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:
“Ifwe actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers.”
It was always going to be the case that the vice presidential debate would have the most substantive climate exchange of the 2024 election cycle. For one (big) thing: Neither candidate was Donald Trump. For another, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator JD Vance both have, at least at some point, professed concern about “the climate problem.” But a question from the moderators was all but guaranteed after one of the costliest hurricanes in recent U.S. history devastated communities far from the coast the weekend before the debate.
Rather than get just a few meager sentences about “immaculate clean water,” then, Americans who bothered to tune into the debate were treated to a lengthy back-and-forth about clean energy investment and the Inflation Reduction Act by the presidential candidates’ seconds. The exchange touched off when Vance was asked what responsibility the Trump administration would have “to try and reduce the impact of climate change,” especially given the scenes out of Western North Carolina.
“A lot of people are justifiably worried about all these crazy weather patterns,” Vance said to start (though lest we forget, those “crazy weather patterns” just left 100 dead in six U.S. states and are expected to result in 250,000 excess deaths per year by 2050, according to the IPCC). He added that “Donald Trump and I support clean air, clean water” but that “one of the things that I’ve noticed some of our Democratic friends talking a lot about is a concern about carbon emissions — this idea that carbon emissions drive all the climate change.”
Who had on their Bingo card that Vance would be the first to mention carbon emissions during a debate in 2024? But he quickly turned the moment around to cast doubt on the human causes: “Let’s just say that’s true, for the sake of argument, so we’re not arguing about weird science,” he added, though he proceeded to structure his remarks as if we live in a world where greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere (what a thought!):
If you believe that, what would you want to do?
The answer is that you want to reshore as much American manufacturing as possible, and you want to produce as much energy as possible in the United States of America, because we’re the cleanest economy in the entire world.
Kamala Harris’ policies actually led to more energy production in China, more manufacturing overseas, more doing business in some of the dirtiest parts of the entire world — when I say that, I mean the amount of carbon emissions they’re doing per unit of economic output.
So if we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers and the American people.
Of course, what Vance is describing sounds suspiciously like the rationale behind the Inflation Reduction Act, which explicitly aims to build a green economy at home in the U.S. Walz more or less pointed that out in his response: “We’ve seen massive investments — the biggest in global history,” he said. “We’ve seen that the Inflation Reduction Act has created jobs all across the country,” including in manufacturing electric cars and solar panels.
Walz also noted that Trump has called climate change a hoax, which earned Vance a chance to respond. “If the Democrats — in particular, Kamala Harris and her leadership — if they really believe that climate change is serious, what they would be doing is more manufacturing and more energy production in the United States of America,” he reemphasized, then added: “If you really want to make the environment cleaner, you’ve got to invest in more energy production. We’ve built a nuclear facility — I think one in the past 40 years. Natural gas, we’ve got to invest more in it.”
The ball then returned to Walz. “We’re producing more natural gas than we ever had,” he correctly pointed out (and, though he didn’t mention it, Biden recently signed a big bill advancing nuclear, too). But while Trump hosted oil executives at Mar-a-Lago when he was courting campaign donations, “we can be smarter about that and an all-above energy policy,” the governor went on. “That’s exactly what this administration has done. We are seeing us becoming an energy superpower for the future, not just the current.”
Was it a perfect climate exchange? Not really. It’s easy to see why the oil industry is sweet on Vance and Walz’s citation of an “all-above energy policy” will likely leave some in the more progressive wings of the climate movement feeling cold.
But it will be described as an amicable exchange, particularly for moments like Walz telling Vance, “Well, we got close to an agreement” on recognizing so-called crazy weather patterns. In truth, they also got close to an agreement on a little something called the IRA — yet another case of a Republican trying to have it both ways. It goes to show: Climate jobs and domestic manufacturing are popular ideas with the American public. Just don’t tell your boss, JD.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A Q&A with Villanova’s Stephen M. Strader on the legacy of Hurricane Andrew, unsustainable development, and why building codes alone aren’t enough.
