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:
Climate change was a major topic.
If we learned anything new from the first Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, it was not what anyone planned to do about climate change. The candidates failed to expand on their already scant or nonexistent platforms. Almost all of them failed to acknowledge that climate change was caused by humans.
But what was notable was the fact that the issue has finally earned a more prominent spot on the debate stage. Four years ago, activists railed against Democratic primary debate moderators for not asking any questions about climate change until the second hour of the program. The Fox News hosts got to the issue in about 20 minutes.
Below we’ve recapped what happened next, and the other most remarkable moments of the night for global warming, decarbonization, and energy.
Getty Images/Heatmap Illustration
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, making his first comments in the debate, used a prompt to discuss the economy as a chance to rail against President Biden's historic climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.
“The economy, energy, and national security are all tied together. We’ve got a plan, the $1.2 trillion of Green New Deal spending in the ‘Inflation Creation Act,’ that’s subsidizing China,” Burgum said. His primarily claim: That IRA subsidies will benefit Chinese battery and renewable manufacturers.
“If we’re going to stop buying oil from the Middle East and start buying batteries from China, we’re going to trade OPEC for Sinopec.”
The IRA, outside of the U.S., has come under fire for its stringent domestic production requirements for electric vehicles and includes domestic content bonuses. —Will Kubzansky
Screenshot courtesy of Fox News
It only took 20 minutes for the Republican debate’s big climate change question to be asked.
Moderator Bret Baier chronicled the summer’s disasters, mentioning missing people in Maui, the rarity of a tropical storm in California, and the overheated ocean in Florida. Then Fox News played a clip from a young conservative.
Alexander Diaz, a student at the Catholic University of America on behalf of the conservative group Young America’s Foundation, noted the importance of climate change to young voters, teeing up Fox News’ Martha MacCallum to ask a simple question: “We want to start on this with a show of hands. Do you believe … human behavior is causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do.”
No candidates had raised their hand — although former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson seemed to be inching his hand up — when Ron DeSantis interrupted to say: “We’re not schoolchildren, let’s have the debate.” —Will Kubzansky and Emily Pontecorvo
Getty Images/Heatmap Illustration
Vivek Ramaswamy initially introduced himself to the American people on Wednesday night as a “skinny guy with a funny last name” — but perhaps his name was more aptly made, at least with many young conservatives, by calling “the climate change agenda … a hoax.”
Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur running for his first political office, has previously claimed he’s not a “climate denier,” but also played coy, saying global warming will not be “entirely bad.” It was also not the first time he’s attacked what he calls “the climate cult in America.” In a video shared by his Twitter account this spring, Ramaswamy slammed climate activists for allegedly saying “that you have to abandon carbon emissions at all costs if you live in the United States.” He added, “It’s a cult that says … ‘We’re against nuclear energy’ … because nuclear energy might be too good at solving the alleged clean energy problem, which means they couldn’t use the climate as an excuse to advance a very different agenda.” Nuclear energy has historically been something of a bogeyman for environmentalists, who fear waste and meltdowns, but the nuclear power industry is also receiving billions of dollars from Biden’s two biggest pieces of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Wednesday’s “hoax” comment specifically came in reaction to the Fox News moderators trying to push the candidates into a yes-or-no answer about whether humans are responsible for climate change. Notably, no one immediately raised their hand. An overwhelming consensus of scientists — 99.9% of them, The Guardian found — say climate change is caused by mankind.
Ramaswamy’s answer was clearly an attempt to align his candidacy with former President Trump, who has called climate change "a hoax," “a total hoax,” “an expensive hoax,” and “a total, and very expensive, hoax.” Somewhat surprisingly, Ramaswamy's quip was met by audience boos — as well as interruptions from other candidates, who took issue with him calling himself the “only person on the stage who wasn’t bought and paid for.”
Earlier in the debate, a number of candidates had tip-toed around the possibility of “open[ing] up … energy production,” though Ramaswamy — who’s been said to be gunning to be “Republicans’ next Trump” — was characteristically blunt on that point, as well. “This isn’t that complicated, guys,” the 38-year-old chided his peers. “Unlock American energy. Drill. Frack. Burn coal. Embrace nuclear.” —Jeva Lange
Getty Images/Heatmap Illustration
When moderator Martha MacCallum asked the candidates to raise their hand if they believe that human behavior is causing climate change, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took issue with the question.
“We’re not schoolchildren,” DeSantis immediately snapped back before anyone had put a hand in the air. “Let’s have the debate.” But instead of having the debate, he pivoted to bashing President Biden and showing off his extreme weather bonafides. “Biden was on the beach while those people were suffering,” he said, referencing the president’s response to the wildfires in Maui. “As someone who’s handled disasters in Florida, you gotta be activated.”
