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:
The Empire State just passed legislation to try to live up to its climate goals. Will other states follow?

The Empire State took a big leap toward a carbon-free future this week.
Late Tuesday night, after more than a month of negotiations, the New York state legislature passed a $229 billion budget, enacting three major climate policies in the process. The legislation will not only give teeth to ambitious emissions targets the state established four years ago, but it also forms a sort of blueprint for state-level clean energy transitions around the country.
New York passed a law setting up targets to cut emissions across its economy back in 2019 when Andrew Cuomo was governor. But it didn’t stipulate how the state was supposed to achieve them. Instead, the law set in motion a multi-year process for state leaders and appointed advisors to work out the best path forward. The group’s findings were finally published in December, and two of the climate policies enacted this week — a ban on natural gas in new buildings and a cap-and-invest program — are key recommendations from that document. The third, which creates a new avenue for publicly-owned renewable energy projects, was not part of that plan, but was born out of a vigorous, four-year grassroots campaign by the Democratic Socialists of America.
New York’s budget deal won’t fill in all the gaps in its strategy to decarbonize. But it does accomplish a number of big and essential first steps, like limiting the growth of natural gas and developing sources of funding to pay for the transition. About half of the country has enacted greenhouse gas reduction targets, but few states have put in place the policies to achieve them.
Below, a look at New York’s three big climate moves and why they could be a model for other states looking to live up to their own climate goals.
Buildings are by far the largest contributor to climate change in New York, accounting for 32% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. They are also an exceedingly hard source to tackle, as those emissions come from a bunch of long-lived appliances like natural gas heating systems, stoves, and clothes dryers. But electric alternatives, which can be powered by renewable energy, are readily available. One easy first step any state can take is to stop the problem from getting worse by requiring that new buildings forego fossil fuels.
A few municipalities in the Empire State, like New York City and Ithaca, have already enacted bans on fossil fuel-burning appliances in new buildings. Now, Governor Kathy Hochul is set to pass a similar state-wide ban that will begin to go into effect in 2026. This is a year later than what was recommended by the state’s climate plan. But it will still send a powerful message that gas is no longer a growth industry in one of the biggest economies in the U.S.
“It is very, very clear now what the direction of travel is,” Pete Sikora, climate and inequality campaigns director of New York Communities for Change, a grassroots organization, told me. “That’s a monumental shift, as I see it, from an earlier environment, where Democrats were mouthing that ‘gas is a bridge fuel to the future.’ We’ve blown up that bridge. That bridge is collapsing into a ravine.”
While a few other states, like California and Washington, have effectively done the same thing via changes to their building codes, New York is the first state to build enough political support to cut off gas growth through its legislature. Jonny Kocher, a manager for the Carbon-Free Buildings Program at the clean energy group RMI, told me he anticipates that New York’s approach will have fewer exemptions than other states, and expects California and Washington to follow suit with legislation in order to strengthen their own policies. Washington State is currently facing a lawsuit for sidestepping the legislature.
Kocher said a gas ban isn’t necessarily a step that all states need to take in order to limit emissions from new buildings. The latest electric appliances, like heat pumps, are more efficient than gas-burning boilers or furnaces, and all-electric new construction will save consumers money in many parts of the country, so many states will move in this direction anyway. “We believe that states with existing (or new) energy efficiency goals will inevitably shift towards an all-electric code because it is simply the least expensive pathway to reach those energy efficiency goals,” he said in an email.
Implementation of New York’s climate plan has been somewhat piecemeal to date. Like many states, New York has a clean energy standard that requires utilities to buy an increasing amount of renewable energy each year. It also participates in a regional effort to cut emissions from power plants. That program raises some money for clean energy programs, like energy efficiency and electric vehicle rebates.
But while these policies are serving to clean up New York’s grid, they leave out other parts of the economy that also produce emissions, like fuel suppliers, natural gas utilities, and industrial facilities. The state has also failed to figure out how to pay for its energy transition, which is estimated to cost some $300 billion over the next 30 years. To address both of these gaps, Hochul announced in January that New York will establish a cap-and-invest program like those used by California and Washington State. The legislation passed this week fleshes out the “invest” side of the plan.
