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:
On the Paris Agreement, Chinese renewables, and a rare winter storm
Current conditions: Heavy rainfall triggered flooding and disrupted travel in Spain • An oil spill in Nigeria’s Niger River delta has entered its fourth week • Dangerous fire conditions persist in Southern California, where the Palisades fire is 61% contained.
President Trump began his first day back in office with a series of executive orders aimed at undermining climate policy and unleashing American energy production. He declared a “national energy emergency,” describing an “active threat to the American people from high energy prices.” The order directs agency leaders to “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other lawful authorities they may possess” to facilitate U.S. energy production, including — but not limited to — activities on federal lands. The stated goal of many of the policies put forward under this energy emergency is to bring down energy costs for American consumers. But few of them are designed to do so. Instead, they aim to do virtually the opposite: shore up oil and gas demand. “That makes sense,” says Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer. “The United States is, at the moment, producing more oil and gas than any country in world history. The fossil fuel industry’s problem isn’t getting gas out of the ground, but finding people to sell it to. By suspending fuel economy and energy efficiency rules, Trump can force Americans to use more energy — and spend more on oil and gas — to do the same amount of useful work.”
President Trump yesterday ordered the federal government to stop all permits for wind energy projects. The order says the government “shall not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” pending a “comprehensive assessment” of the industry’s myriad impacts on the economy, environment and other factors. The order also opens the door to offshore wind developers potentially losing their leases. This affects all offshore wind development in the U.S., as well as wind projects on federal lands. The order specifically bans wind energy development at the site sought after for the Lava Ridge wind project in Idaho. The project was fully permitted days before the end of Biden’s term. Shares in wind power companies dropped on the news. Separately, Orsted fell by 18% after it announced a $1.7 billion impairment charge due to challenges in the U.S. wind market, and especially at its Sunrise Wind project.
Trump also functionally ended former President Joe Biden’s tailpipe emissions standards, which had aimed to “accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis.” The executive order also appeared to target the Biden administration’s fuel economy standards, and the EPA’s waiver for California to set its own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
As expected, Trump has officially notified the United Nations of America’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, calling the accord a “one-sided rip-off.” “Leaving the Paris Agreement is more symbolic than anything,” writes Heatmap’s Katie Brigham. “Beyond the more nebulous — but very real — loss of international leadership on climate issues, there’s no tangible repercussions for exiting the agreement. Nor, as many party nations consistently demonstrate, any legal recourse for staying in while failing to meet targets or set sufficient goals.” It takes a full year for withdrawal to become official. But Trump will almost certainly henceforth act as if the U.S. is no longer bound by the treaty, which has been adopted by nearly every other nation on Earth, in an effort to keep global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.
A “historic” winter storm is bringing snow and ice to parts of the Deep South that rarely see such conditions, threatening the power grid and disrupting travel along the Gulf Coast. The system, called Winter Storm Enzo, has already triggered weather alerts across central and eastern Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (where a winter storm watch was issued for the first time in over a decade). “Power and other infrastructure disruptions are possible,” warned The Weather Channel, though Texas’ grid operator, ERCOT, said the grid was ready. The arctic blast driving the storm has also triggered weather advisories for much of the rest of the U.S., with temperatures 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit below January averages in most places.
Renewable energy installations continue to soar in China. Official data from the Chinese National Energy Administration shows the country’s installed solar and wind power capacity increased by 45.2% and 18%, respectively, last year, breaking the previous year’s records. Solar power installations in China now top 886 GW, with wind power at 520 GW. “The record installation means China has hit its 2030 renewables target six years early,” noted Bloomberg. China expects to add another 273 GW of solar and 94 GW of wind in 2025. Current wind power capacity in the U.S. is about 152 GW, and solar capacity is about 220 GW, according to the most recent data.
“There is no energy emergency. There is a climate emergency.”
–Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
What we learned about “energy dominance” on day one
Here we go.
Here we go: On Monday, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States.
Surrounded by some of the country’s richest men, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and the oil magnate Harold Hamm, Trump rejected what he called a “radical and corrupt establishment” that has “extracted power and wealth from our citizens” while promising a new golden age for the United States.
At the center of that golden age, he said, was an almost totally unregulated fossil fuel economy. “Today I will also declare a national energy emergency,” he said. “We will drill, baby, drill.”
