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:
This is how the climate apocalypse arrives: In a haze of smoke, petulance, and tribalism.
Let’s start with the obvious: Social media can be a cesspool in the best of times. And for folks in New York City, this week is not the best of times — they’re choking on smoke from Canadian forest fires, struggling to breath, or even see the city’s major landmarks very well. It’s the worst wildfire pollution event in U.S. history, one that will almost certainly leave a trail of excess deaths in its wake.
Naturally, a few folks took to Twitter to mock the media coverage — and New Yorkers for whining.
\u201cNew York: \u201cOh my God guys, the sky is full of wildfire smoke! This is the end of the world!!\u201d\n\nWashington, Oregon, & California: *covered in soot, drinking whiskey and chain smoking* \u201cWildfire smoke? Really? You don\u2019t say?\u201d\u201d— Kevin Maloney (@Kevin Maloney) 1686151184
Some complained that the media is too East Coast-centric. (OK, there’s often some truth to that.) That nobody really pays attention when California or Colorado or other places west of the Mississippi face similar emergencies. (Not true.) That New York’s experience is no big deal. (Reallynot true.)
“I care very deeply about our collective lungs and, broadly, the state of the planet,” Politico’s Megan Messerly wrote on Twitter, “but there is not nearly as much interest in wildfires and their impact on air quality when they are hurting the West or anywhere else outside of the D.C. and New York media bubble.” The media, she suggested, “should care more about wildfires everywhere, all the time.”
“Zero shade for the New Yorkers dealing with this — it’s awful — but it's wild to see the way East Coast media is suddenly doing wall-to-wall coverage of something that's been reality on the West Coast for a decade,” added the Salem Report’s Rachel Alexander, who linked to a New York Times article that was first published last year before the East Coast was affected by wild fires.
“California lives in near-permanent fire-and-smoke crisis and it barely rates New York covered in haze from fires for two days and it consumes Twitter like the end times,” Australian writer Neil McMahon wrote. “Guess where all the journalists and big newsrooms are.”
These were among the more thoughtful comments. You won’t be surprised to learn there were a few snarky posts as well.
How to respond?
We can start by agreeing that climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the entire world, and there can never be enough coverage of its effects and all the ways — and places — human life is becoming more difficult as a result. Heck, that’s why the publication you’re reading exists.
But the Twitter commentary is also a troubling signal of what might lie ahead.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
As climate change gathers momentum, we’re likely to see a growing number of petty and not-so-petty scraps over who has it worse, who needs more help. Why isn’t my problem getting more attention? Why are they getting all these resources? And the consequences will be more meaningful than the irritation sparked by a few social media throwdowns.
Climate change is a “catalyst for conflict,” the United Nations says in an explainer on the topic. The livable parts of the planet are being pushed away from the equator and toward the poles, which suggests there will be more people competing for shrinking shares of land, food and water in the spaces that remain. Already, the U.N. notes, “droughts in Africa and Latin America directly feed into political unrest and violence.”
The United States won’t be exempt — if Americans can’t live in Phoenix, they’ll have to move somewhere. Indeed, we’re seeing the effects already: Immigration is one of the most-divisive issues in American politics right now, and it’s driven to a large extent by climate refugees fleeing places in Central America that are too hot and too poor for many migrants to remain and thrive. That trend is only going to become more pronounced.
Some Americans want to welcome those refugees. Others want to build a wall. And some see the clash as an opportunity to build their own power.
Just think what our politics might look like 10 or 20 years from now.
We humans are excellent at drawing us-versus-them lines, and that’s never more true than when times get bad. Intramural squabbles are natural in times of emergency — but they can also be a diversion from facing and fixing the broader forces that got us to this point. Wall-to-wall New York Times coverage of the city’s smoke crisis isn’t reallythe big problem here.
Maybe a few Twitter comments about that crisis don’t actually mean all that much. Or maybe social media is the canary in the climate crisis coal mine — a harbinger of harder, meaner, more selfish times to come.
