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:
Tucker Carlson knows exactly what his audience wants him to say.

If we learned anything about Fox News over the last few months, it’s that the conservative network relentlessly tells its viewers exactly what they want to hear.
Fox on Tuesday settled a defamation suit with Dominion Voting Systems, agreeing to pay a hefty $787.5 million for airing falsehoods about the company’s voting machines in the weeks following the 2020 election. We’re not going to get a trial. It’s hard not to feel a little let down by the news: After all, we’ve been deprived of the spectacle of Fox executive chair Rupert Murdoch and network stars like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity taking the stand to testify — under oath — about what they knew and when they knew it.
Still, the settlement happened after Dominion attorneys were able to uncover reams of embarrassing testimony about the workings at Fox News — depositions, texts, and emails letting us know that while network personalities largely went along with Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election while they were on the air, behind the scenes they knew it was all nonsense.
Why did they then peddle the nonsense? Because that’s what the audience wanted.
With Trump on the ropes in November and December of 2020, the network’s executives and stars worried about losing their audience to right-wing competitors like Newsmax and OANN that assured viewers that Trump really did win the election. Murdoch grumbled about CNN’s superior ratings. Tucker Carlson fretted about the company’s stock price, and tried to get a Fox News reporter fired after she fact-checked Trump’s bogus claims. He even said he hates Trump “passionately.”
The truth didn’t matter. What mattered was keeping hold of viewers, at any cost.
At a $787.5 million cost, as it turns out.
“It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things,” one Fox News exec reportedly lamented.
The election wasn’t a one-off for this viewer-obsessed approach. The New York Times last year reported that Carlson, in particular, uses minute-by-minute ratings to shape the content and tone of his nightly primetime show — and chooses to give his audience exactly what it wants. “He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up,” a former Fox News employee told the newspaper.
What does all of this have to do with climate change, you may ask?
Simple. If Fox News gives its viewers what they want, at any cost, then it’s pretty clear that what Fox News viewers want is news telling them that that climate scientists are power-mad, that climate solutions are tyranny, that climate activists hate nature, that climate change is a Chinese hoax.
Here is Carlson in February, decrying climate science as a screwball religion:
As church attendance and self-identified religious faith have fallen off a cliff in this country, the cult of climate has grown even stronger. Now, even the president United States is warning that the world is ending. Unless we pass the Green New Deal and legalize abortion 'til the moment of birth, Joe Biden says climate change will destroy the world.
Here he is in March, saying climate activists actually hate nature and just want control:
There is the climate change agenda and the climate change agenda is the single most ambitious effort to remake human civilization in all recorded history, and it's coming. … So, the question is, why are we still being bullied by these people? It has nothing to do with saving the Earth. They hate the Earth. They hate nature. It's about controlling us, and maybe we should recognize that.
And again a week later, calling climate change a Trojan horse for Beijing:
There are still people in this country, for example, who seem to believe that the so-called climate agenda is actually about the climate or about the environment of the Earth or something, and not a coordinated effort by the government of China to hobble the U.S and the West and take its place as the leader of the world, which of course is exactly what's going on.
It’s not just Tucker. Just last week, Fox News host Greg Gutfield claimed that a warming climate is going to make people’s lives better. And if you’re looking for any mention of the climate on sister network Fox Weather, well, you can forget it.
All too often, we talk about our modern misinformation crisis as a supply problem — there’s simply too much B.S. being produced for Americans to know what’s real or not. But very frequently it’s a demand problem. A lot of people want to hear the nonsense. If you don’t give it to them, they’ll simply switch channels to watch somebody who does.
At this moment, I’m not sure we can expect a different approach from Fox News, no matter how large a penalty it is paying for the election lies. After the settlement was announced on Tuesday, the network released a statement praising the “amicable” resolution to the case as a reflection of Fox’s “commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”
That doesn’t sound very apologetic, or like a change in the business model is forthcoming.
Unfortunately for the world, the climate can't be defamed. We're not likely to get a lawsuit that reveals that Fox News hosts secretly believe in global warming and drive Priuses behind the scenes. The work of persuading and educating Fox News viewers of the real threat of climate change will take time, but there are some hopeful signs. A recent poll shows one-fifth of Fox viewers trust the network less after the revelations from Dominion’s lawsuit. And surveys suggest younger Republicans are more worried about climate change than their elders — and more amenable to solutions.
For now, though, Fox News viewers pretty clearly want to hear that climate change is a hoax, or something like it. Tuesday’s settlement suggests they'll probably keep getting that message.
