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:
Twenty-six House Republicans may have just put big green targets on their own backs.
Last month, the House passed a bill that would have raised the debt ceiling while also repealing most of the tax credits for clean energy projects enacted in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. That provision was a poison pill for President Biden and congressional Democrats, and was jettisoned in the final deal between the White House and Congress to lift the debt limit.
But it also opened up a number of Republicans to political attacks for voting to jeopardize green jobs in their own districts. It’s a sign of just how far climate politics have shifted, in part due to the political strategy underlying Green Bidenomics.
This is a new dynamic. Back in 2009, House Democrats spent months laboring over major climate legislation. They ultimately narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as “Waxman-Markey”), a cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But despite a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, the bill was dead-on-arrival in the upper chamber, which never even took it up for a vote.
The House vote became a massive political albatross for Democrats in the 2010 midterm election — vulnerable members had “walk[ed] the plank,” as former Rep. Tom Periello put it. Republicans wielded Waxman-Markey as a cudgel, branding the shelved climate plan a “cap-and-tax” job killer — a lethal hit in an extremely weak post-Great Recession economy. Ultimately, more than two dozen Democrats who voted in favor of the cap-and-trade bill were wiped out that November as Republicans took back the House.
Badly burned, Democrats shifted course when they next had the opportunity to craft climate legislation. Where Waxman-Markey aimed to fight climate change by penalizing emissions, Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act does so by subsidizing renewables. It largely steered clear of carbon taxes, instead centering gigantic subsidy carrots that “crowd in” private sector investment for clean energy development.
The IRA also embraced green industrial strategy, ensuring that as much of the clean energy supply chain as possible is produced at home — battery manufacturers, EV plants, and the like. That has drastically shifted the politics: while traditional cap-and-trade emissions reductions plans were tarred as job killers, green Bidenomics is a clear job creator. Since the IRA was enacted, clean energy companies have already added 100,000 new jobs. Another 46 new clean energy manufacturing facilities have been announced, creating upwards of 18,000 anticipated jobs. Those numbers will only grow over the coming years.
Aligning that kind of economic muscle with the climate change fight has made the IRA politically resilient. It has left even right-wing agitators like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene – in whose district the solar company QCells is investing $2.5 billion to create 2,500 jobs – tying themselves in knots to simultaneously cheer new in-district investment while voicing opposition to the federal incentives behind it.
It’s also why Republicans backed down during debt ceiling negotiations and let the clean energy tax credits survive. But not before the far-right House Freedom Caucus forced all of them to take a toxic vote against green jobs. As CNN reported, “More than two dozen House Republicans who recently welcomed multi-million-dollar clean energy manufacturing investments in their districts voted … to repeal the tax incentives that stimulated those very same projects.”
That could come back to haunt some of those Republicans, especially the frontline “majority makers” who won seats in districts that Biden carried. For instance, freshman Representative Marc Molinaro in New York’s 19th congressional district eked out a 2-point win in a district that Biden carried by nearly 5 points. Molinaro voted for the repeal bill even though the IRA is bringing a new long-duration battery plant from Zinc8 Energy Solutions — and 500 jobs for his constituents — to his district.
Molinaro is already feeling the heat from that vote. He’s facing a potential rematch against his 2022 opponent, Democrat Josh Riley. And in an op-ed, Riley called Molinaro’s vote a “gut punch to folks who have experienced the ups-and-downs in our local economy.” Under the IRA, Riley said, upstate New York could grow into a “Valley of Opportunity where folks can earn a place in the Middle Class manufacturing the things we need to save the planet.” Yet their own member of Congress cast a vote to quash that growth: “[I]nstead of supporting those investments,” Riley wrote, “Molinaro called them a ‘bad idea,’ and he derided them as ‘reckless spending.’”
More Republicans could find themselves on the hot seat. Others who won close races or represent Biden-voting districts — like Lauren Boebert of Colorado (whose district will be home to “the world’s largest manufacturing plant for wind turbine towers”) and Juan Ciscomani of Arizona — could soon hear from opponents and voters about why they tried to undermine investments in their communities.
