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:
He’s right about one thing: There is indeed a thing called weather.

Long before Donald Trump ever became a politician, he was a climate change denier. “I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing,” he tweeted back in 2013. “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”
On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump has continued to claim that cold weather is proof that the planet isn’t warming — and that if it is, the consequences won’t be that bad. If only he were correct.
Here’s our fact-check of everything Trump has said about climate and weather since he left office in 2021.
“I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air — and we had it. We had H2O, we had the best numbers ever. And we were using all forms of energy, all forms of everything. And yet, during my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever. My top environmental people gave me that statistic just before I walked on the stage.” [June 27, 2024]
Fact check: Trump likes to claim that he is “the number one” environmentalist president, but it’s hard to conceive of any metric where that could be true.
Historically, Trump has cited as evidence a book written by a longtime Trump Organization staffer that called him “An Environmental Hero,” as well as the fact that “I did the best environmental impact statements.” But Trump’s Project 2025 roadmap for a second term details targeting the waiver that allows California to set more stringent emissions standards for new cars, reducing fuel economy requirements, and making it more difficult to keep big polluters in check.
Trump’s presidential record also speaks for itself: During his four years in office, he rolled back at least 100 environmental rules, including removing pollution controls on streams and wetlands and gutting Obama-era emissions standards. According to one estimate in the British medical journal The Lancet, Trump’s environmental policies resulted in 22,000 deaths in 2019 alone. He’s been described as the worst president for the environment in U.S. history.
During the presidential debate, Trump also referred to a “statistic” from his “top environmental people” that supposedly proved he had the “best environmental numbers ever.” He appeared to be referring to a message from his former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler that he posted to Truth Social before the debate, which claims that “CO2 emissions went down” during the Trump administration. This, in turn, appears to be an old talking point of Wheeler’s from 2019 about the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which he claimed would lead to a 34% reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 in 2030. While that number is nearly correct, most of those reductions would have occurred anyway, without ACE. More accurate calculations for ACE can be found here.
“It’s not certainly great for your clime. Your clime. They call it ‘climate.’” [Jan. 20, 2024]
Fact check: Trump’s mumbling about “clime” at a New Hampshire rally resulted in speculation about his mental well-being — as well as a late-night bit by Stephen Colbert. While it’s unclear exactly what Trump was going on about, we can get a few things straight:
And just for good measure, “weather” differs from “climate” or “clime” in that it refers to short-term meteorological events in a specific place. So while the weather on a given day, week, or month can be unseasonably cold, the overall climate can still be warming.
“You know they don’t call it global warming so much now, they call it climate change because it wasn’t working … Global warming wasn’t working when it was cooling. So now they call it climate change, that takes care of everything.” [Dec. 5, 2023]
Fact check: The term “climate change” was initially popularized by Republicans. In a 2002 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged President George W. Bush to drop the phrase “global warming” in favor of “climate change” since the former sounds more “frightening” and “has catastrophic communications attached to it,” while “climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”
That said, scientists generally prefer the term “climate change” for pretty much exactly the reason Trump highlighted here — because it encompasses phenomena caused by the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere that don’t manifest as warming, like ocean acidification. For the record: Global warming doesn’t mean that the weather will never get cold, just that it will get less cold on average, over time. In fact, research shows that the cold parts of the globe are warming much, much faster than the rest.
“You can’t miss with climate change. Anything can happen because of climate change. ‘It’s raining like hell!’ Climate change!” [July 13, 2022]
“Most of the country has plenty of water. Rain from heaven. It comes right from heaven. Beautiful rain, you don't know what to do.” [Aug. 17, 2023]
Fact check: That’s … true, actually. “When the atmosphere warms, that means it can hold more water,” Matthew Rodell, the deputy director of Earth sciences for hydrosphere, biosphere, and geophysics at NASA, who has made an extensive study of extreme drought and deluges, told me. That means there will be both more droughts and more rainfall, even though the two phenomena might appear at a glance to contradict each other.