From there, the moment descended into chaos. Vivek Ramaswamy interrupted to say the “climate change agenda” was a “hoax.” Christie jumped in to toss insults at Ramaswamy.
The only candidate who managed to get a word in about their stance on the issue was Nikki Haley. ”We care about clean air and clean water but there’s a right way to do it,“ she said. “First of all, is climate change real? Yes it is.”
Haley's sole proposal was to push China and India to cut their emissions. She accused Biden of putting money in China’s pocket by subsidizing electric vehicles, and said the subsidies are “not working.” However, car makers have responded to the Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidies by investing millions in domestic manufacturing and domestic supply chains.
At the end, President Biden chimed in on Twitter with the last word. —Emily Pontecorvo
This article was first published at 9:48 PM ET on Wednesday, August 23. It was last updated at 11:44 PM ET.
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 published today in Nature shocked even the study’s own authors.
Hurricane Helene is, by conventional measures, the deadliest hurricane to strike the continental United States since Katrina. At least 182 people have been confirmed killed by the storm, with hundreds of people still unaccounted for. Although all hurricanes are deadly, only a handful of storms have killed more than 100 people since 1950. Or at least that is what we have long thought. New research suggests that these conventional tallies may be a vast undercount.
Several years ago, two economists and public policy researchers — Rachel Young and Solomon Hsiang, now of Princeton and Stanford — began to study a seemingly simple question: How many Americans do hurricanes kill each year? According to the federal government, the average hurricane kills 24 people after making landfall. That seemed likely to be a modest underestimate. Economists know that natural disasters can have a long tail of suffering; Hsiang expected the real number to be a “single digit multiple” of that figure — perhaps 50 or 100 people per storm.
Yet when they ran the numbers and looked at mortality in places affected by storms, they were initially perplexed by the results, Hsiang told me earlier this week. The numbers they came up with didn’t even make sense at first.
“It was months of us trying to understand what we were looking at,” Hsiang said. “And then once we realized what we were seeing, it was years of us checking our work to find what we missed.” Only when it was clear that their work resembled other American public health statistics — specifically, that the white-Black mortality mirrored what has been found in other studies — that the horrifying truth sunk in.
The finding: Hurricanes are hundreds of times deadlier than anyone has realized.
Their study, which was published on Wednesday in Nature, finds that the average hurricane kills 7,000 to 11,000 people after making landfall in the United States. These previously uncounted deaths happened not during a storm or in its immediate aftermath, but as a long, slow trickle of mortality that plagues a region long after the clouds have cleared and floods have abated.
In any one year, the number of storm-related deaths is not very high. And yet a wave of excess deaths is visible in population data for at least 15 years after a storm hits an area, they found.
“It lasts for so many years, and because there’s so many storms hitting so many states, once you add up, it becomes this enormous number,” Hsiang told me. When added together, hurricanes’ long-term death toll exceeds American combat deaths in all wars, combined. The number so dwarfs previous estimates that it suggests tropical cyclones alone are a major determinant of public health across the United States.
Kerry Emanuel, an MIT meteorology professor who studies climate change and hurricanes, told me that the results were “truly astounding” and “persuasive,” although he noted that he is not an expert in the statistical approach used in the paper.
“Summed over all hurricanes, this amounts to three to five percent of all deaths near the Atlantic coast,” he said. “I expect this result will prove controversial and will be followed up by many other studies of long-term mortality from natural disasters.”
The paper fits into a growing body of research on what others have called the hidden or invisible public health threat of environmental threats. For years, researchers have known that air pollution and heat waves, seemingly silent hazards, can in fact kill tens of thousands of people. Lately they have begun to apply the same techniques to other hazards, with outsized results.
Officially, Hurricane Maria killed 64 people when it struck Puerto Rico in 2017. But when researchers surveyed households across the island months after the storm, they found the death toll was closer to 4,600. (The territory’s government later revised the official figure to 2,975.) These deaths were caused not by the cyclone’s high winds or torrential floods, but rather by secondary effects of the storm’s destruction. Maria took out the island’s power grid and road networks, for instance, and preventing people with heart attacks and strokes from reaching the hospital in time.
That paper was written six months after Maria struck the island; this new hurricane paper considers a wider time horizon, finding that more than 80,000 Americans die each year as a result of a hurricane, whenever it occurred. Black people were disproportionately killed by the aftermath of hurricanes, at least partly because a larger share of the country’s Black population lives in storm-afflicted areas. About 37,000 white deaths each year are due to a prior tropical cyclone.
