tolling agreements? A DTE spokesperson, Jill Wilmot, clarified in an email that “DTE will meet the 1.4 gigawatts of demand from the data center with existing capacity,” and that “new energy storage will be built — and paid for by the customer” — that is, Stargate — “to help augment times of peak demand, ensuring continued reliability for all customers.”
Data centers help spread out the fixed costs of the grid more widely, Wilmot went on. “Data center development in DTE’s electric service territory will not increase customer rates,” she said, adding that “DTE is ensuring the data center will absorb all new costs required to serve them — in this case, battery storage. Our customers will not pay.”
That said, Wilmot did not answer a question about whether there would be any network or transmission upgrades necessary. She told me that she expected DTE would make a filing for the project with Michigan regulators later Friday.
Consumer advocates were skeptical of the utility’s claims. “When you are talking about new demand as massive as what would be created by this data center, we can’t afford to just take DTE at its word that other customers won’t be affected,” Amy Bandyk, the executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, told me in an email. She called for Michigan regulators “to require DTE and the data center customer to agree on a tariff specific to that customer that includes robust protections against cost-shifting and provisions that any incremental costs will be solely covered by this new customer.”
More utilities and data center developers are trying to explicitly head off claims that data centers are driving up electricity rates. In another recent data center announcement for a multi-billion-dollar project in West Memphis, Arkansas, Google and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission said that “Google will be covering the full energy costs for the West Memphis facility and will be ramping up new solar energy and battery storage resources for the facility.”
Drew Marsh, the chief executive of Entergy, the utility serving the project, confirmed on an earnings call earlier this week that Google “will protect energy affordability for existing customers by covering the full cost of powering the data center in West Memphis.” He also said that in Mississippi, where Amazon has announced a $16 billion project, “customer rates would be 16% lower than they otherwise would have been due to these large customers.”
So why are utilities — which, after all, get paid by ratepayers for the investments they make in their systems — telling their investors about all the money they’re not charging ratepayers?
In short, utilities and developers know they’re on political thin ice, and they don’t want to kill the golden goose of data center development by stoking a populist backlash to rising electricity prices that could result in either government-mandated slashing of their investment plans, caps on the rates they can charge, or both.
“Looking ahead, we anticipate the central issue will be how utilities protect residential customers from costs associated with large-load customers, or else face potential consequences from regulators,” Mizuho analyst Anthony Crowdell said in a note to clients earlier this week. “Data centers, and their associated load, have the potential” to “cause political push-back.”
This is already happening across the country. The frontrunner in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, for example, has promised to freeze electricity rates, which have seen a sharp runup in recent years. Indiana Governor Mike Braun, a Republican, said in a recent statement that “we can’t take it anymore,” in reference to rate hikes. Indiana has also rejected a number of proposed data centers, as I covered earlier this year.
This means that utilities will have to think carefully about how and to whom they allocate costs arising from data center development and operation.
“Allocation of cost will be pivotal as the current ’pocketbook issues driving a lot of the U.S. political debate could create some challenging regulatory outcomes should data centers put pressure on customer bills,” Crowdell wrote.
But what’s said in an announcement to the media or to investors may not always reflect the reality of utility cost allocation, Harvard Law School professor Ari Peskoe told me.
“Don’t trust a utility press release or comment from a CEO of a monopoly that says Hey, these rates are good for you,” he told me.
Peskoe told me to pay close attention to the regulatory fillings utilities make for their data center projects, not just what they tell the press or investors. “Are the utilities themselves actually making these claims as strongly as their CEOs are making them in investor calls? And then once we do have a regulatory process about it, are they being transparent in that regulatory process? Are they hiding a lot of details behind the confidentiality claims so that only the participants in that proceeding actually get to see the details?”
Peskoe also pointed to other costs that might be incurred in the course of data center development that get socialized across the rate base but aren’t necessarily directly tied to any one development, like the transmission and network upgrades, that have contributed to large price increases in the PJM Interconnection territory.
“What you’re looking for is a firm contract that ensures the data center is going to be paying for every penny that the utility is incurring to provide service, so that it’s paying for all the new infrastructure that’s serving it,” Peskoe said. Without that, all you have is a press release.