Read more about the wildfire smoke engulfing the East Coast:
The 5 Big Questions About the 2023 Wildfire Smoke Crisis
Wednesday Was the Worst Day for Wildfire Pollution in U.S. History
When There’s Smoke, Getting Indoors Isn’t Enough
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 next Trump administration is ramping up, and we are beginning to get a sense of what it might look like.
But before we get any further from the election, I want to note the one thing we absolutely know about the Trump administration’s policy: It constantly contradicts itself. In order to win, Trump has made an overlapping and contradictory set of promises to his stakeholders and supporters.
In the world of energy policy, nuclear energy is the most glaring example. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who Trump has said will have a major role in overseeing the nation’s public health, is a lifelong opponent of nuclear power. Before his current Trumpist turn, his environmental career’s crowning achievement was helping to shut down Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant that generated enough zero-carbon electricity to meet a quarter of New York City’s power needs. That closure — which was celebrated by some environmental groups — substantially increased New York’s natural gas consumption, raising the state’s emissions of climate pollution.
Vice President-elect JD Vance, meanwhile, has spoken much more favorably about nuclear energy. He sometimes frames nuclear energy as the one climate solution Democrats won’t pursue without fully conceding that climate change is a problem requiring solutions. As he told the podcast host Joe Rogan earlier this year, “If you think that carbon is the most significant thing — [that] the sole focus of American civilization should be to reduce the carbon footprint of the world — then you would be investing in nuclear in a big way.” (In reality, as I wrote last month, Democrats at the national level became startlingly pro-nuclear during this election cycle.)
Musk, for his part, is so pro-nuclear that while interviewing Trump and Kennedy in the past year, he interjected to express support for nuclear. “I do want to voice my opinion that, in my opinion, actually nuclear is very safe,” he told RFK last year. “If you look at the actual deaths from nuclear power, they’re miniscule compared to certainly any fossil fuel power generation.” (He is totally correct about that.) “I would actually — although this does go against a lot of people’s views — I’m actually a believer in nuclear fission,” Musk added.
Trump, meanwhile, has swung around on the question. The first Trump administration passed a number of pro-nuclear policies and sought to elevate the small modular reactor industry. As recently as August, Trump said that nuclear energy was “very good, very safe.” But that month he also equivocated about its safety. “They talk about climate change, but they never talk about nuclear warming,” he told Musk. He also pondered whether nuclear energy has a branding problem because it shares a name with nuclear weapons. (I am indebted to HuffPo’s Alex Kauffman, who indispensably tracked Trump’s shifts of mood on this issue.)
Finally, the officials Trump is likely to bring in to oversee energy policy — people like Doug Burgum, the North Dakota governor who could become energy czar — hold a more traditionally Republican pro-nuclear view.
Some of this incoherence might be intentional. Kennedy seems to have struck a deal with Trump over some aspects of energy policy. During his victory speech on Tuesday, Trump even told RFK, “Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold” — implying a transaction where RFK gets control of health policy while leaving energy untouched. But does that extend to other parts of the energy agenda?
I point to this because it illustrates what’s coming — the messy mix of interpersonal rivalries, shoot-from-the-hip reversals, and traditional Republicanism that will actually determine the output of Trump’s policy process. And nuclear is not even the most glaring question about the Trump administration’s energy and economic policy. Trump says he wants to bring back U.S. manufacturing, and Vance has said that the U.S. should solve climate change by investing in domestic manufacturing: “If we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers and the American people,” he said at the VP debate.
This is more or less the exact goal of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, which incentivizes companies to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles domestically. This law has helped underwrite dozens of new EV and batteries factories in Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan,Texas, and Arizona — the battlegrounds of modern American politics. Yet the Trump administration has committed to repealing or freezing the IRA.
Likewise, Musk has promised to slash “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget. But that seems virtually impossible without cutting defense, Social Security, and Medicare — programs that Republicans or Trump have promised to leave intact. (Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, the incoming Senate armed service committee chair, wants to massively increase defense spending.) Will it accept the local economic pain, the dozens of canceled investments, that will follow that repeal?
The unignorable fact of the Trump administration is that its plans, at least as viewed today, do not really hang together. Trump has been swept into power promising low prices and an end to inflation, but his centerpiece economic policies are likely to reduce the low-end labor supply (through mass deportations) while increasing the cost of goods (through economy-wide tariffs). Perhaps these policies will not affect the economy as economists expect — I remember enough of the first Trump administration to know that catastrophic expert predictions do not always come true.