How could such storms cause such a long tail of deaths, affecting areas 10 or 15 years after they come ashore? The paper cannot answer those questions today. But Hsiang and Young hypothesize that hurricanes cause extreme economic distress, which can resonate for years or decades afterward. “If someone suffers a loss and can’t invest in their business, then it will have ramifications for their income long into the future,” Hsiang told me. “If someone is on a fixed income and their garage is destroyed, and they pull from their retirement funds to fix the garage, then eight years later when they face a big medical decision, they might choose” a cheaper or less effective form of treatment.
“When you talk to people, you hear stories like this,” Hsiang added. The time and money invested in dealing with the storm is often a “pure loss,” even if some of the damage ultimately gets reimbursed. “Even if you have insurance, that just means you already paid for it in some way,” he said.
Storms cause disruption in other ways. They can break up communities and social networks. (If children move away, for instance, their parent can face higher medical bills.) Hurricanes can also impose high costs on states, towns, and cities, which may then have to reduce or restrict other services as a result.
“When you think about how communities rebuild — local municipalities and states — they also play a lot of games with their budget” in the aftermath of a storm, Hsiang said. “If they spend a lot of money to rebuild a bridge or boardwalk somewhere, does that come out of some social program 10 years later? Or building a new NICU hospital?” That could explain why an infant — even one born 15 years after a storm struck a given area — could face a higher chance of death.
Young and Hsiang think that these economic drivers are most likely to be the big reason for the excess deaths — the effect is just too big and drawn out to make any other cause likely — but other possibilities exist, they recognize. Hurricanes could be deadly simply because they are highly stressful events. “We see an effect on cancer rates and also cardiovascular illness. Stress matters a lot to those,” Hsiang said. It’s also possible that hurricanes unleash contamination into the environment that then makes people sick. A flooded basement can become a breeding ground for mold. “There’s gas stations in every town. What chemicals come out when there’s flooding?” Hsiang wondered.
The paper may also help resolve a riddle in American public health. On average, Americans die earlier in the eastern half of the continental United States than in the western half. This effect is worst in the Gulf Coast and Southeast but persists to some degree in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
The paper suggests that hurricanes may have something to do with this geographic phenomenon. For infants, people below the age of 44, and Black people of all ages, hurricanes may explain a large share but not all of the mortality gap.
Even when the candidates aren’t talking about it, it’s still there.
Earlier this week, ProPublica published an investigation revealing that the Heritage Foundation, home of Project 2025, has been flooding the federal government with Freedom of Information Act requests targeted at federal employees, meant to discover which have used words including “climate change” and “climate equity” in emails and chats. A few hours later, JD Vance and Tim Walz met for what will likely be the final candidate debate of the 2024 presidential campaign, and got one question about climate — the same quantity asked of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in their debate last month.
The campaign is not quite over, but the role of climate change within it can be seen in these two stories. Climate has been a vital issue in this presidential race, but one that has been largely muted. Only occasionally has it intruded into the attention of those who weren’t already following the issue closely. But we’ve seen enough to understand that the next few years will be vital in shaping the government’s climate posture and the nation’s future.
Despite profound differences between the parties in both their beliefs about climate change and their policy preferences, there was some degree of convergence in their rhetoric. Smarter Republicans understand that Trump’s brand of flamboyant denialism is not a political winner for a national audience, and they’ve attempted to offer something more subtle. That’s why we saw Vance turn the climate question he got at the debate into an answer about boosting manufacturing, after admitting that “a lot of people are justifiably worried about all these crazy weather patterns” and noting that China is the world’s biggest carbon emitter. A viewer who knew nothing about what the Republican ticket actually wants to do might think the GOP is only slightly less committed to climate action than its opponents.
Walz’s response was that under the current administration, the country is already producing more energy than ever and boosting manufacturing. Which reflected another reality that came into focus in this campaign: While Democrats still favor restrictive regulation in some areas, their primary climate policies revolve around carrots rather than sticks, tax incentives and subsidies for states, businesses, and consumers to create a broad-based transition to a green economy. Those are the policies they want to talk about.
That shift makes their climate arguments far more politically appealing — and their legislative achievements potentially more durable. The enormous subsidies contained in the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are making their way disproportionately to red states, which is why plenty of down-ballot candidates from both parties are lauding the jobs being created with government help. There may still be some vigorous debate within the GOP about whether they should try to repeal the IRA if they get the chance, but the mostly-carrots approach is now firmly embedded in Democratic policymaking, as is the idea that climate optimism is a savvier way to persuade the public than dire warnings of a frightening future, even if that’s what we do face.
Nevertheless, there will likely be no big-spending climate legislation resembling the IRA coming out of Congress in the near future. Control of the Senate sits on a knife edge, with Democrats needing to win nearly every closely contested seat to hang on to their majority. Even if they do and Harris wins the presidency, they may well decide that they took their shot and succeeded already, and therefore devote the once-per-year reconciliation bill (which cannot be filibustered) to other priorities. There are areas of bipartisan interest, including permitting reform, that could speed the development of clean energy projects, but they may wind up more limited in scope.