Sign up for our newsletter to receive the best of Heatmap in your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Flames have erupted in the “Blue Zone” at the United Nations Climate Conference in Brazil.
A literal fire has erupted in the middle of the United Nations conference devoted to stopping the planet from burning.
The timing couldn’t be worse. Today is the second to last day of the annual climate meeting known as COP30, taking place on the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Belem, Brazil. Delegates are in the midst of heated negotiations over a final decision text on the points of agreement this session.
A number of big questions remain up in the air, including how countries will address the fact that their national plans to cut emissions will fail to keep warming “well under 2 degrees Celsius,” the target they supported in the 2015 Paris Agreement. They are striving to reach agreement on a list of “indicators,” or metrics by which to measure progress on adaptation. Brazil has led a push for the conference to mandate the creation of a global roadmap off of fossil fuels. Some 80 countries support the idea, but it’s still highly uncertain whether or how it will make its way into the final text.
Just after 2:00 p.m. Belem time, 12 p.m. Eastern, I was in the middle of arranging an interview with a source at the conference when I got the following message:
“We've been evacuated due to a fire- not exactly sure how the day is going to continue.”
The fire is in the conference’s “Blue Zone,” an area restricted to delegates, world leaders, accredited media, and officially designated “observers” of the negotiations. This is where all of the official negotiations, side events, and meetings take place, as opposed to the “Green Zone,” which is open to the public, and houses pavilions and events for non-governmental organizations, business groups, and civil society groups.
It is not yet clear what the cause of the fire was or how it will affect the home sprint of the conference.
Outside of the venue, a light rain was falling.
On Turkey’s COP31 win, data center dangers, and Michigan’s anti-nuclear hail mary
Current conditions: A powerful storm system is bringing heavy rain and flash flooding from Texas to Missouri for the next few days • An Arctic chill is sweeping over Western Europe, bringing heavy snow to Denmark, southern Sweden, and northern Germany • A cold snap in East Asia has plunged Seoul and Beijing into freezing temperatures.

The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed significant new limits on federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. A series of four tweaked rules would reset how the bedrock environmental law to prevent animal and plant extinctions could be used to block oil drilling, logging, and mining in habitats for endangered wildlife, The New York Times reported. Among the most contentious is a proposal to allow the government to consider economic factors before determining whether to list a species as endangered. Another change would raise the bar for enacting protections based on predicted future threats such as climate change. “This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement.
In Congress, meanwhile, bipartisan reforms to make federal permitting easier are advancing. Representative Scott Peters, the Democrat in charge of the permitting negotiations, called the SPEED Act introduced by Representative Bruce Westerman, the Republican chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a “huge step forward,” according to a post on X from Politico reporter Josh Siegel. But Peters hinted that getting the legislation to the finish line would require the executive branch to provide “permit certainty,” a thinly-veiled reference to Democrats’ demand that the Trump administration ease off its so-called “total war on wind” turbines.
In World Cup soccer, Turkey hasn’t faced Australia in more than a decade. But the two countries went head to head in the competition to host next year’s United Nations climate summit, COP31. Turkey won, Bloomberg reported last night. Australia’s defeat is a blow not just to Canberra but to those who had hoped a summit Down Under would set the stage for an “island COP.” The pre-conference leaders’ gathering is set to take place on an as-yet-unnamed Pacific island, which had raised hopes that the next confab could put fresh emphasis on the concerns of low-lying nations facing sea-level rise.
More than a dozen states where data centers are popping up could face electric power emergencies under extreme conditions this winter, a grid security watchdog warned this week, E&E News reported. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation listed New England, the Carolinas, most of Texas, and the Pacific Northwest among the most threatened regions. If those emergencies take place, the grid operators would need to import more electricity from other regions and seek voluntary power cutbacks from customers before resorting to rotating blackouts.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The United States is on the cusp of restarting a permanently shuttered atomic power plant for the first time. But anti-nuclear groups are making a last-ditch effort to block the revival. In a complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District court for the Western District of Michigan, a trio of activist organizations — Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future — argued that the plant should never have received regulatory approval for a restart. As I wrote in this newsletter at the time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted plant owner Holtec International permission to go ahead with the restoration in July. Last month, the company — best known for manufacturing waste storage vessels and decommissioning defunct plants — received a shipment of fuel for the single-reactor station, as I reported here. While the opponents are asking the federal judge to intervene, state lawmakers in Michigan are considering new subsidies for nuclear power, Bridge Michigan reported.