It’s never good politics to cast a vote that might take jobs away from your constituents. Fairly or not, that was the hit on Democrats who tried to take climate action in 2009. But the shoe is on the other foot now, and the political albatross is around those who flirted with undoing the biggest climate law the United States has ever passed. Green Bidenomics is good political economy, and it’s rapidly shifting the terms of debate in America.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
For those keeping score, that’s three more than wanted to preserve them last year.
Those who drew hope from the letter 18 House Republicans sent to Speaker Mike Johnson last August calling for the preservation of energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act must be jubilant this morning. On Sunday, 21 House Republicans sent a similar letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith. Those with sharp eyes will have noticed: That’s three more people than signed the letter last time, indicating that this is a coalition with teeth.
As Heatmap reported in the aftermath of November’s election, four of the original signatories were out of a job as of January, meaning that the new letter features a total of seven new recruits. So who are they?
The new letter is different from the old one in a few key ways. First, it mentions neither the Inflation Reduction Act nor its slightly older cousin, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, by name. Instead, it emphasizes “the importance of prioritizing energy affordability for American families and keeping on our current path to energy dominance amid efforts to repeal or reform current energy tax credits.” The letter also advocates for an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy development that has long been popular among conservatives but has seemed to fall out of vogue under Trump 2.0.
Lastly, while the new letter repeats the previous version’s emphasis on policy stability for businesses, it adds a new plea on behalf of ratepayers. “As our conference works to make energy prices more affordable, tax reforms that would raise energy costs for hard working Americans would be contrary to this goal,” it reads. “Further, affordable and abundant energy will be critical as the President works to onshore domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and good paying jobs, particularly in Republican run states due to their business-friendly environments. Pro-energy growth policies will directly support these objectives.”
As my colleagues Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo have written, tariffs on Canadian fuel would raise energy prices in markets across the U.S. That includes some particularly swingy states, e.g. Michigan, which perhaps explains Rep. James’ seeming about-face.
Republicans’ House majority currently stands at all of four votes, so although 21 members might not be huge on the scale of the full House, they still represent a significant problem for Speaker Johnson.
On the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Canada’s new prime minister, and CERAWeek
Current conditions: Firefighters successfully controlled brush fires in Long Island that prompted New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to declare a state of emergency • Brisbane, Australia, recorded its wettest day in more than 50 years • Forecasters are keeping an eye on a storm system developing across the central U.S. that could pack a serious punch this week.
The nonprofit Climate United filed a lawsuit over the weekend against the Environmental Protection Agency and Citibank for withholding $7 billion in climate funds awarded as part of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. The move escalates a dispute over some $20 billion in grants from the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was designed to help mobilize private capital toward clean energy and climate solutions. President Trump’s EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been on a mission to claw back the funds, claiming their distribution was rushed and mismanaged. In its lawsuit, Climate United says it has been unable to access the $7 billion it was awarded, and that the EPA and Citibank have given no explanation for this. It wants a judge to order that the money be released. “We’re not trying to make a political statement here,” Beth Bafford, chief executive of Climate United, toldThe New York Times. “This is about math for homeowners, for truck drivers, for public schools — we know that accessing clean energy saves them money that they can use on far more important things.” The Trump administration has reportedly demanded that the eight organizations tapped to receive the money turn over records to the FBI and appear in federal court later this month.
Canada’s Liberal Party has elected Mark Carney, a net-zero finance advocate, to succeed Justin Trudeau as prime minister. Carney is not a career politician. Instead, he comes from the financial world, having overseen both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, and is an evangelist for green investment and a net-zero financial sector. He was the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance in 2019, and “has made clean energy, climate policies and economic prosperity for Canada some of the central facets of his campaign,” CNN reported. If he wins the upcoming general election, Carney will be tasked with navigating President Trump’s tariffs and making key decisions about the future of Canada’s vast natural resources, including fossil fuels and rare minerals.
The U.S. has withdrawn from yet another global climate initiative, this one aimed at helping developing nations recover from natural disasters. The United Nations loss and damage fund was one of the biggest wins to come out of COP28 in 2023, with nearly 200 countries signing on in support. It’s expected to start funding projects this year. About $740 million has been pledged so far, and the U.S. has said it will give about $17.5 million, though it’s unclear if that money will actually be handed over now. “This decision, made by the nation with the largest historical responsibility for climate change, jeopardises vital support for vulnerable countries facing irreversible climate impacts,” said Ali Mohamed, the chair of the African Group of Negotiators.
