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:
Let’s play out what could happen as the House Ways and Means Committee does its work.

One of the most important fights over the Inflation Reduction Act’s survival has finally arrived. But it’s not playing out in the open. It’s happening behind the closed doors of a powerful House committee in charge of tax policy.
The House Ways and Means Committee is writing its version of Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, the centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. The committee could release that text as soon as mid-May. And other than a few broad outlines — the text will extend Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy, and it will increase the deficit by no more than $2.8 trillion — nobody has any idea what it will say.
Whatever the final text, though, will give us the first real sense of how likely the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits are to survive in the Trump tax bill. After months of speculation and tea leaf-reading, the House Ways and Means Committee’s draft will represent an opening position of sorts for Republican leadership — and illustrate just how close to repeal the majority is willing to get.
The committee could take a scorched-earth approach, cutting essentially every IRA tax credit in order to force members to fight to get policies back into the final bill. Or it could reform some tax credits so significantly that it effectively repeals the IRA, even if many policies remain on the books.
It could also reform some credits — such as the electric vehicle and clean electricity tax credits — while leaving most others untouched.
The most important suggestion of what will be in the final version came on Thursday in a new letter addressed to Jason Smith, the Ways and Means Committee chairman, and signed by 38 House Republicans. The letter demands the IRA’s full repeal — essentially heralding a potential new “anti-IRA” caucus within the GOP.
“We are deeply concerned that President Trump’s commitment to restoring American energy dominance and ending what he calls the ’‘green new scam’ is being undermined by parochial interests and short-sighted political calculations,” the letter says.
The letter writers focus their ire on subsidies for “wind and biofuel[s] … carbon capture and hydrogen … [and] solar and electric vehicles” that they say form the backbone of the bill.
So far, House Republicans have largely written letters about the IRA to call for its preservation. Last summer, 18 House Republicans wrote to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to ask him to move gingerly around any “repeal or reform” of the tax credits should Republicans win the November election.
“We must reverse the policies which refine American families while protecting and refining those that are making our country more energy independent and America more energy secure,” the letter said.
Since then, the number of pro-IRA voices in the GOP has risen. Last month, 21 House Republicans wrote to Johnson again in support of the law. But their language was slightly changed, advising that any reforms proceed in a “targeted and pragmatic fashion.” They did, however, oppose “premature credit phase outs” or restrictions on transferability.
Speaking earlier this week at a Semafor event, the Illinois Republican and Ways and Means member Darin LaHood imagined phasing out some of the energy tax credits earlier.
“The approach we’'re looking at now is how you have an appropriate ramp-down [of IRA tax credits] that allows for businesses and companies to continue to be active in this space, but also saves money," LaHood said.
He added that there is a “bullseye” on the clean energy law, and said that “we’ll see” whether any of its provisions are preserved.
Whatever form the final law takes, this legislative vehicle will likely determine the fate of the IRA’s energy tax credits and other climate spending. Trump has lambasted the IRA, and some Republicans believe that its tax credits should be repealed to pay for their tax cuts for wealthy earners.
Ways and Means will not automatically control the final product. Ultimately, they will have to reconcile their version of the text with what’s written by their counterpart, the Senate Finance Committee. Other committees will oversee the IRA’s environmental grants and loans. (My colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote about the first markup — from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — on Tuesday.) But the Senate has a more forgiving budget target than the House does, which means the Ways and Means Committee is where the IRA could go to die. That’s because it oversees tax policy — and therefore manages the IRA’s all-important tax credits.
The committee also has a spending problem. The legislative process Republicans have chosen to pass their budget bill, known as reconciliation, begins with establishing binding spending limits for committees in both the House and the Senate. That process wrapped up last month.
Under the guidelines passed by the House earlier this year, the Ways and Means Committee can expand the deficit by as much as $4.5 trillion. But simply extending the 2017 tax cuts’ expiring provisions will cost $4.4 trillion — and the committee wants to do more besides, including expanding the deductions that people can claim for their local and state taxes. The committee will struggle to pay for everything it wants to do — and it could look to repealing parts of the IRA to fix it.
It doesn’t help that Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the Ways and Means chairman, has called the IRA “welfare for the wealthy and well-connected.”
The committee’s conservative bent — and the fact that GOP lawmakers broadly want to stay on track to pass a bill by the end of the summer — mean that the IRA tax cuts are especially vulnerable during this period.
Most of the IRA’s tax credits are due to sunset in 2032. But one measure — a technology-neutral credit to support new clean electricity generation — could run for much longer than that.