The state formerly led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum does not have a history of rejecting wind farms – which makes some recent difficulties especially noteworthy.
A wind farm in North Dakota – the former home of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum – is becoming a bellwether for the future of the sector in one of the most popular states for wind development.
At issue is Allete’s Longspur project, which would see 45 turbines span hundreds of acres in Morton County, west of Bismarck, the rural state’s most populous city.
Sited amid two already operating wind farms, the project will feed power not only to North Dakotans but also to Minnesotans, who, in the view of Allete, lack the style of open plains perfect for wind farms found in the Dakotas. Allete subsidiary Minnesota Power announced Longspur in August and is aiming to build and operate it by 2027, in time to qualify for clean electricity tax benefits under a hastened phase-out of the Inflation Reduction Act.
On paper, this sounds achievable. North Dakota is one of the nation’s largest producers of wind-generated power and not uncoincidentally boasts some of cheapest electricity in the country at a time when energy prices have become a potent political issue. Wind project rejections have happened, but they’ve been rare.
Yet last week, zoning officials in Morton County bucked the state’s wind-friendly reputation and voted to reject Longspur after more than an hour of testimony from rural residents who said they’d had enough wind development – and that officials should finish the job Donald Trump and Doug Burgum started.
Across the board, people who spoke were neighbors of existing wind projects and, if built, Longspur. It wasn’t that they didn’t want any wind turbines – or “windmills,” as they called them, echoing Trump’s nomenclature. But they didn’t want more of them. After hearing from the residents, zoning commission chair Jesse Kist came out against the project and suggested the county may have had enough wind development for now.
“I look at the area on this map and it is plum full of wind turbines, at this point,” Kist said, referencing a map where the project would be situated. “And we have a room full of people and we heard only from landowners, homeowners in opposition. Nobody in favor.”
This was a first for the county, zoning staff said, as public comment periods weren’t previously even considered necessary for a wind project. Opposition had never shown up like this before. This wasn’t lost on Andy Zachmeier, a county commissioner who also sits on the zoning panel, who confessed during the hearing that the county was approaching the point of overcrowding. “Sooner or later, when is too many enough?” he asked.
Zachmeier was ultimately one of the two officials on the commission to vote against rejecting Longspur. He told me he was looking to Burgum for a signal.
“The Green New Deal – I don’t have to like it but it’s there,” he said. “Governor Burgum is now our interior secretary. There’s been no press conferences by him telling the president to change the Green New Deal.” Zachmeier said it was not the county’s place to stop the project, but rather that it was up to the state government, a body Burgum once led. “That’s probably going to have to be a legislative question. There’s been nothing brought forward where the county can say, We’ve been inundated and we’ve had enough,” he told me.
The county commission oversees the zoning body, and on Wednesday, Zachmeier and his colleagues voted to deny Longspur’s rejection and requested that zoning officials reconsider whether the denial was a good idea, or even legally possible. Unlike at the hearing last week, landowners whose property includes the wind project area called for it to proceed, pointing to the monetary benefits its construction would provide them.
“We appreciate the strong support demonstrated by landowners at the recent Commission meeting,” Allete’s corporate communications director Amy Rutledge told me in an email. “This region of North Dakota combines exceptional wind resources, reliable electric transmission infrastructure, and a strong tradition of coexisting seamlessly with farming and ranching activities.”
I personally doubt that will be the end of Longspur’s problems before the zoning board, and I suspect this county will eventually restrict or even ban future wind projects. Morton County’s profile for renewables development is difficult, to say the least; Heatmap Pro’s modeling gives the county an opposition risk score of 92 because it’s a relatively affluent agricultural community with a proclivity for cultural conservatism – precisely the kind of bent that can be easily swayed by rhetoric from Trump and his appointees.
Morton County also has a proclivity for targeting advanced tech-focused industrial development. Not only have county officials instituted a moratorium on direct air capture facilities, they’ve also banned future data center and cryptocurrency mining projects.
Neighboring counties have also restricted some forms of wind energy infrastructure. McClean County to the north, for example, has instituted a mandatory wind turbine setback from the Missouri River, and Stark County to the west has a 2,000-foot property setback from homes and public buildings.
In other words, so goes Burgum, may go North Dakota? I suppose we’ll find out.