In around 12 hours, Hurricane Milton is set to make landfall within miles of Tampa Bay, a region that is home to more than 5 million people. Once a sleepy retirement community, the area has seen a major development boom in recent years fueled by Millennials and Gen Zers seeking the perks of coastal living; it was the 11th fastest-growing city of its size in the U.S. as of this spring and has been expected to continue to grow at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the country over the next five years. A third of those residents, including many of the newcomers, live in low-lying neighborhoods now under urgent evacuation notices due to the threat of “unsurvivable” storm surge, which could rise up to 15 feet.
The development boom that has made Tampa Bay so desirable is also why it’s particularly vulnerable. In an analysis of Hurricane Ian — the most expensive storm in Florida’s history, which struck just south of Milton’s projected track in 2022 — the re-insurance company Swiss Re found that if the storm had struck in the 1970s, it would have caused a third to a half as much damage. Simply put: You can’t adapt your way out of a hurricane problem.
If there is anyone to talk to about the vulnerabilities unique to Tampa Bay, it’s Stephen M. Strader, an associate professor and hazard geographer at Villanova University. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
You shared an image on Twitter of the explosive growth in the Tampa Bay area between 1940 and 2024. Why does this make the region vulnerable to a storm like Milton? Is it just about there being more people there?
When we think about disasters, we think of the intersection of three components: a violent event, like what we have with Milton; vulnerability, or what types of people could be in the path, which could be related to racial divides, age, and gender norms; and what a lot of my work focuses on, exposure.
Exposure is just the number of people or things that we care about — businesses, schools, and things like that — that are subject to losses if an event occurs. Florida is a great example of rapid urbanization since the 1900s, and it’s rapid development in a very hazard-prone region.
It can be easy for outsiders to sit back and wonder why anyone would buy a house on the water or on a barrier island near Tampa.
There are a lot of factors that come into play when you think about where we develop and why we develop certain locations. One of the biggest pressures that we see is that it’s desirable land: In the short term, people want to live near the water. It’s beautiful! People don’t think necessarily about the risk that comes with it because they’re too focused on their dream, which is to live near the ocean.
The other side of that is, from an economic standpoint, people see it as an opportunity to have businesses and to build condos. Developers see the land and think, “How much could I buy this for and sell it for with homes on it?” This really started back with Carl Fisher, who was famous for building the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. He was a thrill-seeker, but also a businessman and developer, and he loved to go to South Florida — which is now Miami Beach, and then was swamps and mangroves and not developed at all. And he thought, Hmm, this would be a great place for people to visit for vacations and experiences. He slowly started filling in the wetlands with sand. And that’s the history of Florida's development: It continued because this was very valuable land.
There is a lot of socioeconomic pressure to develop in these areas, but we’re also starting to see it change. Those pressures are lessening because you have insurance industries now and events like this year after year.
There is another issue in Southwest Florida, which is that many of the homes were constructed before building codes were updated, right?
I tend to do a lot more work on the manufactured housing side. Before 1974, all manufactured homes were called mobile homes, and there wasn’t really a standard. Then, in 1974, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development came in and said, “We need to increase the standards,” and they did.
Fast-forward to 1992 and Hurricane Andrew, and they realized these codes were not strong enough. Many people lived in manufactured homes that were destroyed by Andrew, which was a very windy hurricane. We think hurricanes are wind threats because of Andrew, but hurricanes are water threats, and most deaths occur because of that water. Andrew was the opposite.
Between 1992 and 1994, they updated building codes for manufactured housing, and actually, along the coastline, Florida has some of the strongest codes for manufactured homes in the country. A lot of the areas that will be affected by Milton will have those strong standards. But many homes were also grandfathered in if they were built before that time.
That’s just one type of housing. My guess is that when you have a lot of rapid development since the 1990s — well, I have some questions about structural integrity since building codes can be strong but they might not be followed. And we sometimes don’t know until afterwards. A lot of what is being built are condos or McMansions — it’s basically, How fast can you build them, how cheap can you build them, and how high can you sell them? And they look great until their performance is put into question.
Insurance companies are starting to see this and ask, “How do we retrofit structures?” Structure-wise, though, I think Tampa is in a decent spot. The problem is, the water is so powerful that it’s not going to matter.
What kinds of conversations do you think Floridians should be having about development or potential redevelopment after Milton?
