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 Environmental Protection Agency last week released new emissions standards that would likely require two-thirds of new cars sold in the U.S. to be all-electric by 2032. The ambitious plan is likely to touch off a legal skirmish, but no matter what the courts say, the political battle is already over. The opposition to electric vehicles is old, soft, and in the process of being savvily bought off. Worries about a backlash are wildly overblown.
Not everyone sees it that way. Axios’ Josh Kraushaar encapsulated the conventional wisdom when he wrote that “Spending political capital on a climate change initiative geared largely toward the affluent part of the electorate — not the Americans struggling to pay for a new car — threatens to exacerbate Biden's economic challenges.” For Kraushaar, it is indicative of Democrats being “stuck in a bubble of the progressive base.” He warns that Biden’s climate policies could “be reversed” should he lose office.
But the transition to EVs is happening faster than Kraushaar thinks, and is much less vulnerable to political shifts than it was even two years ago, thanks to investments included in the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as an overall shift in industrial policy meant to cut China out of critical U.S. supply chains. And while automakers might chafe at the timeline, the new regulations will only spur more capital investment and technological innovation.
It’s true that some Fox News pundits and Republican officials have made no secret of their hostility to electric vehicles. State lawmakers in Wyoming, for example, introduced a bill calling for a phase-out of EV sales in the state by 2035. A North Carolina Republican proposed an absurd bill requiring that free diesel and gasoline be offered anywhere there is a free electric charging station. And there’s no question that battles loom over who will profit from car-charging and how we will manage the twilight of the gas-powered engine era.
So far, though, these kinds of bills and initiatives don’t appear to have legs even in red states despite the media attention they invite, in part because automakers are locating many of their battery factories in the heavily GOP Deep South and Sun Belt. Leaders in states like Georgia and North Carolina — critical to Republican national fortunes – have gone out of their way to attract battery manufacturers and aren’t likely to go to war with a major new industry. You can ask Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis how his battle with Disney is going to get a sense of how picking pointless fights with large employers is likely to turn out.
Another sign that the war over EVs will be brief and one-sided is that leading national Republicans, including potential 2024 presidential contenders like DeSantis, as well as other GOP governors, seem to support the EV revolution. That leaves former President Trump and his aging army of MAGA misinformation artists making absurd claims like, “The cars go for like two hours.” That’s the kind of nonsense that might thrill the crowd at a Trump rally but no longer sounds credible to most people.
Now, Trump isn’t the only Republican boomer skeptical of EVs. As with so many public policy issues, there is significant age and partisan polarization around all-electric cars. A recent AP-NORC/EPIC poll found younger respondents and Democrats much more likely to be seriously considering an EV for their next vehicle than elderly and Republican buyers. A quarter of 18-29 year-olds were “extremely or very likely” to choose an EV as their next car purchase, with another 31% saying they are “somewhat likely” to do so. Among Americans 60 and over, 57% say they are “not too likely” or “not at all likely” to buy an EV. 63% of Republicans say they are unlikely to buy an EV, against 31% of Democrats.
Why are older, more conservative Americans wedded to gas-powered cars? Maybe they like the smell of petrol because it reminds them of a time when driving cars with the gas mileage of a main battle tank was uncontroversial. Or maybe they’ll miss the distinctive rumble of an internal combustion engine roaring to life. Or maybe they’re just nervous about trying a new technology and will have to be coaxed into an EV.
Either way, generational churn is a fact of life. And majorities of Millennials and Zoomers support phasing out gas-powered vehicles altogether. By 2032, many of those young people will be approaching middle age, and millions of Boomers will be gone. Fossil fuel dead-enders hoping that the next generation will be more right-leaning than Gen Z should check out this 2022 poll of 13-19 year-olds, which found 84% agreeing with the idea that “if we don't address climate change today, it will be too late for future generations, making some parts of the planet unlivable.”
Perhaps just as importantly, many of the lingering concerns people have about EVs will diminish with rapid advances in technology. Next generation batteries will have longer ranges, fewer bugs, and shorter charging times. Worries that EVs are far more expensive than gas powered cars are quickly becoming obsolete. Chevy now has two EVs that retail for under $30,000, including the well-reviewed SUV version of the Volt. The Bolt EUV starts at just over $27,000 — and it is eligible for $7,500 in tax credits. Good luck finding a gas-powered SUV in that range.
The shift to EV production and supply chains is industry-wide and will be extremely difficult to reverse even if a Republican is elected president in 2024. Large manufacturers like Ford and Honda continue to make enormous global investments in EV production that will continue bringing prices down through competition while boosting driving ranges. As governments in overseas markets implement stricter emissions standards, automakers will have even less incentive to cater to the minority of people in a single, albeit very large, market who remain committed to gas powered cars.
It might be hard to imagine EVs as the vast majority of cars sold in the U.S. by 2032, when they were just 5.7% of all sales last year. But all-electric sales have already tripled since 2019. In a few years, as the expansion of charging stations and domestic battery production propelled by the Inflation Reduction Act makes owning an EV less unusual and more practical even for people outside of cities, all that will be left is the far right’s bizarre culture war fixation on fossil fuels, boosted by social media-fueled disinformation shared by meme and email about how EVs are worse for the environment or less safe to drive.
That’s not to say Republican defenders of the status quo will go down without a fight. And if Trump manages to get elected, he could seriously complicate the picture. But by the time he would take office in 2025, there will be millions more perfectly happy EV owners who won’t take kindly to efforts to turn back the clock.
Sign up for our newsletter to receive the best of Heatmap directly in your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.