You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
With consequences that are extremely real.

Maybe Sharpiegate wasn’t so funny after all.
You’ll recall the micro-controversy from 2019, when then-President Donald Trump said that Hurricane Dorian was headed toward Alabama (which it wasn’t), and officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were pressured to back up Trump’s mistake. It culminated in Trump presenting a map in the Oval Office on which someone drew a bubble atop the projected path of the storm so it would stretch into Alabama, apparently with a Sharpie.
At the time it was troubling but comical, a representation of how the cult-like adoration Trump demanded would distort the work of government in idiotic ways. Five years later, with a storm surge of misinformation pouring over the country in response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, it looks more like a harbinger of things to come.
In any crisis, some measure of confusion is inevitable. Rumors spread and misunderstandings proliferate, fed by fear and desperation. The most extravagant varieties of misinformation are often either short-lived or confined to a minority of the population. That has not been true, however, when it comes to Helene, and it looks like Milton will repeat the same pattern. This time, the misinformation is more explicitly partisan than ever before, and it portends a disturbing future in which every natural disaster could become not just a challenging task of rescue and cleanup but a simultaneous fight against falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
It’s not that disasters have never been political; presidents are often judged by how they react (anyone over 40 knows what the phrase “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job” refers to), with politicians discredited or elevated by how they performed and the opposition taking the opportunity to criticize the administration’s competence. But Trump has given that familiar criticism a particularly venomous cast, claiming not just that the disaster response is falling short but that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are intentionally ignoring the victims because of who they are.
Trump has focused in particular on three falsehoods: First, that the federal government is abandoning hurricane victims in areas where there are lots of Republican voters; second, that funds for recovery are unavailable because the Biden administration gave them to undocumented immigrants (“they stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season”); and third, that the $750 distributed immediately to survivors to enable them to obtain food and other basics, known as Serious Needs Assistance, is all the aid anyone will get.
It was like a bat-signal: As soon as Trump set the terms, conservative media and influencers swung into action, repeating Trump’s bogus claims to their audiences. And then things took a strange turn.
To bring a conspiracy theory into the mainstream, you need individuals and outlets who serve as disinformation linkages, connecting the crazier people and ideas to those with legitimacy. In this case, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, played a key role, and she had a message: The weather is being manipulated by a shadowy conspiracy with powerful technologies at its disposal. “Yes they can control the weather,” she posted on X to her 3.7 million followers. “Anyone who says they don’t, or makes fun of this, is lying to you.”
As evidence, Greene and her allies offer the fact that many people have proposed geoengineering as a solution to a warming planet, which in their eyes means it must already be taking place, and that’s why these hurricanes came to the Southeast. And who is “They”? It might be the government, but to many, it’s obviously the Jews.
Antisemitic conspiracy theories around the hurricanes are swirling on the fetid sewer of right-wing hate and misinformation controlled by the world’s richest individual. As the Washington Post reported, “The attacks, which include wild claims that Jewish officials are conspiring to orchestrate the disasters, sabotage the recovery or even seize victims’ property, are being fomented largely on Elon Musk’s X.”
The tide of misinformation can be partly explained by the calendar. “What’s different about this natural disaster is the timing,” says Danielle Lee Tomson of the Center for an Informed Public at the University of Washington. “We’ve never had such an incredible, devastating natural disaster within weeks of a presidential election that has impacted two swing states,” North Carolina and Georgia. That gives purchase to the claims that there are conspiracies afoot to change the outcome of the election.
In 2024, it may have been inevitable that a disaster would be tied, however implausibly, to the “one narrative to rule them all this election cycle, which is that of non-citizen voting,” Tomson notes.
Disaster makes people search for answers that give order to chaos and suffering. Even answers that describe a world of sinister forces can be weirdly comforting, by assuring their adherents that they are among a select group who understand the reality most people miss. Amidst the chaos, you can grasp onto whatever bizarre belief you choose.
In the future, we might expect that any climate-linked disaster — hurricanes, floods, heat waves, droughts — will become fodder for this kind of misinformation, not just passed around from person to person but driven from the top of the political food chain.
