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.
New research finds that Europe’s 2025 heat wave was made measurably worse by greenhouse gas emissions since the Paris Agreement.
Europe’s record-breaking heat wave in 2025 would have been a third of a degree Celsius cooler if not for emissions released just since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2015, researchers found in a new study published Tuesday by the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.
The research marks a step forward for attribution science, which has traditionally worked to tie extreme events such as heat waves and floods to climate change writ large. Now, using artificial intelligence trained on climate models, researchers have managed to link extreme weather to a specific subset of emissions.
“Not only does every little bit of emissions count, but the amount of emissions released since 2015 significantly increased the temperature of [the 2025 European] heat wave,” Jared Trok, the study’s lead author and a PhD student at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, told me. “Before this paper” — which found 99-in-100 odds that human-caused emissions since 2015 increased the severity of the 2025 heat wave — “we couldn’t really make a claim to that extent.”
Though the record-breaking 2026 heat wave fell outside the scope of the study, the 2025 heat wave was no joke either — temperatures crested 115 degrees Fahrenheit in Spain and Portugal, and more than 16,000 died across the continent. Trok’s findings about a relationship between the past decade of emissions and intensified heat also held true for Europe’s hottest week in every year since at least 2021.
While a third of a degree Celsius might not sound like a lot — “it’s smaller than our ability to actually sense,” Trok acknowledged — there’s a growing body of scientific literature that suggests even incremental increases in temperature can be deadly. “It’s nonlinear,” Trok added. “For every additional increment of temperature, the impacts on heat-related mortality are even larger than the previous increment.” Though Trok and his colleagues did not look at mortality specifically, the reasoning indicates dozens if not hundreds of people could have died due to that fraction of a degree.
The study highlights the advances in the specificity and speed of attribution science, which a quarter of a century ago struggled to distinguish the influence of all historical emissions on any individual event. But it also suggests something grim: The past decade also overlaps with the biggest global efforts toward decarbonization. “Even if the decarbonization goals are achieved, these results as well as others suggest near certainty that the extremes, particularly extreme heat, will continue to intensify,” Noah Suresh Diffenbaugh, a Stanford climate scientist and the paper’s senior author, told me.
Paired with a separate commentary also published today by the U.S. Climate Collection, a joint project of AGU and the American Meteorological Society, the research adds an urgent underline to the need for research like Trok’s to be incorporated into state and local policymaking. Many of the institutions that existed to do so in the U.S., however, have collapsed or been actively dismantled by the second Trump administration.
The Climate Collection formed in the void that followed the forced breakup of the sixth National Climate Assessment (and is made up of many of its authors), and argues that the NCA did more than just good rigorous science — it also helped translate that research into a reliable springboard for policymakers.
The U.S. Climate Collection aims to compile an open-access collection of research papers that “lays the groundwork for future national and subnational assessments of climate risks and solutions in the United States.”
The group’s first paper serves as “a call to our colleagues to meet that need and the charge that has been given to us by society to produce the science” necessary for policymakers and other groups to “make better decisions,” Melissa Kenney, one of the commentary’s lead authors and director of research and knowledge initiatives at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, told me.
In the past, the formal NCAs have helped inform everything from New Hampshire flood risk management plans to city- and state-level climate policies, the Climate Collection writes in their commentary. (They also set expectations: The last NCA required the involvement of 500 authors, 250 technical contributors, and synthesized more than 8,200 studies, meaning the Collective likely couldn’t replicate the rigor and scope even if it wanted to.) The Climate Collection specifically singles out attribution as an area of priority.
“Compounding extremes and cascading climate risks are increasingly overwhelming our legacy policies and infrastructure,” Kenney said, adding that “being able to understand the impact of these compounding extremes is really critical in a number of communities to be able to make smart, multi-decadal decisions like infrastructure choices.”
But as Trok’s research shows, even assumptions about the climate of 2015 are out of date. Investments in adaptation are a small fraction of the total dollars spent addressing climate change, and as Diffenbaugh stressed, the new paper is just the latest “of a number of studies that highlight that we can expect further acceleration of impacts from extreme events.”
The U.S. Climate Collection doesn’t intend to fill the gap left by the collapse of NCA6 (nor could it, its authors point out, given that it’s a self-organized volunteer group). But its call for synthesis papers of smaller scopes could give policymakers grounds to make decisions pulled from rigorous, peer-reviewed research as the world changes all around us. “These types of assessment reports are one of our greatest professional obligations as scientists,” Kenney said. “Most people will not go and read hundreds of scientific papers to be able to understand what we know and what we still need to know.”
“But,” she added, “there’s a real need for us to be able to provide the information” — before it becomes old news, too.
On geothermal research, Solar for All, and a Monster El Niño
Current conditions: Rains from Typhoon Dujuan caused landslides that killed four people in regions near Tokyo, while six are still missing • More than 20 active fires, including one threatening the popular tourist town Villa de Leyva, have led Colombian authorities to declare a public calamity • It’s cool and damp in New York City, where United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres is preparing to open his final session of high-level debate at the United Nations General Assembly.
