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:
A vicious climate-political cycle is developing.

When Donald Trump won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the risk to recent progress on climate policy was immediately obvious: He ran on a promise to increase fossil fuel production, has a long history of denigrating renewable energy, and is hostile to anything with Joe Biden’s name on it, including a raft of policies enacted over the past four years to reduce emissions.
But as unique a character as Trump is, his victory was just one part of an international surge in right-wing populism that has occurred over the past few years, especially in Europe. Right-wing populists focus their appeals on a supposed conflict between ordinary people and what they claim is a corrupt elite; the philosophy is also usually characterized by nativism and a suspicion of international cooperation and integration. All of that comfortably translates into antagonism toward climate action. So if right-wing populists are on the march globally, what are the risks for global climate policy?
The picture is complex — not every populist party puts environmental issues near the center of its agenda. The Alternative for Germany party (also known as AfD) recently gained a high-profile supporter when Elon Musk wrote an op-ed calling it “the last spark of hope” for Germany, citing “cultural integrity” as one of the reasons he supports it. But it was already gaining, even if most Germans find it repellent: In September, it became the first far-right party to win a state election since World War II.
The AfD’s platform (which it has helpfully translated into English) is as full-on denialist as you can find from any major political party; it rejects the idea of anthropogenic climate change and demands an end to German efforts to reduce emissions. “We want to end the perception of CO2 as an exclusively harmful substance and set a stop to Germany’s maverick policy in the reduction of CO2 emissions,” it says.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ PVV is now the largest party in the governing coalition (though after six months of negotiations following the PVV’s showing in the last election, Wilders agreed to let another coalition partner become prime minister). Its platform promised that the Dutch “Climate Act, the [Paris] climate accord and all other climate measures go straight into the shredder.” Austria’s far-right FPO party placed first in elections in September; it opposes most efforts to combat climate change. (Austria’s Chancellor Karl Nehammer, from the center-right OVP or “People’s Party,” resigned Saturday after coalition talks with FPO broke down.)
In last summer’s parliamentary elections in France, the far-right National Rally pledged a rollback of environmental laws, including “slashing the value-added tax on gas, power and fuel from 20 percent to 5.5 percent; freezing all new wind projects; and easing energy efficiency requirements for homeowners looking to sell their properties,” according to Politico. The party failed to win a plurality in the second round of voting, but it displayed a strength that alarmed many environmentalists. And after last year’s European Parliament elections, far-right parties now control a quarter of the seats in the body, more than ever before.
For these parties, the single most important issue is immigration; their appeal is driven by backlash to influxes of newcomers from Syria and northern African countries, which has contributed to a changing demographic picture. But while environmental policies may be secondary, the issues are hardly unrelated. Versions of “Great Replacement” theory are visible everywhere, the idea that liberal elites are importing non-white immigrants to displace native-born whites and transform the nation. In this telling, green policy is one more way the conspiracy of cultural elites tries to control the lives of the nation’s truest citizens.
Far-right parties often get their strongest support in rural areas, just as Republicans do in the U.S., where farmers protest environmental policies imposed from urban capitals and which they see as the brainchildren of cosmopolitan elites who are either indifferent or actively hostile to their needs. Last spring, farmers staged dramatic protests in France, Germany, Belgium, and other countries, protesting environmental policies they said made it difficult for them to earn a living.
In that way, opposition to climate action fits neatly within the rest of the right-wing populist philosophy and agenda, which usually reject international accords like the Paris Agreement and even the existence of the European Union itself. Repealing climate laws can be a way of striking back at experts and cosmopolitan urbanites, whether it’s Trump rolling back EV subsidies or European rightists attacking the EU’s Green Deal, which among other things obligates the continent to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
The far-right populist parties aren’t the only ones pushing back certain kinds of climate action; center-right parties are also playing a part, even if historically they have been far more progressive on climate than the GOP. Consider the European Union’s law requiring that no internal-combustion cars be produced after 2035, which passed in 2022. That law is now under attack from the center-right, especially the European People’s Party, the largest bloc in the European Parliament. The EPP (which includes EU president Ursula von der Leyen among its members) is seeking to have the ban repealed, or at least modified to allow for continued production of plug-in hybrids and ICE cars that run on biofuels.