But perhaps they will. When asked what the hardest thing was about being prime minister, the British politician Harold Macmillan is said to have replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” With Trump, we can be certain that some of those coalition-splitting events will spring from his own messily managed coalition.
I won’t sugar coat this: The election of Donald Trump to a second term with a likely governing trifecta has dealt a devastating blow to U.S. efforts to cut climate-warming pollution.
I’ve spent the past four years analyzing the progress made under the Biden-Harris Administration as leader of the REPEAT Project, which uses energy systems models to rapidly assess the impact of federal energy and climate policies. In that time, the passage of landmark legislation — the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — and finalization of key federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas supply chains put the U.S. on track to more than double its pace of decarbonization and avoid about 6 billion tons of cumulative emissions through 2035. Though even that progress was not enough: Recent policies would do only about half the work required to bend U.S. emissions onto a net-zero pathway by 2035.
A President Harris would have fought to protect and build on the efforts of the past four years. Now that opportunity is lost. One notable climate scientist even declared a second Trump term “game over for the climate.”
With Trump once again ascendant and seemingly committed to dismantling the historic climate progress made by the United States over the past four years, one can be forgiven for feeling anguish about the opportunities we’ve lost, rage about the very real suffering that will result from further delay, or deep despair about the darker days ahead.
But only for a moment. Because the fight to defend that progress begins today, and there is no time to lose.
In 1992, the nations of the world established the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and pledged to "prevent dangerous human induced interference with the climate system." As the parties to the UNFCCC gather once again in Azerbaijan this December, one thing should be clear to all: We have failed in that task. This year is virtually certain to be the warmest on record and the first to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Wildfires and droughts, hurricanes and floods now seem to strike with alarming frequency and terrible ferocity.
Yet the best science tells us that climate change is not like an asteroid hurtling towards earth, an all-or-nothing battle for survival. Rather, scientists tell us that every billion tons of CO2 and every 10th of a degree of warming we prevent will save lives, prevent suffering, and avoid countless damage.
The fight cannot be surrendered, and the project of building a world where the lives and aspirations of 8-going-on-10 billion people can be powered by clean, abundant energy remains essential.
Indeed, I have been in this fight long enough to have experienced several gutting defeats before — and to have witnessed real, transformative progress.
When I began my career nearly two decades ago, a good onshore wind project cost $100 to $200 per megawatt-hour, two to five times the average cost of fossil power. Germany had just launched a subsidy program paying a lavish €400 to €500 per megawatt-hour for solar photovoltaics. And it would be several years still before the first Tesla Roadster would even hit the streets.
Today, either solar or wind power is the cheapest way to generate new electricity almost everywhere in the world, and the International Energy Agency expects solar to overtake nuclear, wind, hydro, gas, and, finally, coal, to become the largest source of electricity in the world by 2033. Here in the U.S., clean electricity and battery storage constitute virtually all of the more than 2.5 terawatts of projects requesting interconnection to our grids. Likewise, electric vehicles (whether two-, three-, or four-wheeled) are now the cheapest and fastest growing mobility solution for those in emerging economies and the rich world alike. One in five cars and trucks sold globally are now electric — in China, that figure is nearing 50%.
Annual U.S. emissions are more than a billion metric tons (or 16%) lower than their peak in 2007, even as the economy is 40% larger. The European Union has cut emissions by 37% from their peak, and by 8% in 2023 alone. Even China, the world’s top polluter, may have seen its emissions peak in 2023 — seven years ahead of schedule.
In sum, the trajectory of global emissions has been wrestled down from inexorable rise to plateau and impending peak. That may not be enough to prevent dangerous climate change, but it is sufficient to transform the outlook from a bleak world of around 4 degrees of warming and put a much more manageable world of 2 degrees within reach.
