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:
President Biden’s climate law gets a political stress test.

For the first time since it passed last summer, the Inflation Reduction Act — President Biden’s flagship climate law — is facing a threat of repeal.
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has proposed essentially rolling back the law in their opening bid on negotiations with the White House to extend the government's borrowing limit and prevent a calamitous default. The GOP's proposal, called the Limit, Grow, and Save Act, would raise the debt ceiling for a year while slashing trillions in federal spending over the next decade.
While the Republican bill proposes deep cuts across the board, it takes a cleaver to Biden’s climate policy. Folding in the Lower Energy Costs Act, the first bill that the new GOP majority put on the floor, the act would repeal more than two dozen of the IRA’s clean-energy tax credits, including subsidies for renewables and electric vehicles. It would also defund programs meant to open new factories in the United States and gut climate-friendly programs popular with Republicans, such as generous subsidies for nuclear energy and hydrogen production.
Now, let’s get this out of the way: Neither the bill nor the negotiations around it are likely to repeal the IRA. Yet for the next few days or weeks, the IRA will likely appear to be in danger as nobody will quite say it’s safe out loud.
The Republican bill’s chief importance is as a piece of political posturing: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy hopes to demonstrate that he has 218 votes to raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget, any budget, through his disorganized and dramatic caucus. Then he can open more serious negotiations with President Biden and Senate leaders about the debt ceiling and the year’s budget.
But to get there, he’ll have to keep the GOP’s right flank on his side first. McCarthy and House Republican leadership didn’t even want to include the IRA repeal in the Limit, Save, and Grow Act, but included it because the far-right House Freedom Caucus demanded it. That means House leadership must look completely serious about its intent to repeal.
At the same time, climate advocates must now mobilize around the IRA to demonstrate its importance to the public and prevent the Biden administration from sacrificing it in negotiations.
More broadly, though, this moment is a test for a few competing hypotheses about whether the IRA can survive — and about the future of climate policy in America.
To the set of political scientists, climate activists, and energy experts who championed the law, repealing the IRA would be so damaging to Republicans as to be unthinkable. That’s because Republicans’ constituents are, for now, reaping much of the IRA’s economic rewards. Up to two-thirds of green-energy investment nationwide is happening in GOP congressional districts, according to Politico. The all-important swing state of Georgia leads the country in clean-energy and electric-vehicle investments, forming the heartland of a new, vaguely banana-shaped “Battery Belt” that stretches across the largely Republican Southeast. Even beyond that region, Speaker McCarthy’s California district is one of the top two districts nationwide for utility-scale solar, wind, and battery plants.
This wasn’t an accident. The IRA is a product of the Democratic Party, so it was, yes, meant to do all those old-school Democrat things — encourage unionization, boost wages, and help revitalize the old industrial Midwest. But it was written by Democrats who see the party’s future in the Sunbelt suburbs and who prioritize decarbonization above other political goals. They knew — they couldn’t help but know — that much of the law’s investment would flow to the manufacturing centers of the American South and Southwest, where “Right to Work” laws restrict worker power and corporate-friendly policies reign.
On the other side, a set of critics allege that Republicans’ attack on the IRA doesn’t need to make political sense. Kate Aronoff, a New Republic staff writer who has been guardedly skeptical of the law, argued last week that House Republicans don’t care about the political fallout of killing the IRA because they’re protected from virtually any type of political fallout at all, thanks to gerrymandering, their deep-pocketed corporate donors, and a sharply conservative Supreme Court. In that view, the attempts to secure the IRA by appealing to Republicans’ constituents is futile: The party will simply do what it wants.
At stake here is a deep but important disagreement about the IRA. The flagship law aims to cleave fossil-fuel interests from the rest of the corporate bolus: to make it so attractive for banks, carmakers, electric utilities, steelmakers, manufacturers, and everyone else to decarbonize that they had no choice but to do so.Can that happen? Will that happen? This is the question on which the IRA’s advocates and its climate-friendly critics disagree. It is also is the question on which the fate of the IRA — and American climate policy — turns.