Nevertheless, far-right parties that want to maximize their power to the point where they can lead governing coalitions have an incentive to moderate their rhetoric on climate. One can see that dynamic in Italian prime minister Georgia Meloni, whose rhetoric on the international stage sounds much more progressive than her party does at home, where it still traffics in climate denial. She has even presented climate as a right-wing issue, saying “The right loves the environment because it loves the land, the identity, the homeland.” This version of environmentalism seeks to combat climate change in order to minimize the numbers of future climate migrants from the Global South, many of whom will wind up seeking refuge in Europe.
However you feel about that motivation, it points to a vicious cycle that could emerge in the future: As global temperatures increase and natural disasters become more frequent, more places become uninhabitable and millions of people become climate refugees. They head north into developed countries, where their presence spurs a right-wing backlash that puts far-right populist parties into power. Those parties then reverse progressive climate policies, making it more difficult to reduce emissions and continuing the cycle.
That might not be our future, and the changes to climate policy advocated by the resurgent populist parties haven’t yet been implemented. It’s also possible that the far right’s political moment could be fleeting. But the next few years will offer plenty of reasons to worry.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect political developments in Austria.
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 state is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.
A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.
The New York legislature released the text of the deal it reached with Governor Kathy Hochul to reform the state’s climate law on Tuesday. The deal includes two consequential changes: delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 (it was already behind schedule) until 2028, and modifying how the state accounts for the powerful greenhouse gas methane in a way that will look like the state has accomplished deeper reductions than under the current method.
The governor has been signalling her intent to weaken the CLCPA for months, arguing that as written, it would have imposed untenable costs on New Yorkers. “Reality has been harsh,” she said during a press conference about the budget agreement in early May, before the text was released. “We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.”
Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a “major blow for New Yorkers and for the country” that would set “a dangerous precedent,” and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks “bad politics and bad policy.”
Some remained hopeful that the changes would not derail the state’s progress by much, however. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this is a setback,” Jackson Morris, the director of state power sector, climate and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “At the same time, I don’t think it’s a setback that we can’t recover from.”
The CLCPA set targets to cut economy-wide emissions 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also codified an earlier plan to source 70% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and power the state entirely with zero-emissions resources by 2040.
New York didn’t make up these targets. They’re based on reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which mapped out how the world could minimize the risks of climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. After Donald Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement when he first took office in 2017, a number of Democratic governors banded together to show that America was still “all in” to achieve the pact’s goals, leading to a flurry of state climate laws in the years that followed.
Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.
The CLCPA directed state agencies to promulgate rules and regulations by 2024 that would put New York on the path to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. In the years since the law passed, the state has been developing a cap-and-invest program that would tax carbon emissions progressively over time, and use the proceeds to fund clean energy programs throughout the state. This program was the crux of Hochul’s affordability concerns, as it would make energy more expensive for some New Yorkers in the near term.
The budget deal moves the deadline for the regulations to the end of 2028. Crucially, it also does not require that those regulations help the state achieve the 2030 emissions target. Instead, it specifies that the regulations be designed to achieve a new goal of reducing emissions 60% by 2040, in addition to the original net zero by 2050 target.
Morris, of the NRDC, was quick to note that the deal does not get rid of the 2030 target. While there will be no state programs aimed at achieving it, it still provides a statutory foundation that agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation can point to as a reason to reject fossil fuel project permits, for example, he said. Meanwhile, Morris is optimistic that the new 2028 deadline and 2040 target can keep the state on track.
“We obviously prefer that none of this is happening,” he said. “But because it’s happening, I think that’s one aspect of this deal that we see as providing some ground to stand on.”
One of the aspects of the CLCPA that made it more ambitious than other state climate laws was the way it required New York to account for methane. The budget deal will eliminate this edge.