The energy industry descends on Houston, Texas, this week, for the annual CERAWeek conference. This year’s event, titled “Moving Ahead: Energy Strategies for a Complex World,” will focus on the changing global energy landscape. Key themes include shifting regulations, the turbulent oil and gas market, electrification and power demand, the rise of AI, managing emissions, and the policy outlook for renewables. According toReuters energy columnist Ron Bousso, fossil fuel executives are going into the conference with a case of “Trump buyer’s remorse” as new tariffs and geopolitical policies from the Trump administration have “created turmoil in financial markets and clouded the outlook for the global economy and energy prices.”
Argentina will observe three days of national mourning after 16 people were killed in flash flooding over the weekend triggered by unprecedented rainfall. Nearly a year’s worth of rain – about 16 inches – fell in just eight hours in the port city of Bahia Blanca in the Buenos Aires province. Many people are still missing. Environment official Andrea Dufourg said the event was a clear example of climate change. “Unfortunately this will continue to take place,” Dufourg said. “We have no other option than to prepare cities, educate citizens, and establish effective early warning systems.”
Twenty-one House Republicans have signed a letter urging the GOP to uphold the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits in their budget bill, warning that gutting the credits would “risk sparking an energy crisis in our country, resulting in drastically higher power bills for American families.” That’s three more than signed a similar letter during the last Congress.
While they’re getting more accurate all the time, they still rely on data from traditional models — and possibly always will.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has had a bruising few weeks. Deep staffing cuts at the hands of Elon Musk’s efficiency crusaders have led to concerns regarding the potential closure of facilities critical to data-gathering and weather-forecasting operations. Meteorologists have warned that this could put lives at risk, while industries that rely on trustworthy, publicly available weather data — from insurance to fishing, shipping, and agriculture — are bracing for impact. While reliable numbers are difficult to come by, the agency appears to have lost on the order of 7% to 10% of its workforce, or more than 1,000 employees. NOAA’s former deputy director, Andrew Rosenberg, wrote that Musk plans to lay off 50% of the agency, while slashing its budget by 30%.
Will that actually happen? Who the heck knows. But what we can look at are the small cracks that are already emerging, and who could step in to fill that void.
One thing that’s certain is that the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA, announced last week that it is suspending operations at a weather balloon launch site in Alaska, due to staffing shortages. The data gathered at this remote outpost helped inform the agency’s weather forecasts, which are relied upon by hundreds of millions of people, as well as many of the world’s largest companies and public agencies.
Perhaps to Musk’s department, this looks like a prime opportunity for the private sector to step up and demonstrate some nimble data gathering prowess — and indeed a startup that I’ve covered before, WindBorne, has already offered its services. The company, which makes advanced weather balloons, has offered to provide NOAA with data from its own Alaska launches for six months, at no cost. WindBorne is also one of a number of private companies creating AI-based weather models that have outperformed NOAA’s traditional, physics-based models on key metrics such as temperature, wind speed and direction, precipitation, humidity, and pressure.
All this raises the question, though, of what kind of role the private sector could and should play in the weather forecasting space overall. If the architects of Project 2025 have their way, NOAA would be “broken up and downsized,” and its National Weather Service division would “fully commercialize its forecasting operations.” If the Trump administration achieves these goals, “the Weather Service would cease to function in a way that it could meet its mandate to protect American life and property,” Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, told me.
But given that heavyweights like Google, Huawei, and Nvidia are already in the AI-based weather prediction game, along with startups such as WindBorne and Brightband, which is making weather predictions tailored to the needs of specific industries such as insurance, agriculture, or transportation, it wasn’t clear to me whether, if NOAA were to crumble, the accuracy of weather forecasts necessarily would, too. I thought that perhaps Musk, the White House’s most notorious AI enthusiast, might be thinking the same thing. So I asked around.
“There’s actually a very good argument that I think would be very uncontroversial to expand the role of the private sector, even to offload certain parts of the workflow to the private sector,” Swain told me, with regards to NOAA and its adoption — or lack thereof — of AI-based weather forecasting. But what nobody wanted was to get rid of free, publicly available government forecasts completely.
