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:
Why climate might be a more powerful election issue than it seems.

Climate change either is or isn’t the biggest issue of our time. It all depends on who you ask — and, especially, how.
In March, as it has since 1939, Gallup asked Americans what they thought was the most important problem facing the country. Just 2% of respondents said “environment/pollution/climate change” — fewer than those who said “poor leadership” or “unifying the country” (although more than those who said “the media.”) Pew, meanwhile, asked Americans in January what the top priority for the president and Congress ought to be for this year, and “dealing with climate change” ranked third-to-last out of 20 issues — well behind “defending against terrorism,” “reducing availability of illegal drugs,” and “improving the way the political system works.”
The Biden administration seems to be taking the apparent message to heart, softening parts of its climate agenda while Democrats in tight elections run interference with their economy-first constituents. Mention of the Inflation Reduction Act, the president’s landmark climate legislation, still mostly elicits blank stares from Americans, and the administration hasn’t done much to help its case. During his State of the Union address, Biden didn’t refer to the IRA by name even once.
And yet Americans clearly, obviously, patently are worried about the climate. More than half of the respondents to a Yale Program on Climate Change opinion poll last winter said “global warming should be a priority for the next president and Congress.” Around the same time, seven in 10 called climate change a “serious issue” and a third reported being “extremely concerned” about it in Heatmap’s own Climate Poll.
“You could also ask, ‘Is the survival of American democracy a defining issue in this campaign or not?,’ and the polls will sometimes mislead you into thinking it’s way down the list,” former Vice President Al Gore said at a recent leadership conference for his nonprofit Climate Reality Project in New York — and indeed the March Gallup poll from March had “elections/election reform/democracy” as the top issue facing the country for just 3% of people. “But when people get into the voting booth,” Gore continued, “and they think about the fact that democracy is at risk — as we saw in the last bye elections — that actually did matter. And I think climate is the same way.”
Gore wasn’t just relying on his own intuition. A widely circulated New York Times/Siena College poll conducted ahead of the 2022 midterms showed 71% of voters believed democracy was at risk, but only 7% identified it as the most important issue facing the country, leading many to start eulogizing American democracy. And yet candidates from the Democratic Party, which has positioned itself as a bulwark against the erosion of representative government, dominated the most contested elections.
When you start to ask more targeted questions, the research tends to concur. “If you say, ‘Is climate change an important priority?,’ you get about two-thirds of people who agree with that,” Matthew Burgess, an assistant professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, told me. “If you say, ‘the single most important issue,’ then that’s where it falls off.”
Burgess’s work has examined a particularly odd discrepancy between the limited number of voters who list climate as the most urgent issue facing the country and the fact that climate change, on its own, can seemingly swing elections. In fact, Burgess and his co-authors argued in a paper they published earlier this year that climate voters might have secured Biden's 2020 victory. Using data from the nonpartisan Voter Study Group, Burgess and his co-authors found that “how important voters considered climate change to be as an issue was one of the strongest predictors of whom they voted for in 2020.” How strong a predictor? Strong enough to shift the national popular vote margin by 3% or more toward Biden, they concluded.
But when I asked Burgess what’s missing from a statistic like Gallup’s, which shows few voters prioritizing climate over other concerns, he admitted, “I don’t know.” He has plenty of theories, though. Recent election margins have been so tight that climate change would not actually have to have a significant effect on voting to swing the outcome, he told me. Or perhaps voters are beginning to connect the dots between climate change and issues they more openly profess to care about, such as the economy and national security. When I asked Justin McCarthy, an analyst at Gallup, about Burgess’ findings, he told me that “our question is not meant to measure issues affecting vote choice.”
It takes a lot of faith to buy any of those arguments, and Democrats in tight down-ballot races might not be willing to bet their limited resources on it. But we risk blowing past important context by writing off polling that shows Americans putting the economy over their concern about climate change, according to Emily Becker, the deputy director of communications on the climate and energy team at Third Way, a center-left think tank.
Becker has no problem advising frontline candidates “not to talk about climate and to talk about clean energy instead,” she told me. In her opinion, the two are separate issues — and the popular habit of using them as euphemisms is helping neither voters nor climate-conscious candidates.