There were two key components to New York’s unique methane rules. The first was that they forced the state to take responsibility for methane emissions that occurred outside its borders that were nevertheless tied to its natural gas use. For instance, a major source of methane emissions is leakage from the infrastructure used to drill, process, and transport natural gas. New York banned fracking in 2014, and the state gets most of its natural gas via pipeline from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Under Hochul’s changes, the state can take these “imported” emissions off its books.
The second is a bit more convoluted and has to do with how methane behaves in the atmosphere. When governments or companies set emissions targets, they typically convert all greenhouse gases into “carbon dioxide equivalents” so that they can set one round number goal for all emissions, like New York’s 60% reduction by 2040. There’s no single way to do this, since unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down quickly. Over 20 years, one metric ton of methane has a similar effect to about 80 metric tons of carbon, but over 100 years, it’s more akin to 25 metric tons of carbon. New York uses the 20-year effect as its conversion factor, but under the budget deal, it will switch to the 100-year method. That will make its methane emissions suddenly appear much lower, and thus make the state look further along in fighting climate change without actually changing anything about its strategy.
This will ease the pressure on the state to electrify buildings, clean up landfills, and take other difficult steps to cut methane emissions. It will also, however, align New York’s methane math with that of most U.S. states and much of the rest of the world.
The national climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, which focuses on state policy, is less concerned about the changes to the climate law and more concerned about how they happened. Justin Balik, the nonprofit’s vice president for states, told me that Hochul never brought her concerns to environmental stakeholders or asked for policy proposals for how to accelerate clean energy while lowering costs.
“We need to see more urgency from the governor and the legislature to actually do the things that will result in emissions reductions and cutting costs for people,” Balik told me, “and less fretting about the targets that are written into law.”
Balik argued that the changes will do nothing to address the factors that are increasing energy rates. He cited the state’s dependence on natural gas as a key driver, as natural gas prices can fluctuate dramatically due to geopolitics and supply and demand. If anything, he said, delaying the cap-and-invest regulations will delay clean energy deployment and exacerbate affordability by deferring the revenue the state would have collected to and used to fund emissions-cutting programs and rate relief.
The budget deal attempts to make up for the shortfall with a $1 billion allocation to the state’s Sustainable Future Fund, which will support state programs to cut emissions from buildings and roads with heat pumps, thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and fast-charging stations.
Evergreen, NRDC, and other groups now have their sights set on the 2028 regulations.
“If we can move forward quickly with a robust process to stand up that cap-and-invest construct in New York State, and get it cutting pollution and generating billions of dollars in revenue for reinvestment in communities, that's going to be a huge breakthrough for the state of New York,” Morris said.
On a California chem leak, solar manufacturing, and BHP’s climate retreat
Current conditions: Unprecedented May heat is roasting Western Europe, with temperatures shattering records in at least 20 French towns and soaring to 95 degrees Fahrenheit in London • Bougainville, the autonomous and ethnically distinct region of Papua New Guinea that’s expected to vote for independence next year to become the world’s newest nation, is enduring a week of lightning storms and heavy rain • The Tajik city of Khorog, a provincial capital located in a canyon near the Afghan border, is bracing for snow.
The price per barrel of crude fell nearly 7% on Monday as Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for peace talks the same day two tankers carrying liquified natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The vessels shipping LNG from Qatar to China and Pakistan, respectively, successfully navigated the waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf on Monday. The signal of a loosening blockade comes two days after another tanker taking crude to China crossed the strait. While President Donald Trump said over the weekend that an agreement in principle to halt fighting with Tehran could come soon, The Wall Street Journal reported that it would take far longer to ease the bottlenecks created by the conflict. Despite reports of new U.S. strikes in Iran Monday night, prices fell another 4% in early trading Tuesday.
