You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
Mr. President, your commitment to radical climate and economic policy really does astound me.

Dear Mr. Trump,
What can I say? You astound me. You enthrall me. I am, in short, very impressed!
Why? Well, earlier this month, I sent you an open letter in which I confessed that I finally understood your secret plan. It’s true, I wrote, that you campaigned as a scourge of climate activists. You publicly called global warming a “hoax,” a “scam,” and something that you “don’t believe.”
Sure, that’s what you said. But, as I wrote in my letter, you have governed very differently. You are clearly terrified of climate change. Because upon being handed the reins of power, you have executed the extreme environmentalist playbook to a T.
You imposed a 10% tax on Canadian crude oil — which is the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil burned by Americans. You levied new fees on single-family-home building materials, putting an end to suburban sprawl. You even threatened to tax cars.
In short, you seemed to declare war on the dirty, polluting, carbon-choked American way of life.
Yet even as I sent that letter, I still had doubts. I even added a note of warning. I said that you are a much more radical environmentalist than I am — that while I want to see carbon emissions fall, I would never take the kind of extreme actions you are.
But since my last note you have plunged on. In the past few days, we’ve gotten new confirmation of just how committed you are to the radical climate agenda. You have taxed oil imports. You have declared war on cars like some kind of radical urbanist. You have hawked Teslas on the White House lawn. Even your diplomatic fights are bearing fruit: Your trade war on Canada has led to cross-border air travel falling by 70%, and your anti-European rhetoric has even started to drive down trans-Atlantic bookings now. Less tourism, fewer flights, less carbon pollution!
Last time, I called you a “Green New Donald.” Clearly that did not go far enough. You are even more opinionated, climate-crusading, and radical than I thought. You are committed to reducing the amount of stuff that Americans use — no matter where we get it from or what it does. You want to decrease the economy’s material intensity.
You, Mr. Trump, are a DEGROWTH DONALD.
And the fossil fuel industry is just starting to catch on to the extent of your fervor.
How do I know? Just look at what the oil industry itself is saying. Every quarter, the Dallas Federal Reserve asks fossil fuel executives about the state of their industry. The most recent survey came out on Wednesday, and in it those leaders do nothing but whine. They hate that you are going much further than President Biden ever went — that you are trying to drag them into bankruptcy.
“The key word to describe 2025 so far is ‘uncertainty’ and as a public company, our investors hate uncertainty. This has led to a marked increase in the implied cost of capital of our business, with public energy stocks down significantly more than oil prices over the last two,” one of them writes.
Well done, Mr. Trump! Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have long sought to raise borrowing costs for oil and gas companies through financial regulation. But you have figured out a way to actually do it with your tariff agenda.
One of the most impressive parts of your energy agenda, Mr. Trump, is that you keep calling for oil to fall to $50 a barrel. (It now trades at $69.) You must know — because you are surrounded by expert oilmen such as Energy Secretary Chris Wright — that such a low price will hand market share to OPEC and cause American oil companies nothing but pain. You must have seen that in the same Fed survey, U.S. drillers said that oil had to go for at least $61 a barrel before they could profitably drill new wells in the Permian Basin.
But you and your advisers plunge on anyway and keep insisting on that magic $50 number! You are heroes. What’s so delightful, Mr. Trump, is that this is clearly starting to irritate the oil executives who helped fund your campaign. Some of them have even started to cut their spending on future oil drilling.
“The threat of $50 oil prices by the administration has caused our firm to reduce its 2025 and 2026 capital expenditures,” writes one of them. “‘Drill, baby, drill’ does not work with $50 per barrel oil. Rigs will get dropped, employment in the oil industry will decrease, and U.S. oil production will decline as it did during COVID-19.”
Another adds: “There cannot be ‘U.S. energy dominance’ and $50 per barrel oil; those two statements are contradictory. At $50-per-barrel oil, we will see U.S. oil production start to decline immediately and likely significantly.”
Perfectly executed, Mr. Trump! They are going to keep it in the ground!!!! You have pulled off the rare rope-a-dope: Your political action groups raised more than $75 million from the oil industry to help get you elected. But now that you’re in office, you’re shutting them in. And the best part is that voters have no idea: Americans continue to think that you support U.S. oil and gas drilling — and they like it.
The most impressive comment from the oil executives, though, is this one: “I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40-plus-year career.”
Think about that. This executive has seen the fall of Communism, the Asian crash, 9/11, the Global Financial Crisis, and the pandemic — and all of them pale next to you.