Under the law as it stands today, that credit is supposed to last until the United States eliminates much of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by its power grid as compared to 2022 levels. Even if the credit remains in place, that could take another 30 or 40 years to happen, by one estimate — making the tech-neutral tax credit one of the most important climate policies in the law. The IRA’s power sector policies are responsible for more than 80% of the law’s emissions-reducing impact.
That also makes it among the most expensive policies in the law. When Republicans talk about ending tax credits early, the tech-neutral tax credit is an obvious target. Two lawmakers from North Dakota — Representative Julie Fedorchak and Senator Kevin Cramer — are working on language to phase out some tax credits in five years, Axios Pro has reported.
That would shut down the credit by 2030. But ending the credit by then could reshape what kind of energy technologies the law supports. Republicans tend not to see all zero-carbon electricity equally — while they often champion nuclear and advanced geothermal generation, many look less favorably on wind and solar power.
But by terminating the tech-neutral tax credit at the end of the decade, Republicans could help essentially the very technologies they don’t want. There are no new nuclear or geothermal projects in the development pipeline across the country, and new ones are unlikely to crop up until the late 2020s at the earliest. Under the law, energy projects must be “placed in service” by the time a tax credit expires, meaning that virtually no new nuclear or geothermal projects could qualify.
New nuclear projects will face especially serious trouble if the Trump administration guts the Department of Energy’s in-house bank, the Loan Programs Office, as now seems likely.
At the same time, there are plenty of new solar and battery projects planned across the country. Developers of these projects could rush to get them into service before a potential 2029 sunset date. The industry even has experience hurrying projects to completion: It often had to do so during the 2010s, when the solar investment tax credit faced repeated expirations.
Other Republicans have suggested terminating the law’s transferability clause. Under the IRA as it stands today, companies can sell their tax credits to other firms that can better use the subsidy. Depending on how it’s implemented, that reform could hurt the IRA by reducing the value of its tax credits, because companies will have to adopt more complicated financial structures in order to claim a given subsidy. Historically, solar and wind developers have more experience adopting these arcane structures than the nuclear or geothermal industries, which have fewer projects under their belt.
Speaking at a Heatmap event on Thursday, Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah said he was still hopeful that the IRA would survive without significant cuts.
“I don’t think that makes it through the House,” he said when asked if the Ways and Means Committee could slash the IRA tax credits outright. “There’s a lot of insecurities in the Republican Party about not cutting and about where the boundaries are.”
We’ll have a much better sense of where those boundaries are soon.
Editor’s note: Updates to reflect Ways and Means delaying its markup.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
GOP lawmakers know climate change is real. But they lack political incentives to do anything about it.
The New York Times recently profiled former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and his increasing engagement on climate change. Many of the online comments accused him of hypocrisy. Why, they asked, did he only become concerned about climate change after leaving Congress?
It’s an understandable question.
I have spent the better part of a decade discussing climate change with Republican members of Congress and can see a frequently overlooked part of the answer. During my hundreds of one-on-one conversations with Republican senators and representatives, almost none of them deny that climate change is occurring. Most understand the science well enough, and many acknowledge privately that it presents serious long-term risks.
They don’t lack knowledge. They lack political incentives.
Members of Congress have finite political capital. Every day they must decide which issues deserve their attention. Naturally, they devote their time to the issues that voters, donors, activists, staff, and party leaders tell them matter most.
Politics is a marketplace of incentives. For decades, climate advocates have devoted their efforts to changing Republicans’ minds, but have devoted little effort to changing the incentives for Republicans to act.
The political ecosystem for Democrats could not be more different. Democrats are surrounded by organizations that continually reinforce the importance of climate policy. Environmental groups, philanthropies, labor organizations, advocacy organizations, academics, campaign donors, think tanks, and congressional staff all create an environment in which climate engagement is expected and rewarded.
Republicans experience almost none of that.
When I was quoted in the New York Times article, I described the “eco right” as “a lonely place.” I meant it literally. There are remarkably few conservative organizations whose primary mission is helping Republican elected officials develop serious climate policy. Few donors make climate engagement a condition of support. Few advocacy groups reward constructive leadership. Few congressional staff have access to a deep bench of conservative climate experts. Climate is far more often presented as a political liability than a leadership opportunity.
In that environment, addressing climate change is rarely a priority. This largely explains what puzzles many observers — that Republican leaders often become noticeably more outspoken about addressing climate change after leaving office. The science has not changed. Their incentives have.