In effect, this is the inverse of the kind of climate misinformation we’re more used to, which goes under the heading of “denial”: denying that temperatures are increasing, or that carbon pollution is a problem, or that human activity drives climate change. Since the occurrence of a hurricane or fire or other observably extreme event can’t be denied, this new kind of misinformation actually posits not just that the effects of climate change are real, but that they’re worse than you realize. It isn’t just that people have lost their lives or their homes due to a disaster, but that the disaster was engineered by sinister forces (including but not limited to the government) to accomplish a nefarious political goal.
So yesterday’s climate denier could become tomorrow’s climate obsessive, seeing in every disaster the hidden hand of the same global conspiracy that is creating all the world’s problems. “Climate change is the new covid,” said Congresswoman Greene; “Ask your government if the weather is manipulated or controlled.” It’s not fake, it’s a plot, one getting worse with each upward tick in global temperatures.
Of course, misinformation comes in a variety of forms — some downplayed Milton as a way of arguing that the elites are trying to frighten you — and even debunkings can be a path to elevated social media clout when so much focus is on these events.
It may be, as Tomson argues, that it takes something like an impending election to turn conspiracy theorizing around disasters up to 11. “We’ve never seen such an opportune moment to repackage disaster for political gain,” she told me. But the effects of climate change will only grow more intense and dramatic, and there will be political actors looking to turn them against their opponents — and frightened people ready to believe the worst.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Local opposition has exacted a much higher cost for developers than has been previously understood, according to new Heatmap Pro survey of public records and financial information.
The country’s largest technology companies are expected to spend more than $800 billion this year investing in data centers and artificial intelligence.
But new data suggests the local backlash to data centers may be taking a meaningful bite out of that boom.
At least $260 billion of data center investments were canceled this year after sustained local opposition, according to new Heatmap Pro data.
The pace and size of those cancellations is picking up. About $130 billion in data center investment — or about half of the total — was canceled in the three months ending on September 30. And in dollar terms, the size of canceled projects in the third quarter of 2026 exceeded the size of all data center projects canceled last year.
Roughly $1 trillion in data center investment now faces some kind of sustained or meaningful local opposition, according to Heatmap Pro data. About half of all projects that have met local backlash this year were ultimately canceled, our data suggests.
Our market intelligence service Heatmap Pro tracks local projects and regulations affecting clean energy, batteries, and data centers. We run a continuous survey of public officials, regulatory filings, and local media to monitor energy and data center cancellations nationwide.
Our investment figures, which have not been previously published and are larger than other estimates, are likely an undercount. Only about 60% of data center projects disclose the size of their planned investment, especially during a proposal’s early stage when it is most likely to run aground.
These figures also do not include every project currently stalled because of state-level data center moratoriums in Texas and New York.
But the totals show that the surging backlash to data centers is beginning to kill a sizable share of large computing projects. In August, a Heatmap Pro and Embold Research poll found that 75% of Americans would oppose a data center getting built near where they live — a striking change from a year earlier, when Americans were roughly split over the projects.
“The number of canceled data centers speaks to the vast and growing grassroots opposition to these projects in communities across the country. The fact that many of these projects were defeated in just the past few months speaks to the upward trajectory of this opposition movement,” Mitch Jones, a policy director at Food and Water Watch, an environmental group that opposes AI data centers, said in a statement.
A spokesperson for the Data Center Coalition, which advocates for the industry, did not respond before press time.
Most canceled data center projects in our database are terminated because they fail to secure a local permit or face a hostile local government action. Hundreds of U.S. counties and towns now maintain a ban or moratorium on data center construction, our data shows. The Senate’s bipartisan permitting reform proposal would not affect towns or counties’ ability to prohibit data center development under their jurisdiction.
Current conditions: Cold air is sweeping into the American Northeast after a brief blast of summer-like heat that drove temperatures in New York City up to 85 degrees Fahrenheit last week • Hurricane Nolo crossed the International Date Line, officially becoming Typhoon Nolo • The heat wave roasting Southern California is straining the grid, causing outages for more than 23,000 people in the Los Angeles area.
Greenland’s government on Monday approved the mining and decommissioning plans for Critical Metals’ Tanbreez rare earths project, which Mining.com described as one of the world’s “larger undeveloped heavy rare earth projects outside China.” The preliminary economic analysis for the mine pegged its total value at $2.1 billion, with an estimated initial capital cost of $290 million. “Approval of the Mining and Closure Plans is a defining milestone for Tanbreez and for Critical Metals Corp.,” Tony Sage, the chairman and chief executive of Critical Metals, said in a press release. “It gives us a clear framework through 2050 to responsibly develop one of the world’s largest heavy rare earth deposits, in partnership with the government of Greenland and the communities of South Greenland.”
If it goes forward, the project could be among the first major rare earths mines in Greenland, where the Trump administration has claimed the right to veto any major foreign investments as part of the deal signed with the Danish government last month, which gives Washington perpetual security oversight over the self-governing North American island. Critical Metals, notably, is headquartered in New York, though its largest shareholder is the Australian mineral investor European Lithium Limited. Yet opening a new mine in the U.S. might be getting even easier. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported last week, miners — ahem — struck gold with the regulatory changes in the bipartisan permitting reform bill.
The Department of Energy is preparing to unveil $150 million in funding for a 223-mile transmission line in Alaska that would serve nearly three-quarters of the state’s population of just 735,000 people. The move, reported first by Reuters, comes as Vice President JD Vance prepares to visit the state to support Republican Senator Dan Sullivan’s bid for reelection in what’s expected to be a tight race with Democrat Mary Peltola. The total cost of the project is $400 million.
First Solar built the largest photovoltaic manufacturing business in the U.S. by churning out thin-film panels that, while less efficient than the polysilicon-based technology popularized by China, perform better in low light and high temperatures, earning a solid market among utility-scale developers. But now Chinese manufacturer JA and its subsidiaries are allegedly muscling in on thin film — as is American Panel Solutions, a wholly owned U.S.-based subsidiary of the polysilicon giant Corning. First Solar now accuses the companies of illegally infringing its patent for manufacturing its solar cells, according to PV Tech. The Ohio-based giant has previously sued Jinko, Canadian Solar, T1 Energy, and Trina Solar. First Solar won a key preliminary victory in January.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Starbucks has abandoned or watered down green targets and let go its sustainability staff as the coffee and food chain looks to cut $2 billion in costs. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that the company had revised or dropped pledges to halve water use and waste, and placed a target of slashing carbon emissions by 50% under review. While the pullback comes amid a broader retreat from environmental goals under the Trump administration, other coffee companies are still seeking to reduce pollution. Just yesterday, I told you that Keurig Dr. Pepper had come out with a version of its individual instant coffee pods that uses seaweed instead of plastic.
Type One Energy has raised a $200 million Series B as the startup races to develop the world’s first fusion power plant at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bull Run site in eastern Tennessee. The financing round was co-led by Breakthrough Energy Ventures and Clutterbuck Capital, with additional backing from Lowercarbon Capital, Siemens Energy Ventures, and SiteGround Capital. “The breadth and quality of investors in this funding round demonstrates growing support for our strategy to industrialize the commercial deployment of fusion energy,” Christofer Mowry, Type One Energy’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The Series B financing enables us to remain focused on advancing our stellarator technology and Project infinity design activities.”
The company has been working to establish its supply chain. In March, my colleague Katie Brigham broke news of a deal to start getting the material needed for its reactors.
New York City is notorious for the ways in which trash piles up on our sidewalks and evaporates into foul smelling mist during the hot summer days. But did you know it’s also piling up in the places we send it? The latest draft of the city’s once-in-a-decade management plan for solid waste indicates that the landfills receiving much of the five boroughs’ trash are filling up. Per Inside Climate News, the state is projected to run out of landfill capacity for the city’s garbage within 16 to 25 years.
The startup’s system builds on a vessel’s existing engine and makes it effectively fuel-agnostic.
The shipping industry has a dilemma. The European Union and other jurisdictions are increasingly requiring vessels to cut their carbon emissions, pushing shipowners toward lower-carbon fuels and away from traditional bunker fuel or diesel. But it’s still anybody’s guess which cleaner fuel — ammonia, methanol, or liquified natural gas — will prove most economical and efficient at scale. That leaves shipowners facing an uncomfortable choice: They must decide on a technology around which to build new engines and retrofit existing ones without knowing whether the fuel they bet on today will still be the best option a few years from now.
Blaze Energy says that its product will eliminate that choice. The startup, which announced a $6.5 million seed round on Tuesday — is making a compact fuel “reformer,” a device that uses a heated catalyst to split various alternative fuels into a hydrogen-rich gas. That gas can then be combined with the original fuel and conventional shipping fuel to power existing engines. With Blaze’s bolt-on retrofit, which the startup aims to make less than a tenth the size of the engine itself, shipping companies “can adjust their assets based on how the global energy landscape, regulation, as well as their company direction is changing,” the company’s CEO and co-founder, Rok Sitar, told me. For example, maybe LNG looks cheapest in the short term given its established supply chain, but ammonia could win out down the road.
So far, Blaze has conducted small scale demonstrations showing that its proprietary catalyst can reform ammonia, methanol, and LNG. The resulting hydrogen-rich mixture is extremely fast-burning, which helps the other fuels to burn more completely and efficiently than they otherwise would.
Blaze’s first product, however, focuses solely on ammonia reformation. The system works by diverting a portion of the liquid ammonia to flow over the startup’s electrically-heated catalyst, which breaks it down into hydrogen and nitrogen. The resulting gas goes directly into the engine, where the nitrogen passes through and exits via the exhaust, while the hydrogen helps the remaining ammonia burn more efficiently alongside conventional shipping fuel. No burners or complex gas separation systems required.
As Sitar explained, “a certain composition of ammonia and hydrogen burns just like diesel,” allowing Blaze to essentially “trick the engine” into operating like it’s burning just diesel or standard bunker fuel rather than a blend that includes hydrogen and ammonia. That means the startup can add its retrofit system onto an existing ship engine without modifying the engine itself. And if the reformer fails for any reason, the ship can simply revert to running on conventional fuel alone. Sitar said this fail-safe feature lowers the risk for shipowners considering Blaze’s tech.
The company’s strategic partners include vessel owner and operator Lomar Shipping, which expects to pilot the system at sea beginning sometime next year, and ship management consultancy Link Marine, which plans to offer it to tanker operators. Blaze is aiming for commercial rollout in 2028.
Retrofitting the existing global fleet represents “an enormous opportunity” for Blaze, Sitar told me. As he explained, there are roughly 100,000 vessels in the global commercial fleet, but the industry only builds about 1,500 new ships each year. And because shipping companies are unlikely to choose alternative-fuel engines for every new vessel they order, a company in Blaze’s position pretty much has to drum up demand among the ships already in the water. The startup aims to install its system when vessels enter “dry dock” for routine inspection and maintenance, which typically happens at least once every five years.
Blaze is also developing a version of its product for new-builds, however, working with engine manufacturers to integrate its fuel reformer hardware into both conventional ship engines as well as those already designed to run on ammonia. Even in ammonia-burning engines, Sitar said Blaze’s system will improve fuel efficiency thanks to the fast-burning hydrogen in its blend.
The startup has ambitious goals for its seed round, which Sitar says should carry it through the next 18 months. Those include proving out its ammonia reformer on land with unnamed “leading” engine manufacturers, validating its performance at sea with Lomar, securing the maritime certifications needed to launch its first commercial product, and expanding its operations and headcount in the U.S. and Norway.
Blaze will likely look to raise again around 2028, at which point the International Maritime Organization expects to have its Net-Zero Framework in place. This would establish legally binding requirements for the entire shipping industry to reduce its emissions intensity, with the goal of reaching net-zero by 2050. The agency expected to adopt the framework last October, but delayed a final vote to approve the measure after the Trump administration strong-armed nations into withdrawing their support. The framework will come up for a vote again this December.
While the ongoing ambiguity has become a headache for the industry as a whole, Sitar sees it as something of an advantage for Blaze, which, he said, “thrive[s] in uncertainty.” Around 2028, the startup aims to begin piloting its broader multi-fuel technology, which can reform not just ammonia, but also methanol and LNG, for use in diesel engines. Blaze also expects to begin delivering its first commercial ammonia retrofit systems at this time.
From there on, the company sees a path to adapting the technology across numerous other industries reliant on combustion engines, such as heavy equipment, mining, industrial heat, and diesel power generation for data centers. “By proving our system in maritime engines, we can very easily translate this into other hardware sectors,” he said. Shipping, in his view, is perhaps the most challenging but strategically useful beachhead market of all, from both a technical and regulatory perspective.
As he put it to me, “if you prove it on maritime shipping, you basically have a product that can be deployed anywhere else, because everything else is simpler and has less regulation.”