Further north along Michigan’s western coastline, a coal-fired power plant set to close down in May got another extension from the Trump administration. In an order signed Tuesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright renewed his direction to utility Consumers Energy to hold off on shutting down the facility, which the administration deemed necessary to stave off blackouts. The latest order, Michigan Advance noted, extends until February 17, 2026. President Donald Trump’s efforts to prop up the coal industry haven’t gone so well elsewhere. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported last week, coal-fired stations keep breaking down, with equipment breaking at more than twice the rate of wind turbines.
Matthew had another timely story out yesterday: Members of the PJM Interconnection’s voting base of advisers met Wednesday to consider a dozen different proposals for how to bring more data centers online put forward by data center companies, transmission developers, utilities, state lawmakers, advocates, PJM’s market monitor, and PJM itself. None passed. “There was no winner here,” PJM chief executive Manu Asthana told the meeting following the announcement of the vote tallies. There was, however, “a lot of information in these votes,” he added. “We’re going to study them closely.” The grid operator still aims to get something to federal regulators by the end of the year.
Here’s a gruesome protocol that apparently exists when a toothed whale washes up. Federal officials arrived on Nantucket on Wednesday afternoon to remove a beached sperm whale’s jaw. Per the Nantucket Current: “This is being done to prevent any theft of its teeth, which are illegal to take and possess. The Environmental Police will take the jaw off-island.”
Members of the nation’s largest grid couldn’t agree on a recommendation for how to deal with the surge of incoming demand.
The members of PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest electricity market, held an advisory vote Wednesday to help decide how the grid operator should handle the tidal wave of incoming demand from data centers. Twelve proposals were put forward by data center companies, transmission companies, power companies, utilities, state legislators, advocates, PJM’s market monitor, and PJM itself.
None of them passed.
“There was no winner here,” PJM chief executive Manu Asthana told the meeting following the announcement of the vote tallies. There was, however, “a lot of information in these votes,” he added. “We’re going to study them closely.”
The PJM board was always going to make the final decision on what it would submit to federal regulators, and will try to get something to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the end of the year, Asthana said — just before he plans to step down as CEO.
“PJM opened this conversation about the integration of large loads and greatly appreciates our stakeholders for their contributions to this effort. The stakeholder process produced many thoughtful proposals, some of which were introduced late in the process and require additional development,” a PJM spokesperson said in a statement. “This vote is advisory to PJM’s independent Board. The Board can and does expect to act on large load additions to the system and will make its decision known in the next few weeks.”
The surge in data center development — actual and planned — has thrown the 13-state PJM Interconnection into a crisis, with utility bills rising across the network due to the billions of dollars in payments required to cover the additional costs.
Those rising bills have led to cries of frustration from across the PJM member states — and from inside the house.
“The current supply of capacity in PJM is not adequate to meet the demand from large data center loads and will not be adequate in the foreseeable future,” PJM’s independent market monitor wrote in a memo earlier this month. “Customers are already bearing billions of dollars in higher costs as a direct result of existing and forecast data center load,” it said in a quarterly report released just a few days letter, pegging the added charges to ensure that generators will be available in times of grid stress due to data center development at over $16 billion.
PJM’s initial proposal to deal with the data center swell would have created a category for new large sources of demand on the system to interconnect without the backing of capacity; in return, they’d agree to have their power supply curtailed when demand got too high. The proposal provoked outrage from just about everyone involved in PJM, including data center developers and analysts who were open to flexibility in general, who said that the grid operator was overstepping its responsibilities.
PJM’s subsequent proposal would allow for voluntary participation in a curtailment program, but was lambasted by environmental groups like Evergreen Collaborative for not having “any semblance of ambition.” PJM’s own market monitor said that voluntary schemes to curtail power “are not equivalent to new generation,” and that instead data centers should “be required to bring their own new generation” — essentially to match their own demand with new supply.
A coalition of environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defence Council and state legislators in PJM, said in their proposal that data centers should be required to bring their own capacity — crucially counting demand response (being paid to curtail power) as a source of capacity.
“The growth of data centers is colliding with the reality of the power grid,” Tom Rutigliano, who works on grid issues for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “PJM members weren’t able to see past their commercial interests and solve a critical reliability threat. Now the board will need to stand up and make some hard decisions.”
Those decisions will come without any consensus from members about what to do next.
“Just because none of these passed doesn’t mean that the board will not act,” David Mills, the chairman of PJM’s board of managers, said at the conclusion of the meeting. “We will make our best efforts to put something together that will address the issues.”