Freed from primary elections, fundraising pressures, and the constant competition for legislative attention, they’re able to think about problems whose consequences unfold over decades instead of election cycles.
That observation leads to an uncomfortable conclusion for those of us who want stronger climate policy: Persuading Republicans that climate change is real is not just unnecessary, it’s unproductive. They know it’s real. The more important task is building the institutions that make climate engagement a priority. That means investing in conservative policy organizations, developing Republican congressional staff expertise, supporting Republican governors and state legislators, encouraging business leaders to engage, creating donor networks that reward constructive center-right leadership, and giving Republican members credible partners they can trust.
In other words, we need to make the eco-right a much less lonely place.
Building institutions requires capital, both political and financial. Today, the overwhelming majority of climate-related political spending — whether by advocacy organizations, political action committees, or philanthropically supported campaigns — flows to Democratic candidates and causes. It’s understandable. Democrats have generally been more supportive of climate action, and donors naturally want to reward those who stand with them.
But rewarding allies isn’t the same as expanding the number of them.
If the objective is durable climate policy rather than simply electing more Democrats, then the current allocation of political spending deserves reconsideration. Congress writes laws, and lasting legislation almost always requires bipartisan support. A movement that invests overwhelmingly in one party shouldn’t be surprised when the other party lacks champions, expertise, and political incentives.
Climate philanthropists, advocacy organizations, and political action committees should explicitly seek to create Republican allies by committing a more significant portion of their electoral spending to Republican candidates. This support would send a powerful signal throughout Republican politics that constructive engagement on climate change will be rewarded. More Republican candidates would respond to those incentives, and the universe of viable partners would expand.
For Republicans, the greatest opportunity lies in primary elections. While general elections determine which party governs, primaries determine what kind of Republicans and Democrats will govern. Donors should identify Republican candidates who are willing to engage on a variety of climate-related topics — from adaptation and resilience to market-based policies that reduce emissions to energy innovation — and help them succeed. The objective isn’t ideological purity. It’s to demonstrate that constructive climate leadership is politically viable within today’s Republican Party, and to give those candidates the confidence that they aren’t alone.
Over time, this approach would accomplish something today’s funding model cannot. Rather than simply rewarding an existing coalition, it would create a larger one. It would produce more Republican members who see climate engagement as compatible with conservative principles. Climate change would still be a scientific and economic challenge, but politics would no longer preclude addressing it.
Rather than increasingly evident climate change adding to political division, it could drive both parties to act. America’s biggest policy achievements have generally occurred when a president elevated an issue as a national priority and Congress responded. Tax reform, welfare reform, civil rights, and other major agreements all required presidential leadership before they produced durable bipartisan legislation.
Climate policy has not yet reached that level. While voters increasingly care about it, it does not determine presidential elections or dominate governing agendas.
The closest climate change has come to being a top-tier issue was when President George H.W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, but that was before addressing climate change became so partisan. More recently, President Joe Biden included clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. That modest success is noteworthy in part because it rode upon legislation to address inflation, a top-tier voter issue — and because the provisions were largely repealed less than three years later. Until climate change becomes a presidential-level issue — one that candidates in both parties believe they must address — Congress is unlikely to devote sustained attention to it.
That day will come. And when that moment arrives, the quality of the legislation will depend on the work being done now. If we want bipartisan climate policy tomorrow, we need to build bipartisan political capacity today.
The climate movement has spent decades rewarding allies. The next several decades should be spent adding more. Politics follows incentives more than information. If we want Republicans to lead on addressing climate change or at least become those allies, we must stop just trying to persuade them and start investing in the institutions, incentives, and people that make it possible.
Current conditions: Tropical Depression Two is set to strengthen into Tropical Storm Bertha as the system widens over the Gulf Coast from Texas to Tampa Bay, Florida • Temperatures will top 112 degrees Fahrenheit in Khartoum, the capital of war-ravaged Sudan • Canadian wildfire smoke may have largely cleared in the Northeastern United States, but nearly 900 blazes are still burning, and Chicago is still under an air quality warning.

Andy Burnham, the new leader of the British Labour Party and the likely next prime minister of the United Kingdom, has vowed to uphold a contentious ban on exploration licenses for oil and gas drilling in the North Sea. While deputy party leader Lucy Powell told the BBC on Sunday that fossil fuels from the North Sea would remain part of Britain's energy mix, the so-called “king of the north,” who previously led the industrial metropolis of Manchester as its mayor, has instead stuck by the party’s original plan. “If they don’t reverse the ban on new exploration then the industry will be very unhappy indeed,” one industry source told the Financial Times. The decision comes after rumors had swirled that Burnham may support increasing domestic fossil fuel production in a bid to bring down energy prices. In a post on his Truth Social network, Trump wrote: “The People of Aberdeen, in Scotland, are dancing in the streets because the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has stated that he will be opening up, all the way, the invaluable North Sea Oil!”