At the same time that these oil leaders are whining, you have plunged ahead with your tariffs on cars. These new fees are so complicated that many automakers are still working out exactly what they will mean for their supply chains. (More uncertainty! You dazzle me.)
But one thing is clear: They are going to raise the cost of new vehicles. “You're going to see price increases,” Ivan Drury, the director of insights at automotive research site Edmunds, told USA Today. “Virtually nothing goes unscathed.”
One analyst at Goldman Sachs even predicted that soon the average monthly price for a new vehicle could rise by $90. He said the tariffs are so unbelievably disruptive that there is no way they could become permanent. The hit to auto demand has already caused the steelmaker Cleveland Cliffs to lay off more than 600 steelworkers.
Mr. Trump, you really do impress me. I do worry about your popularity, though. I mean, are you trying to cause mass layoffs across the auto sector? If you keep this up, you might put the Democrats back in office — and you know what will happen then. I mean, last year, the U.S. produced more oil than any other country in history. I know you don’t want to see that happen again.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Typhoon Champi swept past Taiwan, leaving one dead and 500 injured as the weakened storm slams into South Korea and Japan • Hurricane Vance is churning off Mexico, bombarding the coast with waves up to 13 feet tall • Tropical Storm In-Fa could strengthen into a powerful storm as it heads toward the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has secured an unprecedented fourth term, winning 51% of votes in Sunday’s run-off election with far-right challenger Flávio Bolsonaro. The photogenic son of the imprisoned former president Lula defeated in 2022, Bolsonaro, 45, had promised to cut taxes, slash government spending on things like environmental enforcement, and bring South America’s largest economy in closer alignment with President Donald Trump. His message, which resonated in the Amazon’s frontier boomtowns, secured Bolsonaro more votes in the first round of the election on October 4. Lula’s win makes history twice over. He’s the first since democracy returned to Brazil in 1988 to pull ahead and defeat the first-round winner in the runoff. He’s also the first president elected to four terms, with his first two served between 2003 and 2011. On energy, the differences between the candidates are primarily over the role of government in the market, with the conservative Bolsonaro advocating more privatization and Lula seeking to strengthen the role of state-backed enterprises in generating income for the government and carrying out industrial policy.
On actual energy technologies, however, the discrepancy is relatively small, at least compared to the partisan divides in U.S. politics. Brazil’s grid is overwhelmingly clean, powered primarily by hydroelectricity. And Lula, an octogenarian leftist, has ramped up production of oil and gas through Brazil’s state-backed Petrobras. Lula’s signature since he first won the presidency in 2002 has been growing the economy and shrinking poverty while reducing deforestation of the Amazon. Bolsonaro, by contrast, had promised to strip away protections for the world’s largest tropical rainforest. The Amazon is currently seeing a surge of fires as ranchers look to clear woodlands to make way for more cattle pastures. Folha de S.Paulo, Brazil’s newspaper of record, wrote that Trump would now be Lula’s chief foreign challenge.

Brazil’s election wasn’t the only political earthquake on Sunday. Serbian voters booted out former President Aleksandar Vučić, a pro-Russian figure widely described as a “strongman” in the Western press, in a student-led movement that the Associated Press said heralded a “seismic shift” in the Balkan country’s politics. The victorious Student List party had formed adjacent to protests against what would have been Europe’s largest lithium mine, Rio Tinto’s so-called Jadar. Amid increasingly fierce protests, the Anglo-Australian mining giant mothballed the project last year. Vučić had championed the mine as a way to improve his country’s ties to the West as European battery makers look for sources of the metal outside of China. His defeat signals little hope of the project’s return. Serbia’s other energy megaproject, its planned first nuclear power station, now faces new uncertainty. The Student List has not, from what I can tell, made any statements for or against atomic energy. But the previous government had been in talks with Russia’s Rosatom and the Chinese government to build its first reactors. That decision on whether and with whom to move forward on the plant will now fall to the new government.