“We tend to talk about clean energy as having one core purpose: emissions abatement. Then there are the positive externalities: job creation, clean air and water, money into your community, etc.,” Becker told me. But when it comes to Americans struggling to pay their bills, or who see minimal opportunities for good, well-paying jobs in their communities, “the positive externalities are no longer side effects,” she said. “They’re the main piece.”
By way of example, Becker said, it’s especially telling that investing in clean energy to address climate change appears to be popular in polls, but follow-up questions that ask how voters would feel about that investment if it raises their household costs see a “big drop.” “It’s kind of a luxury issue,” Becker said of climate change-first voting. Third Way’s own research shows that people who self-identify that way tend to be older, white, and more educated.
But young voters — traditionally thought of as the most climate-friendly demographic — are also facing some of the worst economic odds of any living generation. “The idea that you’re going to make decisions at the ballot box based on a faraway problem and not based on the problems right in front of you is a little bit delusional,” Becker told me.
Heather Hargreaves, the deputy executive director of campaigns at Climate Power, a strategic communications group with a robust research and polling operation, had a slightly different takeaway. “I don’t think any elected official who is seeing a national poll where climate change is getting a lower percentage than the economy should be like, ‘Oh, this means I shouldn’t talk about climate change,’” she told me. “That’s misguided.”
Climate Power’s polling has found that “clean energy and climate messaging” moved every demographic toward Biden, particularly — again — young voters, as well as independents, who were key in Burgess’ research. “If you look at the things people care about the most, gas prices and utility costs are always up there,” Hargreaves said. “And these are both related to how we address climate change.”
As even more evidence that climate is a winning message after all, Hargreaves pointed out that Republicans in red districts are “not shying away” from talking about how the IRA has brought money, improvements, and clean-energy investments to their districts. For example, Senator Tom Cotton bragged last summer that “Senator Boozman and I were able to secure the grants” for highway improvement projects funded by the infrastructure law — which the Arkansas pair had voted against. Likewise, Nancy Mace, a congresswoman from South Carolina, hosted a press conference touting a local transit hub with electric buses despite having once called electric mass transit “socialism.”
“They’re now trying to take credit for it — and that’s proof it’s politically a winner,” Hargreaves told me.
As an election-year message, it’s hard to argue that “climate change” — at least phrased as such — actually resonates with the majority of Americans. But “it must be a big tent issue if we’re going to actually solve it,” Burgess, the University of Colorado Boulder professor, told me. And opinions are still being shaped: Gallup has found that victims of extreme weather events are more likely to worry about climate change and view it as a threat. As Hargreaves stressed to me, polling trends tend to be more revealing than any individual battery questions, and they generally show growing levels of urgency.
Becker also offered a word of advice. “Be willing to be told that your issue does not matter as much as you want it to,” she said. “And figure out how you can make your priorities and the priorities of the electorate overlap.”
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 singer’s music spanned genre and generating technology — and asked how to live in a world on fire.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Even as state-level Republicans have started talking about the data center boom more skeptically, the Trump administration keeps hugging it.
The Environmental Protection Agency will ditch a federal rule requiring states to publicize air pollution permits for major new industrial sites, including data centers and off-grid power plants, The New York Times reports. Those are some of the permits that we used in our recent reporting to, for instance, make sense of the scale of the coming gargantuan gas buildout. This policy might make sense as realpolitik in a more subdued development environment, but I don’t understand it when trust in any type of project is so low — and when even a majority of Republicans have turned on local data center development.
We badly need insight into the scale of artificial intelligence energy use right now, but this policy could make things even more uncertain. It reveals, too, just how much President Trump has fallen out of touch with the public.
I was planning on writing about a different topic today — and then Dolly Parton died. The country legend was 80 years old. Her nephew announced her death on social media in a sad, sweet, and lovely video.
What can I say? She was among the most admired living Americans. So voluminous and impressive was her legacy that I don’t even have to stretch much to find an energy or climate angle in it. How many other musicians were born in a home without heat or electricity — but would be eulogized upon their death by the public utility from their Tennessee Mountain Home?