Cap-and-invest is similar to a price on carbon, and is often called a “polluter pays” program. Companies with big carbon footprints will have to purchase permits to pollute, and the number of permits available will shrink over time to ensure that the state hits its emissions targets.
These programs are complex and notoriously hard to implement well. Policy experts and environmental justice advocates have criticized California’s program for giving companies too much leeway to purchase carbon offsets instead of reducing their pollution, and for auctioning off more permits than needed.
Many of the details in New York have yet to be worked out. But the budget deal ensures that at least 30% of the proceeds raised by the program will be returned to New Yorkers to offset higher costs that may result from it. The rest will go into a climate action fund to pay for all kinds of clean energy projects and incentives.
A growing number of climate advocates are starting to unite around a more radical vision for the transition to clean energy — a shift toward publicly-owned power. Some consider it a key tenet of the Green New Deal, others just see it as a way to bring more accountability to energy companies. Utilities have historically been some of the biggest obstructors of climate action. Proponents argue that publicly-owned utilities would be better equipped to usher in the energy transition since they aren’t beholden to shareholders and can prioritize clean energy and equity over profit.
“If you’re leaving it up to the market, you can create incentives, but you have less power over where this energy is sited, who is benefitting,” said Johanna Bozuwa, executive director of the Climate and Community project.
In New York, advocates discovered that they had a “sleeping giant” in the New York Power Authority. The state-owned utility operates several big hydroelectric dams and a number of fossil fuel power plants, but its ability to build and operate solar and wind projects was severely curtailed under statute. After a four year push, and the election of a slew of DSA candidates into the legislature, the public power movement successfully pressured Hochul into changing that.
The budget deal mandates strong labor standards for any new generation built and also instructs NYPA to retire its fossil fuel plants by 2030, five years earlier than previously planned.
It remains to be seen whether authorizing NYPA to build will actually result in it using that authority. But the odds are better than they were a year ago, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. The law made a key change to the country’s clean energy tax credits, allowing public institutions and nonprofits to claim them for the first time. Bozuwa told me that this means other states will be looking at what happens in New York and could follow its lead.
“Not every state has a NYPA, but I think that people will look to NYPA and say, ‘oh, my gosh, we could be doing that too,’” she said. “Because there’s so much money flowing in, this is the perfect time for states or even municipalities to start to develop a renewable energy generation fleet.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There was no new investment required from TotalEnergies, according to newly disclosed terms.
When the Trump administration announced it was paying TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to cancel the company’s offshore wind leases, it painted the deal as a mutually beneficial trade: The government would reimburse the company for every penny it spent to acquire the leases, and in return, Total would “redirect” the money to U.S. oil and gas development.
Now, the terms of the deal have been made public, and Americans’ side of the bargain appears to be worthless.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management posted the settlement agreements for the two cancelled leases to its website on Friday. The documents make it clear that Total did not have to make any new investments to get its check.
“Following their new investment,” the Interior Department’s March 23 press release had said, “the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind.” But the settlement allows Total to simply submit receipts for oil and gas investments it was already making, including money spent as far back as last November.
The terms required Total to spend the same amount it had spent on the offshore wind leases on “conventional energy projects” within a specific timeframe — between November 18, 2025 and September 30, 2026. “Eligible expenditures” included direct capital expenditures on its own oil and gas projects as well as money funneled through joint ventures. The terms make clear that Total had to actually deploy cash into projects within the timeframe, not just commit to spending it. Once the company spent the money, it could submit a third party audit of its receipts to the Interior Department, and the agency would cancel the leases.
The settlement is also explicit that Total’s outlays for the Rio Grande LNG export terminal, a project the company had reached a final investment decision on last September, were eligible. In the end, Total spent the money — all $928 million of it — in less than 21 weeks. The smaller Carolina Long Bay lease, just east of Wilmington, North Carolina, was officially cancelled on April 2; the Attentive Energy lease, off the coast of Northern New Jersey, was canceled on April 13.