Helium may seem like a pretty casual commodity, the sort of thing you can buy a tank of in Costco to fill party balloons. But the gas, which has the lowest boiling point of any element, has a wide range of industrial applications. It’s used to make semiconductors, as a tool to detect leaks in natural gas pipelines, and as a coolant in a next-generation class of high temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors. Now the Department of Energy has anointed helium with a special strategic status. On Friday, the agency designated helium as the latest critical material, a key step toward directing more federal funding toward domestic production of the gas. The U.S. is already among the top three suppliers of helium in the world. But global supplies took a hit this year when Iran closed off the Strait of Hormuz, preventing Qatar’s vast helium exports from reaching the market. “Helium is essential to producing the semiconductors and advanced technologies that power our economy,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement. “By designating helium as a critical material, we are taking another step toward securing our supply chains, creating American jobs, and ensuring the United States leads the world in energy and technological innovation.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Russian energy giant Novatek is “secretly controlling” Polar Train LNG, the Trump-linked company developing a liquified natural gas export terminal on Alaska’s North Slope, the Financial Times reported. The venture — launched in March by Gentry Beach, an investor with ties to the Trump family, to repurpose work the Russians had done on a facility in Alaska — had “featured in high-level negotiations between Washington and Moscow over potential business deals that could help secure an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine,” the newspaper reported. Polar has been awaiting permission from the Trump administration to circumvent U.S. sanctions to negotiate with Russia. Now Polar LNG’s American chief executive, Joel Riddle, told the FT “that he discovered Novatek was already financing the venture and directing operations before the necessary approvals were obtained.” He resigned from his post last month, along with most of the executive leadership team. “I resigned as chief executive of Polar LNG because I felt uncomfortable that the Russian company Novatek was financing and ultimately controlling the strategic direction of the company,” Riddle said. “Building an LNG facility in Alaska is a very strategic project for the U.S. and as a patriot I feel this needs to be developed using US technology and funded by U.S. investors, not a Russian company.”
Unlike other kinds of intermittent renewable power sources, tidal energy promises almost guaranteed predictability. The problem, however, is that it’s geographically limited. A lot of the most advanced projects attempting to make the technology work are in Canada or Europe. Yet renewable technologies have, in recent decades, found commercial viability after sorting out the details of their hardware in Asia. That’s what makes tidal energy developer Minesto’s project in Indonesia so interesting. It’s in one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies, with an archipelagic geography that offers a lot of potential for tidal. Last week, the trade magazine International Water Power & Dam Construction reported that the company had been chosen to participate in the Sweden-Indonesia Sustainability Partnership, a Swedish government-backed program backing clean energy projects in Indonesia. “Indonesia has significant untapped potential in ocean and hydropower resources, which can play an important role in diversifying the country’s renewable energy mix,” said Johan Lennefalk, the acting country manager for Indonesia at Business Sweden, the government agency that promotes Swedish companies overseas. “Minesto’s technology offers a particularly promising solution by harnessing tidal currents that have previously been difficult to utilise, providing predictable renewable electricity that complements other hydropower and ocean energy solutions.”
Remember when solar panels were exclusively large, rooftop rigs? The commodification of the solar panel in recent years has begun making photovoltaics almost ubiquitous, a reality set to expand as more countries legalize plug-in solar that can work on a balcony like a satellite dish. Chinese panels are now so cheap that Europeans have started using them to build garden fences. Now, in Nigeria, solar panels are the must-have wedding gift du jour. Bloomberg reports that solar panels, batteries, and inverters “are turning up on wedding registries, alongside more traditional gifts such as bed linen and microwaves.”
Talking with Leah Qusba, the CEO of GoodPower.
This week’s conversation is with Leah Qusba, CEO of GoodPower, which recently released a survey experiment you need to read. Conducted with Data for Progress, the project, published Monday, takes a unique approach to asking people why they opposed data centers for artificial intelligence and whether constructing renewable energy instead of gas power moves the needle at all in their support for AI infrastructure near them. Instead of just asking polling questions, they posed various hypothetical project designs to people — and the results were eye-popping. Turning to solar instead of gas? Might not be a panacea for gaining approval at the local level. Protecting electricity rates from going sky-high? Now that’s a way to get buy-in.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Before we jump into the survey, is the data center boom changing the trajectory for renewable energy development in the U.S.?
If you look back over the last decade and a half, the largest global procurer of decarbonized electricity has been the Big Tech industry. I think we’re still seeing the trendlines of that today. The speed and scale of data center development is driving a lot of incremental clean energy growth.
I think we’re really at a crossroads right now because of the speed to meet rising demand and because, as people are scrambling to find electrons, commitments previously around purchasing and procuring decarbonized electricity have slid a little bit. We’ve seen proposals over the last six months or so have roughly doubled for combined cycle gas. We’re at this crossroads: Are we going to leverage this moment to drive incremental clean and protect ratepayers in the process? That’s the only way we’re going to be able to build this infrastructure.
Or are we going to go another path where we’re locking in decades of combined cycle gas?
I think voters across the political spectrum think this is a very important issue, and people are thinking about this as we move closer to November.
Walk my readers through the survey experiment you ran with Data for Progress.