U.S. producers, meanwhile, are stepping up to fill the gap in oil and gas supply. On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that companies such as Diamondback, America’s third-largest producer in the Permian Basin, and shale driller Continental Resources were expanding drilling by more than 40% as a result of the war. U.S. companies have added at least 18 rigs since the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign. Increased production isn’t just happening at home, either. Exxon Mobil just began drilling a new offshore well near its new operations in Guyana, according to Upstream. Over at the British oil giant BP, however, this morning brought upheaval as the board of directors ousted its chairman after just six months.

California officials ordered as many as 50,000 Orange County residents to evacuate Sunday after a crack formed in a tank at an industrial facility holding 7,000 gallons of a highly flammable toxic chemical. The accident at the suburban Los Angeles plant owned by the British fighter jet supplier GKN Aerospace began on Thursday, when firefighters in Garden Grove, California, found that a tank containing methyl methacrylate, a feedstock used to make plastic, had started bulging with pressure and releasing gas as it overheated. By Saturday, a fissure had formed in the tank — one of three on site containing the chemical — in what NPR called “good news,” since the opening eased pressure, making an explosion less likely. So far, no one has been injured. “Safety at our facilities is paramount,” a GKN spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times. “We follow all standard safety protocols and processes and are regularly audited by numerous state and federal agencies.” But authorities as far east as Arizona were bracing for the possibility of an explosion. In an update posted on X Monday morning, Orange County’s interim fire chief announced that the threat of what’s called a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion,” or BLEVE (pronounced blevvy), “is now off the table,” adding that “that threat has been eliminated.”
While the accident will no doubt draw scrutiny to GKN’s record at the facility, known for producing parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, the episode is unlikely to draw the same fervid response as the fire at California’s Moss Landing battery plant last January. That incident set off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman pegged as nationwide backlash to batteries. So far, thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed in resisting the urge to demand a shutdown of all production of aircraft components as a result of an accident.
The Trump administration’s yet-undefined rules for determining a key factor in solar projects’ eligibility for outgoing federal tax credits are bifurcating the U.S. market. The administration has yet to spell out in detail how companies should determine what percentage of their project inputs come from a so-called foreign entity of concern. While the list of FEOCs includes Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the main sticking point for developers is China, which dominates the global renewables supply chain. On one side are developers willing to roll the dice on imported equipment. On the other are companies avoiding the risk by buying panels either made in America, or in allied countries. To make navigating the process easier, the SEMA Coalition — an industry group representing U.S. solar manufacturers that support restrictions on cheap Chinese imports — put out a new report that includes a check list to determine whether a panel producer is likely to qualify for federal tax incentives or not. The paper, which was shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, was “informed by tax opinions, legal counsel who advise the SEMA Coalition’s members, as well as public documents.” The findings show that “some of these rules are ambiguous, while others are clear but challenging to comply with in practice.”
As I told you last week, American solar manufacturing is finally seeing something of a boom. Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories began production last year, providing more than enough capacity to meet U.S. demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Amid a sweltering London heat wave in 2019, BHP laid out plans for the “biggest global mobilization since World War II” in the name of cutting back on fossil fuel use and fighting a climate that threat that “could be existential,” the world’s largest mining company’s then-CEO Andrew Mackenzie said at the time. Today, however, the giant is reversing course, quietly shelving billions of dollars in projects designed to cut emissions from its mining operations. An internal memo from last year leaked to Australia’s ABC News and The Guardian shows that the need for renewables at BHP’s iron-ore facility in Pilbara had “diminished,” and that a plan to hit net-zero by 2050 had a “low probability of success.”
The West Coast’s continental shelf drops off far more steeply into the Pacific than America’s East Coast slides into the Atlantic, making siting offshore wind turbines tricky off California’s shores. Nevertheless, a developer was trying to build the first floating offshore turbines in the U.S. — at least until the Trump administration struck a dubious deal to pay the company to quit. That agreement is drawing blowback from California regulators, as I told you earlier this month. But the Golden State isn’t abandoning its goals. On Monday, offshoreWIND.biz reported that the California Energy Commission had reaffirmed its target of 25 gigawatts of offshore turbine capacity by 2045. “At a time of global energy volatility, offshore wind is not just a climate strategy. It is part of a national security strategy,” Noel Hacegaba, chief executive at the Port of Long Beach, said in a statement. “The grid we built for the last century cannot carry us through the next. This is renewable energy’s moment.”