Kit Kennedy, the managing director for power, climate, and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me the inclusion of the Rio Grande project is “another way in which the agreement appears to be a sweetheart deal, or a collusive arrangement.”
Kennedy views the settlement as an attempt to justify compensating the company for not building offshore wind in the U.S. “The irony of handing a billion dollars to this developer at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their electricity bills and struggling to keep afloat,” she said. “To be clear, this billion dollars is coming from us taxpayers, and the net result of these agreements will be to increase electricity bills for Americans.”
Neither the Department of the Interior nor TotalEnergies responded to emailed questions about the settlement.
The opening section of the settlement tells a story about the circumstances that led to this unusual deal. The Department of Defense had “raised classified national security concerns” about the leases, it says, referring to the classified reports that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum cited when he halted five offshore wind projects last December. The Interior Department “would have” suspended TotalEnergies’ leases indefinitely, too, the settlement says, “similar to” that December suspension order on the five wind projects. Had the agency done that, however, Total “would have claimed breach of contract” and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The agency determined that canceling the lease, instead, was “in the public interest.”

The settlement does not mention who suggested the idea of canceling and refunding the lease or when. TotalEnergies’ CEO Patrick Pouyanné has repeatedly asserted that it was the company’s idea. “It came from us — we took the initiative,” Pouyanné told Axios this week.
This narrative seems to imply that the Interior Department warned Total that it was going to pause the company’s leases, or that the company otherwise found out, and Total responded by threatening to file a breach of contract claim.
The Interior Department paid Total with money from the Judgment Fund, a reserve overseen by the Department of Justice that agencies can draw from to pay off settlements arising from litigation or imminent litigation. To Kennedy, there’s still no evidence that the situation with Total qualifies on either ground. “This breach of contract litigation by TotalEnergies, that's totally speculative,” she said. “There's nothing imminent about it. I think those clauses are just an attempt to justify handing over a billion dollars of taxpayer funds in an unauthorized fashion.”
It’s also notable that the settlement references the five offshore wind projects that Trump did pause, considering how that turned out for the administration. Each of the five project developers challenged the stop work orders in court, and the federal judges in those cases rapidly overturned the orders, reasoning they did not find the government’s national security concerns convincing. (The specific concerns raised by that Department of Defense have not been disclosed publicly.)
“DOI is essentially admitting: we were going to break the law and lose in court, so how about we pay you a billion dollars instead,” Elizabeth Klein, the former director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, told me.
Jeff Thaler, an energy and environmental attorney at the firm Preti Flaherty, pointed out that the settlement agreement also seems to sidestep a key legal requirement. The U.S. statute governing Total’s offshore wind lease says cancellation of the lease can occur at any time, “if the Secretary determines, after a hearing,” that the project would cause harm to the environment or to national security. (Emphasis added.)
“There's been no hearing here, right?” Thaler told me. “One could argue, if there's litigation, that they haven't followed the process correctly.”
Secretary Burgum will be testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee on Monday morning, where Democratic lawmakers have said they will question him about the deal.
How China emerged the victor of the war with Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz appears to maybe be opening up eventually — and the price of oil is collapsing.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday morning that the waterway was “completely open,” shortly before President Trump declared on Truth Social that the strait was “COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE,” though the president also clarified that “THE NAVAL BLOCKADE WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAN.”
Eurasia Group analyst Greg Brew cautioned me that, as was the case when Trump announced a ceasefire last week, the actual status of the Strait of Hormuz has remained unchanged. Iran’s position is that traffic from non-hostile countries can go through the strait as long as ships coordinate with its government and follow a route that hugs its coastline; the U.S. has insisted for over a week that the strait is open, and has been blockading traffic from Iran.
That’s not to say today’s announcement was meaningless. “There has been movement from both the U.S. and Iran on the issues that matter — namely, Iran’s nuclear program,” Brew told me. Meanwhile, “there’s a lot of ambiguity, and there’s a lack of clarification on the status of the strait. The upshot of that is shippers don’t feel secure in using the strait.”
