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:

There’s a decent chance that whoever the Republican Party nominates for president in 2024 will eventually win the White House.
That means they will have a huge sway over how — and whether — the United States pursues its energy and climate goals during this decisive decade for decarbonization. So while some — but not all — Republican officials reject the reality of climate change, key differences exist in the way each GOP presidential candidate talks about the issue.
Ahead of the first Republican primary debate, here is a guide to each of the major candidates and where they stand on climate change and energy questions. We plan on updating it through the campaign.
Get one climate story in your inbox every day:
Who is he? The 45th — and maybe the 47th — president of the United States. A four-time criminal defendant.
What he says about climate change: That it’s a “hoax,” “a total hoax,” “an expensive hoax,” and “a total, and very expensive, hoax.” Then in 2018 he told “Sixty Minutes” that “it’s not a hoax.” But recently he’s been saying it’s a hoax again.
What he did about climate change: Oh, what didn’t he try to do? He rolled back more than 100 climate or environmental regulations, pulled America out of the Paris Agreement, and expanded oil drilling in Alaska. He declined to regulate toxic particulate air pollution and tried to subsidize the coal industry. That said, his rollbacks were rarely as effective as he hoped because the court system often blocked them for lack of paperwork.
What he wants to do next: More of the same. He has promised to end any support for electric vehicles, pull America out of the Paris Agreement again, and build more oil refineries and gas pipelines. “Nobody has more liquid gold under their feet than the United States of America. And we will use it and profit by it and live with it,” he said.
Who is he? The 46th governor of Florida.
What’s his deal? DeSantis hates the effects of climate change, but doesn’t want to touch the causes.
What he says about climate change: DeSantis would prefer not to use that phrase — it’s too left-wing. “This idea of, quote, ‘climate change’ has become politicized. My environmental policy is just to try to do things that benefit Floridians,” he said in 2019. A year earlier, he offered: “I am not a global warming person. I don’t want that label on me.”
But he sometimes brags about his green record, even if he never says climate or carbon. “In Florida, we’ve seen emissions go down dramatically in the last 10 years,” he told Trey Gowdy, the Fox News host, this spring. “But that’s through market and innovation, that’s not through mandates.”
What he’s done about climate change: Despite his personal reticence to use the c-word, he lifted an alleged state-level ban on saying climate change, appointed Florida’s first state resilience officer, and has signed millions of dollars into law to fight flooding and sea-level rise. He also ordered the state environmental agency to base its decisions on the best-available science.
Yet lately he’s declined hundreds of millions in federal energy-efficiency funding and vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have saved Florida $277 million by replacing some state-owned cars with electric vehicles.
What he wants to do as president: DeSantis has promised to “reverse the federal government's attempt to force people to buy electric vehicles.” He has also pledged to “unleash our domestic energy sector” and “modernize and protect our grid,” although he hasn’t said how he would do either.
You probably didn’t know: DeSantis implemented a fracking ban soon after becoming governor, but hasn’t gotten the legislature to enact it.
Who is he? The 48th vice president of the United States and a likely star witness at one of Donald Trump’s criminal trials.
What he says about climate change: Back when he was running for the House in 2000, he said climate change was “a myth.” More recently, he’s recognized that human activities have “some” impact on the climate, but rejected the idea that climate change is a threat to national security.
What he’s done about climate change: As vice president, he helped Trump repeal dozens of climate protections. He praised the president’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement, saying it was “so refreshing to have a presidents who stands without apology ... for America first.”
What he wants to do: Pence has proposed perhaps the most detailed energy policy of any GOP candidate. Although he has promised increasing production of “all forms of U.S. energy,” much of his policy would boost fossil fuels: He wants to open up oil-and-gas drilling on federal land, loosen permitting rules to speed pipeline construction, increase oil refining capacity, and repeal much of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Who is she? The former governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley was President Donald Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations from 2017 to 2018.
What she says about climate change: That it’s real, man-made, and that it could present threats to the United States.
What she’s done about climate change: As Trump’s UN ambassador, she helped orchestrate America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the nonbinding global climate treaty. Back when she was South Carolina’s governor, she allegedly suppressed a state-level climate report.