I’m a huge proponent of resisting the urge to build right back — the reason being that’s how you get repetitive losses. The hard part is, with a lot of insurance, if you have it, you only get provisions to build back the way you were. You don’t have the ability to improve. So what I end up telling people is, sometimes these disasters provide an opportunity to assess what we need to do from a planning standpoint. This is unsustainable development, and not just because of hurricanes, but because of rising sea levels and the stress on the environment. And unfortunately, a lot of these developments were built on top of wetlands and marshes and mangroves that used to protect the island areas as natural barriers.
The hard part is that people’s emotions are very strong after disasters, and they immediately want to return to how things were. That’s why you see people picking up the pieces the day after a storm, sometimes even when they’re injured. So we have to resist the urge as a group, and say, maybe this isn’t the time to think about rebuilding here.
Many wetland restoration projects in Florida are doing that very thing: reclaiming the environments that protected people inland. But on the other side you have developers and builders and local economies that rely on people coming to these areas, and that pressures people to come right back. Then you end up with a situation of repetitive losses and that’s why FEMA has been losing money over the years — it’s not so much that we’re putting money toward disasters but that we’re not getting value out of it, because it’s so much more likely for there to be impacts becauseof that exposure growth. Look at what happened after Helene and what’s going to happen with Milton: We’re splitting resources between the two. But we’re doing the best with the tools we have when there’s pressure on both sides, and considerations both economic and safety.
Is there anything else people should know about the geography of Tampa or the development risk there?
This storm is going to be different than other storms, and that’s because of the direction and intensity of it. The one thing we have to remember is that all that development — and everybody, for the most part, who isn’t 100 years old — has not experienced a hurricane of this magnitude in their life. That means everyone has the cognitive bias to say, “I’ve been through hurricanes before and was fine.” That is probably not going to be the case with this event; no one has been through this before.
What’s worrisome to me is that the trajectory of the hurricane is changing. A subtle shift north or south by 20 miles could mean a big difference for the Tampa region — if you have the right side of the hurricane push water into the Bay, it’s no different than 10 people jumping into a hot tub. The water level goes up and forces all that water into a smaller region, which is going to lead to more storm surge in Tampa Bay, Clearwater, and the St. Pete area. I don’t want to call it a “perfect storm,” but if you push all that water in there, you’re going to flood people in a way that hurricanes they’ve been through before never got close to. And I worry, if it goes south, about Fort Myers and the areas that were hit hard by Hurricane Ian. So it’s multilayered.
The good news that I’ll bring up is that we’re reeling from Helene, which means people have it in their brains about how bad this can be, which is probably causing more people to evacuate than normal. We have a problem with disaster amnesia in places where a hurricane hasn’t happened in a long time so “it’s not going to happen again.” And we forget. I remember Hurricane Katrina and what it did to New Orleans. It still has effects, but the students I’m teaching now weren’t even alive when it hit. These memories are short, and many people in Florida today weren’t there 30 years ago or 20 years ago. The only good thing to come out of Helene is that people are now aware of what can happen.
Stellantis is pulling back at Belvidere.
One of the biggest wins the United Auto Workers’ secured in its historic negotiations with the Big Three automakers last year was a commitment from Stellantis to reopen and expand its shuttered factory in Belvidere, Illinois. Now the company is shelving those plans, which included retooling the factory to produce electric vehicles and EV batteries, and suing the union for threatening to strike in response.
The dispute illustrates a new turn in the EV transition. Whereas last year auto workers were wary of the transition and fighting to keep their jobs intact, now their jobs are dependent on that transition actually happening, and happening soon. The UAW is concerned that the company will delay the plant’s reopening until 2028 — after the union’s contract expires.
Stellantis idled the Belvidere plant, which previously produced Jeep Cherokees, in February 2023, laying off more than 1,300 workers. But under its agreement with the UAW, the company said it would spend nearly $5 billion to restart the factory. The contract includes commitments to opening a parts distribution hub there this year, producing a new mid-size truck there by 2027, and building an electric vehicle battery plant at the site by 2028. Not only would jobs at Belvidere be restored, but the battery plant was expected to employ an additional 1,300 people. Former Belvidere employees would also be reclassified as temporary layoffs and receive partial pay and full healthcare benefits until operations started up again.