The truth is that Donald Trump can only slow, not stop the clean energy transition. The U.S. is only responsible for about a 10th of global emissions, and China, not America, is now the world’s largest market (by far) for cars and trucks, electricity, and industrial commodities like steel and cement. Trump cannot wind back the clock on technological innovation or dampen the appetite for EVs and clean energy in the rest of the world. Emerging climate technologies like decarbonized steel, cement and industrial heat can take root elsewhere, even if they face dimmer prospects in America. And a bipartisan consensus to advance technologies like geothermal, nuclear, and carbon capture in the U.S. remains.
While executive actions can be easily repealed, the legislative achievements of the past four years lower energy prices for American consumers and businesses, have sparked a long-promised American manufacturing renaissance, and direct substantial investment and job creation to Republican-represented districts and states. Texas, that paragon of conservatism, is now the undisputed king of clean energy. Factories producing batteries, EVs and solar panels are sprouting across Georgia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, and beyond. Clean energy is now big business, and influential companies stand to lose billions if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed. With Republicans securing razor-thin legislative majorities, these laws could thus prove surprisingly durable.
In times of struggle and defeat, those brave champions of civil rights would remind themselves that, though long, the arc of history bends towards justice. Today, it remains our collective task to continue to bend the arc of global emissions towards net zero.
Vice President Harris began her historic campaign by declaring, “When we fight, we win!” That isn’t always the case, but we can say with absolute certainty that if we give up the fight, we are guaranteed defeat.
There is no “game over” in the fight against climate change. The next battle begins today.
Current conditions: Colorado’s major snow storm will continue well into the weekend • More than 900 people in Pakistan were hospitalized in a single day due to extreme air pollution • Devastating flooding continues in Spain.
The world continues to underestimate climate risks, and irreversible tipping points are near, UN Secretary General António Guterres toldThe Guardian. “It is absolutely essential to act now,” he said. “It’s absolutely essential to reduce emissions drastically now.” His warning comes before the COP29 summit kicks off Monday in Azerbaijan, where negotiators are set to agree on a new global finance target to help developing countries with climate adaptation. Guterres said that if the U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement again under a Trump presidency, the landmark goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would be “crippled.” Experts say 2024 is now expected to be the first full calendar year in which global temperatures exceed the 1.5 degrees target.
With climate-skeptic Donald Trump set to retake the White House in January, many are wondering what his policies will mean for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. He’s likely to walk back pollution rules on cars and power plants, repeal some parts of the Inflation Reduction Act, boost oil and gas drilling, and pull out of the Paris Agreement. Jesse Jenkins, who leads the Princeton ZERO Lab and is co-host of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast, said projected emissions will indeed be higher than they would under current policies, but “since Trump cannot repeal grants already awarded or tax credits already provided to date, and it is unlikely that every provision in IRA will be repealed,” they probably will remain lower than Jenkins’ so-called Frozen Policies scenario, which assumes no new climate policies since January 2021.
Jesse Jenkins/REPEAT Project
Varun Sivaram, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Council on Foreign Relations, added some global context: “Even with sharp Trump domestic climate policy rollbacks, the change in U.S. emissions is trivial on a global scale and far less meaningful than expected emerging economy emissions growth,” he said.
In case you missed it (we did!): Oil giant BP said in its most recent earnings report that it has abandoned 18 early-stage hydrogen projects. It still plans to back between five and 10 projects, but that’s down from the “more than 10” it had planned for. The move will save BP some $200 million, and “could have a chilling effect on the nascent hydrogen industry,” wrote Tim De Chant at TechCrunch.
Rivian reported Q3 earnings yesterday. Here are some key takeaways:
A new study published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment found that carbon dioxide emissions from private jets have risen by 50% over the last four years. The research analyzed data from about 19 million private flights (half of which were shorter than 300 miles) made by more than 25,000 private aircraft between 2019 and 2023. In 2023 alone, private flights resulted in about 15.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Most private flights are taking place in the United States: The researchers say that while the U.S. is home to 4% of the global population, nearly 70% of all private aircraft are registered there. The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the most carbon-intensive events for private aircraft. Also on the list? The Davos conference and – uh oh – COP28.
Most private flights occur in the U.S. Communications Earth & Environment
Donald Trump’s election victory this week resulted in a $1.2 billion windfall for investors who bet against renewable energy stocks.