What she wants to do as president: Haley has been vague, although she has said most liberal climate policies would “cost trillions and destroy our economy.” She’s backed efforts to capture carbon dioxide from industrial facilities. She also wants to plant more trees.
Who is he? A former insurance salesman, Tim Scott has served as a senator from South Carolina since 2013. He is the first African-American senator to be elected from the South since Reconstruction.
What he says about climate change: He has recognized that human activities are having some influence on the climate. “I am not living under a rock,” he said.
What he’s done about climate change: Scott’s decade-long Senate record is notably unfriendly to the climate. He voted against the Kigali Amendment, a global climate treaty that phased out the use of hydrofluorocarbon pollutants, even though 19 of his GOP colleagues supported it. He also opposed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which funded EV chargers, public transit, and carbon removal experiments. And he has opposed messaging bills that recognized that human activity is driving climate change, even when his colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham, supported them.
What he wants to do about climate change: He’s been vague. A prominent Republican donor told Axios that he supports building out the next-generation nuclear-power industry. Scott has said it’s “ridiculous to talk about a climate emergency when we have a border emergency that is an existential threat right now.”
Who is he? Christie was the governor of New Jersey from 2010 to 2018.
What he says about climate change: That it’s real. “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing … When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts,” he said more than a decade ago.
What he’s done about climate change: As governor, he pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade market for carbon emissions from the power sector. But he also fought to cut emissions from a Pennsylvania coal plant.
What he wants to do about climate change: Like many candidates, he supports an “all-of-the-above” energy plan, although he has been kinder to climate goals than other Republicans and shown a particular interest in nuclear power. “We can’t disarm ourselves economically while we convert to cleaner energy,” he told a New Hampshire crowd in August. He supports increasing domestic oil production to help Ukraine.
Who is he? The son of Indian immigrants, Ramaswamy is the former chief executive of Roivant Sciences, a biotech company. The 38-year-old billionaire rose to prominence in conservative circles by opposing ESG investing — that is, environment, sustainability, and governance.
What he says about climate change: A lot. He told The Washington Post that he is “not a climate denier” but that global warming will not be “entirely bad.” He has also claimed that fossil fuels are “essential to human flourishing,” seeming to reject the modern scientific consensus that carbon pollution is causing climate change.
What he’s done about climate change: Ramaswamy has never held elective office. But as an anti-ESG activist, he wrote letters to Chevron telling it to stop supporting a carbon tax or monitoring some of its emissions.
What he wants to do about climate change: He appears to support almost no restrictions on carbon pollution. He wants to “drill, frack, and burn coal.” He also wants to “abandon the climate cult and unshackle nuclear energy,” even though it generates zero-carbon electricity.
Who is he? Hutchinson, a lawyer, was the governor of Arkansas from 2015 to 2023.
What he says about climate change: He told The New York Times that climate change is real and that human activities are “a contributing factor” to it. He doesn’t see it as an existential threat to the United States.
What he’s done about climate change: When campaigning for governor, Hutchinson promised to fight President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which would have cut carbon pollution from power plants. He praised some of President Trump’s environmental rollbacks.
What he wants to do about climate change: Hutchinson supports “energy independence” and opposes any effort to restrict carbon emissions. He told the Times that he would pull America out of the Paris Agreement and loosen rules on pipelines and drilling.
Who is he? Burgum is a former software executive and the 33rd governor of North Dakota.
What he says about climate change: Burgum told the Sioux City Journal that climate change is real, but that he doesn’t want to talk about the role that humans are playing in causing it. “The debate we're having between the different edges is one where cancel culture is alive and well because if anybody questions any aspect of this, they're immediately ostracized,” he said.
What he’s done about climate change: North Dakota is one of the country’s leading fossil-fuel producers, but Burgum has pledged to achieve “carbon neutrality” by 2030 without losing that commanding position. He wants to use carbon-capture technology, which his government has helped subsidize, to meet that goal within the state.
He also created North Dakota’s first Department of Environmental Quality.
What he wants to do about climate change: He’s been vague. “Anyone who cares about the climate should want as much energy produced in America as possible and sold around the globe,” his spokesman told The Washington Post.
Read more about the politics of climate change:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Just as Americans have started to revolt against expensive cars.