Her music spanned genres and generating technologies. Some of our readers may appreciate her trio with Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt of Neil Young’s environmentalist classic “After the Gold Rush”; others, her takes on lighting — or liquid combustion. But most will enjoy the lead single off her final album, where the studiously apolitical singer confronted the prospect of a burning world: “Now I ain’t one for speaking out much / But that don’t mean I don’t stay in touch,” she sang. “Liar, liar the world’s on fire / What we gonna do when it all burns down?”
In a fluke, the next tropical cyclone to form in the Atlantic basic will — according to the World Meteorological Organization’s 2026 list — be named Dolly. Let’s hope it puts on a show but doesn’t find any islands in its stream.
The New Mexico facility aims to achieve net energy gain by 2030.
Three-year old startup Pacific Fusion broke ground on Tuesday on what it says will be the world’s first fusion plant to produce more energy than it consumes. The company is aiming to achieve this milestone, known as net facility gain, by 2030. If successful, it would provide the first real-world demonstration that the physics underpinning commercial fusion can work at facility scale.
To date, fusion tests have only achieved scientific net gain — when a reaction produces more energy than was used to ignite it. But that metric ignores the substantial energy lost at other points in the system — whether that's converting stored power into a laser beam or electric current or sustaining powerful magnetic fields to hold the fusion plasma in place. For example, Lawrence Livermore National Lab first achieved scientific breakeven in 2022, and has since repeated the feat numerous times — something no other reactor has replicated. But its laser system, which compresses and heats tiny pellets of fusion fuel, is only about 1% efficient, meaning it draws orders of magnitude more energy from the grid than the reaction produces.
“They proved that with a big laser, if you drive fusion fuel to a certain pressure, you’re going to get more energy out of the fuel than went into the fuel,” Carrie von Muench, Pacific Fusion’s co-founder and COO told me. Indeed, the startup’s founding was partially inspired by the lab’s 2022 breakthrough, which proved fusion ignition is physically possible. “That’s awesome, but not a practical basis for commercial power if you have to store way more energy in the machine than you get into the fuel.”
Other fusion startups, such as Inertia Enterprises and Xcimer Energy, are pursuing the same technical approach as Lawrence Livermore — called inertial confinement fusion — while working to make the lasers dramatically more efficient. Pacific Fusion, however, thinks there’s a cheaper and more effective path, drawing inspiration from another national lab: Sandia.
Like Lawrence Livermore, Sandia National Laboratories built its fusion machine in large part to study nuclear weapons’ performance and impacts without live testing, helping scientists confirm that the country’s aging stockpile would still act as intended. But the Albuquerque, New Mexico-based lab uses a different approach, known as pulsed-power or Z-pinch fusion. It works by sending extremely fast bursts of electric current through a fusion target, generating a magnetic field that pinches and compresses the fuel and heats it enough to trigger a fusion reaction — all while using far less energy than a laser system.
In 2022, Sandia’s Z-machine achieved what was then the second-best fusion performance ever recorded, as measured by what’s known as Lawson’s triple product — the multiple of plasma density, temperature, and confinement time. That result inspired Pacific Fusion to base its reactor on Sandia’s system, scaling it up significantly, with the goal of delivering roughly two to three times more current than the lab’s machine. And while Sandia’s system is a singular, custom built piece of research equipment, Pacific Fusion plans to cut costs by housing its power system in 156 identical, mass-manufacturable modules that can be shipped, assembled, and swapped out for repairs.
The startup raised a whopping $1 billion Series A in 2024, which von Muench told me should be enough to cover the full cost of this demonstration facility, also located in Albuquerque. General Catalyst led the round, with participation from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison, venture capitalist John Doerr, and others. Investors are doling out the funding in three sets of milestone-based tranches, two of which the company has already unlocked.
The first phase involved building the module’s key components and demonstrating that they met the required specifications, validating the company’s in-house simulation tools, and using those tools to show that its fusion targets could achieve ignition in the demo system. In the second phase, the team assembled and tested a scaled-down prototype module, which delivered 440 gigawatts of peak power. Next up is building a full-scale production module that will produce over a terawatt of peak power.