As for the mutual statements, Brew said they were a sign that “both sides have acknowledged a mutual interest in having the strait reopen.” The market, meanwhile “is responding to the positive vibes that the president and, to some extent, the Iranians are putting out regarding the status of Hormuz moving forward.” Oil prices fell substantially Friday, with the West Texas Intermediate benchmark price down 10.5% to around $85 per barrel.
While the final disposition of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran — and thus the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — remains unclear, the global energy system may be at the beginning of the end of the crisis that started at the end of February.
This doesn’t mean an immediate return to the status quo from the beginning of the year, however, which saw a glut of fossil fuels depressing global prices. Several hundred million barrels of oil that would otherwise have been pumped in the Persian Gulf remain in the ground after producers shut in production, temporarily suspending operations to protect their infrastructure and minimize their exposure to the conflict. This has created what Morgan Stanley oil analyst Martijn Rats called an “air pocket” in the market — and anyone who’s watched a hospital drama knows how dangerous an air pocket can be.
As happened with Russia’s war against Ukraine, the consequences of the Hormuz closure cannot simply be undone. That leaves countries — especially poorer countries dependent on fossil fuel imports — with a stark choice about how to fuel their future economic growth. The crisis may have tipped the balance towards renewable and storage technology from China over oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf, Russia, or the United States.
“There is a huge shift in total supply available in the fossil system,” Jeremy Wallace, a professor of China studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “I think the fossil system has been demonstrated to be vastly less reliable, riskier than it was seen to be in February.”
For gas specifically, recovering from Iranian attacks on Qatar could take years, not just the weeks and months necessary to clear the backlog in the Persian Gulf.
That will serve to reinforce China’s dominant position as a producer and exporter of solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles. “It’s hard for me to not see this as a huge win for Chinese firms that produce these products, upstream and downstream in those supply chains — as well, arguably, for the Chinese government itself,” Wallace said.
There’s already been some institutional movement away from fossil fuel investments and towards clean energy as well. A Vietnamese conglomerate, for instance, has proposed scrapping a planned liquified natural gas terminal for a solar and renewables project, while the county has also signed a deal with Russia to build the region’s first operational nuclear plant. And even as electric vehicle sales in China have slowed down, the share price of the battery giant CATL has surged since the war began despite rising costs of metals due to disruptions of chemicals necessary for refining from the closure of the strait.
Kyle Chan, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies Chinese technology and economic policy, summed up the situation by calling the energy shock of the war “the best marketing program you could possibly imagine for China’s clean tech sector.”
It’s not just China’s technology that is likely to be more attractive in light of this latest energy crisis, but also its energy model, which fuses energy security and decreasing dependence on imported fossil fuel (thanks, in part, to domestic coal supplies and hydropower) with a vast buildout of renewables and nuclear energy.
“The way that China has weathered the Iran war energy shock so far has really validated its strategy of investing heavily in alternative energy,” Chan said.
Going forward, Asian countries will have to decide on future investments in energy infrastructure, especially the extent they want to build out infrastructure for importing and processing oil and especially liquefied natural gas.
While the United States, especially under Trump, is more than happy to sell LNG to any taker, the fact that oil and LNG are global markets could make countries leery of depending on it at all if it’s risky to supply and price shocks, even if U.S. exports are dramatically less likely to get bottled up in the Gulf of Mexico.
“It seems like once in 100-year storms happen every year. Now it feels like that in the fossil energy system,” Wallace told me. “We’ve been talking about the crises of the 1970s for 50 years afterwards. We don’t need to be talking about those now.”
The 1970s saw major investments in non-oil energy generation, especially nuclear power, in Japan and France and large scale investments in energy efficiency. Today, Wallace said, “the alternatives are much more attractive.”
“In the months to come, I think we will see a lot of bottom up industrialists and probably wealthy consumers in Southeast Asia and South Asia who are going to vote for energy security of their own as best they can,” he told me, pointing to the mass adoption of solar in Pakistan since 2022.