If Republicans take over the White House and Congress, on the other hand, the future is less clear. They may attempt a repeal of some of the IRA, along with the other major bills passed during the Biden administration, but much of their focus will probably be on what can be accomplished with executive branch authority.
Which is why all the scrutiny that Project 2025 has garnered has been one of the best things about this campaign, proving enormously instructive on a range of issues, including climate. More voters than ever now understand that when we elect a president we also elect a huge apparatus of governing. Policy is made at a variety of levels, and thousands of civil servants no one has ever heard of can do a great deal to improve or undermine people’s lives.
While Trump may deny that Project 2025 is his blueprint for governing, it certainly reflects his climate intentions and those of the people who will serve in his administration. He shares with the project a commitment to changing civil service rules to put loyal apparatchiks in positions throughout the federal government, and a devotion to fossil-fuel-friendly climate policies will be a key requirement for many who want to take those jobs in agencies including the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. All that has become clear to a great many voters.
The vice presidential debate may not be the last time the candidates are asked to address climate; if nothing else, there will probably be a few more natural disasters in the next month, which could push the issue back on the agenda. But while we can’t say there was a detailed debate about climate in the 2024 election that grappled with our present and future in a nuanced way, one can’t really say that about any issue. The climate debate we got was far short of perfect, but it probably left voters knowing more than they did a year or two ago. Given the degraded state of so much of what passes for democratic deliberation, that isn’t so bad.
The conservationist group thinks it has the goods on the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan.
The Biden administration is trying to open a lot more Western territory to utility-scale solar. But they are facing a conservationist backlash that may be aided by the views of scientists within the federal government.
Yesterday, activists pushed back against the environmental review of the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan that would make more than 31 million acres available for utility-scale solar applications across 11 states. The BLM is trying to meet the next two decades of demand for renewable electricity while avoiding the kinds of environmental and social conflicts that stymie individual projects. But it appears key stakeholders filed protests against the environmental review, including counties that would host new solar farms and Republican politicians, as well as the whistleblower advocacy group PEER we wrote about last week.
Today, however, we’re going to focus on the protest filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which submitted to BLM what amounted to the contours of a lawsuit.
The protest argued the environmental review of the plan not only failed to adequately protect the Mojave desert tortoise – a species protected as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act – but appeared to make “arbitrary” decisions to open potential tortoise habitat and travel areas. Per the protest, the review did so without clearly explaining how it took into account guidance from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary species protection agency.
Zooming in, scientists at the Service said in a power-point presentation dated April of this year (that CBD happily pointed out is available online) they supported excluding occupied tortoise habitat and translocation sites from the solar plan. Employees at the Service also gave CBD guidance documents they submitted over the past year to the Bureau that outlined “extensive criteria for exclusion” that activists say were not followed and weren’t reflected in the review documents previously released by the government.
Why does this matter? Well, it could determine whether the decisions relevant can hold up in court. CBD is using the word “arbitrary” because it’s a standard followed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which forces government officials to show their work and demonstrate they considered all available information submitted to them.
CBD’s Patrick Donnelly – who we spoke with at length in our first edition of The Fight – authored the protest filing. Donnelly told me the acreage relevant to the tortoises totals only about 200,000 acres of the almost 12 million that would be available for solar under the plan, so the grievance shouldn’t be a herculean endeavor to address.
“We’re trying to go into the protest process with an open mind, not cynically,” he told me, “and make this plan a lot less harmful.”
Still, if CBD escalates, the Bureau will have to show how it went from getting these recommendations to landing on the acreage it opened to solar. It could also shake the certainty of developers with applications within the solar plan area already dealing with tortoise protection advocates on the individual project level, like EDF Renewables’ Bonanza Solar project north of Las Vegas which has a draft environmental review in public comment.
Proving a government decision is arbitrary requires demonstrating the move was not “reasonable and justifiable,” Ankur Tohan, an attorney at K&L Gates, told me. Usually the bar for the government to prove itself is “relatively low,” and courts are “very deferential to an agency” as long as “the agency’s action took into account the relevant factors.” The problems arise for the government if “the internal analysis is contradictory,” Tohan said.
Personally I’m having trouble figuring out how the Service’s initial recommendations were internalized at BLM – though I am assuming they were handled in some way, as otherwise the Service would presumably stand in the way. BLM does acknowledge that “design features and project guidelines” were modified to “better avoid impacts to species where not excluded” and said developers “shall configure solar development projects to maintain existing desert tortoise habitat.”
I asked BLM to explain this, but they declined to answer questions on the matter. “The BLM has no comment at this time,” BLM press secretary Brian Hires said, citing the need to “review all protests.” So I guess we’ll have to wait and see!