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:
The future of U.S. climate policy may depend on things getting dramatic.

Donald Trump does not care much about climate change. By which I mean not just that he does not believe the warming of the planet is a problem, but also that the entire subject is far from the top of his priority list. Unfortunately, that makes his incoming administration even more dangerous.
The implied chaos of the second Trump term is only beginning. In some cases, the operative question is “Is he really going to do that?” Will he actually deport 15 million people, or put a 20% tariff on all imported goods, or prosecute his political opponents?
But when it comes to climate, Trump has offered no attention-grabbing proposals or bizarre promises. He said he wants to “Drill, drill, drill,” but we’re already drilling more than we ever have before. He has a weird obsession with homicidal windmills (“They ruin the environment, they kill the birds, they kill the whales”) and a contempt for electric cars, it’s true. But the real hazard lies in the agenda of those who will run key departments in his government, doing things Trump barely takes notice of.
This may seem counterintuitive to those who view Trump as a uniquely malign force, pushing the federal government in new and disturbing directions. But Trump only cares about a few things — trade and immigration are his primary policy areas of interest, and much of his days will be spent plotting revenge against his enemies — and climate isn’t one of them.
So far, the Trump appointees with influence over climate policy are not the kind of figures who will grab headlines; Americans are unlikely to develop strong opinions about Lee Zeldin (the pick for EPA Administrator) or Doug Burgum (who will be Secretary of the Interior). Below them will be a cadre of unknown and unnoticed officials determined not just to undo every bit of climate progress that occurred under Joe Biden, but also to go much further, purging scientists, stopping environmental enforcement, opening up federal land to fossil fuel production, eliminating pollution regulations, and shutting down every possible office with “climate” in its name or its mission.
So why would it be better if Trump were paying attention? Because the only likely restraint on this assault will be if Trump decides it reflects poorly on him.
That brings us to a crude but useful unified theory of Trump policy outcomes. Expressed as an equation, it would look like this:
Outcome = ((Trump impulses + party agenda) x attention)/political risk
To put it in simpler terms, the relevant questions are: What does Trump want? What do the people around him want? Is this something Trump cares about? And what are the political risks involved?
As an example, let’s take the idea of repealing the Affordable Care Act, which Trump tried and failed to do in his first term. His impulse was to destroy the ACA because it was signed by Barack Obama, whom he hates. His party would also like to destroy the ACA. But Trump himself is not all that interested in the issue of healthcare; he couldn’t be bothered to come up with a plan to replace the ACA, though he regularly promised “something terrific.” Because it’s such a high-profile issue, it won’t move forward without his attention.
Finally — and most importantly — the political risk of repealing the ACA is incredibly high because it is very popular. Repealing it would be cataclysmic for the healthcare system, leading tens of millions of people to lose their health coverage. Put it all together, and the likelihood that Republicans will achieve their longtime goal of ACA repeal is very, very small.
Now let’s plug climate into the equation. Trump’s impulses are uniformly detrimental, but also vague. He told oil executives they should raise him a billion dollars because he’ll give them whatever they want, but if you asked him what specifically it is they want, he probably couldn’t tell you with any specificity.
The Trump officials who will work on environmental issues know exactly what they want — but most of it won’t attract much attention, from the president or the public. When they start gutting PFAS regulations and methane emissions rules, neither Trump nor the average voter will have any idea.
One exception has already been teed up: It now appears that Republicans will try to kill the electric vehicle tax credit. If he wanted to, Elon Musk could stop this: If he told Trump it’s a bad idea, Trump would instruct Republicans in Congress to keep the credit, and it would be most likely be safe. But Musk is of the opinion that while ending the credit might hurt Tesla sales in the short run, his competitors will suffer even more, perhaps getting out of the EV business altogether.
There could be a fight over EV credits when Congress takes up the issue, and it’s even possible that Trump would step in and tell his party to leave them alone if he decided there would be too much of a backlash that would harm him politically. It’s highly unlikely, but the fact that one could at least imagine how it would happen shows how the preferences/attention/political risk dynamic operates.
But to repeat, EV subsidies are the exception of a climate-related policy that will garner some press coverage (though even that may be limited, since the repeal of the tax credits will be part of a gargantuan reconciliation bill with lots of other contentious ideas in it). Most of what happens at the EPA and the Departments of Interior and Energy, where pro-fossil fuel officials will labor every day to undermine environmental protections, will pass by with little notice.
So climate advocates face a difficult task: If they can raise the salience of the climate issue and make a particular Trump administration climate policy unpopular, it would become possible that Trump will notice, perceive some political danger in what his government and Congress are doing, and act to restrain them, for no reason other than his own self-interest.
It’s not much to pin your hopes on, and the idea that Trump himself could be the force of moderation in an administration hell-bent on reversing progress on climate seems crazy. But this is going to be a crazy four years.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Massachusetts’ offshore headwinds, Biden’s gas rules, and Australia’s free power
Current conditions: The Pacific Northwest is getting blasted with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • Heavy snow is coming this week for the higher elevations in New England and upstate New York • San Cristóbal de La Laguna in the Canary Islands saw temperatures surge to 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

Democratic candidates swept to victory in key races with implications for climate change on Tuesday night. In Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger — who vowed to push forward with offshore wind, new nuclear reactors, and fusion energy — seized the governor’s mansion in the first major race to be called after polls closed. In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, who campaigned on building new nuclear plants and pressing the state’s grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to cut electricity prices, trounced her Republican opponent. In New York City, Democrat Zohran Mamdani, who said little about energy during his campaign but came out in the last debate in favor of nuclear power, easily beat back his two rivals for Gracie Mansion. Yet the Georgia Public Service Commission's incumbent Republican Tim Echols lost his race against Democrat Alicia Johnson, a defeat for a conservative who championed construction of the only two nuclear reactors built from scratch in modern U.S. history. In what one expert called a sign of a “seismic shift” on the commission, Peter Hubbard, another Democrat running to flip a seat on the commission, also won.
At a moment when the Trump administration is “disassembling climate policy across the federal government,” Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, “state elections are arguably more important to climate action than ever.”
A federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can reconsider the Biden-era approval of SouthCoast Wind off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The decision, reported in The New York Times, is a setback for the joint venture between EDP Renewables and Engie, and handed the White House a victory in what we’ve called here the administration’s “total war on wind.” Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the project developers would not “suffer immediate and significant hardship” if the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management were allowed to reevaluate the project’s construction and operation permits.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rules for gas-fired residential furnaces and commercial water heaters in a ruling that rejected the gas industry’s challenge on Tuesday. “Overall, we find that DOE’s economic justification analysis and conclusions were robust,” the panel ruled, according to Bloomberg Law. The decision will maintain the status quo of how the agency enforces energy efficiency rules for the appliances. Under standards updated in 2021 and 2023, the Biden-era bureaucrats proposed raising efficiency levels to 95% for furnaces and using condensing model designs to heat water.
White House budget officials pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to expand its rollback of tailpipe regulations this summer as the agency sought to repeal the foundational policy that undergirds federal climate rules, E&E News reported. Documents the green newswire service obtained showed the White House Office of Management and Budget pushed the environmental regulator to weaken limits on vehicular pollution, including soot and smog-forming compounds in addition to planet-heating carbon. The EPA initially pushed back, but the documents revealed the staffers at OMB demanded the agency pursue a more aggressive rollback.
Australia launched a new plan to force energy companies to offer free electricity to households during the day to use excess solar power and push the grid away from coal and gas. The policy, called the “Solar Sharer” plan, aims to take advantage of the country’s vast rooftop solar panels. More than 4 million of Australia’s 10.9 million households have panels, and the capacity has overtaken the nation’s remaining coal-fired power stations. The proposal, the Financial Times reported, would also extend the benefits of distributed solar resources to the country’s renters and apartment dwellers.
For years, nuclear scientists have dreamed of harnessing atomic energy from thorium, potentially shrinking radioactive waste and reducing the risk of weapons proliferation compared to uranium. In the West, that has remained largely a dream. In China, however, researchers are vaulting ahead. This week, Chinese scientists announced a major breakthrough in converting thorium to uranium in a reactor. “This marks the first time international experimental data has been obtained after thorium was introduced into a molten salt reactor, making it the only operational molten salt reactor in the world to have successfully incorporated thorium fuel,” Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a statement.