Scotland is, on the other hand, getting more of Trump’s least favorite energy source. The American president’s antipathy toward offshore turbines, so goes the lore, began with an unsuccessful bid to block a project he considered unsightly off the coast of his golf course there. Last week, Renewables Now reported that offshore wind developer Ocean Winds secured the Scottish government’s approval for a 2-gigawatt offshore wind farm called Caledonia, the name Romans gave the area of Britain that ultimately became Scotland and its frontier with England. Located 25 miles off Moray Firth, the project is poised to begin construction in 2030.
In the U.S., the Trump administration has limited plans for carbon removal facilities. In Canada, as Emily has written, Prime Minister Mark Carney has opened the door to direct air capture companies looking for a new home base. But in the European Union, Brussels is already weaving carbon removal into the bloc's carbon-trading market. The EU’s highest governing body, the European Commission, proposed allowing carbon removal into its EU Emissions Trading System for the first time. “Under the current rules, companies cannot use carbon credits of any kind to comply with the regulations,” Emily wrote last week in a piece previewing the proposal. “But as 2040 grows closer, the EU plans to rely on carbon removal to offset some of the residual emissions from industries that are the most difficult to decarbonize.” For now, the scheme will be limited to direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration.
Last month, New York Attorney General Letitia James headed a group of Democratic-led states in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s deals to kill offshore wind projects, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo has written. Now many of those same blue states are seeking to join private developers’ litigation seeking to thaw President Donald Trump’s freeze on approving wind projects. Last week, the states filed a motion to intervene on behalf of wind companies that accuse the administration of unfairly targeting their businesses. The states argue, according to Bloomberg Law, that the halt to federal permitting “pushes up electricity costs” and “hurts their attempts to curb fossil fuel emissions.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Claude-maker Anthropic is set to lease computing power for its artificial intelligence data centers from Meta, making what The New York Times described as “a potential step toward a new AI for the social networking company.” Under the deal, Anthropic would pay the Facebook parent company $10 billion over two years, in monthly increments. The agreement is roughly a third the size of the deal that the AI giant signed with Elon Musk’s xAI in May for $45 billion of computing power over three years. That deal has drawn blowback given the vast arrays of gas turbines that power xAI’s biggest data center, Colossus, which is the subject of an air pollution lawsuit filed by the NAACP. As for Meta, insiders Heatmap talked to at the end of last year put it in the bottom of hyperscalers based on its decarbonization efforts. One social scientist told us, “Google is the best, Meta is the worst. Evil corporation.”
Russia’s state-owned nuclear company has at least 18 new nuclear projects underway at home, Rosatom announced. The Kremlin-owned company said the projects are in “various stages of implementation” throughout Russia, and don’t count the more than two dozen under construction overseas in places such as Bangladesh, India, and Turkey. In a speech published in the company’s in-house magazine and shared with World Nuclear News, Rosatom Director General Alexei Likhachev said the firm aims to increase revenues to $51.3 billion by 2028 — a nearly 18% increase from this year. Improving profits, however, means reducing costs by 5% that same year.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s nuclear regulator, Rostekhnadzor, has issued licenses for the first two proposed units of the new Kola nuclear station in northwest Russia, near Finland. The plant is expected to begin construction next year, NucNet reported, and ultimately include four VVER-S medium-capacity pressurized water reactors.
Tesla has a fierce new competitor in the European market. The Chinese automaker Xpeng just released its compact L03 crossover. The starting price in the German market, $40,700, undercuts the Tesla Model Y’s $44,480. The vehicle, per InsideEVs, is the first Chinese car to be fully integrated with Google Maps.
We didn’t know days like this could happen. Then we learned how bad they really are.
When I woke up this morning in Chicago, the Air Quality Index was in the 300s, and I could barely see the top of the skyscraper across the street. The weather app on my phone featured a little image of a man wearing a World War I-style full-face gas mask. That’s fun, I thought. I didn’t know it could do that.
I went downstairs. Old photographs of the city were hanging in the hotel lobby — girls playing in bathing suits next to the lake — and I realized that the haze shrouding the old Lakeshore Drive condos was in fact haze, smoke, particulate matter, and not a lens artifact. It really used to be that smoky all the time, back before the Clean Air Act. Then I glanced up and saw that the haze out the window was far worse than the century-old pollution in the picture.