Over the next 12 hours, he signed a series of executive orders that relaxed protections across the oil and gas sector while imposing costly new restrictions on wind turbines, electric vehicles, and other forms of renewable energy. He demonstrated that his extreme vision for the American government — a new order where the executive reigns supreme and Congress does not control the power of the purse — will run straight through his climate and energy policy.
You could see in his actions, too, what could become fragility in his governing coalition — times and situations where he might too eagerly slap a cost on a friend because he believes they are a foe.
But all that remains in the future. For now, Trump is in charge.
Trump’s first day was about undermining climate policy in virtually any form that he could find. Soon after taking the oath, Trump began the process of pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. He announced a broad freeze on virtually all federal wind energy permits, throwing at least one large-scale onshore wind farm into chaos while smothering virtually all offshore wind energy projects, including several planned for the East Coast. He moved to weaken energy and water efficiency rules for lightbulbs, showerheads, washing machines, and dishwashers. He began the multi-year process of rewriting the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules on tailpipe pollution from cars and light trucks, which he has described as lifting the federal government’s “EV mandate.” And he promised to open up new tracts of federal land for oil and gas drilling, including in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
But most important were a series of executive actions that Trump signed in the late evening, many under the bearing of a “national energy emergency.” In these orders, Trump told the Environmental Protection Agency to study whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are dangerous air pollutants. This question has been a matter of settled science for decades — and, more importantly, has not been under legal dispute since 2009. In the same set of orders, Trump lifted federal environmental and permitting rules, potentially setting up a move that could force blue states — particularly those in the Northeast and West Coast — to accept new oil and gas pipelines and refineries.
Finally, and most importantly, Trump asserted the right to freeze virtually all ongoing federal spending under the Inflation Reduction Act — and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — for 90 days. Even after this time elapses, funding programs will have to be approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget. This move places at least tens of millions of dollars of federal contracts at risk, and it raises questions about the federal government’s ability to operate as a reliable counterparty. It is also of dubious Constitutionality because it appears to violate Congress’s sole authority over federal spending.
The stated goal of many of these policies is to bring down energy costs for American consumers. The president’s national energy emergency, for example, takes as its premise that the country is growing its energy supply too slowly. The United States, it suggests, is at imminent risk of running out of energy for new technology. (You might ask yourself why — if this is the case — Trump has also frozen all federal wind projects. But then you misunderstand Trump’s particular genius.)
Yet bringing down costs will be difficult. Energy costs — and particularly oil costs — are already low. Today, as Trump’s second term begins, gasoline stands at $3.13 a gallon, according to AAA. That’s about five cents above where it stood a year ago, and it’s within the inflation-adjusted range where gas prices hovered for much of Trump’s first term. (Oil prices crashed in 2020 because of the pandemic, but the industry — and the American public — would obviously prefer not to repeat that debacle.)
How much further could energy prices fall? Look at it this way: A barrel of oil in the U.S. costs $76 today, per the West Texas benchmark. (The international benchmark, called Brent, is a smidge higher at $79.) Last year, oil producers across much of the Permian Basin reported that they could break even only if oil stayed at or above about $66 a barrel. The rough rule of thumb is that for a $1 change in the per-barrel oil price, drivers will eventually see a roughly 2.5 cent change in prices at the pump. You can see how hard it will be to push oil prices down to record lows, at least with current levels of economic activity, interest rates, and demand volumes.
Which isn’t to say that it’s impossible. Trump will have advantages when dealing with the oil and gas industry that his immediate predecessor did not enjoy. Chief among these is that the industry’s leaders like him, want to see him succeed, and will be more willing to do favors for him — even if it means suffering thinner margins. These may help keep a lid on electricity prices, which are far more sensitive to natural gas and which really are set to surge as a new wave of factories, EVs, and data centers comes online.
Maybe! We’ll see. When you look closer, what stands out about Trump’s policies is how few of them are designed to lower energy prices. Instead, they aim to do virtually the opposite: shore up oil and gas demand. According to The Wall Street Journal, ensuring demand for oil and gas products — and not deregulating drilling further — is what the industry has asked Trump to do. That makes sense. The United States is, at the moment, producing more oil and gas than any country in world history. The fossil fuel industry’s problem isn’t getting gas out of the ground, but finding people to sell it to. By suspending fuel economy and energy efficiency rules, Trump can force Americans to use more energy — and spend more on oil and gas — to do the same amount of useful work.