In her piece, Aronoff notes that fossil-fuel companies donated 13 times more to politicians in 2018 than renewable companies did. I found that to be oddly encouraging: If money alone is the issue, then the fossil-fuel industry’s alleged grip on the GOP could loosen over time. (The gap is already narrowing: Oil and gas-affiliated groups gave about six times more than renewables groups did in the most recent election cycle.)
The far more dangerous possibility for the IRA is that Republicans cannot be won over with money or argument. The party may just vibe with fossil fuels. Lawmakers and officials might feel an ideological affinity for oil and gas that goes deeper than those fuels’ economic or security benefits. During President Donald Trump’s term, he sometimes seemed to speak about fossil fuels not as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. This sometimes verged on trolling, but that was the point too: for Trump, at least, that it triggered liberals only underscored its correctitude. If that view were to break out into the party at large, it would spell an end to any kind of bipartisan shift on climate policy.
Which is all to say: Republicans probably won’t repeal the IRA this week.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
France’s deadliest heat wave since 2003 killed more than 2,700 people — and possibly as many as 5,700.
More than 5,700 excess deaths were recorded in France during this summer’s record-breaking heat wave, the country’s health agency announced today. That makes the event — which ran, by the official reckoning, from June 17 to July 2 — the country’s deadliest heat wave in more than 20 years.
That’s in line with other estimates we’ve heard. EuroMOMO, a network of European public health agencies that track excess mortality, found that the continent saw more than 10,000 excess deaths during the same period. Roughly 90% of those victims were older than 65, it said. (France’s cohort seems similar: Adults older than 75 made up about two-thirds of the victims, the government said.)
These numbers are staggering — and much larger than some astute Heatmap readers might anticipate. If you read my colleague Jeva Lange’s piece on why it’s so hard to estimate heat deaths last week, she cited a much smaller estimate: Roughly 2,700 died in France during the most recent heat wave. That tally came from Christopher Callahan, an Indiana University scientist who studies climate change’s economic and social costs.
Why is there such a gap between the figures? I emailed Callahan to find out. He shared a few thoughts. First, he uses a different (and theoretically more rigorous) method than the French government: “Our approach uses a statistical relationship between temperature and mortality to explicitly quantify how many additional deaths are associated with a given day’s temperature,” he wrote. “France’s report of excess deaths is just based on how many more people died in late June compared to previous Junes - but we don’t know if those people died because of the heat or some other factor.” (Carbon Brief recently published a Q&A on these varying approaches.)
That might mean his estimate is right, in which case France has misidentified roughly nearly 3,000 deaths. But it could also mean his model, which is trained on data from 2004 to 2019, is “missing something,” he said, like a post-Covid change to public health risk. Last year, Callahan and his colleagues used a similar model to estimate deaths from France’s worst-ever heatwave, a 2003 episode that overwhelmed morgues and killed about 16,000 people. Even 23 years ago, global warming helped make that disaster larger than it needed to be: Some 6,000 of those deaths were due to climate change, their paper found.
Either estimate of the 2026 heat wave, of course, is shattering. As Jeva wrote, even the lower figure would mean the 2026 heat wave killed as many people as died in three years of French homicides. But the divergence in estimates tells us something else too: Even as climate change breaks records and alters our world, we’re never going to quite agree on where it ends and normal randomness begins.
The AI data center boom does not seem close to ending. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, announced its second quarter results this evening, and it beat Wall Street’s expectations, nearly quadrupling its profit on a year-over-year basis. Among the drivers: Its cloud business grew 82% compared to the same quarter last year. (As I’ve written, that rapid growth is helping to turn Alphabet and other hyperscalers into light industrial firms.)
The company’s AI bets seem to be paying off so far — so Google is now planning on spending even more on data centers, energy infrastructure and AI development this year than it once anticipated. It raised its estimates of 2026 capital expenditure to $195 billion to $205 billion, which is above earlier projections and twice as much as it spent in the same category last year. 2027 could be even bigger, it signaled. The company’s shares fell slightly on the news in after-hours trading, but from an energy and climate wonk perspective, the message is clear: For now, the AI demand surge transforming the power sector — and the real economy — continues to chug along.