“On the drought side of things, when the air is warmer, more water can evaporate — can be pulled out of the land and out of the plants, into the air, and then transported away,” Rodell explained. “So you have, basically, more water being net removed from an area.” But water in the air has to return to Earth, eventually, in the form of more — and often extreme — rainfall.
Shouldn’t those two extremes effectively balance each other out? As Rodell put it to me, “Floods and droughts are both catastrophes.” During a drought, crops die and wells go dry. And while extreme rainfall might refill an aquifer, “if it’s at the point of being extreme and there’s a flood, that’s not good, either.” Think about Libya, where extended heavy rains in the summer of 2023 broke through dams and inundated towns, killing 4,300 people, displacing an estimated 44,800 more, and causing over $60 million in damage.
One last thing to mention here: While our ability to determine the precise contribution of climate change to individual extreme weather events is improving rapidly, that is, in some ways, beside the point. Rodell explained that “in terms of the frequency, and looking at all these events together and how they’ve changed over time, we’re seeing that they’re increasing in number and severity in correlation with global warming. That doesn’t mean you can say any particular event is 100% by global warming, but, I mean — statistically, it’s extremely unlikely that this is just a coincidence.”
“In my opinion, you have a thing called weather ...” [March 21, 2022]
Fact check: True!
“... It goes up, and it goes down.” [March 21, 2022]
Fact check: While it’s true that the climate has always changed, it hasn’t always changed like this. The rapid rise in both atmospheric carbon dioxide and observed average surface temperature since the Industrial Revolution can only be credited to humans, and specifically to the burning of fossil fuels, which release CO2, a heat-trapping gas. There is now near-universal scientific consensus that the warming we’re witnessing has been caused by human activity.
“The most popular climate myths are the ones that are simple and easy to say,” as John Cook, a senior research fellow at Melbourne University’s School of Psychological Sciences who’s made a specialty of combatting climate disinformation, told me. “It’s the single-cause fallacy, thinking that only one thing can cause natural causes. But you can have other things like human activity that also drive climate change,” Cook added.
Start digging into this kind of logic and it quickly falls apart. For example, Trump’s argument is that the climate has changed naturally in the past; therefore, it must be changing naturally now, as well. But, Cook told me, the same logic could also be used to argue, People have died of cancer in the past; therefore, cigarettes don’t cause cancer now.
“The oceans are gonna rise 1/100th of an inch within the next 300 years. It’s gonna kill everybody. It’s going to create more oceanfront property, that’s what it’s going to do.” [March 12, 2022]
“They said the other day, I heard somebody, that the oceans are going to rise 1/8th of an inch over the next 300 years. We have bigger problems than that. We’ll have a little more beachfront property; that’s not the worst thing in the world.” [July 9, 2022]
Fact check: For starters, Trump’s numbers are orders of magnitude off the mark. The oceans are on track to rise 3.5 feet to 7 feet along America’s coastlines by 2100 — well ahead of Trump’s schedule — according to an independent assessment conducted by federal scientific agencies. Even if global carbon emissions had peaked in 2020 (which we know they did not) and declined relatively rapidly thereafter, the oceans would still probably rise more than 3 feet worldwide by 2300 compared to their 2000 levels, researchers have found, because so much heat is already trapped in the climate system.
According to the latest scientific report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “sea level rise greater than 15 meters,” or 49 feet, by the year 2300 “cannot be ruled out” in a high-emissions scenario.
While unlikely, 49 feet of sea-level rise would be catastrophic. Large swaths of lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens would be completely submerged, with waves lapping at the walls of Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. The southern half of Florida would vanish (bye-bye, Mar-a-Lago!). Countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh would, literally, disappear from the map.
As for that supposedly new oceanfront property Trump is so excited about, scientists expect some 650,000 beachfront properties to flood due to sea level rise in the United States by 2050 — not to mention that globally, some 230 million people live within 3 feet of current high-tide lines.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
We’re about to see what happens when big ideas become companies.
Before I covered energy and climate change, I was a technology journalist. And I remember 2011, 2012, and 2013 as a time of tremendous change.