Rob and Jesse touch base with WeaveGrid CEO Apoorv Bhargava.
Data centers aren’t the only driver of rising power use. The inexorable shift to electric vehicles — which has been slowed, but not stopped, by Donald Trump’s policies — is also pushing up electricity use across the country. That puts a strain on the grid — but EVs could also be a strength.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Apoorv Bhargava, the CEO and cofounder of WeaveGrid, a startup that helps people charge their vehicles in a way that’s better and cleaner for the grid. They chat about why EV charging remains way too complicated, why it should be more like paying a cellphone bill than filling up at a gas station, and how the AI boom has already changed the utility sector.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, 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 our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: In your experience, are consumers willing to make this deal, where they get some money off on their power bill in order to change how their car works? Because it does seem to include a mindset change for people, where they’re going from thinking of their car as a machine — I mean, this is part of the broader transition to EVs. But there’s an even further mindset shift that seems to me like it would be required here, where you go from thinking about your car as a machine that you wholly own — that enables your freedom, that is ready to drive a certain amount of miles at any time — to a machine that enables you to have transportation services but also is one instantiation of the great big cloud of services and digital technologies and commodity energy products that surround us at any time.
Apoorv Bhargava: Yeah, I mean, look, I think we have seen faster adoption rates than any other consumer-side resource participating in energy has. So I feel very good about that. But ultimately, I think of this as a transition to the normal experience for folks who are going through what is a new experience altogether.
Again, similar to my cell phone plan, if this was just offered to me as a standard offering — you buy an EV, your utility offers you a plan, it’s called the EV plan — in the same way that we have EV time-of-use rates, quote-unquote. If you’re just offered an EV plan where it’s exactly the same thing — I’m going to make sure you’re fully charged every night in the way you want it to be charged, with the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable charging possible, and it’s just being taken care of.
I think what’s so hard for most folks to grok, is that the way this experience works is it’s supposed to be completely frictionless, right? You’re really supposed to not think about it. It’s actually only in the few moments where you need to change your 99% behavior to the 1% behavior — where you’re like, Oh, I need to go to the airport, or, Oh, I need to go on a road trip. That’s where you need to think about it. It’s flipped from thermostat management programs where you actually need to think about it actively in the moments where the grid is really strained.
Where we’ve overinvested, in my view —and this is a controversial view — we’ve overinvested in trying to make EVs be like gas stations or like the gas station model. We keep talking about it all the time. We’ve over-talked about range anxiety. The fact of the matter is 80% of charging still happens at home. Even in the long run, 30% of charging will happen in the workplace. 50- plus-percent will happen at home. It’s very little charging that’s gonna happen on fast charging. But we’ve talked so much, ad nauseam, about fast charging that we’ve actually forgotten that underpinning the iceberg of the electrification cost is the grid itself. And never before has the grid been so strained.
Mentioned:
Rob on how electricity got so expensive
Utility of the Future: An MIT Energy Initiative response to an industry in transition, December 2016
Previously on Shift Key: Utility Regulation Really Sucks
Jesse’s downshift; Rob’s upshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
The self-described “ecosocialist” ran an ultra-disciplined campaign for New York City mayor. Once he’s in office, the climate issue could become unavoidable.
Zohran Mamdani, the New York state assemblyman, democratic socialist, and Democratic nominee, was elected mayor of New York City on Tuesday night.
Many factors fueled his longshot rise to Gracie Mansion — a congested primary field, a gleam-in-his-eyes approach to new media, and an optimistic left-wing worldview rendered newly credible by global tumult — but perhaps above all was a nonstop, months-long performance of bravura message discipline. Since the Democratic primary began in earnest earlier this year, Mamdani has harped in virtually every public appearance on what he has described as New York’s “affordability crisis,” promising to lower the city’s cost of living for working-class residents.
He hammered that message even as the election required him to play a shifting set of roles. During the primary, he set himself apart from a field overflowing with progressives by showcasing his differences with the Democratic Party. During the general election, he became the consummate Democrat, earning the votes of the party’s most loyal voters even as the former governor and one-time old-guard Democrat Andrew Cuomo ran an independent bid. Fittingly, Mamdani’s victory speech Tuesday night alluded to and remixed lines from socialists and liberal Democrats alike — including Cuomo’s father, New York’s former governor Mario Cuomo.
“A great New Yorker once said that while you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose,” Mamdani said, paraphrasing the elder Cuomo. “If that must be true, let the prose we write still rhyme, and let us build a shining city for all.”
So given all the notes he struck during the campaign, it is revealing to consider those Mamdani left unplayed. One in particular stands out: Throughout the long mayoral campaign, Mamdani rarely spoke about climate change — often doing so only when directly asked.
This might not seem meaningful on its face. Mamdani had a lot of issues he could focus on, after all. (He also spoke intermittently about, say, K-12 education, even though as mayor he will oversee the nation’s largest school district.)
But in light of his biography, Mamdani’s relative reticence on climate change stands out. During his early career in the state legislature, Mamdani defined himself in part through his climate activism, and by his view that New York should be “leading the country in our fight against the climate crisis,” as he said in a 2022 press release. He helmed some of the most aggressive recent activist efforts to shut down, block, and replace fossil fuel infrastructure in Gotham. They provide a window into where his mayoralty could go — and also illustrate the fraught politics of climate change in Year 1 of Trump 2.0.
From his first days in the New York State Assembly in 2021, Mamdani placed himself at the forefront of the debate over the future of fossil fuels in New York’s energy system. “When I ran for this office, it was on a platform of housing, justice, and energy for all,” he said in a statement soon after his election.
Many of his biggest policy proposals as a legislator focused on climate change. He backed the Build Public Renewables Act, a bill that empowers New York’s state power agency to develop wind and solar projects in order to meet the state’s climate goals. He resisted NRG Energy’s push to replace an aging natural gas peaker plant in Astoria, Queens, with a newer power plant that would still burn gas. And he opposed the expansion of natural gas pipelines into the state while cosponsoring the Clean Futures Act, which would, he said, ban all new natural gas power plants across New York.
Climate change was the issue, he said, at the very heart of his political identity. In July 2022, after the state assembly expired without a vote on the Build Public Renewables Act and amid a heat wave in New York, he called for a special session to pass the bill, deeming climate change a “human catastrophe.”
“There are a number of bills that I would love to pass tomorrow. I’m not calling for a special session for all of them,” he told Spectrum News. “The reason we have to call for this one is because climate change is not waiting.”
In its fight against the Queens power plant, his legislative office — working alongside the Stop NRG Coalition, an alliance of local residents, the Democratic Socialists of America, and traditional environmentalists such as Earthjustice and the Sierra Club — called 36,000 households and sent more than 7,800 postcards asking residents to reject the plant, Mamdani later said. Ultimately, locals filed more than 6,000 comments to oppose the proposed plant; when the New York Department of Environmental Conservation ultimately denied a key permit in October 2022, Mamdani claimed victory.
He was also clear about who had lost that fight: big corporations and fossil fuel-aligned capitalism. “This shows when we organize against corporations that put capital over the collective, we can win a world where we all live with dignity,” he said. “Stopping the Astoria power plant is an amazing victory towards a habitable planet and the clean future we all deserve.”
Many of Mamdani’s other climate efforts were ultimately successful. The Build Public Renewables Act passed in April 2023 as part of the state budget and was signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul. The state has not passed the Clean Futures Act, although regulators have rejected other proposed fossil-fuel power plants across the state, citing its 2019 climate leadership law.
In a little-watched May 2021 video that gives a concentrated dose of Mamdani’s political vision at the time, he described himself not as a socialist, but as a “proud ecosocialist” who believed that electricity should be treated as a “public good.”
“Did you ever wonder why New York state only gets 5% of its energy from wind and solar?” he asked in the video. “It’s because of one word: capitalism.” The way to fight that capitalistic hold on energy production, he said, was with public power — government ownership and development of zero-carbon generation.
Even after those victories, Mamdani remained a proud champion of climate issues. As recently as a year ago, he suggested that activism and agitation around climate change was a key way that progressives could differentiate themselves from Trump in the eyes of the working class. At a rally in late November last year, shortly after a drought resulted in a rare brush fire that consumed 2 acres of the city’s beloved Prospect Park, he exhorted the New York Power Authority, or NYPA, to move faster to develop its pipeline of renewables projects — and framed credible climate action as essential to countering Trump’s rise.
“The climate crisis does not care about any of the reasons that are usually given so much weight in Albany. It doesn’t care if you want to blame the supply chain. It doesn’t care if a private company says it has reduced profitability. It cares only if you build out renewable infrastructure,” he said.
“If you want to know how to defeat the Donald Trump far-right movement, it’s by showing we actually have a workable alternative,” he continued. “Because if working class people can’t breathe the air, if they can’t afford to live in the city they call home because they can’t find a union job, and if they look around at their favorite parks being on fire, why would they trust us?”
“It is time to show them why,” he concluded. “It’s time for the Build Public Renewables Act.”
Mamdani has continued to push for NYPA to accelerate its renewables construction — he posted a video of the same rally to his Instagram feed in September, encouraging his followers to file public comments with New York state.
As recently as February 2025, he described New York City as facing an “existential moment of our climate crisis” at a candidate forum, and said that enforcing the city’s climate laws would require “taking on the real-estate industry.”
But in the months since, his earlier bold rhetoric — casting practical concerns as no object when it comes to climate action — has faded, and he has evinced more sympathy for landlords and homeowners who may bear decarbonization’s costs. He still describes climate change in existential terms, but has become far less likely to bring it up unbidden in his own speeches and media appearances.
As a major party mayoral candidate, too, Mamdani largely avoided framing climate action as a necessary antidote to Trumpism. When seeking to contrast himself with the president, he focused almost entirely on cost of living issues. In a Fox News appearance in October, Mamdani addressed Trump directly and said that he would work with him to address New Yorkers’ cost of living.
His campaign website’s only stated climate proposal is a “Green Schools” plan to renovate 500 public schools, turn 500 asphalt schoolyards into green spaces, and construct “resilience hubs” at 50 schools. Speaking with The Nation in April — in one of his few recent long-form interviews on climate policy — Mamdani set that plan within his broader campaign, saying “climate and quality of life are not two separate concerns. They are, in fact, one and the same.” Schools, he said, offer “an opportunity for comprehensive climate action.”
But his website has few other details about what climate actions he might like to pursue once he takes office as mayor. Indeed, the candidate who once blamed capitalism for New York’s failure to build renewables is now promising to establish a “Mom-and-Pop Czar” to cut fines on small businesses and speed up permitting. It also gives few clues about how Mamdani would handle decarbonization’s inevitable trade-offs. If achieving a faster renewables buildout led to higher energy prices for consumers and small businesses, what would he do?
Even in situations where his slogans could reasonably connect to some climate benefit, Mamdani did not complete the handshake. His website does not mention the pollution benefits of fast and free bus service, for instance, even though free transit in other campaigns has been described as a climate policy. His 25-minute victory speech, delivered to a jubilant crowd on Tuesday night, did not mention climate change at all.
Regardless of what he’s said, Mamdani will be required to take big actions on climate policy as mayor. The most significant will likely arise from an ordinance called Local Law 97, which requires New York City’s large buildings to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That law’s strict new set of pollution caps and penalties will start in 2029, and many landlords are set to pay big fines. During the second mayoral debate, Mamdani repeated that the “climate crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing this city,” and said he wants the law’s fines to be enforced. But he also added that “the city should make it easier for buildings to comply.”
Mamdani has also argued that the city and state should renew a set of tax breaks to make it cheaper for large residential buildings, like condos and co-ops, to meet the law’s targets, and has proposed creating a “one-stop shop” for Local Law 97 compliance in the city governance, according to his debate remarks and a memo about homeowner policy released by his campaign.
In replacing climate change with cost of living, Mamdani has moved closer to what appears to be an emerging consensus among his party. Recent autopsies of the 2024 election have argued that voters believed Democrats were too focused on issues like climate change and not enough on affordability or inflation. Mamdani’s relentless focus on near-term costs — and his embrace of clear, actionable, and frankly non-climate-related slogans — suggests that one young ecosocialist might now agree with them. His ultimate victory suggests that it wasn’t a bad gamble.