It’s significant, I think, that a mass smoke-out like this has now happened to the eastern U.S. for a second time. Second times matter. When exhaust from Canadian wildfires blanketed the Northeast and parts of the Midwest in June 2023, exposing more Americans to wildfire smoke than on any previous day in history, one could almost write it off as a freak occurrence. It was upsetting, sure, and reminiscent of California’s climate-addled amber skies. But didn’t wildfire smoke also descend on New England once in the 1780s? Even on a warmer planet, couldn’t this remain a once-in-a-century blip?
Twice in just over three years, though — that‘s more than a hiccup. That’s almost a trend. To get smoked out once may be regarded as a misfortune; for it to recur again, without any plan to respond, starts to look like carelessness. The federal government is doing roughly diddly squat about adaptation — President Trump can build a fan on the border and make Canada pay for it — but state and local governments across the eastern U.S. will now need to reckon with a new form of extreme weather. You grew up with snow days, but now we’ll have smoke days — and schools and sports leagues and concert venues will need rules about how to deal with them. When should games be canceled, tickets refunded? Is smoke more like a heat wave or a hurricane? Hotels and office buildings will need to review their ventilation policies and possibly upgrade their equipment; municipal emergency response plans will be revised and printed in triplicate.
All this will happen because the smoke has invaded a second time — and arguably a third, if you count last year’s minor episode — and that means it could come back again. For that reason, this event strikes me as a much bigger deal than what happened in 2023. The smoke is now a fact of life; institutions will need a policy about it. The tortious creep of litigation risk will enforce that outcome, even if no federal official enforces it.
So it goes. But to be clear, this new inconvenience is not what worries me most about today’s events. No, what frightens me instead is that today’s airborne toxic event is not something that was supposed to happen. Until a few years ago, we had not thought too hard about whether a major smoke exposure event like this could happen on the East Coast at all. It had not seemed possible.
For years, economists and climate scientists have simulated how global warming might affect the U.S. and global economies. They poured years of careful work into this modeling, and they simulated — with ever-increasing levels of statistical persnicketiness — what extreme heat and sea-level rise might do to agricultural yield, labor productivity, energy demand, heat mortality, and real estate values, among other potential sources of damage. This work was useful; it improved our practical understanding of coastal flooding, to name one example. It also helped calibrate U.S. regulatory policy, even if it never achieved the crowning heights of helping to set a national carbon tax.
Yet these careful models almost never accounted for mass smoke exposure days. Indeed, the kind of thing that happened this week — when heavy haze blows down from Canada and exposes more than 100 million people to hazardous air — was not countenanced by the simulations at all. Only in recent years did economists begin to study events like these, and only because mass exposure events like 2023’s happened first.
We’ve long known that the tiny shreds of particulate matter in wildfire smoke dance across the body’s barriers and penetrate its deep places, etching their way into lung, heart, and brain tissue. Inflammation follows. What makes days like today unique is the scale: Tens of millions of Americans inhaling wildfire smoke at the same time. As we’ve started studying this phenomenon, it’s become clear that the mortality effects of days like today, the deaths elevated above what you’d otherwise expect, can persist for years. That becomes extraordinarily expensive for society.
How costly? “When monetized,” a group of Stanford and Princeton economists wrote in Nature last year, in the first major study on the topic, “the climate-driven smoke deaths result in economic damages that exceed existing estimates of climate-driven damages from all other causes combined in the U.S.A.”
You read that right: The cost of climate-worsened wildfire smoke alone is larger than what earlier studies said every other estimated cost of climate change would be, combined.
To summarize, wildfire smoke did not appear in our economic simulations of climate change. As recently as a few years ago, we did not really know that days like today — or June 7, 2023; or September 15, 2020; or September 9, 2020 — could occur. Then they happened. And happened again. And then we studied them and discovered that, in fact, they may be more expensive for the U.S. economy than we once thought climate change itself would be.
That worries me. Now we know these smoke-out days can happen; now they are fast becoming a rare but predictable feature of summer life. But until recently they were unimaginable. What other ignominies, what other tail risks and airborne surprises, are lurking in the uncontrolled experiment we’re running on the biosphere? What else — unforecast, unmodeled, unstudied, unthought of — lies ahead? After 10 years of covering the climate system, I am not someone who lies sleepless fretting about atmospheric CO2. But I do wonder what else we don’t know enough about to ask.