But Asian countries embracing renewables and storage will not have entirely freed themselves from geopolitics. While batteries, solar panels, and electric vehicles do not require a flow of fuel from abroad the same way oil and gas infrastructure does, China has shown itself to be perfectly willing to use economic leverage to achieve political ends.
Relations between China and Japan, the second largest Asian economy and a close American ally, quickly devolved into crisis following the ascent of Sanae Takaichi to Prime Minister of Japan in October, after the new leader suggested that if China were to blockade Taiwan, it would constitute “an existential threat.” China responded with an array of economic punishments, including discouraging Chinese tourism in Japan and restricting shipments of rare earths elements and magnets.
China’s economic coercion, Chan told me, “reminds everyone that while you can buy all this really affordable, highly scaled-up clean energy equipment, China has been able to and has been willing to leverage that supply chain dominance in certain ways. There’s a degree of trust that you can’t really make up for.”
Countries embracing Chinese energy technology will “always have to have a Chinese-hedging discount in the back of their minds,” he said.
On Breakthrough Energy Ventures’ quantum computing investment, plus more of the week’s biggest money moves.
It’s been a busy week for funding, with several of the most high-profile deals featured in our daily AM newsletter, including Slate Auto’s $650 million fundraise for its stripped-down electric truck and Rivian’s partnership with Redwood Materials to repurpose the electric automaker’s battery packs for grid-scale storage.
These are clearly companies with direct decarbonization implications, but one of the week’s other biggest announcements raises the question: Is this really climate tech? That would be quantum computing startup Sygaldry, which recently nabbed $139 million in a round led by Breakthrough Energy Ventures to build quantum AI infrastructure. Huh.
Elsewhere in the ecosystem, the climate connection is a little more straightforward, with new funding for advanced surface materials designed to improve insulation and fire-protection, capital for microgrids that can integrate a diverse mix of generation and storage assets, and federal support for next-generation geothermal tech.
Quantum computing offers a futuristic paradigm for high-powered information processing and problem solving. By leveraging the principles of quantum mechanics, these systems operate in fundamentally different ways than even today’s most advanced supercomputers, encoding information not as ones and zeros, but as quantum units called “qubits.” Naturally, there is significant interest in applying this novel tech — which today remains error-prone and not ready for prime time — to artificial intelligence, with the aim of exponentially accelerating certain training and inference workloads.
Perhaps less intuitively, however, these next-generation computers are now viewed, at least by one prominent venture capital firm, as a key climate technology.
This week, quantum computing startup Sygaldry raised a $139 million Series A round led by Bill Gates’ climate tech VC firm Breakthrough Energy Ventures to build “quantum-acclerated AI servers” for data centers, which could reduce the cost and power required to train and operate large models. “The AI industry is advancing faster than ever and needs a breakthrough in performance per watt,” Carmichael Roberts, Breakthrough Energy Ventures’ chief investment officer said in the press release. “Sygaldry’s vision for bringing quantum directly to the AI data center has the potential to deliver exactly that, bending the cost and energy curve at the moment it matters most."
Certainly Sygaldry’s ultra-high-powered computers could help lower the energy intensity of AI workloads, but that is no guarantee that it will reduce AI and data center emissions overall. As was widely discussed when the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek released its cheaper, more energy-efficient model early last year, efficiency gains could reduce emissions in the sector at large, but they are perhaps just as likely — or some argue even more likely — to drive greater proliferation of AI across a wide array of industries. This unfettered growth could offset efficiency gains entirely, leading to a net increase in AI power demand.
Buildings account for nearly 37% of domestic energy consumption, with heating and cooling representing the largest share of that load. But while energy efficiency strategies typically focus on upgrading insulation or adjusting the thermostat, there’s another approach — essentially painting the roof with sunlight-reflecting material — that has the potential to reduce AC demand and thus cut a building’s cooling-related energy use by up to 50%.