In other places, what stands out about Trump’s policies is their incoherence — and how few of his constituencies they will satisfy. Late on Monday, Trump suggested that he might impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico as soon as February 1. Such an action would quickly harm key segments of the American energy industry. Canada exports about $124 billion of crude oil to the United States every year — much of it a heavy, sludgy petroleum from the Albertan oil sands. That sludge is piped across North America, then fed into U.S. refineries, where it helps produce a large portion of America’s fuel supply. (Alberta’s heavy, sulfurous sludge is particularly well-suited to mixing with the light, sweet crude produced by American frackers.) Should Trump impose those tariffs, in other words, he would gambol into a self-imposed energy crisis.
Tariffs are not the only place where Trump could undermine his own policies. One of his executive orders on Monday aimed to establish America as “the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals”; three clauses later, it announced an end to the federal government’s so-called “EV mandate.”
But by kneecapping demand for electric vehicles, Trump will hurt the critical minerals industry more than any anti-growth hippie could fathom. For the past few years, corporate America and Wall Street have invested billions of dollars in lithium and rare-earths mining and processing facilities across the country. These projects, which are largely in Republican districts, only make financial sense in a world where the United States produces a large and growing number of electric vehicles: EVs make up the lion’s share of future demand for lithium, rare earth elements, and other geostrategically sensitive rocks, and any mines or refining facilities will only pencil out in a world where EVs purchase their output. If Trump kills the non-Tesla part of the EV industry, then he will also mortally harm those projects’ economics.
Energy is a strange issue. Although it is one of the key inputs into the modern industrial economy, millions of Americans engage with it as an expressive, symbolic matter — as just another battleground in the culture war. Today, Donald Trump has become the most powerful American in that category. On his first day in office, he has demonstrated that he will use energy policy to advance his extreme ideas about how the Constitution and presidential authority works. How far he gets now will depend on what the American public, business leaders, congressional Republicans, and the Supreme Court’s arch-conservative majority will accept — and whether his fragile constituency is really ready to pay the costs of “American greatness.”
A trio of executive orders boost rare earth metals essential to batteries.
It’s not just drill, baby, drill (for oil) — it’s mine, baby, mine. Along with the shots at wind energy and the previous administration’s climate policy, President Donald Trump’s blizzard of energy and environmental policy announcements and executive orders on Monday included a boost to the domestic mining and refining of critical minerals.
The directives outlined a strategy that would promote both the extraction and, crucially, the processing of critical minerals in America and would look skeptically at importing them — especially from China.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio focused on Chinese mineral dominance as a national security threat in his confirmation hearing earlier this month,telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China has “come to dominate the critical mineral supplies throughout the world … Even those who want to see more electric cars, no matter where you make them, those batteries are almost entirely dependent on the ability of the Chinese and the willingness of the Chinese Communist Party to produce it and export it to you.”
The German Marshall Fundhas estimated that China makes up 60% of the supply of critical minerals and 85% of the processing capacity. The United States Geological Survey’s list of 50 critical minerals includes commonly used metals like aluminum, as well as a number of metals and minerals crucial for batteries and green energy technology like cobalt, lithium, graphite, and manganese.
While new reserves of lithium are constantly being discovered, China dominates refining of the metal, with 60% market share for refining battery-grade lithium,according to S&P. And the Trump administration’s interest in critical minerals may not be limited to the (current) boundaries of the United States; it is also one reason why the president is so interested in Greenland, which likely has massive stores of rare earth metals, including uranium.
In the executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” President Trump called for agency heads and relevant Cabinet officials to “identify all agency actions that impose undue burdens on the domestic mining and processing of non-fuel minerals and undertake steps to revise or rescind such actions,” along with specifically directing the secretary of Energy and the secretary of the Interior to make “efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States,” and “ensure that critical mineral projects, including the processing of critical minerals, receive consideration for Federal support,” respectively.
He also directed Cabinet officials not directly involved with energy and resources policy to lend their weight to the American critical mineral effort.The United States trade representative and secretary of Commerce were tasked with looking at overseas critical mineral projects to see if they’re “unlawful or unduly burden or restrict United States commerce” and to examine “the national security implications of the Nation’s mineral reliance and the potential for trade action,” indicating that Trump administrationmay likely continue a version of the Biden administration’s tariffs and restrictions on imports of Chinese critical minerals.
Critical minerals also showed up in executive orders where President Trump declared a “national energy emergency” and an order specific to resource exploitation in Alaska. In the emergency declaration, minerals were included alongside energy as areas whose “identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs.” In the Alaska order, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” minerals were listed alongside “energy, timber, and seafood,” as the “abundant and largely untapped supply of natural resources” that the state possesses, even as the order was largely specific to oil and gas projects like liquefied natural gas and oil drilling.
The Trump administration’s interest in critical minerals is not unique. The Biden Administration also pursued a domestic critical minerals policy, includingapproving and lending money tolithium mining operations.
Among other actions, he overturned an electric vehicle mandate that, well, doesn’t exist.
Ding dong, the electric vehicle “mandate” is dead.
President Donald Trump fulfilled his longtime campaign promise on Monday by functionally ending former President Joe Biden’s tailpipe emissions standards, which had aimed to “accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis.”
As part of his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, signed Monday night in the Oval Office, Trump specifically demanded the elimination of “the electric vehicle mandate,” ordered a “level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles,” and directed the termination of “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles,” as well as the elimination of “unfair subsidies … that favor EVs.”
Though the finer details of how this will be implemented aren’t clear in the executive order, there has never been an actual electric vehicle mandate. The rules under Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency would have required a gradual reduction in fleetwide average carbon emissions by up to 56% by 2032. To meet that goal, electric vehicles would have needed to make up 35% to 56% of new car sales by 2032, up from 8% in 2024. According to the Biden administration, the rule would have cut more than 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions through 2055, or “roughly equal to four times the emissions of the entire transportation sector in 2021.”
Trump’s executive order also appeared to target the Biden administration’s fuel economy standards. Back in June, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a rule that raised the fleetwide average fuel economy of passenger cars for model years 2027 through 2031 by 2% each year — that is, to 47 miles per gallon in 2026 and to 50.4 miles per gallon in 2031. (The current average is around 39.1 miles per gallon.)
Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the rules, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE Standards, arguing they “effectively mandate EVs while at the same time forcing the internal combustion engine out of the market.” The GOP has insisted that the CAFE Standards should be “market-driven” rather than “limit availability of and access to vehicle and fuel options.” Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s playbook for the Trump administration, called for a fuel efficiency standard of 35 mpg.
CAFE Standards have long been a political football between administrations; Trump previously rolled back President Barack Obama’s standards, while Biden’s NHTSA brought even stricter rules.
Monday’s executive order additionally appeared to target the EPA’s waiver for California to set its own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act in its language targeting “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.” Trump previously revoked California’s right to include greenhouse gases in its emissions considerations and barred other states from adopting its criteria. Biden reversed that decision in March 2022, on the grounds that the Trump administration’s withdrawal was based on a flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Since then, California released its Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which 11 other states have adopted and requires all new cars sold by 2035 to be zero-emission.
It had been no secret that the California waiver would be a target of the incoming Trump administration, despite the program being a secret profit center for Tesla and supported by Elon Musk. California has also quietly been working to Trump-proof its standards, reaching an agreement recently with Stellantis (the parent automaker of Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram) to comply voluntarily with its electrification mandates through 2030. (As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has noted, the nationwide EPA rules for tailpipe emission reductions “follow a different model than the California standards,” and are not an electric vehicle mandate.)
By directing the EPA to revoke the California waiver, Trump has started a process that could lead to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Justices declined to consider whether or not California has the right to set its own aggressive tailpipe standards, but if Trump indeed attempts to rescind the waiver, it will likely face further legal challenges.
Taken together, the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order seems designed to deliver on Trump’s frequent campaign attacks on EVs on the 2024 campaign trail, where he argued that “under Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, 40% of all U.S. auto jobs will disappear.” Heatmap’s own investigation found little evidence to suggest that making electric vehicles will result in fewer jobs. Trump’s tune on EVs had changed in recent months, however, as he grew closer to Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
It’s true, also, that executive orders are not the automatic rule of law; many of the policies will face time-consuming new rulemaking processes or legal challenges. More clarity about what the “Unleashing American Energy” order does precisely, and how it will be implemented, will become clear in the weeks and months ahead.