Less than two weeks ago, my colleague Alexander C. Kaufman told you about the average U.S. diesel price breaking $6 per gallon for the first time ever. Oh, how young we were then. As of Tuesday, the average diesel price was nearly $6.53, more than a cent higher than Monday and nearly a dollar higher than the price of a month ago. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote when the average diesel price was just $5.50 per gallon, “While there’s probably never a good time for fuel prices to spike, the increase in diesel prices right now will likely translate to increased costs for farmers as they rev up their equipment for the harvest season.” Indeed, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, took to X over the weekend to say that fuel costs are “KILLING FARMERS INCOME” and call for an embargo on diesel exports. It seems Trump was listening: According to Politico, the president called up Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Monday to discuss the issue. Though Rollins said to expect news “very soon on some potential actions,” an export ban doesn’t seem likely to be among them. A White House official told Politico that the administration is “not considering an export ban or export restrictions at this time.”
Meanwhile, the president is considering standing up a $5 billion fund to help rebuild Middle East energy infrastructure damaged in the war with Iran. As outlined in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, the plan would call for soliciting matching funds from partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Iraq, and Jordan, with the goal of raising $10 billion in total. Reactions from analysts were mixed. “This strategy has risk written all over it,” Bilal Saab, senior managing director of consulting firm TRENDS US, told the paper. Eurasia Group energy senior analyst Gregory Brew, however, called the plan a “great idea” and pointed back to his own essay from Foreign Affairs in May advocating for “strategies that build energy resilience and reduce exposure to future strait closures.”
The Department of Energy announced on Monday that it has selected 21 next-generation geothermal projects to receive a total of $99 million in funding with the aim to “advance geothermal development” across the U.S. Five of the projects will conduct field research on enhanced geothermal technologies, while the remaining 16 will conduct exploratory drilling to identify potential new well sites. The recipients include industry darlings such as Fervo Energy, Zanskar Geothermal and Minerals, and Quaise Energy. The data from these projects will be made public via the DOE’s Geothermal Data Repository, allowing companies and developers outside this select group to benefit from the research.
“These projects will empower American innovators to unlock the tremendous geothermal resources beneath our feet,” DOE Under Secretary of Energy Kyle Haustveit said in a statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we’re advancing next-generation geothermal technologies that can lower costs, strengthen American energy dominance, and turn more of our vast domestic geothermal resources into reliable and affordable power.”
Last Friday afternoon, Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that attempts by Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency to claw back $7 billion in funding distributed under the Biden-era Solar for All program were illegal. The ruling hinged on the wording of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in which Congress rescinded “unobligated” funds from the program. The EPA seized on this authority to attempt to cancel the program entirely, cutting off access to funds that had been obligated but not yet distributed. “The OBBBA did not convert SFA funding into a lump-sum amount subject to EPA’s discretion,” McElroy wrote in her decision, according to The Hill. “Instead, Congress’s clear intent was that EPA continue to administer the already obligated SFA grants.”
This represents the second defeat in a row for EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in August upheld an injunction against his attempt to rescind $20 billion in awards from a related program, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. My colleague Robinson Meyer wrote at the time that the decisions “would amount to a victory — if it holds.” Though the judge’s opinion required the agency to give grant recipients access to their funds while the case proceeded, the EPA later made a deal to keep the funds frozen while it prepares an appeal to the Supreme Court. An EPA spokesperson told The Hill on Friday that it is already “reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal” in the Solar for All case.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary backing some of the biggest projects of the data center boom — including a planned 9.2-gigawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Ohio — was all set to go public as soon as this month. Now, however, The New York Times is reporting that those plans have been delayed as mounting public distrust in artificial intelligence and its associated infrastructure has led to skepticism among investors. Heatmap has tracked the backlash closely, including in our exclusive polling showing that 75% of Americans now oppose data center construction near them.
The backlash is also causing political problems for data centers, especially in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott has issued another salvo against developers. After freezing new data center grid connections last month, Abbott on Monday ordered the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental regulator, to stop issuing permits for new data center construction. “Simply put, Texans must come first," Abbott said in a statement. “Data centers must pay their own way, protect our grid and water,” and complete audits with the state’s grid and water authorities. “Until they do, TCEQ will issue no permits sought by data center projects.”
The surface temperature in a key section of the Pacific Ocean registered 3.07 degrees Celsius higher than average over the weekend, putting it in a statistical tie with the previous record set in 2015, according to an analysis in Carbon Brief Monday. This particular section of the Pacific is the one scientists monitor to determine the presence of the cyclical El Niño weather pattern, which occurs when average temperatures breach half a degree Celsius above average for the region. Two degrees higher and it’s a Super El Niño. “This is going to be so far beyond a Super El Niño, if the models are right, that we sort of need a new term for it,” the author of the analysis, Zeke Hausfather, told Rob in August on an episode of Shift Key. El Niño temperatures typically peak in November or December, meaning that there are likely several months of intensification still to come. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday declared a state of emergency to boost preparedness against the storms and flooding the intense weather pattern is likely to bring to the state.