“Especially for these well-established approaches to fusion — like inertial fusion, which now has a proven path to scientific gain — the question is, how fast can we execute, and how cost-effectively can we execute successive first-of-a-kind projects?” von Mench told me. For Pacific Fusion, breaking ground on the demo reactor is a clear sign the company is on the right path, she told me. “Getting to this milestone was the first real test of our team’s ability to do that.”
The company says it’s unlocked each funding tranche ahead of schedule, and has now gone from founding to groundbreaking in less than three years. It’s betting that cheaper hardware — that is, swapping expensive lasers for electrical switches and capacitors — combined with mass manufacturable components and a supply chain that avoids rare and expensive materials, will also give it an edge in the race to commercial fusion.
Once it completes the demo reactor, the company will begin work on its first commercial power plant, which von Muench told me should come online by the mid-2030s. But in the meantime, this first reactor could provide a nearer-term revenue stream by helping the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration conduct stockpile stewardship research. Pacific Fusion just signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the NNSA that opens the door for the agency to use the startup’s machine for national security purposes.
Pacific Fusion’s tech is uniquely suited for such high-stakes testing. That’s because the company’s process, once scaled up, is designed to produce bursts of fusion energy exceeding 100 megajoules — roughly enough to power over 40 houses for an hour, but released in just a fraction of a second. That’s much more energy than either fusion system at Lawrence Livermore or Sandia produces, and would make Pacific Fusion’s demo plant the world’s first "high-yield" facility, capable of recreating the kind of extreme pressure, heat, and neutron conditions produced by a nuclear detonation. The resulting data could then help the government assess how warheads and other components hold up as they age.
Von Muench views this potential government work as a valuable side benefit of the company’s overall approach, rather than a primary or necessary source of revenue. “But nevertheless, building a diversified and valuable business along the way, I think certainly improves the probability of success and the speed with which you can deliver against the fusion power goal,” she told me.
And for those that still doubt that next decade, we’ll actually see real fusion reactors coming online? “I would just say wait and see,” she told me. “We’re building.
Current conditions: A sleepy Atlantic hurricane season just snapped to attention as two tropical storms started forming near the Caribbean and off Africa’s coast • Southern California is bracing for a week of triple-digit temperatures • The Hawk Fire has forced 42,000 people to evacuate an area near Reno, Nevada.

The United States nearly doubled its pipeline of gas-fired power plant projects in the first half of this year, “but uncertainty persists about how and when this capacity gets built,” the watchdog Global Energy Monitor concluded in a new analysis. The country now has 189 gigawatts of planned gas projects, accounting for one-third of the global total. Completing all the plants would cost more than $647 billion. The U.S. is taking unique approaches to expanding its gas fleet, including building what would be the largest power station in the country as a federally-owned gas plant. As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo points out, however, there’s a big asterisk on these numbers: Many of the projects are still in nascent stages of development and may never be built. “When I went through the group’s data to try to identify the 10 biggest gas projects under development that are tied to data centers, it became clear how slippery the whole picture really is,” she says in her write-up of the report, which I highly recommend checking out.
Electric cooperatives, meanwhile, are lobbying to make building more gas plants even easier. Last week, Utility Dive reported, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association urged the Environmental Protection Agency to exempt more gas plants from emissions rules.
Last month, a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research made the case that “the glass is half full” on federal green spending, finding that President Donald Trump’s landmark tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, preserved 74% of the clean energy gains from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. (You should listen to my colleague Robinson Meyer’s podcast conversation with the author, Lily Bermel, from last month.) Now the Natural Resources Defense Council has come out with the bearish counterargument. The environmental group’s new analysis, out this morning, found that the U.S. will lose between 390 gigawatts and 540 gigawatts of new solar, wind, and battery projects that would have been built before OBBBA’s passage.