President Joe Biden celebrated Belvidere as a “great comeback story” in his State of the Union speech in March. “Instead of an auto factory shutting down, an auto factory is reopening and a new state-of-the-art battery factory is being built to power those cars,” he said. “Instead of a town being left behind it’s a community moving forward again!”
In July, plans to turn Belvidere into an EV hub seemed to be taking shape when the Department of Energy selected Stellantis for a $335 million grant to transition the plant’s assembly lines to be able to produce electric vehicles. The grant website says the project was anticipated to incorporate “significant upgrades” to the plant’s infrastructure and re-employ about “1,450 unionized and highly skilled employees.” Stellantis, however, did not issue any press releases about the grant. In a statement to the Chicago Tribune, the company said it was “an important step in continuing to work toward finalizing a sustainable solution” for Belvidere.
About a month later, the narrative around Belvidere started to shift. UAW president Shawn Fain posted a video on social media claiming something was “rotten” at Stellantis and accused the company of “putting the brakes” on its plans to reopen the plant. On August 20, Stellantis confirmed that “plans for Belvidere will be delayed,” though it “firmly stands by its commitment” to reopen the plant. The company’s explanation for the decision was vague and did not include a new timeline. “To ensure the Company’s future competitiveness and sustainability,” it said, “it is critical that the business case for all investments is aligned with market conditions and our ability to accommodate a wide range of consumer demands.”
As it stands, the business is not exactly in a sustainable place. In July, Stellantis reported that its U.S. revenues were down 16% compared to the first half of last year. Declining sales have left dealerships with a glut of inventory. Fain blames the company’s poor performance on its CEO Carlos Tavares, questioning how “market conditions” could be holding back investments in Belvidere when Tavares took a 56% raise last year, “making him the highest paid auto executive outside of Tesla.”
In response, the company published a fact check of the union’s claims, which notes that “there is indisputable volatility in the market, especially as the industry transitions to an electrified future. Over the past year, numerous companies across the industry have announced investment and product delays as well as outright product cancellations.” Stellantis currently sells just one EV in the U.S., the Fiat 500e, which it manufactures in Italy; in September, the company announced it had suspended production due to poor sales, though it still has several new EV models slated to launch later this year.
More than a dozen local UAW units all over the country filed grievances against Stellantis in August, arguing that the company’s “failure to plan for, fund and launch these programs constitute a violation” of its contract. The union has threatened to strike if the grievances are not addressed, citing its “right to strike over product and investment commitments” — another provision of the 2023 contract.
Stellantis denies that it has violated the contract and thrown the accusation back at UAW, noting that the agreement included a clause that says it is understood that the investments are “contingent upon plant performance, changes in market conditions, and consumer demand.” It has since filed eight lawsuits against the union and several of its locals for threatening to strike.
The company has also not completely abandoned its plans for the EV transition. A few weeks ago, it announced it would invest more than $406 million to prepare three Michigan factories for EV production. During a livestream in September, Fain wrote off those investments as representing just a small portion of what the company committed to.
In response to questions about why investment in Belvidere was delayed, whether the company would still pursue the federal grant, or what the new timeline for the plant was, a representative from Stellantis sent me bullet points from the previously published fact check.
The Department of Energy did not answer questions about the status or timeline for the factory conversion grant.
On new 2030 projections, stronger hurricanes, and green hydrogen
Current conditions: Rare rainstorms have flooded parts of the Sahara Desert • Storm Kirk is expected to bring flooding to parts of northern France • Wyoming’s 75,000-acre Elk Fire has been burning for nearly two weeks.
Hurricane Milton, currently a Category 5 storm, is expected to make landfall this evening near Tampa, Florida, as a Category 4 hurricane with 130 mph winds, according to the National Weather Service. It will bring between 10 and 15 feet of storm surge (possibly more, depending on which forecast you’re following), plus tornadoes. The conditions have already started to deteriorate and will continue to do so throughout the day. “There is no recent precedent for a major hurricane to take this path toward Florida,” said AccuWeather Director of Forecasting Operations Dan DePodwin. “This is an increasing significant risk of devastating, catastrophic impacts to this region.”