As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote in her dispatch from Day 1 of New York Climate Week yesterday, the carbon dioxide removal industry has money problems. That makes the $35 million debt financing deal between Italian lender Mediobanca and American carbon removal company Vaulted Deep announced Monday that much more exciting. Vaulted Deep has a unique approach to sequestering carbon, processing organic materials into a slurry that it then injects underground, and has previously received support from the carbon removal backer Frontier Climate. The funding arrangement, announced Monday, is a proof of concept of the advanced market commitment model Vaulted Deep co-founder and CEO Julia Reichelstein told Axios.
A dispatch from Day 1 of New York Climate Week.
It’s the first day of New York Climate Week, and I spent the morning attending events hosted by companies and nonprofits focused on carbon dioxide removal, i.e. sucking greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere. The vibes were, somewhat surprisingly, optimistic — not about the state of the planet or politics or climate change, per se, but about the future of an industry with a very uncertain fate.
Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii struck a high note opening the first event I attended, a panel hosted by the Carbon Removal Alliance titled “Progress, Politics, and the Path Forward.” “It’s not a secret that for those of us who care about climate, these are challenging times,” he told the audience. “But the momentum behind CDR is real.”
Schatz cited the nearly $1 billion fund that Frontier Climate, a coalition of carbon removal buyers, pledged earlier this year to put toward supporting the industry, as well as the fact that Congress has continued funding carbon removal on a bipartisan basis through the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and storage, which survived last year’s clean energy policy purge.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily
During the panel that followed, a lot of the discussion centered on what the industry needs from federal policy and how to build a bigger tent of supporters to lobby for those changes. It was moderated by Ella Nilsen, a former CNN climate reporter who recently became the vice president of Echo Communications. She started by acknowledging that carbon removal has a lot of skeptics in the climate movement — many are concerned that it’s a waste of money compared to investing in emission reductions, or that it’s become a justification to continue using fossil fuels. How do you change their minds?
I was interested to hear Joanna Klitzke, the head of market development at Frontier, recommend that the industry be honest about methods and projects that are not working. A few of the companies Frontier has purchased carbon removal from have failed, she said, including one trying to do carbon mineralization using steel slag on roads. “It just doesn’t work. The economics don’t pencil, The technical feasibility isn’t there,” she said. (I followed up with Klitzke by email to ask for clarification on which companies have failed, but I hadn’t heard back as of press time.) Being transparent about the failures might help convince skeptics to support the things that are working, she argued.
Broadening the tent also means getting more members of Congress interested in supporting carbon removal. Cristina Shoffer, the cofounder and director of the Clean Economy Project, stressed that carbon removal companies should be building relationships with their members of Congress before they need something. When it came to defending the tax credits during the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, she said, a lot of the companies that were trying to make their case to Congress didn’t have an existing with their representatives. Jeremy Harrell, the CEO of the conservative clean energy nonprofit Clearpath, added that we are about to be in a historic turnover point for federal policymakers, so it’s an opportune time to go to new members elected in November’s midterms, teach them about the industry, and “foster new champions.”
And what, pray tell, should the industry ask of these members? That part is still a little fuzzy. The industry’s biggest challenge is, and has long been, a lack of customers. Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance, was optimistic that Frontier’s fund and other voluntary buyers will carry the industry forward for the next few years, but “we need to be thinking about, what is that baton pass?” she said. I heard this expression a few times today, and it refers to the moment when buying carbon removal moves from the hands of volunteers to the hands of government.
Amador mentioned potentially embedding carbon removal into California’s cap and trade market, passing federal tax credits that support a broader range of CDR methods, or expanding the federal carbon removal purchase prize — a Biden-era program to have the Department of Energy vet and buy carbon removal that is still technically alive but that, by all accounts, Trump’s Department of Energy has not carried on. “The field really needs to come together around, what is our big ask around carbon removal demand? How can the U.S. federal government create these opportunities for demand?”
Later in the day, at a summit hosted by the carbon removal registry Puro.Earth, there was more talk about how various voluntary and government frameworks are shaping demand. Kyra Power, the engagement manager for North America for the Science Based Targets Initiative, addressed some potential disappointment in the room around the Initiative’s recent Net-Zero Standard update.
In the absence of regulatory requirements that compel companies to buy carbon removal, SBTi’s standard is the next closest thing. The latest version of its standard for what counts as a “science-based” corporate net zero plan, released in June, introduced guidance requiring larger companies in higher-income countries to begin offsetting their ongoing emissions with carbon removal beginning in 2035, later than the CDR industry — which is desperate for more buyers — hoped. SBTi will also encourage companies to purchase carbon removal before that date by creating an optional “recognition program.” It hasn’t spelled out all the details yet, but it would essentially mean giving companies that buy CDR early a gold star.
Power explained that corporate buyers told SBTi that starting the requirement earlier, in 2030, was “not feasible.” But she tried to reassure the audience, noting that SBTi is already fielding inquiries from companies about how they can go after the optional recognition program.
“I hope at some point that we’re able to publish some of those reflections and insights that we’re gaining internally,” she said, “but I think it is more like an indicator that there is interest in this recognition program, there’s interest in this above and beyond framework.”
A few other quick notes on big CDR announcements before I go: