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:
What happened when the brain behind Project 2025 took the stage at New York Climate Week.
New York Times readers were already aghast even before Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts — the man behind Project 2025 — took the stage at the outlet’s Climate Forward event, held during New York’s bustling Climate Week. Normally, this is when famous people including researcher Jane Goodall, Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus, and Rivian CEO R.J. Scaringe would discuss climate solutions before an audience of the thoughtful and well-heeled. Inviting Roberts violated that norm, which may have been the point — nothing draws eyeballs like outrage, and for the Times’ elite liberal readership, bringing Roberts to a climate discussion certainly counts as outrageous. But Roberts’ segment, in which he was interviewed by climate reporter David Gelles, was as revealing as anything the more friendly celebrities had to say.
Not because Gelles exposed Roberts for the climate denier he is, discrediting fossil fuel stooges once and for all. That’s what many hope for from this kind of encounter, but it almost never happens. Gelles did his best, but Roberts was more than up to the challenge of advocating the conservative approach to addressing the warming of the planet (or rather, not addressing it) to a hostile audience.
We’ve come a long way from the time when crude denialists like Senator Jim Inhofe were bringing snowballs to the Senate floor to show that global warming must be a hoax. Roberts said many things that were framed in ways seemingly designed to appeal to liberal principles — he defended scientific skepticism, and claimed that when Project 2025 proposes ending civil service protections for government employees so they can be replaced by political appointees, its intention is to depoliticize the government (“We don’t care whether they’re Democrats or Republicans; we actually want them to be objective”) — but he returned again and again to one conspiracy-tinged notion. Serious climate policy, he argued, is an attack not just by American elites, but rather by an entire global elite against ordinary people, whom they are immiserating with ill-considered ideas not based in science, or even in reality.
While it might seem ironic to hear the head of a think tank with a nine-figure annual budget that comes largely from corporate interests talking like a tribune of the common folk, that’s where Roberts began. He started with a punch in the nose, saying that while he was surprised to get the invitation from the Times, “I’ll go anywhere to talk about how the climate agenda is ending the American dream.” In response to the criticisms of Project 2025, he said, “Rather than take the well-funded agenda of elites in New York and Brussels and in the Chinese Communist Party, why don't we ask the American people?” And those struggling people, he insisted, are being harmed by the transition away from fossil fuels “far more than any of the harms that you would cite from so-called climate change.”
Does that mean he’s a climate denier? Heavens no. “That doesn’t mean that we’re rejecting that humans have an effect on climate; clearly they do,” he said. So climate change is real, but also maybe not; whatever perspective you like, you can decide Roberts agrees with you. He also claimed that according to Heritage’s irrefutable research, there’s just nothing we can do to stop that warming, which isn’t really a problem anyway. “Let’s just take all the ideas of everyone in this room and we implement them with a magic wand,” he said. “Our estimates show, what would the difference in temperature be? Zero point two three degrees Celsius. It's simply not going to make a difference.”
That kind of faux-precision is impossible to adjudicate in the moment, of course, which is why it can be so effective. This is another key theme for Roberts and others like him. “There is this thesis that if the United States leads on climate policy, the world will follow. That hasn't happened,” he said. “In fact, if we eliminate all emissions and pollution in the United States, it has an almost non-measurable impact on pollution and emissions worldwide.” That’s just false — the U.S. is still the second-largest carbon emitter in the world, after China — but if it were true, then why should we bother cutting our emissions, if doing so would have a “non-measurable impact”? There are no benefits, only costs.
The Biden administration, he said, “have made a grave mistake. They have taken the will of elites and they've imposed this on the American people.” And don’t think Roberts is an advocate for the corporate elites that pay his considerable salary; heck no, he’s just a humble reg’lar fella, thinking about the good honest folk who have no one to speak for them. “I see public policy through the lens of working-class people,” he insisted. “Our perspective at Heritage is on behalf of not just ordinary Americans but the global poor who are damaged by these policies.” The global poor.
What Roberts offers is climate denial without guilt. The details of increasing temperatures and their effects on people in the present and future are quickly minimized, then the focus shifts to imaginary harms to the vulnerable not from climate change but from climate action. Every emissions reduction proposal is dismissed as an indulgence of repugnant elitists, leaving only one moral alternative: to do nothing about climate change except burn more fossil fuels.
Presenting climate denial as an act of selflessness might seem appalling, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t attractive. If you want to hold to outright denialism, Roberts is with you. But if you admit that climate change is happening, he’s got you covered; what matters is that we shouldn’t do anything about it, because inaction is the real way to care for the vulnerable and fight back against the nefarious forces holding the world in their grip. The chutzpah is jaw-dropping, but it would be a mistake to think no one will find this argument attractive.
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 war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.