AccuWeather
Climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels almost certainly made Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene a lot worse, according to two new rapid attribution studies by World Weather Attribution and Climate Central. A storm like Hurricane Helene is about two-and-a-half times more likely in the region today compared to what would be expected in a “cooler pre-industrial climate,” WWA found. That means Helene, the kind of storm one would expect to see once every 130 years on average, is now expected to develop at a rate of about once every 53 years. Separately, Climate Central looked at Hurricane Milton, which already has the distinction of being the fifth strongest Atlantic storm on record. The nonprofit’s findings show that Milton’s rapid intensification — one of the fastest and most powerful instances of the phenomenon in history — is primarily due to high sea surface temperatures in the weeks before Milton developed, which was made at least 400 times more likely by climate change and up to 800 times more likely.
“While hurricane seasons eventually end, global temperatures haven’t stopped going up,” wrote Heatmap’s Jeva Lange. “That, perhaps, is the more terrifying subtext of the attribution studies: There will be more Miltons and Helenes.”
There are several big energy reports out this week, and taken together, their findings tell a nuanced story of an energy transition that’s well underway, but still moving too slowly. Let’s start with the big one: The International Energy Agency’s Renewables 2024 report, published this morning. It says that the world is on track to add 5,500 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity by 2030, 80% of which will come from solar PV alone. That means renewables will account for half of global electricity generation by the end of the decade.
IEA
While this is huge progress (the report notes that 5,500 GW is roughly equal the power capacity of China, the European Union, India, and the U.S. combined), it is not enough to meet the COP28 goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030. But! The IEA stresses that it is “entirely possible” to meet this target if governments can get their acts together, set bold new emission reduction targets in the coming months, and work together to lower the energy transition costs for poorer countries. “The market can deliver on renewables, and now governments need to prioritize investing in storage, grids, and other forms of clean flexibility to enable this transformation,” said Dave Jones, director of global insights at energy think tank Ember. “The next half decade is going to be one heck of a ride.”
So, that’s renewables. Let’s look at what all this means for emissions and, most importantly, warming.
An energy transition report published this morning from Norwegian risk management company DNV concludes, rather remarkably, that energy-related emissions are set to peak this year and begin a steady decline thanks to the plummeting costs of solar and batteries, especially in China. “Emissions peaking is a milestone for humanity,” said Remi Eriksen, group president and CEO of DNV. However, the projected rate of emission reduction is only enough to limit warming to 2.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. “We must now focus on how quickly emissions decline and use the available tools to accelerate the energy transition,” Eriksen added.
The Rhodium Climate Outlook 2024 report, out yesterday, concluded that there is a less than 7% chance of the world limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius “if current trends in policy and technology development continue.” In fact, it projected a “very likely” increase between 2 degrees Celsius and *gulp* 3.7 degrees Celsius by century’s end. However, odds of limiting warming to 2 degrees jump to 96% if all countries can get to net-zero emissions by 2070. To date, 149 countries (representing 88% of global emissions) have made net-zero or carbon neutrality commitments, though it remains to be seen if and when they’ll meet those goals.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The cost of “green” hydrogen – that which is produced with clean energy – is likely to remain “prohibitively expensive,” according to a new study published yesterday in the journal Joule. The fuel is seen as key to curbing emissions from hard-to-abate sectors (industry, for example), and many are banking on the price of production falling. But the researchers say the high storage and distribution costs are often overlooked. Taking those costs into consideration, carbon capture and storage is cheaper than green hydrogen when it comes to curbing emissions, the researchers found. “Even if production costs decrease in line with predictions, storage and distribution costs will prevent hydrogen being cost-competitive in many sectors,” said lead author Roxana Shafiee, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard University Center for the Environment. “Our results challenge a growing idea that hydrogen will be the ‘Swiss army knife of decarbonization’ and suggest that the opportunities for hydrogen may be narrower than previously thought.”
“After 40 years in a career, hopefully, I get a little leeway from the folks who are accustomed to seeing me cool as a cucumber. But the truth is that with climate-driven extremes putting us in a place that we haven’t been before, it’s very difficult to stay cool, calm, and collected.” –Meteorologist John Morales on his emotional on-air reaction to Hurricane Milton’s rapid intensification.