Over the course of a few years, a procession of tech startups — including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Yelp — transitioned from being secretive industry darlings to normal publicly traded companies. All at once, social media companies that had once seemed cool and somewhat elusive turned into some of the biggest and most boring members of the Fortune 500. These companies didn’t become any less interesting to Wall Street, of course, and Facebook soon cemented itself as a profit titan. But the era when a social media startup could seem alluring, potent, and even darkly glamorous had concluded. With a shuffling of ownership papers, the avant garde became the old guard.
I wonder if the same thing is about to happen to the artificial intelligence business. For the past four years, AI startups have been among the most mysterious firms in the American economy. Their decisions reshape power grids and contort geopolitics, yet there has remained something strikingly informal about these organizations. Just as with the social media companies of the early 2010s, you can learn a lot about ChatGPT and Claude by following the right podcasts, newsletters, and X accounts — OpenAI and Anthropic employees disclose a tremendous amount of useful information in their efforts to out-hype each other.
But soon these startups will become … well, normal companies, too. Earlier this week, OpenAI confidentially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to offer its stock to the public. It revealed the filing on Monday because it expected the news to leak; executives cautioned that they might delay the offering because “there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company.” Earlier this month, Anthropic also filed with the SEC to go public as soon as the fall.
And of course SpaceX will conduct its IPO later this week — and it will likely be the largest public offering of all time.
These offerings might seem like they have little to do with the world of climate and energy. In fact, they matter to our part of the world quite a lot. That’s not only because they will generate a new surge of philanthropic and venture capital for decarbonization causes, as my colleague Katie Brigham wrote earlier this week.
It’s also because they mark a potential market-changing moment for climate-friendly companies that have, thus far, benefited from the AI boom. A number of low-carbon electricity firms — such as NextEra, Fervo, and T1 Energy — have surged as investors bet that electricity will become scarce in the AI era. That expectation, I should clarify, has been good for everyone in the power business, including coal and natural gas plant owners, but it has seriously helped the tranche of clean energy startups that initially planned to profit from the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet have AI-loving investors flocked to these energy startups because they could not buy equity from the frontier AI labs themselves? We’ll soon find out.
Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s set in yet how much SpaceX, in search of a pre-IPO narrative diversion, has reframed itself as a company that manufactures orbiting data centers. It has also signed big deals allowing Anthropic and Google to use its existing (and terrestrial) data centers. That’s partly to draft off the AI boom, too, of course — SpaceX absorbed Elon Musk’s xAI in February— but it’s also a response to the difficulty of getting a U.S. power grid hookup and the darkening permitting environment for data centers.
I mentioned at the beginning of this piece that I remember the early 2010s as a boom time for IPOs. So I was shocked to look back and discover that each year in that period only saw one or two major internet companies conduct initial stock sales. That era did not come anywhere close to the current fervor; this year, we’ll see as many as three era-defining companies go live within months of each other. We’re in a mind-bending moment — and we shouldn’t forget that.
Seattle practiced responding to a heat dome during the international soccer tournament. It didn’t go well.
Welcome to Seattle! If you’re one of the 750,000 visitors in town to watch the 2026 North American FIFA World Cup, you’re going to love it here. For one thing, you’ve arrived just in time for the city to suspend its interminable construction for the games. That’s a plus! Be sure to check out our newly pedestrianized Pike Place Market and stroll along the waterfront to “Seattle Stadium” (or sound like a local and call it “Qwest”). You might even get a little chilly from the wind off the bay — you can thank our “temperate, oceanic climate” for that. It’s what makes Seattle the safest place in the United States to attend (or play in) a World Cup game, per researchers at Queen’s University Belfast — at least, from the perspective of extreme heat.
That’s worth bragging about. Extreme heat has been a concern at almost every subsequent World Cup going back to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, including the 2022 tournament in Qatar, which FIFA had to reschedule to the winter. The 2026 World Cup could get dicey, too. Of the 104 scheduled matches in 16 host cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico over the next month, at least half have a 50% chance or greater of being played in temperatures of 82 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, according to research by Climate Central — that being the threshold at which player performance begins to suffer, with athletes slowing down, getting sick, and making poorer decisions because of the heat. The odds of there being impairing heat during the World Cup final in New York on July 19 are basically a coin flip, and 17% higher than they otherwise would have been due to climate change-induced warming.