The car bubble couldn’t last forever. For years now, the steadily rising cost of new vehicles has led American drivers to take on longer and longer car loans — six, seven, even eight years, as opposed to the four or five that used to be typical. The average new car sale in America crept up to nearly $50,000 in November, a seemingly unsustainable number for a country drowning in debt.
But as 2025 draws to a close, we’re seeing more signs that Americans are starting to change their behavior, according to the Wall Street Journal. With people keeping their old cars even longer and more shopping used, new car sales saw very little growth this year, and are projected to look flat again in 2026. Even the seemingly bulletproof full-size trucks that make up the backbone of the U.S. auto industry aren’t immune. Kelley Blue Book says the Ram 1500, which has had a lock on the number three spot in all U.S. auto sales behind the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado, is slated to drop out of the top three this year.
A bear market sounds especially bleak for electric vehicles. EVs, after all, have long suffered an affordability problem, and the Trump administration this fall killed off the federal tax break meant to make them more cost-competitive with fossil fuel vehicles. A country of cost-conscious drivers is even less likely to pay a premium for battery power.
Yet as a new year dawns, EVs in America might be better positioned than you think.
For one thing, this isn’t the EV market of a couple years ago. That reckoning for too-expensive pickup trucks? Electrics already went through it. Consider the Ford F-150 Lightning, which was quietly discontinued this month. The fully electric version of America’s best-selling vehicle was an amazing piece of technology, with breakthrough features like the ability to back up a home’s power supply with the truck battery. But the pickup cost a fortune because of how much battery it takes to make an EV truck do the kinds of things a gas-powered F-150 can do. The inflated price, along with many truck buyers’ reluctance to go EV for political and cultural reasons, led to disappointing sales and shattered any dreams of an easy electrification of America’s massive pickup truck market.
As a result, electric pickup trucks were already moving toward the smaller, more affordable end of the market even before the F-150 Lightning died. Ford’s maintains that its mission to fix its flailing EV division will start with a far more affordable $30,000 midsize pickup. One of the most anticipated electric models is the bare-bones Slate truck, which is slated (pun intended) to start in the mid $20,000s.
We’re also on the cusp of seeing more new EVs that are cost-competitive with gas-burners even without the big tax credits. I’ve repeatedly lauded Chevy for delivering a version of the Equinox EV at $35,000, which helped the vehicle become the third-best-selling electric in America (and top seller that’s not a Tesla). A variety of electric cars arriving in 2026 will come in close to the $30,000 mark or below, a group that includes Toyota’s battery-powered version of its C-HR small crossover and the promising revivals of both the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Bolt.
No, we still don’t have the $25,000 EV that would compete directly with a Toyota Corolla. But there’s ample opportunity for electrics to compete at the budget end of the car market, with no economy car segment left to speak of. KBB notes that the car industry this year offered just five models that truly cost less than $25,000, all things considered, down from 36 such vehicles in 2017. The car companies went all-in on more expensive — and more lucrative — trucks and SUVs as Americans displayed a limitless hunger for them. Now that buyers are finally curbing that appetite, there is a window of opportunity for the new wave of economy-focused EVs.
That’s not to say the EV market is headed for smooth sailing. As Mack Hogan at InsideEVs has written, battery-powered cars still have a major problem with “uncompetitive” models. Beyond the familiar success stories — Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y, the Ford Mustang Mach-E, Hyundai’s Ioniq 5, and a few others — the car market is littered with EVs that sell just a few hundred or thousand models per year, often because they simply don't measure up to their gas rivals on cost or performance. It’s hard to see how those vehicles find their place, especially when some of them still suffer from disappointing battery ranges and driving comfort that doesn’t measure up to their more polished petroleum-powered cousins.
Still, there’s reason for hope that some of the affordable electrics will find their footing among penny-counting drivers, especially as more of them are enticed by the potential of saying goodbye to pumping gas and paying for oil changes. Because they started out expensive, EVs have yet to be seen as economy cars — in the United States, at least. But with more affordable models arriving just as the car market starts to creak, that could soon change.
On permitting reform passing, Oklo’s Swedish bet, and GM’s heir apparent
Current conditions: New Orleans is expecting light rain with temperatures climbing near 90 degrees Fahrenheit as the city marks the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina • Torrential rains could dump anywhere from 8 to 12 inches on the Mississippi Valley and the Ozarks • Japan is sweltering in temperatures as high as 104 degrees.
