You’ve reached your free article limit
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.
On Taiwan’s LNG investment, Chinese solar job cuts, and molten chloride fast reactors
Current conditions: Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are climbing up to the mid 80s Fahrenheit today before taking a double-digit plunge as cold air blows in this weekend • California’s biggest utility has warned of looming blackouts as the southern part of the state braces for a potential wildfire • Tropical Storm Trudy is strengthening in the Pacific off the coast of Mexico into what could become a major hurricane.
The Houthis sent a clear signal this week: We are coming for Saudi Arabia’s oil industry. Days after striking Riyadh and scaring Western oil executives away from an industry summit in the Saudi capital, the Iran-backed rebels hit the headquarters of the kingdom’s state energy behemoth, Aramco. Official reports on Tuesday initially downplayed the impact on the sweeping complex in Dhahran, in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich east. On Wednesday, however, Reuters reported that the missile attack had caused “extensive damage,” including “with a fire spreading across several floors.” Saudi Arabia has at other points during the conflict after proven resilient. After Houthi missiles pulverized a key node on the East-West Pipeline that serves as the main conduit to get oil from the Persian Gulf coast to the Red Sea shore, crews quickly created a workaround to restore the flow of crude. Following a brief uptick, the prices of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and the U.S.-centric West Texas Intermediate both fell on Wednesday. Maybe not for long: The Houthis vowed yesterday to continue targeting oil facilities.
Since shutting down its nuclear plants, Taiwan has become dependent on natural gas for at least half its electricity generation. But the self-governing island democracy doesn’t drill any of the fuel. It’s dependent on imports at a moment when, thanks to the war in Iran, anyone who isn’t producing their own is looking for a cheap, steady supply of liquified natural gas. Taipei has found a supplier. In a Wednesday post on his Truth Social platform, President Donald Trump said Taiwan agreed to buy 30% of the LNG shipped from the proposed $55 billion megaproject to build a gas pipeline from Alaska’s Arctic coast to an export terminal south of Anchorage. As part of the 20-year deal, Trump said the Taiwanese government would pay $4.4 billion for an equity stake in the project. Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs confirmed the deal and said it would work out the details later.
The pledged investment for the long-delayed project comes days after the Environmental Defense Fund released a new analysis showing that utilities and developers are cooling on clean power and once again pumping money into fossil fuel infrastructure at a rate that could see gas and even coal regain “a market share not seen since the early 2010s.” Amid all this investment, the national average retail price of electricity fell year over year from 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in September 2025 to 19.6 cents per kilowatt-hour last month, according to the freshest data on Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. “Great news, right?” my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday. “Not really.” He explains further: “While this is the first year-over-year decline in average prices since September 2023, it’s mostly due to California moving around its Climate Credit to the late summer months of August and September, historically among the highest-demand periods on the grid. The state previously delivered the credits in April and October. But while this is a nice thing for California ratepayers, it does less to tell us about nationwide electricity price trends.”

China’s top five solar manufacturers cut nearly 41,000 jobs last year as Beijing cracks down on the overcapacity that made exports so cheap Europeans started building fences out of panels. A new Reuters analysis of company filing shows that Longi Green Energy, Trina Solar, Jinko Solar, JA Solar, and Tongwei employed 40,589 fewer people than a year earlier. That 21% drop followed a 31% decline last year. The job cuts represent what the newswire called a “paradox,” in that the solar sales are booming as the world seeks alternatives to Middle Eastern hydrocarbons, yet the biggest manufacturers built too many factories and now no one can make any money.
The shift in China comes as the U.S. scrambles to rebuild its solar manufacturing capacity. Tariffs that Trump implemented, former President Joe Biden maintained, and Trump doubled down on have already set the stage for what my colleague Emily Pontecorvo reported may or may not be a manufacturing resurgence in the U.S. In August, we reported the Department of Commerce’s new trade restrictions were the administration’s lifeline to solar manufacturers that lost a key incentive when federal tax credits went away, taking with them the bonus for buying domestically-produced panels.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The world has seen experimental reactors that use molten salt as a coolant for a fission reaction fueled by uranium or plutonium. Several startups, including Bill Gates’ TerraPower, are now seeking to commercialize a version of that technology. Recently, the startup partnered with the utility giant Southern Company to examine a whole new possibility: A molten chloride fast reactor that uses liquid salts as both a coolant and a fuel. If that could work, it would be the first in the world. The advantages of the technology, in theory, would be limited enrichment needs, no fuel assemblies of uranium pellets, and a more flexible reactor that can ramp up and down to meet the grid’s needs. On Wednesday, the Department of Energy backed the effort to validate the science behind so-called MCFR reactors. The research will take place at the Idaho National Laboratory and has support from Southern and Core Power, a startup looking to harness fission to power cargo ships.
Is quantum computing a climate technology? Despite overlapping investors, it’s a difficult case to make, my colleague Katie Brigham wrote earlier this year. But the ways in which the technology develops certainly could be a model for other energy breakthroughs. On Wednesday, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled a deal with New York University whereby City Hall will support the construction of a quantum computing lab in exchange for 15% of any proceeds from selling intellectual property developed at the facility. “In the first deal of its kind in NYC history, the public is investing $30 million in a quantum lab — in exchange for three board seats and 15% of the revenue generated from technology it creates,” Lina Khan, the chair of the board of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, wrote in a post on X. “And if any firm coming out of the lab merges, gets acquired, or IPOs, the city gets a payout.”
When the solution to Indonesia’s very modern smog problems was invented, the archipelago nation remained under Dutch colonial rule and the planet was about 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, cooler than it is today. To ease the thick haze in Jakarta and other cities from forest fires the country the country is repurposing a weather-modification technique first invented in the 1940s. Per Bloomberg: “Aircraft will disperse pellets of dry ice above South Sumatra province in an experimental approach that authorities hope will reduce the hazardous smoke that’s blanketed the region for weeks, disrupting economic activity and damaging public health.” The first trial run starts today.
Energy costs remain high — and early voting has begun.
The national average retail price of electricity has fallen year over year from 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in September 2025 to 19.6 cents per kilowatt-hour in September of this year, or about 2%, according to the latest update to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub.
Great news, right?
Not really.
While this is the first year-over-year decline in average prices since September 2023, it’s mostly due to California moving around its Climate Credit to the late summer months of August and September, historically among the highest-demand periods on the grid. The state previously delivered the credits in April and October.
But while this is a nice thing for California ratepayers, it does less to tell us about nationwide electricity price trends. Excluding the credit, average prices would have been roughly flat, according to the MIT researchers. And even with the credit, bills are still rising year over year, at around $180 per month, up from $173 a year ago (though down from this year’s all-time high of $217 in July). Forty-five states and Washington, D.C., have seen their average bills go up over the last year.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recently released inflation figures showed electricity prices rising 0.2% in September from August and 4.4% over the last year, while overall prices rose 0.6% and 3.7%, trends largely driven by increases in the price of gasoline.
As we’ve written about several times before, some of the biggest electricity price increases are in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. In New York, prices in September were 31.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, up from 30 cents in August and 27 cents in September of last year.
In Maine, which sits at the end of the sparse New England natural gas network, prices have been rising sharply. In September, prices were just under 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 37 cents in August and 31 cents a year ago. Maine’s public advocate has blamed years of price hikes on natural gas prices, distribution costs — especially repairing infrastructure damaged by storms —and, to a lesser extent, subsidies for renewables.
Maine is just one of several midterm battlegrounds where energy costs have taken center stage, especially since the war in Iran spiked oil prices.
In Ohio, where Sherrod Brown is seeking to return to the Senate by defeating Jon Husted, electricity prices stand at just over 20 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 18 cents last September, while bills have risen from about $129 a month to $162. Brown leads Husted in the polls by about 4 percentage points, according to Nate Silver’s polling average. Ohio started early voting earlier this month.
Fossil fuels are the real October surprise.
This is Heatmap Daily, an evening news digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
At this point, the real October surprise may be the lack of one — because little seems set to change in the U.S. energy economy between now and the midterm elections on November 3.
Inflation certainly isn’t budging. Prices rose 3.7% over the past year, and 0.6% in September alone, according to today’s new government inflation report. That reading was hot — a tenth of a percent above what economists expected.
Surging gasoline and especially diesel fuel prices were to blame. Gasoline prices rose 9.1% last month, which pushed up prices above the economy: Transportation services, a category that includes airfare and Uber rides, increased by 0.6%, while food prices rose by 0.6%. (Read my colleague Matthew Zeitlin on how rising diesel costs can jack up food prices.) Staggeringly, fuel oil prices rose 15.3% — an eye-popping reading for a report where figures are usually in the tenth of a percent.
President Trump seems to be running out of time to repair the U.S. energy economy before Americans elect the last Congress of his presidency. His last-minute deal to free up 2.25 millions barrels of oil from Russia this month — with another 11 million or so to come afterward — seems unlikely to lower diesel prices, given that it represents only a few days of U.S. demand. (The deal has already succeeded in undermining Ukraine, however, and led six Republican senators to rebuke him this week.) Meanwhile, Election Day is in 20 days, and Americans are already voting in 20 states.
This is not how the Trump administration was supposed to play out — at least not according to its proponents. Trump in 2024 ran on taming the energy inflation that had plagued President Biden’s last two years in office. He vowed to “drill, baby, drill” and end Biden’s ambitious climate policies, which he called a “Green New Scam.” He even promised to do the bidding of oil company CEOs if they only steered $1 billion to his campaign.
This flagrant offer of quid pro quo may have mortified some in the industry, but it was coherent with the rest of Trump’s pitch: For more than a decade, he has essentially argued that only by surrendering to the fossil fuel industry, by giving oil and gas companies as much regulatory relief as they can stand, can voters finally escape high energy prices. Trump, of course, cemented this pitch in a typically over-the-top and ill-considered proposal, pledging to cut energy prices in half by 2026 or so. That was never going to happen, and its failure to happen has blown up for the president. But the underlying idea was consistent.
The Trump administration has spent the past two years executing this energy agenda. It repealed large swaths of the Inflation Reduction Act, ending incentives to build new solar and wind farms and terminating consumer-side subsidies for electric vehicles. It rolled back fines and rules restricting wasteful methane pollution. It has effectively eliminated fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. And it has declared an extralegal war on the wind industry.
And what has happened? Prices have gone up anyway. Gasoline and diesel are more expensive on an inflation-adjusted basis than they were on the day Trump took office. Now, you might argue that this surge is unrelated to the underlying policy, and that gasoline and diesel prices have surged because of the fallout from Trump’s war in Iran — not his domestic energy policy.
But the Iran crisis reveals the problem that Trump would have faced in any event: Oil prices are set on the global market, and neither the domestic oil industry nor the federal government possess the capacity to swing America’s production or consumption enough to affect those prices. Trump’s presidency, in other words, would always have been held hostage by the global energy markets — just as Biden’s was before him.
There is a deeper lesson here: The fossil fuel industry cannot guarantee low prices for consumers in the enduring way that Trump has promised — even if you give it all the regulatory relief that it demands. Nor can the oil, gasoline, and diesel markets deliver the deep energy security or economic stability that American policymakers want — or that voters desire. Trump’s war on Iran has continually been undermined by the American economy’s exposure to crude oil prices; the president is now compromising Ukraine’s defense in order to secure a dubiously small amount of crude. Fossil fuels remain America’s soft underbelly. Policymakers will keep getting poked until the country diversifies its energy system.