All of that is just part of what makes Seattle’s host city status so appealing. There is only about a 3% chance of performance-impairing heat during its two mid-June fixtures, rising to 6% later in the month and into July.
Unless, of course, there’s another heat dome.
In 2021, temperatures in Seattle peaked at 108 degrees on June 28, which this year will fall between when the city hosts Egypt vs. Iran and a Round of 32 match. Needless to say, 108 degrees is not just perspiration-inducing; it is well beyond the 89.6-degree wet-bulb globe temperature threshold at which FIFA considers postponing matches. While the possibility of another heat dome in the next few weeks is admittedly an edge case — before 2021, Seattle had only touched 100 degrees three times in 126 years of recorded-keeping— it’s still a realistic enough possibility that last spring, the National Weather Service’s Seattle office ran a tabletop exercise with its local partners to game out just that.
“Before 2021, heat [in Seattle] was just another hazard alongside fire and smoke and those sorts of things,” Reid Wolcott, the warning coordination meteorologist with the NWS Seattle, who helped lead the two-day-long run-through, told me. The heat dome “really highlighted that heat is a powerful hazard that can cause significant loss of life.”
After more than 400 people died in Washington alone, the NWS dedicated considerable time and resources to its heat preparedness and messaging in the Pacific Northwest. Beginning in 2022, the National Integrated Heat Health Information System began offering technical support for heat tabletop exercises in communities around the country. Seattle was supposed to participate in 2024 but “due to some logistical reasons, we ended up delaying it until 2025,” Wolcott said. “And because of that, we were like, We’re well on our way into World Cup planning, here.”
The idea of the “Heat Dome Cup” exercise was to kill two birds with one stone — to test the Seattle area’s response four years after the heat dome, as well as its ability to respond to a weather crisis when thousands of visitors are in the city for the World Cup. Participants included representatives from surrounding cities such as Bellevue, Everett, and Portland, Oregon; county-level offices including from climate, emergency management, and public health; the University of Washington; and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe.
The results of the exercise were both encouraging and not: For every core capability tested, from “threat/hazard identification” to “communication” and “community resilience,” the after-action report found that Seattle “performed with some challenges.” There was “limited local data” on the compounding hazards of heat, cooling center efficiency, and — particularly alarming — the local healthcare system’s ability to respond during such an event. “Prehospital triage, surge planning, and better integration with public health systems are urgently needed,” the report found. Because paramedics attempt to bring down a heat stroke patients’ temperature before transporting them to a hospital — a laborious process often involving filling a home bathtub with ice, setting the patient in it, and waiting — the emergency response during heat events is slow, and can quickly back up and overwhelm the system.
Heat Dome Cup partners directed my questions about King County’s readiness to handle extreme heat during the World Cup to the public health office, which told me no one was available for an interview.
Carlos Martinez, a senior climate scientist with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists who did not participate in the exercise, told me that after reading the report, he hopes that “there’s a recognition and awareness of the fact that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.” He also flagged an observation from the exercise regarding the development of stronger workplace protections during the World Cup.
“That sometimes can be neglected,” he went on. “You have folks in construction, food service, retail, landscaping, and sanitation who work a full day outside during these events. What are the protocols that are out there to ensure that they are protected from heat-related illnesses?”
I put the question to Hollie Stark, the communications coordinator for the Office of Emergency Management in Seattle. (While Stark’s office participated in the exercise, Stark did not.) She told me that Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries offers recommendations for how employers can protect their workers from heat and smoke, including running trainings and publishing posters and pocket cards in multiple languages that promote offering adequate water, shade, and breaks. “We’re thinking about maybe bars and places that might be hosting [FIFA viewing parties] that don’t have access to AC but might have an influx of people,” she said as a hypothetical, “and we’re encouraging them to listen to those recommendations.”