In a Mad Libs of a merger story, President Donald Trump’s social media company inked a $6 billion deal Thursday to combine with fusion energy company TAE Technologies in a bid to start construction on “the world’s first utility-scale fusion power plant” next year. It’s a lofty claim, to put it minimally. Once the darling of private fusion investors, TAE has since fallen behind rivals pursuing technological approaches that are considered easier and better studied, such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems. A key difference between the two technologies is the fuel. While TAE's deuterium-fueled reactor has to get as hot as 1 billion degrees Celsius, Commonwealth Fusion’s tritium-deuterium fuel needs to reach only — I almost want to put “only” in quotes since we’re talking about a temperature nearly seven times hotter than the center of the sun — 100 million degrees. The more than two dozen private fusion companies racing to build the first power plant aren’t just competing against each other. China, as I have written in this newsletter recently, is outspending the rest of the world combined on fusion investments.
But the all-stock deal between TAE and Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, could capture more money from retail investors eager to get in on the fusion game. After all, the next-generation nuclear fission industry has a growing stable of startups whose stocks generate billions of dollars but whose businesses have no revenue. The merger shows “both the Trump administration’s commitment and investor appetite for clean, scalable fusion energy,” Greg Piefer, the chief executive of the rival fusion company SHINE Technologies, wrote in a LinkedIn post. Still, he said his startup, which Heatmap’s Katie Brigham wrote recently is already generating revenue selling medical isotopes, will be able “to scale faster than any other fusion company.” That’s a diplomatic way of analyzing a deal involving the president. When I called up Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at the consultancy BloombergNEF yesterday morning, he told me, “I’m just flabbergasted.”
The House voted 221-196 Thursday to pass the SPEED Act, a bipartisan permitting reform bill to overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act. Eleven Democrats supported the bill, and just one Republican voted no. But GOP lawmakers made last-minute changes to appease right-wing critics of offshore wind, causing some Democrats who planned to vote yes to defect, Politico reported. That provision will almost certainly make passage in the Senate a challenge. As Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported last week, top Senate Democrats vowed to oppose the legislation unless the bill barred executive branch agencies from yanking already-granted permits, a move designed to halt the Trump administration’s assault on offshore wind. As our colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote yesterday, passing the House was one thing, “but now comes the hard part.”
Easing federal environmental assessments isn’t the only approach to speeding up energy deployment. As our other colleague Matthew Zeitlin explained yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pushing to make it easier to plug data centers directly into power plants.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy’s independent watchdog is opening an investigation into the agency’s decision to cancel $8 billion in funding for clean energy projects in California and other Democratic-leaning states. The bulk of the projects, including a $1.2 billion regional hydrogen hub, were located in California, the Los Angeles Times noted. The audit by the Energy Department’s Office of the Inspector General came in response to a plea from nearly 30 California lawmakers raising concern that the states were illegally targeted “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.”
At the same time, a coalition of cities, consumer advocates, and green groups sued the Internal Revenue Service on Thursday over new Treasury Department rules “that unfairly and illegally discriminate against wind and solar projects.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

The Swedish nuclear startup Blykalla raised $50 million in a fresh round of funding to hasten its work on building small modular reactors. The most interesting name among the investors? The American nuclear startup Oklo. In a statement to NucNet, the companies said that by aligning two of the fastest-moving reactor developers in the world, the companies could shorten “critical paths to development, reducing schedule risks and unlocking supply chain efficiencies.” While Oklo’s as-yet-unbuilt microreactors would use liquid metal as a coolant, Blykalla’s design uses lead. But both models qualify as fourth-generation reactors.
General Motors CEO Mary Barra may have identified her heir apparent, but first she plans to put him through a “tough test” in his new role as chief product officer. Sterling Anderson, the former head of Tesla’s self-driving Autopilot division, first joined the Detroit giant in May, in what the electric vehicle site Electrek called “a surprising move that put a tech executive in charge of the legacy automaker’s entire vehicle development program.” Now a new report from Bloomberg stated that Barra sees Anderson as a frontrunner to replace her when she eventually steps down.
Flying drones over whales to collect samples of exhaled breath from blowholes is considered a breakthrough in non-invasive health monitoring for marine giants in Arctic regions. Now, however, a study of wild humpback, sperm and fin whales in northern Norway has revealed for the first time a potentially deadly virus known as cetacean morbillivirus circulating above the Arctic Circle. The upside is that the new use of drones could support conservation by detecting the virus, which is connected to mass strandings, early before major death events. “Drone blow sampling is a game-changer,” Terry Dawson, a co-author of the study and a professor at King’s College London, said in a statement. “It allows us to monitor pathogens in live whales without stress or harm, providing critical insights into diseases in rapidly changing Arctic ecosystems.”
The SPEED Act faces near-certain opposition in the Senate.
The House of Representatives has approved the SPEED Act, a bill that would bring sweeping changes to the nation’s environmental review process. It passed Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan vote of 221 to 196, with 11 Democrats in favor and just one Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, against.
Thursday’s vote followed a late change to the bill on Wednesday that would safeguard the Trump administration’s recent actions to pull already-approved permits from offshore wind farms and other renewable energy projects.
Prior to that tweak, the bill would have limited the Trump administration’s ability to alter or revoke a federal permitting decision after the fact. The new version, adopted to secure votes from Republican representatives in Maryland and New Jersey, carves out an exception for agency actions taken between January 20 and the day the law takes effect.
"Last-minute changes to the SPEED Act undercut the bill’s intent to provide certainty to American business,” Rich Powell, the CEO of the Clean Energy Buyers Association said in a press release after the bill passed. “We hope the Senate will now take this language and strengthen those protections for existing and new projects needed to maintain grid reliability and meet growing electricity demand.”
At a high level, the SPEED Act would hasten federal permitting by restricting the evidence that federal agencies consider during the environmental review process and limiting the amount of time a court can deliberate over challenges to federal decisions. It would also disallow courts from vacating permits or issuing injunctions against projects if it finds that a federal agency violated NEPA. The changes would apply to permits of all kinds, including for oil and gas drilling, solar and wind farms, power lines, and data centers.
Environmental groups were generally against the bill. “Far from helping build the clean energy projects of the future, the SPEED Act will only result in an abundance of contaminated air and water, dirty projects, and chronic illnesses with fewer opportunities to hold polluters accountable in court,” Stephen Sciama, senior legislative council for Earthjustice Action, said in a press release on Thursday.
But proponents, such as the conservative energy group Clearpath Action, argue the bill will enable American industry to “invest and build with confidence” by cutting unnecessary red tape, improving coordination across agencies, and setting clearer rules and timelines for judicial review.
In House floor testimony on Thursday morning, Republican Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the SPEED Act’s lead sponsor, said the bill had the backing of more than 375 industry groups and businesses, and bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. “The SPEED act will deliver the energy and infrastructure Americans need,” he said.
The bill lost at least one significant industry supporter after Wednesday’s changes, however. The American Clean Power Association, which had previously joined the American Petroleum Institute and others in a letter urging the House to pass the bill, withdrew its support, calling the new language a “poison pill” that “injects permit uncertainty, and creates a pathway for fully permitted projects to be canceled even after the Act’s passage.”
The Solar Energy Industries Association also denounced the bill’s passage.
Contrary to Westerman’s assertion, the bill’s fate in the Senate is far from certain. “Even if the House passes this bill today, it is going nowhere in the Senate,” Democratic Representative Jared Huffman of California asserted on the floor on Thursday. “What a missed opportunity to tackle a serious issue that Democrats were very interested in working on in good faith.”
Some Senate Democrats came out in opposition of the bill even before the late-breaking amendments. Senators Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told my colleague Jael Holzman that the bill did not do enough to ensure the buildout of transmission and affordable clean energy, but that they “will continue working to pass comprehensive permitting reform that takes real steps to bring down electricity costs.”
Some see getting the SPEED Act through the House as merely a starting point for a more comprehensive and fair permitting deal. Democratic Representative Adam Gray of California told Politico’s Joshua Siegel Thursday that he was voting in favor of the bill despite the last minute changes due to his faith that the Senate will hammer out a version that provides developers of all energy stripes the certainty they need.
His Californian colleague Representative Scott Peters, on the other hand, voted against the bill, but committed to getting a deal done with the Senate. “We need to get permitting reform done in this Congress,” he said on the House floor Thursday.