The market for offshore wind looks even brighter outside the U.S. Last week, the Danish Energy Agency received bids for two different offshore development areas totaling a combined 1.8 gigawatts of turbines, according to Renewables Now. In an interview with Wind Power Monthly, the chief executive of the automaker Volvo lauded Sweden’s offshore wind farms for giving manufacturers like his a “competitive edge.”
Canadians can now cruise around the 10,000-year-old Columbia Icefield in a vehicle whose pollution isn’t adding to polar melting. On Monday, InsideEVs reported that the truck maker Pursuit had retrofitted one of its old diesel ice explorers to go electric with a huge, 528-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s big enough for about 30 trips up and down the Rocky Mountain icefield. The renovation involved keeping the old cabin but replacing the chassis and driveline with battery-propelled equipment. It is the world’s first all-electric ice explorer.
Rob sits down with the Josh Parker, head of sustainability at America’s world-leading chip designer.
America’s tech companies are transforming the electricity system — building entirely new fleets of new solar panels, batteries, and gas turbines — in order to power what are essentially warehouses filled with cutting-edge chips.
Almost all of those chips are made by Nvidia. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Josh Parker, Nvidia’s head of sustainability. They discuss the climate and electricity impacts of artificial intelligence, why Josh is incredibly bullish on AI’s ability to cut carbon emissions and whether it has done so so far, and the company's work with clean energy and fossil fuel companies.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So Heatmap has been tracking what, to us, has been a very sudden and shocking rise of local pushback against AI data centers. And of course, this has become a larger meme over the past few months, as it’s gotten more attention. For instance, we think about 50 AI data centers or data centers broadly were canceled last year after facing local pushback. And we think more than 50 have already been canceled this year.
Are you seeing that at all at Nvidia? I mean, it doesn’t look — your quarterly results came out yesterday and they were, they absolutely blew out expectations. And so evidently it’s not affecting demand yet. But do you hear it from customers? Is this affecting Nvidia’s business at all? And how do you think about it as a risk going forward?
Josh Parker: So I’m aware of the sentiment, the paranoia around AI, mostly on a personal level because I see it on social media like other people do, as well. I’m not aware of any direct impact on our sales, so I can’t comment on that. But what I will say is, I do think it’s particularly tragic, because this technology has the potential to be the most beneficial, both for environmental goals and for social goals — so things like education and health care, and kind of across-the-board social issues benefit from AI, as well. And the concerns about AI, a lot of them are based on either erroneous data or old data. And I worry that some people don’t fully understand the net impacts, the positive as well as the negative of AI.
Plus, we have the uphill battle of, it’s really hard if the data center is being built a few miles down the road, to tie that data center — which, they don’t always look beautiful and things like that — to the benefits that the whole world is going to get from AI. So if — obviously not promising this — but AI could unlock cancer cures or cures to other diseases, and we’re seeing trends in the direction of cures and treatments and drug discovery and so forth. But it’s really hard for us as humans to draw a line between the infrastructure that we see down the street, and especially the speculative, the moonshot benefits. But even the more fundamental ones, like the benefits and productivity that we’re seeing in potential for wage growth and education and so forth, even though it’s hard for us to draw the line between the infrastructure.
So it’s understandable, but I do think it’s tragic. And I think it’s our responsibility in the tech industry to help people see the bigger picture and to address people’s concerns head on about environmental impacts and social impacts. Because the data really does demonstrate that, by and large, these data centers are pro-sustainability. They don’t have the impacts that most people are concerned about, and they’re manageable. And most data center operators are trying to operate them in a sustainable way.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Previously on Shift Key: Data Centers Are Creating a New Kind of Battery Monster
Previously on Shift Key: A Skeptic’s Take on AI and Energy Growth
From Heatmap: Exclusive: Local Opposition to Data Centers Explodes in 2026
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.