Just such a “paint” is one of the unique ceramic coatings developed by NanoTech Materials, which this week raised a $29.4 million Series A to scale its infrastructure materials business. Beyond roofing, the company also offers a fire-protective coating for wooden infrastructure such as utility poles, fences, highway retaining walls, and other transportation assets, as well as an insulative coating for high-heat industrial equipment such as pipes and storage tanks designed to slow heat loss and prevent burn risk.
“Today’s built environment demands materials that don’t just meet code, but can also outperform the extreme conditions we’re now facing,” said D. Kent Lance, a partner at HPI Real Estate Services & Investments, which led the Series A. Nanotech Materials currently operates a manufacturing facility in Texas and plans to use this new capital to further expand its operations as it conducts market research for its various product lines.
Interconnection delays aren’t just a data center problem. Industrial developers working on everything from real estate and electric vehicle charging to manufacturing and aviation are also struggling to get timely and reliable access to power when building or expanding their operations. Enter Critical Loop. This modular microgrid company is building battery energy storage systems that can integrate batteries of varying sizes and specifications with a variety of power sources, including onsite solar, diesel generators, and grid power.
This week, the startup announced a $26 million Series A round, bringing total funding to $49 million across all equity and debt financing. Critical Loop’s approach combines a software platform with proprietary hardware — what it calls a “combiner” — which reduces the need for the many custom components typically required to connect a diverse mix of batteries and generation sources. “There’s a lot of power problems that are not getting solved because of limitations on an understanding of how to integrate different systems at a site,” Critical Loop’s CEO Balachandar Ramamurthy, told me last month.
The company’s initial product is a modular single-megawatt battery system that can be transported in shipping containers for rapid deployment in capacity-constrained locations. To date, Critical Loop has deployed about 50 megawatt-hours of microgrid assets, with plans to scale to over 100 megawatt-hours by year’s end.
It’s been another exciting week for one of the few bipartisan bright spots in clean energy — geothermal development. My colleague Alexander C. Kaufman reported in this morning’s AM newsletter that the AI-native geothermal company Zanskar secured $40 million through one of the first development capital facilities for early-stage geothermal development, and now the technology has secured fresh capital from the fickle U.S. Department of Energy. Today, the DOE announced a $14 million grant to support an enhanced geothermal demonstration project in Pennsylvania that will convert an old shale gas well into a geothermal pilot plant.
Conventional geothermal systems depend on a highly specific set of subsurface conditions to be commercially viable, which includes naturally occurring underground reservoirs where fluid flows among hot rocks. By contrast, developers of enhanced geothermal systems effectively engineer their own reservoirs, hydraulically fracturing rock formations and then circulating water through those man-made fractures to extract heat that’s then used to generate electricity. A number of well-funded startups are advancing this approach using drilling techniques adapted from the oil and gas industry, such as Fervo Energy — which has an agreement with Google to supply electricity for its data centers — and Sage Geosystems, which has a similar tie-up with Meta.
“As the first enhanced geothermal systems demonstration site located in the eastern United States, this project offers an important opportunity to assess the ability of such systems to deliver reliable, affordable geothermal electricity to Americans nationwide,” Kyle Haustveit, the Assistant Secretary of the Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office, said in the DOE release. If successful, the Energy Department says the project could provide a replicable model for scaling the deployment of enhanced geothermal systems across a broader range of geographies.
This week, the nonprofit XPRIZE organization announced that it’s partnering with Amazon to launch a new global competition focused on critical mineral circularity — redesigning how minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel are recovered, processed, and reused. Demand for these minerals is projected to quadruple by 2040, but their supply chains remain largely concentrated in China, especially across refining, processing, and battery manufacturing.
The competition aims to catalyze breakthroughs in mineral recovery and recycling, materials solutions, and lower-impact extraction methods. It’s not yet open to submissions as organizers are still seeking philanthropic and corporate funding before entrepreneurs, startups, and research teams can submit their ideas for consideration. XPRIZE has been running challenges for three decades now, with past competitions revolving around carbon removal, adult literacy, and lunar exploration.