“I see a glass much more than half empty,” Amanda Levin, the director of policy analysis at the NRDC, wrote in an op-ed for Heatmap. “The repeal of the key IRA tax credits and other Trump administration policies will result in 637 fewer gigawatts in added clean energy over the next 15 years and cost the average American household $4,500.”
One popular theory of Trump’s motivation for joining Israel in launching a war against Iran is that halting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would demonstrate China’s vulnerability as a top importer of foreign fossil fuels and America’s strength as the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas. But China’s actual response proved to be robust. In addition to ramping up domestic production of its own limited reserves of fossil fuels, Beijing deployed more renewables and nuclear reactors, electrified things that once ran on oil or gas, and made real progress on fuels such as hydrogen and its derivatives. Between that and China’s own carbon-cutting goals, last year was likely the peak of the country’s demand for oil, according to the state oil company Sinopec. In an earnings call Monday in Hong Kong, Sinopec Chairman Hou Qijun said demand had already crested, two years earlier than the 2027 peak the company had previously forecast, according to Bloomberg. Keep in mind that only means oil demand is no longer growing. The Chinese economy isn’t exactly on a GLP-1 treatment for crude just yet. In fact, Reuters noted that, on the call, Sinopec said it was now eyeing Brazil and Africa as new sources of oil imports. That’s probably partly why, as I told you last week, American oil giants are setting sights on Africa.
In the meantime, the People’s Republic may finally be sorting out carbon capture and storage. Last week, GD Power’s Jinjie Company issued a tender for engineering design of its 4 million tons per year full-sized CCS project for coal power stations. The project, according to the China Hydrogen Bullet, “is described as the world’s first full-flue-gas carbon capture facility at a coal-fired power plant.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Nearly two weeks after a powerful storm took out power for roughly 800,000 households in one of America’s most important industrial clusters, as many as 30,000 in northwest Indiana remained without electricity this past weekend. “My people are being overlooked,” Myles Tolliver, a Gary councilman whose family decamped to Chicago while the power was out, told The New York Times. “Our families are sitting in the dark. We don’t need any more excuses. We need the lights on.” By Monday evening, more than 8,300 households and businesses remained disconnected from the grid, according to data on PowerOutage.us, a tracker website.
The worst outage in the U.S. as of Monday night was in Shelby County, in the southwesternmost corner of Tennessee, where storms knocked out the power for nearly 32,000 households and businesses. Behind that was Washoe County, on the western flank of Nevada, where the aforementioned Hawk Fire damaged power lines.
The Trump administration is working with the British startup Core Power to help build a fleet of nuclear-powered merchant vessels to loosen China’s tightening grip over commercial shipbuilding. In an interview Monday with the Financial Times, U.S. Maritime Administration chief Stephen Carmel announced a public-private partnership agreement with Core Power in a bid to speed up commercialization of nuclear propulsion for ships. “We are not going to beat China by being a cheaper version of China. They have mastered the art of being cheap,” Carmel said. “The way we win in all this is to change the terms of the competition to something that is more favourable to us. So, we don’t compete on trying to be cheap. We compete on technology … and nuclear technology is something we are really good at.”
Vietnam just took a big step toward building its nuclear power station. On Monday, NucNet reported that the fast-growing Southeast Asian nation’s parliament had approved plans for its first commercial nuclear plant, a two-reactor, 2.4-gigawatt plant built by Russia. Hanoi is looking beyond just atomic energy to supplement its surging demand for power. The municipal government in Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s largest metropolis, is reviewing a feasibility study into developing up to 6 gigawatts of offshore wind, according to offshoreWIND.biz.
The Trump administration fast-tracked a Rare Earth Resources’ plan for an open-pit mine in Wyoming to extract rare earth minerals. Even in a deep-red state that mines more coal than any other in the U.S., the project is getting pushback. “It was kind of hush-hush, in my opinion, as far as not much word about it around Sundance,” Sundance resident Justin Johnson told WyoFile. “All of a sudden, in July when it came to our attention, it’s like, ‘Holy cow. We got little time before the federal deadline to get our comments and concerns to the Forest Service … You would think there’d be a lot more time for the actual owners of public land — the citizens of the U.S. — to have a response to what’s going on.”