In general, the people I spoke with in Seattle who were involved in the exercise acknowledged that messaging and communication were the areas the city struggled with the most. “That has definitely been the single biggest thing — trying to make sure that we’re all singing from the same sheet of music,” Wolcott told me. “Because we weren’t prior to 2021.”
One of the biggest hurdles has been figuring out exactly how to communicate potential extreme heat warnings to the thousands of visitors traveling to Seattle. During my conversations with officials involved in the Heat Dome Cup, officials pointed me to myriad preparedness websites, real-time risk tools, opt-in alert systems, and health and safety resources for out-of-town visitors, which left me — a local fluent in English — feeling even more confused.
Language itself is one thing — on that front, Stark told me her office has already pre-scripted messaging for extreme heat translated into Spanish and the eight threshold languages of King County — Vietnamese, Somali, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Amharic, Arabic, and Ukrainian — as well as seven additional World Cup spectator-specific languages — Arabic, Farsi, Dutch, French, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. But one of the threats of having a heat dome during a major sporting event is that “you have a lot of visitors coming from all different parts of the world,” Wolcott said. “Some come from locations where they are probably more acclimated to heat than we are, but some may be coming from areas that are cooler climates than ours.” Proper acclimation can take weeks, if not an entire season — far longer than most spectators will be in town.
But perhaps the biggest takeaway is that a heat dome isn’t required for people to be under heat stress, even in a place as temperate as Seattle. Wolcott told me the NWS’s seasonal outlook for the summer in the region indicates above-average temperatures, and while that “does increase the risk of a heat event occurring, it has nothing to do with the actual magnitude of it. You could have a 2021-level event, or you could have 30 smaller events, and there is no way to tell exactly what’s going to happen.”
Indeed, even fairly moderate temperatures can sneak up on spectators. While FIFA is in charge of making decisions that impact their athletes’ health, Shel Winkley, the senior engagement specialist and meteorologist at Climate Central, pointed out that “fans are still sitting in the sun in the heat, and if they’re fans like me, they’re not drinking water during [the FIFA-mandated in-game] cooling breaks.” Spectators get to the stadium early, stand in long lines in the sun, sit in crowded stadiums with potentially no shade — and essentially endure an entire day of heat, even if the temperatures seemed manageable when they walked out their hotel door.
At this point, there is nothing to indicate Seattle’s worst-case scenario will come true. (Stark also mentioned that a true worst-case scenario more likely involves the Big One than extreme heat, but we won’t go there.) But “just because historically the odds are low” for a heat dome in the Seattle area “doesn’t mean that they’re zero,” Winkley said.
Martinez, the climate scientist with UCS, stressed to me that while the Heat Dome Cup was an engaging thought experiment, bringing together 30 distinct partners for two whole days, he fears that a gutted NWS and Federal Emergency Management Agency might lack the funding or personnel to act on the weaknesses the exercise exposed. “If you have this one exercise but no follow-through, that can risk eroding trust by those populations who gave time out of their day to come and speak to the federal government about the importance of this issue,” he told me. “We shouldn’t just do this for well-renowned events. This should be an evergreen thing.”
But Wolcott, the lead on the Heat Dome Cup, sounded to me like he was at the end of a long marathon when I spoke to him. “I’ve been planning for [the World Cup] for three years now. I’m ready for it to be over,” he told me, laughing.
“We are always doing this; it was just one exercise that we did last May,” he added. “I’m just looking forward to late July at this point.”
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Cristina is inching north toward landfall in Central America, threatening floods, landslides, and winds of up to 73 miles per hour • Washington, D.C., is poised for rain for the rest of the week as temperatures rise to nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit by Friday • By contrast, Cartersville, Georgia, where the solar manufacturer Qcells just started up its factory, is looking at a two-day break of sunshine from an otherwise gray and wet forecast.