The impetus was that we wanted to demonstrate to any stakeholder in the world — a data center developer, a household concerned with their rising electricity bills, policymakers trying to meet this new energy moment — what Americans want, which is guarantees from data centers that their electric bills won’t increase. They want strong electricity grid upgrades. They want home energy upgrades like rooftop solar, heat pumps, storage systems, or battery walls.
We wanted to make the case. We’ve seen surveys recently that if you say you’ll power them with renewable energy, favorability will increase. We wanted to go a step further and set up an experiment to see the difference between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do. Often there’s a difference when they’re faced with a real-life situation. Even when renewable energy support is high — even Republicans favor large-scale solar — then why do we have NIMBYism? Why do we have public opposition? Why are projects being phased out or canceled entirely because of protests? That’s because of a gap between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do.
The first part of the experiment was a typical poll asking people how they felt and measuring what they said they would do. What people indicated was similar to other polls circulated widely and picked up by the press, that when you say a data center is powered by solar, people say they’ll be more favorable. But then we put them in a setting where we told them a data center in their community was going to be powered by either gas or renewables, and we had other treatment conditions that would be manipulated. We told them, for example, that there would be a rate-binding guarantee, that 100% of their costs would be paid for by the data center and their electricity rates would not go up. We also gave them conditions where they’d get residential solutions.
When we compared what people said they would do with what they actually would do, what we found was pretty definitive. Really, Americans indicated a strong preference that data center developers guarantee stable electricity rates or provide them with meaningful residential or community benefits. Those are really the only two things in a real-life situation that moved support for data centers.
What we didn’t see, actually, is that renewable energy powering the data centers alone was enough. It didn’t have enough statistical significance to improve data centers’ support on its own.
Now, connecting the solar to stable electricity rates or ratepayer protections, that’s helpful. Could we do that? Absolutely, and that’s a strong recommendation to think about centering communities because they want affordability. But the technology alone — solar versus gas — had a null effect.
It’s great to talk about solar, especially because there’s high favorability for solar. Connecting affordability to clean energy is a great strategy, and we hope tech companies take this to heart! The only way we’re going to build social permission for these technologies is to do it in a community-centric way that guarantees rates won’t increase and guarantees community benefits. We want to make sure people ask for all this in negotiations and that policymakers think about all this, especially federally as we think about permitting reform.
What’s the relationship to permitting reform?
I think it’s important that it preserves maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs. Thinking about that, as well as bringing-your-own-clean-energy, or BYONCE, is in great parallel with the findings. If we can deliver that through federal legislation, it’s something that would be supported by the data we gathered through this experiment.
Why was there no statistically significant difference between solar and gas?
I don’t think it’s a question of why people were agnostic about technology. I think it all just boils down to pocketbook-kitchen-table issues. We live in a cost of living crisis where upwards of 65% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. The cost of everything from gas prices at the pump to groceries … When we look at the data and inflation and what it takes to build a home, its very clear the message the American electorate is sending is that affordability is the queen issue right now.
Until we meet demand in a community centered way and a ratepayer centered way, with maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs for these companies, we’re going to see incredible polarization across America where these data centers are being built.
What’s next, from a research perspective?
I think there were a few surprising things we found in the data we want to dig into.
For example, there’s been talk of spillover opposition — that by associating solar with data centers, we might pollute public opinion around solar. We actually asked questions in the survey experiment about this and so far, solar hasn’t been tarnished by data centers. It showed zero spillover. It does not drag down favorability for solar.
We also found that Americans trust renewable energy developers second only to consumer watchdogs, which we found to be fascinating. By contrast, they trust data center developers the least. In other words, choose to pay for a decarbonized electron if you can because associating yourself with clean, fast-to-power electrons has a true positive association there. It’s in the data.
One last one: Artificial intelligence and public opinion about AI was the top driver of opposition to data centers. It was feelings about AI as a technology superseding personal ideology and backgrounds, even if they cared about climate change. Skepticism about AI and data centers isn’t a partisan issue. Anti-AI sentiment sits evenly across Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Umatilla County, Oregon – A small town in Oregon this week declared a state of emergency over fears that a statewide pause on data center permits will harm its economy.
2. Saratoga County, New York – Is Trump’s country music superstar-turned-power-project combatant John Rich preparing to debut a new song about solar farms, or something more?
3. Eau Claire County, Wisconsin – There’s now a must-watch race to see who is more anti-transmission in the race for Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional seat.
4. Adams County, Colorado – Here’s the chaser you needed: the largest solar farm approved in the Rocky Mountains.