“I don’t want to have to figure out what company to trust. I just want to be able to go and open the National Weather Service and know what’s going on,” John Dean, the CEO and co-founder of WindBorne, told me.
Julian Green, the CEO and co-founder of Brightband, agreed. “The government doesn’t just forecast the weather, but it gives people alerts. And there’s regulation around whether [it tells you that] you should evacuate, or shut your factory down, or so on.” It’s not hard to imagine the ethical quandaries that could arise from a private company with a profit motive deciding who can access potentially life-saving forecasts, and for how much.
WindBorne’s and Brightband’s AI models, as well as those from tech giants such as Google, are significantly less computationally intensive to operate than those from NOAA or the other leading weather forecasting agency, the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. These traditional models rely on supercomputers crunching complicated atmospheric equations based on the laws of physics to make their predictions.
But this doesn’t mean the physics-based models are getting replaced by AI now, or potentially ever. Government data and traditional forecasts still make up the backbone of advanced AIs, which are trained on decades of data largely gathered by NOAA satellites, weather balloons, and radar systems, and then interpreted through the lens of standard physics-based models. After training is complete, the AI models can predict what weather patterns will develop, much like ChatGPT predicts the next word in a sequence, but only after being fed a snapshot of initial weather conditions — also pulled from traditional physics-based models.
Essentially, these AI forecasts are built on the backs of the giants, and while their outcomes are hugely promising, they could not exist without that solid foundation. While one day, it might be possible to operate AI forecasting models without relying on traditional models, Dean and Green told me that physics-based models might always be critical for training the AI. So while their companies’ respective models have yielded impressive results, both Dean and Green nixed the idea that their companies could wholly replace the predictions made by the National Weather Service.
All of this is in flux of course, but as Green put it to me in an email, “a good mechanic doesn't throw away good older tools just because you get new tools.” Plus, as Dean explained, there are still conditions under which physics-based models tend to outperform AI, such as “really small-scale and high-res phenomena — let’s say convective events, let’s say severe thunderstorms in the Plains, or tornado formation.”
Even Project 2025’s authors point out that private industry forecasters rely on publicly available NOAA data, though it doesn’t make any reference to AI models or physics models. The document simply says that the agency “should focus on its data-gathering services” and the “efficient delivery of accurate, timely, and unbiased data to the public and to the private sector.”
There are also questions around whether AI models, trained on data from the past, will be able to predict the types of unusual and extreme weather events that are becoming more and more common in a warming world, Swain told me. “Does it fully capture those?” he asked. “There’s a lot of evidence that the answer is no.”
Lastly, NOAA’s weather model, the Global Forecast System, is simply measuring much more than the AI models do today. “It predicts so many different phenomena, like different types of snow, hail, mixing ratios, turbulence,” Dean said. “We’re building up over time to add more and more variables. But for both WindBorne and other models, it’s not the same currently as what GFS does.”
So while the Heritage Foundation might want to delegate all forecasting responsibilities to private companies, the vision I heard from the startups I talked to looked more like a mutually beneficial arrangement than the full commercialization of weather prediction, or even a clean division of labor. “It’s not privatized weather, it’s a public-private partnership,” Dean said of his ideal future, “where you get freely available forecasts from a public institution like NOAA, but they work with our industry to iterate faster and to drive more innovation.”
What everyone seems to want is simply for the government to forecast better, and today that means moving quickly to build AI-based models. NOAA has taken some steps forward, prototyping some models, bolstering its computing capabilities, and even recently partnering with Brightband to optimize its observational data to train AI models. But it remains behind other agencies in this regard. “The Chinese government and the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts have done a far better job at adopting AI-based weather forecasts than NOAA has,” Dean told me. “So something does need to change at NOAA to get them to move faster.”
Indiscriminately laying off hundreds of the agency’s employees may not be the best place to start. But if there’s anything we know Musk loves, it’s AI and private sector ingenuity. So maybe, just maybe, this administration will be able to forge the kind of partnerships that can supercharge federal forecasting, while keeping NOAA’s weather predictions free and open for all. Or maybe we’ll all just be paying the big bucks to figure out when a hurricane is going to hit.