At the start of 2023, South Korea’s biggest solar manufacturer, Qcells, began construction on a sweeping new factory northwest of Atlanta in Cartersville, Georgia. Betting that U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels were here to stay, the company gambled on bringing most of the supply chain under one roof. On Tuesday, Qcells started producing solar cells at the plant, marking what it called “a major milestone toward completing the country’s only vertically integrated solar manufacturing plant.” The firm expects to reach full production by the third quarter of this year. The factory’s module assembly line, meanwhile, is now at full capacity, building 16,700 panels per day. “Producing the first solar cells at Cartersville is a milestone for Qcells and for American manufacturing,” Andy Park, the global chief executive of Qcells, said in a statement. “As our ingot, wafer, and cell lines reach full capacity, we’ll be making the major components of a solar panel right here in Georgia.”
The U.S. could be seeing the start of a small solar boom. Last year alone, at least 30 new utility-scale solar factories came online, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported last month.
Over the weekend, as I told you on Monday, a federal court blocked the Trump administration’s rules for using the soon-to-expire tax writeoffs for investing in or producing electricity from solar panels and wind turbines. But with just 24 days to go until the tax credits officially end, few developers are likely to move quickly enough to benefit from the ruling. “Practically speaking, I don’t think this is likely to have much impact on the market or behavior in the coming weeks,” Heather Cooper, a tax lawyer at McDermott Will & Schulte, told E&E News. “The deadline is less than four weeks away.”
Investments into electrical grids are on track to surpass $650 billion globally this year, according to new data from the consultancy Rystad Energy. That’s up 5% from last year and more than double the investments recorded in 2020, PV Magazine reported. The high cost comes as long lead times and pricy components for transformers, high-voltage circuit breakers, and switchgears strain and stall upgrades and expansions to power systems all over the world. The soaring growth of wind and solar is propelling grid investments, which are needed to patch more intermittent and often far-flung renewables onto the system. In 2010, wind and solar made up just 2% of global generation. By 2040, Rystad expects them to make up nearly half the mix.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Everyone recognizes Canada as a major oil producer, metal miner, and hydroelectricity generator. But did you know the Canucks are not just a serious player in nuclear power, but actually have their own domestically-designed reactor that can run on raw uranium? Get this, it even has a catchy name: the CANDU. Pronounced CAN-do and short for Canada Deuterium Uranium, the pressurized heavy water reactors are among the only commercial designs in the world that can run on unenriched, natural uranium. The advantage, especially for a country like Canada with vast uranium deposits, is that they’re faster to build, cheaper to fuel, and free of the international scrutiny that comes with enriching uranium. The downside is that they break down faster than the light water reactors that make up the entirety of the U.S. fleet. But Canada is demonstrating that isn’t a big problem. On Monday, the Bruce nuclear power station brought its Unit 3 reactor back online, completing refurbishments seven months early and $107 million under budget, NucNet reported. You don’t need to know a lot about the American or European nuclear industries to know “early and under budget” aren’t words typically associated with any recent or ongoing projects.
The best-proven way to make truly green steel involves turning iron ore into direct reduced iron through a process that, when powered by green hydrogen instead of natural gas, significantly slashes any carbon emissions associated with its production. Assuming it’s finished off in an electric arc furnace, it’s green steel — and even greener if that final process was powered by renewables or nuclear. Yet despite some high-profile projects, green hydrogen has remained too expensive in the West, even as China’s industry starts to boom. That could be changing. On Tuesday, the German steelmaker Salzgitter inked its first major offtake agreement for green hydrogen from the supplier EWE, Hydrogen Insight reported. One of Germany’s largest steel producers, Salzgitter will buy roughly 10,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year from the electrolyzer plant EWE is building in Emden, near the Dutch border.
Meanwhile in America, U.S. Steel unveiled plans to invest up to $2.5 billion into upgrading the Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. The renovations come after Japanese steel giant Nippon’s takeover of the iconic American firm last year. To win President Donald Trump’s blessing, Nippon gave the federal government a “golden share” in the company. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last year, that could ultimately give a future administration leverage to press U.S. Steel to green its operations.

If you’re booking a flight right now, you might not yet be feeling the difference. But U.S. production of jet fuel has reached record highs as refiners scramble to respond to soaring prices following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. By the start of May, the four-week average estimate of fuel production surpassed 2 million barrels per day for the first time on record, according to new analysis by the Energy Information Administration. But with domestic inventories still relatively high, much of that increased production is being exported.